Thomas H. Olbricht’s Scholarship on Rhetoric and Scripture: Some Lingering Methodological Questions

I am honored to reflect on the biblical scholarship of my teacher and mentor Dr. Thomas H. Olbricht. Before I begin my comments on his scholarly work, I will provide some personal context. I first met Tom in the fall of 1990, when I began the M.Div. program at Pepperdine University. Four years before, he had become professor and chair of the Religion Division, an appointment that John Wilson, dean of Seaver College, described as a watershed moment in the history of the university and its relationship with the Churches of Christ.¹ As chair of the division, Professor Olbricht initiated the M.Div. program only a year before I enrolled in it, but at the time, I knew nothing of how important his leadership would be in my own academic journey. During my first semester, I took the course New Testament Theology with Tom, and he was an important mentor throughout my time in the program. As I was preparing to graduate in 1994, he gave me an opportunity to teach in the division as an adjunct faculty member. He retired two years later and moved to Maine, but whenever I saw him, he encouraged me to pursue a Ph.D., which I finally did in 2002. Tom continued to provide friendship and guidance until I last saw him, and I am deeply grateful for his presence in my life.

Professor Olbricht’s bibliography is extensive.² An impressively prolific scholar, he published research in biblical studies, hermeneutics, the history of biblical interpretation, rhetoric generally, and Stone-Campbell Movement history, as well as books on Scripture for popular audiences and autobiography. This essay focuses on his work on rhetoric and Scripture. With training in both rhetoric and biblical studies, Olbricht was ideally equipped to contribute to this growing area of scholarship for almost three decades beginning in the early 1990s. As conference organizer, editor of multi-authored volumes, and author, he made significant contributions to the study of rhetoric and Scripture, raising important methodological questions that remain pertinent today.

The Pepperdine Conferences on Rhetoric and Scripture

Olbricht held a Ph.D. from the University of Iowa in rhetoric and an M.Div. from Harvard Divinity School. In 1979, Hans Dieter Betz’s groundbreaking commentary on Galatians, which used classical rhetoric to interpret Paul’s letter, sparked what Olbricht described as the rediscovery of classical rhetoric among biblical scholars in the English speaking world.³ At that time, Olbricht was one among a small group of scholars presenting on the topic at regional and national meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature.⁴ He saw a need for international scholars of rhetoric and Scripture to meet, and with the support of Wilhelm Wuellner and James Hester, organized a conference on rhetoric and the Bible at Moore Haus, the Pepperdine campus in Heidelberg, Germany. The response was so strong among invited scholars in biblical studies, rhetoric, and classics that the conference had to be re-envisioned to accommodate more attendees. One scholar described the conference roster as a “veritable who’s who of rhetorical scholars.” ⁵

The success of this first conference on rhetoric and Scripture led to six additional international gatherings, resulting in seven published volumes of collected essays. In total the conferences were: 

1. Pepperdine University, Heidelberg campus, Germany, 1992
2. University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, 1994
3. Pepperdine University, London campus, England, 1995
4. Pepperdine University, Malibu, California, 1996
5. Pepperdine University, Florence campus, Italy, 1998
6. University of Lund, Sweden, 2000 
7. Pepperdine University, Heidelberg campus, Germany, 2002

Olbricht personally organized the first, third, and seventh conferences, and was instrumental in all the others, but especially the fourth and fifth.⁶

From the beginning, these conferences incorporated examinations of ancient rhetoric, the New Rhetoric, and even newer approaches. The presentations considered “the relative merits of various methodologies in developing new and different strains of rhetorical criticism” in conversation with Scripture.⁷ Olbricht and his co-editor described the resulting dialogue as a “convivial though penetrating discussion.”⁸ The first four conferences focused primarily on argumentation and the means of persuasion. The second conference, held in South Africa shortly after the end of apartheid, also sought to address the intersection of rhetorical analysis and socio-political realities. A number of South African scholars investigated the relationship between the rhetorical aspects of Scripture and economic and racial inequities in their national context.⁹ Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza argued for a “rhetorical-ethical approach that challenges the social location of biblical studies in programs of research formulated by men.” ¹⁰ The fifth conference similarly marked a shift toward socio-rhetorical interpretation: not only how a text communicates but how it “constructs new sociological understanding and identity.”¹¹ The sixth centered on argumentation and the seventh, on ethos. 

