Book Review: Vindicating the Vixens: Revisiting Sexualized, Vilified, and Marginalized Women of the Bible

Abstract

181 The rhetoric of crisis model was developed by classicist Cecil Wooten, who specializes in Greek rhetoric and oratory (see Wooten, Cicero’s Philippics and Their Demosthenic Model: The Rhetoric of Crisis [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983]).This model presents a situation as urgent by exaggerating the external situation, “so as to make it appear threatening, as one that demands an immediate response from the audience/hearers” (p. 9). Wooten demonstrates how Demosthenes, in his Philippic orations, sought to rally the Athenian army against Philip II of Macedon by means of this rhetorical method. Moreover, he shows how Cicero, who follows the precedent set by Demosthenes, wages a rhetorical war against Marc Antony. In both cases, Wooten argues how each author uses exaggeration, comparisons, and graphic descriptions to demonize their opponent(s), while, at the same time, bolstering their own position. Livesey takes this model of interpretation and applies it Paul’s letter to the Galatians. She is not arguing that Paul, in any fashion, patterned his letter after the Philippic orations of Demosthenes or Cicero. Rather, she makes comparisons among the three authors to claim that these individual rhetorical techniques were incorporated by Paul. Each of her chapters is dedicated to one of the fundamental concepts of Wooten’s rhetoric of crisis model. Following her introduction, Livesey’s book is divided into four chapters and a conclusion. Each chapter is dedicated to show how the rhetoric of crisis model is used by Demosthenes, Cicero, and Paul. Her first chapter addresses how these authors promote urgency of a situation which is not necessarily pressing. They created this situation of crisis, in part, by relying on the use of repetitious language signaling that something was of importance. The second chapter analyzes how each author exaggerates their own abilities and renown, creating a superior persona while simultaneously persuading their audience through their moral character. The third chapter illustrates how authors can use emotive language, employing graphic images and extended narratives, to help elicit hatred, disgust, and aversion for their opponent(s). The final chapter discusses disjunctive argumentation. In this type of argumentation authors create oppositional terms which are not otherwise contrastive, to steer the audience away from the opponents. For example, Livesey says that Paul uses a disjunctive argument in Gal 3:6–10b with the antithesis “works of the Law” and “trust.” Paul creates opposition in terms that do not naturally contrast. In her Conclusion, she summarizes her arguments. Ultimately, Demosthenes, Cicero, and Paul are able to take a situation, creating a situational crisis where there was none, in order to force their audience to choose their side. Their side was the moral and ethical option, as opposed to the demonized and radical side of the opponent(s). Livesey’s strong argument from rhetoric is a challenge to several dominant interpretations of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Though scholars often try to reconstruct a real historical situation for Paul and his opponents, Livesey argues that Paul is not so much concerned with works of the Law or circumcision as such. Rather, he uses these as points of arguments against his competitors since they reflect the position of his competitors. Paul was mainly concerned with creating a sense of urgency, not against such practices, but against his opponents. This book is an exercise in a rhetorical deconstruction of primary texts. Though the book is intended for specialized scholars, it can serve as an advanced book for the progressive reader (notice that all Greek references are translated into English). The book emphasizes that Paul’s identity was not just Jewish, but he was a Hellenistic Jew who was indebted to his GrecoRoman culture. Though her book makes a strong argument, this reader sees a discontinuity between Livesey’s presentation and Paul’s similar arguments in his other letters. There is also a disconnect between her rhetorical analysis and Paul’s christological, and eschatological-soteriological emphases in Galatians. But, this book is a welcomed addition to rhetoric and Paul. Livesey’s arguments and analyses are a most important contribution to scholarship on Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Najeeb T. Haddad Loyola University Chicago Chicago, IL 60660