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” ( .(כל בשר
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 of lex 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 of this 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. / Dissertation / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:mcmaster.ca/oai:macsphere.mcmaster.ca:11375/28668 |
| Date | January 2020 |
| Creators | Burlet, Dustin 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