In all, the contributing scholars represented fifteen countries on four continents.¹² While this diverse group of scholars shared a conviction that it was fruitful to apply rhetorical categories to exegesis of Scripture, their studies employed a variety of opinions, rhetorical models, and approaches.¹³ The conferences also involved important self-criticism, including calls for “restraint, redefinition, [and] reassessment” related to rhetorical studies and Scripture.¹⁴

The published essays analyze rhetoric in the Jewish Bible/Old Testament, including prophetic rhetoric generally and six specific books (Judges, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Esther, Job, and Song of Songs); in the New Testament, including Jesus’ and Paul’s rhetoric generally and fifteen specific books (Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, Titus, Hebrews, and 2 Peter), and other early Jewish and Christian texts and authors, including Philo, Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius, the Acts of Thecla, and the Acts of Thomas. Paul’s letters receive the most sustained attention.¹⁵ Olbricht’s skill in bringing scholars together for conversation and his efforts at publishing their work made a lasting contribution to biblical studies.

Olbricht’s Work on Rhetoric and Scripture

In general, Oblricht’s own scholarly work was marked by a learned independence of thought. It showed a deep understanding of the ancient world and the history of interpretation in combination with a consistent tendency to go his own way, or as he put it in one article, to develop his own guidelines.¹⁶ For example, in his earliest published work on Scripture, a study of the “world” in the Gospel of John in 1963, he argued that scholars erred in seeing Gnosticism as the background for John’s use of the word “world.” These attempts to “frame Christian views in the vocabulary of certain Hellenistic concepts” were incorrect because “Christian theology was crucially different at certain points.”¹⁷ Later, he wrote, “My approach through almost 50 years of academic life has been to learn from the trends, but not to embrace them with closed eyes. That has served me well to this day.”¹⁸

Olbricht’s work on rhetorical criticism of the Bible, which challenged some of the emerging trends in that scholarship, demonstrates the same learned independence. By my count, he published ten chapters on this topic between 1990 and 2017. Although Olbricht was deeply conversant in rhetoric—both ancient and modern—his goal was never to bring rhetoric and Scripture together simply for the sake of doing so. Rather, he sought, as he put it, to comprehend something new in the meaning of the text and to appreciate its power.¹⁹ He wanted to pursue arguments “with purpose and theology as determinative, rather than frozen in rhetorical forms.” ²⁰

In keeping with this guiding principle, Olbricht consistently expressed caution about the value of classical rhetorical categories for understanding New Testament texts, particularly with regard to genre and arrangement. He reminded readers that Aristotle’s genres overlapped and many notable ancient works “did not conform to many Aristotelian conventions.”²¹ Although it is common among scholars in this area to identify the genre of a Pauline letter as deliberative, forensic, or epideictic (Aristotle’s three rhetorical genres) or identify other classical rhetorical forms in the letters, Olbricht questioned the value of such approaches for interpretation. In a 1990 essay, he stated that “rhetorical criticism of biblical materials has suffered at the hands of those who inflexibly apply ancient and modern categories without perceiving differences incurred by the ‘different’ Christian vision.”²² Five years later, at the third rhetorical conference, he argued that scholars “are helped little by simply superimposing the categories of classical rhetoric” upon the New Testament. “Rhetorical biblical criticism has burst forth from the bud,” he wrote, “but as yet has not fully blossomed.”²³ He echoed this perspective at the next year’s gathering, stating that he had yet to see “much solid information produced by identifying the discourse as one of the three classical genres, because in most cases the identification of the genre itself is problematic.” ²⁴ Olbricht expressed admiration for Betz’s commentary on Galatians and Margaret Mitchell’s Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation.²⁵ Even so, his critique related to genre identification seemed directed toward such studies. Similarly, with regard to audience, he contended that “whatever help rhetorical analysis may be for reconstructing an audience, no substitute has yet been discovered for astute historical exploration and analysis.”²⁶ Even at the end of ten years of rhetorical conferences, Olbricht concluded that the value and methodology of rhetorical criticism and Scripture still remain “largely amorphous” and need “some refocusing to move beyond current impasses.” ²⁷

