The Noachic Deluge is often portrayed within Scripture as being a disastrous,
death-inducing, catastrophic event that had the power to forever shape and change the
world that then was (Matt 24:36-44; Luke 17:26—27; 1 Pet 3:20-21; 2 Pet 3:6). Via “self destructive lawlessness” (חמס(, humanity had the effect of “corrupting” (שחת (the
“good” (טוב (earth that God had created, thus leading the Creator to proclaim that he
would “destroy” (שחת (and “blot/wipe” (מחה (it out, along with “all flesh” (בשר כל(.
Fortunately, “Noah found favour in the eyes of the LORD” and God chose to
“establish” or “confirm” (קום (his covenant with him and to preserve a remnant of
humanity and all life (Gen 6:18-21; 7:1-3, 7-9, 13-16; 8:16-22; 9:1-17). As such,
despite the vivid picture of devastation that the Noachic Deluge account depicts, this
study will seek to demonstrate by means of rhetorical analysis that the emphasis of the
narrative is on redemption, salvation, deliverance, renewal, and the upholding of life.
The Noachic Deluge event functions to recalibrate the kinship relationship of God
and humanity that was lost in the Fall via the structure of covenant. In this way, the
Noachic Deluge narrative is persuasive. As intellectual, world-view formative rhetoric, the scribe convincingly communicates that God’s intentions for creation, the
establishment of order via covenant, will not be thwarted. This includes human beings—
as his image-bearers—employing the principle oflex talionis (blood-for-blood).
Despite the present scholarship, a lacuna exists concerning the persuasive nature
of the Noachic Deluge narrative, its rhetorical function, and a thorough, methodologically
rigorous, description of the scribe’s persuasiveness. As such, this work seeks to delineate
the scribe’s essential persuasive strategy—noting also his literary artistry—as it engages
in a detailed reading ofthis specific portion of ancient Scripture (Gen 6:9—9:29).
This study leverages a form of George A. Kennedy’s model of rhetorical
criticism: (1) determining the rhetorical units, (2) determining the rhetorical situation, (3)
determining the rhetorical strategy, and (4) determining the rhetorical effectiveness. A
brief conclusion rounds out the analysis. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:mcmaster.ca/oai:macsphere.mcmaster.ca:11375/28667 |
| Date | January 2020 |
| Creators | Burlet, Daniel G |
| Contributors | Konkel, August H., Boda, Mark J., Christian Theology |
| Source Sets | McMaster University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds