1. Yesterday, I finished George Kennedy’s New History of Classical Rhetoric. On pages 282-283, Kennedy discusses the Christian Boethius, who distinguished between dialectic and rhetoric. For Boethius, “Dialectic examines theses, that is general propositions; rhetoric investigates and discusses hypotheses or specific cases, though dialectic may occasionally use specific instances and rhetoric may occasonally discuss a thesis on which a hypothesis depends.” Clear as mud? Same here.
Here’s some more: “Dialectic takes the form of question and answer, rhetoric uses continuous discourse; dialectic uses complete syllogisms, rhetoric uses enthymemes (in the Aristotelian sense); dialectic elicits a decision from an opponent, rhetoric from a judge.”
So would Plato’s dialogues be dialectic? You have a question and answer format, and the topic is a general question, such as the definition of courage, or of justice. A speech, however, would be rhetoric.
BTW, on page 278, Kennedy says that the liberal arts are called the liberal arts because they “should be studied by one who is free (liber) from other duties or the need to work”. I remember a professor at DePauw being asked if he were a liberal or a conservative, and he said in his response that we study the liberal arts: they are not called the “conservative arts”.
It turns out that they’re called “liberal arts” because they’re studied by people with time on their hands.
2. I also finished Rolf Rendtorff’s The Old Testament: An Introduction. On page 290, Rendtorff distinguishes between the canonical criticism of Brevard Childs and that of Joseph Blenkinsopp. Whereas Childs “stresses the understanding of the Old Testament canon as a part of the Christian Bible”, Blenkinsopp “is aware of the danger of drawing too narrow-minded conclusions which could rob the Old Testament canon of its present significance within the history of Jewish religion.”
At Jewish Theological Seminary, when James Sanders was coming to speak, I asked a former student of Sanders if Sanders’ canonical criticism was like that of Childs. He responded that they were not, for Childs’ enterprise was theological, whereas Sanders focuses on canon’s role in the self-understanding of the community.
Although Childs does read the Old Testament canon as part of the Christian Bible, he also mentions Jewish interpretations of the text, such as that of Rashi. Does he do so because he believes that Jewish interpretations can edify Christians? Or because Jewish interpretations treat the Hebrew Bible as canon—as a unified whole (not fragmented parts) that is God’s authoritative will for a people?