In his own work, Olbricht set out to follow the example of Aristotle, aiming to use the philosopher’s inductive methodology, rather than to employ ancient rhetorical genres or forms rigidly. He observed that Aristotle, in his survey of examples of rhetoric, “did not claim to have exhausted the discipline.”²⁸ Aristotle, like other ancient students of rhetoric, analyzed speeches in the political assembly, the law court, and the marketplace, which were the contexts for the three classical genres. However, the closest analogues for the communities reading Paul’s letters were the Jewish synagogue or the Greco-Roman voluntary association.²⁹ Because classical rhetoricians did not analyze speech in such settings, Olbricht concluded that the “literary mode of [Paul’s] letters is an unmapped territory.”³⁰ Rather than forcing the ancient rhetorical genres onto these texts, he observed that scholars “are indebted to Aristotle more for his methodology than for the completeness of his categories or conclusions” and advocated that they use Aristotelian inductive methodology to describe and analyze the “unique features” of the New Testament.³¹

Employing this method, Olbricht proposed that the letters fall into what he termed “church rhetoric.”³² Within this broad genre, he identified two sub-genres for Paul’s letters. Some are confrontational letters. They seek to strengthen the community by asserting the truth of the gospel and opposing those who would undermine it. He put Galatians and Philemon in this category.³³ Others, such as 1 Thessalonians and Colossians, are reconfirmational letters, which might also be called exhortation or paraenesis, following the categories of Abraham J. Malherbe.³⁴ These letters encourage the audience to continue in the way they have begun.³⁵

In research on rhetoric and Scripture, Olbricht saw rhetorical invention as a more promising area of investigation than arrangement. Employing his Aristotelian method, he argued for the distinctiveness of Paul’s invention. For example, Paul’s proofs (ethos, pathos, and logos) are based in the divine, whereas in Greco-Roman rhetoric they are “in the final analysis human.”³⁶ With regard to ethos, Olbricht believed that the insights of the classical rhetoricians cast limited light upon the foundations and power of Paul’s rhetoric. With a different social location and vision of the ideal person, Paul’s ethos is distinct from the qualities described by Aristotle, Cicero, or Quintilian. For example, Galatians does not appeal to common values, but “uncommon Christ-prompted values,” such as concern for the poor, love of neighbor, and standing for truth.³⁷ In 2 Corinthians, Paul’s ethos departs from that of classical rhetoricians by focusing on such qualities as suffering servanthood, Spirit-direction, forgiveness, and frankness.³⁸ So too, in 1 Thessalonians, Paul asserts his own virtues, but these qualities are Christian rather than Hellenistic. More often, Paul establishes goodwill by praising his audience for their Christian character.³⁹

With regard to logos, Olbricht described Paul as a “master at advancing and weaving enthymemes.”⁴⁰ For example, in 1 Thessalonians, he identified six enthymematic premises or assumptions and argued that Paul supported these premises with evidence in the form of paradigms (παράδειγμα) in the Aristotelian sense.⁴¹ However, most of the content of the premises and paradigms is distinctly Christian, resulting in a letter that draws powerfully on a shared understanding of the “work of God and the power of the Holy Spirit and the salvific action of the Son” to reconfirm the audience’s faithfulness.⁴²

With regard to Hebrews, Olbricht argued in a 1993 essay that its genre is a “word of exhortation . . . modeled upon the ancient eulogy and funeral sermon.”⁴³ Like ancient Greek oratory, Hebrews uses comparison for amplification. However, comparisons in Hebrew come from Scripture, which has “first level rhetorical power.”⁴⁴ By contrast, warrants in Greek orations do not cite ancient materials.⁴⁵ The list of heroes of faith in Hebrew 11-12 occurs near the end of the text, as do comparisons with ancient persons in Greek funeral sermons. However, the latter are “minuscule when compared with Hebrews.”⁴⁶ Later, in 2002, he offered a close reading of logos in Hebrews, finding that although the writer employs the enthymemes of the ancient rhetoricians, ancient rhetoric offers little insight into the warrants and bases of the argumentation.⁴⁷

Olbricht took a similarly inductive and independent approach in exploring the Jewish genre of credo. First, in 2008, he investigated two narrative psalms, Psalms 105 and 106. He argued that because narrative discourse lies outside the purview of classical rhetoricians, these thinkers offer “only limited insights . . . regarding the varieties of narrative discourse” in Scripture and elsewhere.⁴⁸ He proposed instead that these two psalms represent the genre of credo, identified by Gerhard von Rad. The credo form narrates the acts of God chronologically, typically in order to praise God or critique unfaithful humans.⁴⁹

 Second, in his final publication on rhetoric in 2017, Olbricht applied these insights to Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. Although many have sought to view the speech through the lens of Greco-Roman rhetoric, he contended that the speech follows the “Jewish rhetorical template” of the credo form.⁵⁰ In this form, the speaker includes moments from Jewish history that are well suited to the purpose of the speech. Stephen’s retelling of Jewish history focuses on characters who represent resident aliens in order to make the case that Jesus was treated as a resident alien both by the inhabitants of Jerusalem and “aliens” residing in the city from elsewhere. Stephen seeks to change the outlook of his audience toward Jesus, rather than to defend himself.⁵¹ Thus, like Todd Penner and others, he made the case that the speech suits the surrounding narrative context, but he did so in a distinctive way.⁵²

Finally, in applying Aristotelian methods to biblical texts, Olbricht urged attention to “the whole classical canon, that is, invention, arrangement, style and delivery” and within invention, the proofs not only of logos but also ethos and pathos.⁵³ His own work evidenced this concern with rhetoric broadly. In addition to studies mentioned above, which investigate arrangement, style, and logos and ethos (invention), Olbricht also analyzed Paul’s extensive use of ethos in Colossians to make a case about the audience and situation of the letter: in his view, the situation of Colossians is not yet one of discord. Rather, the “perspectives that endanger the believers are still outside the Colossian church rather than inside.”⁵⁴ He also edited, with Jerry L. Sumney, the volume Paul and Pathos. The book published papers presented at the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Finland three years earlier. It included his own essay on pathos in Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian.

Conclusion

Thomas H. Olbricht’s work was simultaneously highly collaborative and unwaveringly independent.⁵⁵ As a scholar on rhetorical criticism of the Bible, he was generous and respectful, engaging carefully and widely with the work of others, both ancient and modern. He was also insightfully critical. Drawing upon his deep knowledge of ancient rhetoric, he raised important questions about method in the field of rhetorical criticism of the Bible, as well as its trajectory, insisting that scholarly tools, including ancient rhetoric, serve the purpose of understanding the internal logic and power of the biblical text, and not the other way around. The methodological questions he pressed—about the appropriateness of classical rhetorical genres applied to biblical texts—remain significant; his work on invention in the New Testament and on Hebrew rhetorical structure in Stephen’s speech in Acts contribute important insights and provide instructive examples of generative approaches in the field. Ultimately, because Olbricht’s method drew him toward a given text’s meaning, it was at heart theological. Even when investigating a technical aspect of argumentation, his work enacted his belief that proper interpretation of the Bible always brings us “face to face with the living God, through Christ his Son and the Holy Spirit.”⁵⁶

Bibliography

Baird, W. David. Quest for Distinction: Pepperdine University in the 20th Century. Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University Press, 2016.

Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

Holladay, Carl. “Thomas H. Olbricht (1929–2020): A Memorial Essay.” Pages xv–xxxvi in Rhetoric and Scripture: Collected Essays of Thomas H. Olbricht. Edited by Lauri Thurén. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 23. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2021. 

Malherbe, Abraham J. “Exhortation in First Thessalonians.” Novum Testamentum 25 (1983): 238–256. 

Mitchell, Margaret Mary. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991.

Olbricht, Thomas H. “Its Works Are Evil (John 7:7).” Restoration Quarterly 7, no. 4 (1963): 242–244. 

________. “An Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Thessalonians.” Pages 216–236 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by David Balch, Everett Ferguson and Wayne Meeks. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1990 (= Olbricht, Rhetoric and Scripture, chap. 4). 

________. “Hebrews as Amplification.” Pages 375–387 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993 (= Olbricht, Rhetoric and Scripture, chap. 5). 

________. “Preface.” Pages 9–10 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. 

________. Hearing God’s Voice: My Life with Scripture in the Churches of Christ. Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1996.

________. “The Stoicheia and the Rhetoric of Colossians: Then and Now.” Pages 308–28 in Rhetoric, Scripture, and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference. Edited by Thomas H. Olbricht and Stanley E. Porter. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 131. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996 (= Olbricht, Rhetoric and Scripture, chap. 6). 

________. “The Flowering of Rhetorical Criticism in America.” Pages 79–102 in The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 146. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997(= Olbricht, Rhetoric and Scripture, chap. 1). 

________. “Classical Rhetorical Criticism and Historical Reconstructions: A Critique.” Pages 108–123 in The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference. Edited by Dennis L. Stamps and Stanley E. Porter. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999 (= Olbricht, Rhetoric and Scripture, chap. 12). 

________. “Anticipating and Presenting the Case for Christ as High Priest in Hebrews.” Pages 355–372 in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the 2002 Lund Conference. Edited by Anders Eriksson, Walter G. Übelacker and Thomas H. Olbricht. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 8. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 2002 (= Olbricht, Rhetoric and Scripture, chap. 7). 

________. “The Foundation of the Ethos in Paul and in the Classical Rhetoricians.” Pages 138–159 in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 11. New York: T & T Clark, 2005 (= Olbricht, Rhetoric and Scripture, chap. 16). 

________. “Preface.” Pages xi–xiii in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 11. New York: T & T Clark, 2005. 

________. “The Rhetoric of Two Narrative Psalms 105, 106.” Pages 156–170 in My Words Are Lovely: Studies in the Rhetoric of the Psalms. Edited by Robert Foster and David M. Howard, Jr. Leiden: Brill, 2008 (= Olbricht, Rhetoric and Scripture, chap. 9). 

________. Rhetoric and Scripture: Collected Essays of Thomas H. Olbricht. Edited by Lauri Thurén. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 23. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2021. 

________. “The Structure and Content of Stephen’s Speech Compared to Old Testament Credos.” Pages 455–70 in The Language and Literature of the New Testament. Essays in Honour of Stanley E. Porter’s 60th Birthday. Edited by Lois Fuller Dow, Craig A. Evans and Andrew W. Pitts. Biblical Interpretation 150. Leiden: Brill, 2017 (= Olbricht, Rhetoric and Scripture, chap. 11). 

Olbricht, Thomas H. and Stanley N. Helton. “Navigating First Thessalonians Employing Aristotle’s Enthymeme.” Pages 228–44 in Paul and Ancient Rhetoric. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Bryan Dyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016 (= Olbricht, Rhetoric and Scripture, chap. 10). 

Penner, Todd C. In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography. Emory Studies in Early Christianity. New York: T & T Clark International, 2004.

Porter, Stanley E. “Introduction.” Pages 21–26 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. 

________. “Introduction.” Pages 21–26 in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. 

Porter, Stanley E. and Thomas H. Olbricht. “Editor’s Preface.” Pages 9–10 in The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 146. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. 

Porter, Stanley E. and Dennis L. Stamps. “Rhetorical Criticism and the Florence Conference.” Pages 17–21 in Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 195. New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002. 

Robbins, Vernon K. “From Heidelberg to Heidelberg: Rhetorical Interpretation of the Bible at the Seven ‘Pepperdine’ Conferences from 1992 to 2002.” Pages 335–378 in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference. Edited by Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 11. New York: T & T Clark, 2005. 

1. Cited by W. David Baird, Quest for Distinction: Pepperdine University in the 20th Century (Malibu, Calif.: Pepperdine University Press, 2016), 510.
2. Carl Holladay compiled a bibliography of Olbricht’s published works, which I used when preparing this presentation. That bibliography has been published in Restoration Quarterly as Carl R. Holladay, “Thomas H. Olbricht Bibliography: Writings and Publications,” Restoration Quarterly 63, no. 4 (2021): 235–46. Professor Holladay also provided helpful comments to an earlier version of the printed essay.
3. Thomas H. Olbricht, “Preface,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 90 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 9 (9–10), commenting on Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).
4. These scholars included Wilhelm Wuellner, Burton Mack, James Hester, Stanley Porter, Jeffrey Reed, and Ronald Hock.
5. Olbricht, “Preface (1993),” 10.
6. Thomas H. Olbricht, “Preface,” in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson, Emory Studies in Early Christianity 11 (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2005), x (xi–xiii). The second conference was organized by Peter Botha and Johannes Vorster; the fourth and fifth by Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps; and the sixth by Anders Eriksson and Walter Übelacker. Pepperdine University provided financial support for the five conferences held on its campuses, and Olbricht described the conference series as the “Pepperdine rhetorical analysis conferences.”
7. Stanley E. Porter, “Introduction,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 90 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 22 (21–26).
8. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, “Editor’s Preface,” in The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 146 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 9 (9–10).
9. Vernon K. Robbins, “From Heidelberg to Heidelberg: Rhetorical Interpretation of the Bible at the Seven ‘Pepperdine’ Conferences from 1992 to 2002,” in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson, Emory Studies in Early Christianity 11 (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2005), 346 (335–78).
10. Ibid., 343.
11. Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps, “Rhetorical Criticism and the Florence Conference,” in Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 195 (New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 17 (17–21).
12. Attendees hailed from South Africa, Japan, eleven countries in Europe (Denmark, England, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland), Canada, and the United States.
13. Stanley E. Porter, “Introduction,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 90 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 21 (21–26).
14. Ibid., 26.
15. Olbricht, “Preface (2005),” xii.
16. Thomas H. Olbricht, “The Rhetoric of Two Narrative Psalms 105, 106,” in My Words Are Lovely: Studies in the Rhetoric of the Psalms, ed. Robert Foster and David M. Howard (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 156 (156–70).
17. Thomas H. Olbricht, “Its Works Are Evil (John 7:7),” Restoration Quarterly 7, no. 4 (1963): 243 (242–44).
18. Thomas H. Olbricht, “Classical Rhetorical Criticism and Historical Reconstructions: A Critique,” in The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference, ed. Dennis L. Stamps and Stanley E. Porter, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 180 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 124 (108–24).
19. Thomas H. Olbricht, “An Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Thessalonians,” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. David Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne Meeks (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1990), 217 (216–36).
20. Ibid., 219. These comments were made in reference to the work of Wilhem Wuellner, which Olbricht admired.
21. Ibid., 223; Olbricht, “Classical Rhetorical Criticism,” 120.
22. Olbricht, “Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis,” 226 n. 59.
23. Thomas H. Olbricht, “The Flowering of Rhetorical Criticism in America,” in The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht; Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 146; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 102 (79–102).
24. Olbricht, “Classical Rhetorical Criticism,” 118.
25. For Olbricht’s perspective on Betz’s work, see ibid., 113. He described Margaret Mary Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1991), as “one of the latest and best” books on rhetorical criticism in biblical studies, Olbricht, “Rhetorical Criticism in America,” 100.
26. Olbricht, “Classical Rhetorical Criticism,” 124.
27. Olbricht, “Preface (2005),” xiii.
28. Olbricht, “Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis,” 223. See also Thomas H. Olbricht and Stanley N. Helton, “Navigating First Thessalonians Employing Aristotle’s Enthymeme,” in Paul and Ancient Rhetoric (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Bryan Dyer; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 231 (228–44).
29. Olbricht, “Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis,” 225.
30. Thomas H. Olbricht, “The Foundation of the Ethos in Paul and in the Classical Rhetoricians,” in Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Thomas H. Olbricht and Anders Eriksson, Emory Studies in Early Christianity 11 (New York/London: T & T Clark, 2005), 140–41 (138–59).
31. Ibid., 141; Olbricht, “Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis,” 223.
32. Olbricht first used the term “church rhetoric” in print in Olbricht, “Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis,” 226.
33. Olbricht, “Foundation of the Ethos,” 143. Olbricht first labeled the genre of Galatians as confrontational in Olbricht, “Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis,” 227.
34. Abraham J. Malherbe, “Exhortation in First Thessalonians,” Novum Testamentum 25 (1983): 238–56.
35. Olbricht, “Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis,” 227; Thomas H. Olbricht, “The Stoicheia and the Rhetoric of Colossians: Then and Now,” in Rhetoric, Scripture, and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, ed. Thomas H. Olbricht and Stanley E. Porter, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 131 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 308–28.
36. Olbricht references his then unpublished paper “Aristotelian Analysis of Galatians,” Olbricht, “Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis,” 226.
37. Olbricht, “Foundation of the Ethos,” 151–54.
38. Ibid., 158.
39. Olbricht, “Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis,” 228.
40. Ibid., 231. Olbricht saw enthymemes as more evident in the confrontational Galatians than in the reconfirmational 1 Thessalonians.
41. Olbricht and Helton, “Navigating First Thessalonians,” 233–36.
42. Ibid., 244.
43. Olbricht, “Foundation of the Ethos,” 144.
44. Thomas H. Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 90 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 382 (375–87).
45. Thus “the rhetoric [of Hebrews 7–9] is . . . different because it has a different warrant,” 383.
46. Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” 385.
47. Thomas H. Olbricht, “Anticipating and Presenting the Case for Christ as High Priest in Hebrews,” in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts: Essays from the 2002 Lund Conference, ed. Anders Eriksson, Walter G. Übelacker, and Thomas H. Olbricht, Emory Studies in Early Christianity 8 (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 2002), 361–72 (355–72).
48. Olbricht, “The Rhetoric of Two Narrative Psalms 105, 106,” 159.
49. Ibid., 160–61. The setting is worship or other speech contexts.
50. Thomas H. Olbricht, “The Structure and Content of Stephen’s Speech Compared to Old Testament Credos,” in The Language and Literature of the New Testament. Essays in Honour of Stanley E. Porter’s 60th Birthday, ed. Lois Fuller Dow, Craig A. Evans, and Andrew W. Pitts, Biblical Interpretation 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 461 (455–70). He compared the speech to Psalms 105 and 106, Nehemiah 9:6–37, and Hebrews 11.
51. Ibid., 465.
52. Todd C. Penner, In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography, Emory Studies in Early Christianity (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004).
53. Olbricht, “Classical Rhetorical Criticism,” 123.
54. Ibid.
55. Much of Olbricht’s work was “done in creative collaboration with other scholars” in conferences and co-edited publications, as noted by Carl Holladay, “Thomas H. Olbricht (1929–2020): A Memorial Essay,” in Rhetoric and Scripture: Collected Essays of Thomas H. Olbricht (ed. Lauri Thurén; Emory Studies in Early Christianity 23; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2021), xxii (xv–xxxvi). Another example of Olbricht’s impulse to create spaces for intellectual conversation was his founding of the Christian Scholars’ Conference (CSC), the venue for the presentation of this paper on June 10, 2021.
56. Thomas H. Olbricht, Hearing God’s Voice: My Life with Scripture in the Churches of Christ (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1996), 11.