{"id":6584,"date":"2023-11-29T02:15:41","date_gmt":"2023-11-29T02:15:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/learningcommons.twu.ca\/?p=6584"},"modified":"2024-01-15T22:14:08","modified_gmt":"2024-01-15T22:14:08","slug":"a-review-of-sarah-h-cassons-textual-signposts-in-the-argument-of-romans-a-relevance-theory-approach","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/learningcommons\/2023\/11\/29\/a-review-of-sarah-h-cassons-textual-signposts-in-the-argument-of-romans-a-relevance-theory-approach\/","title":{"rendered":"A Review of Sarah H. Casson\u2019s Textual Signposts in the Argument of Romans: A Relevance-Theory Approach"},"content":{"rendered":"

Paul Russell (Graduate<\/em> Category)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n

Casson, Sarah H. Textual Signposts in the Argument of Romans: A Relevance-Theory Approach<\/em>.  Early Christianity and Its Literature. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2019.<\/p>\n

            This book is an admirable fusion of linguistic study and biblical scholarship. Sarah Casson, not  satisfied with the traditional treatment of the connective \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> in the original Greek New  Testament, applies relevance theory from pragmatics in proposing a unified understanding of  how the word functions in the biblical text. Casson is not the first scholar to apply relevance  theory to Greek connectives in the New Testament. She cites Diane Blakemore (1987) as a  pioneer in approaching connectives in languages as procedural markers that guide understanding.  Regina Blass (1993) applied this notion to Paul\u2019s writings in the New Testament to study the  functions that various Greek connectives play in the guiding of inferential processes, although  Blass\u2019s work was unpublished and limited in its analysis. Casson draws on Blakemore\u2019s  hypothesis of procedural markers and Blass\u2019s proposal and offers a fresh analysis of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> within  this framework. Her thesis is that \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em>, rather than simply functioning as referential or  explanatory, plays a critical role in guiding the reader to recognize the most salient points of the  argument while triggering inferential sequences that strengthen the communicator\u2019s intended  point. In arriving at her analysis, Casson studied every instance of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> in Paul\u2019s epistle to the  Romans. Her findings are clearly and thoroughly presented.<\/p>\n

            Chapter 1 answers the question \u201cWhy study \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> in Romans?\u201d. Casson answers with the  following reasons. First, the word (used a total of 1,041 times in the New Testament) occurs  most frequently in Romans (144 occurrences). Her second reason is that \u201c(\u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em>) is by no means as  unambiguous as the gloss for might suggest\u201d (1). Casson argues that there is not a widely  accepted and consistent way of understanding \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> among scholars and exegetes that can be reconciled with the text. Third, some of the most critical and contested portions of Romans  contain \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em>, and the way this word is treated can be the basis for very different understandings of  the text. Finally, Casson notes that there has not been a rigorous linguistic analysis of the use of  \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1 in the New Testament epistles. This book is intended to fill this gap in research while  providing a path forward for further analysis of koine Greek discourse. This chapter  convincingly demonstrates that Casson\u2019s work offers fresh insight into an area of New  Testament scholarship that stands to benefit greatly from linguistic study.<\/p>\n

            The second chapter provides a helpful overview of relevance theory. Casson does very  well in explaining relevance theory in a way that a beginner student in the field of pragmatics  can understand. Casson explains relevance theory in this way: \u201cIt holds that the interpretation of  language involves subpersonal cognitive processes that are automatically geared toward the  maximization of relevance and guided by the search for it\u201d (28). She states that \u201cRelevance  theory conceives of relevance in terms of a trade-off between worth-while cognitive effects and  the processing effort involved in acquiring them\u201d (28). Communicators seek to convey their  message with efficiency by guiding their audience to the intended meaning. This is accomplished  by carefully using relevant information to trigger a sequence of inferences in the mind of the  addressees. These inferential sequences can be used to strengthen a previously made claim while  indicating which information is most relevant to the communicator\u2019s message; this, Casson will  later argue, is the primary application of relevance theory to Paul\u2019s use of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em>.<\/p>\n

            It is at this point that Casson highlights a significant difficulty with her application of  relevance theory to Scripture. Using the framework of relevance theory, the context of the  audience guides and determines the inferences that they will make in decoding the text. Casson  explains that relevant contextual information may be general knowledge of culture, history, and society that was available to the original audience (referred to as encyclopedic knowledge) as  well as the immediate context within the discourse itself. Therefore, correctly reconstructing the  inferences that an author intended his readers to make requires recreating and retracing the  cognitive processes that would have guided the first readers. Their encyclopedic knowledge as  well as their understanding of the textual context would determine their inferences, and thus the  meaning of the text itself. Casson acknowledges that \u201cthere is no guarantee of the validity of the  proposed reconstructions of cognitive environments, contextual assumptions, and inferences  drawn by the first addressees. We can aim for probability and plausibility in such reconstructive  work, but not certainty\u201d (44). This could lead to the conclusion that, without certainty about the  guiding context for Paul and his readers, we can never be certain that we are understanding the  text correctly. The result is that a modern reader\u2019s ability to properly understand scripture will be  shaky at best. That historical, social, and textual context is critical to biblical interpretation no  serious exegete will deny; making that context the key to inferential sequences that guide  interpretation presents a challenge to modern readers of the scripture. While she recognizes this  difficulty, Casson argues that the effort and inherent risk in reconstructing the cognitive context  of the author and his readers are worthwhile because of the value and authority of scripture. This  uncertainty is a lingering question that is not fully resolved in the book.<\/p>\n

            In chapter 3, Casson outlines her application of relevance theory to Romans. Here she  expounds on her thesis: Paul used \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> as a procedural marker, indicating that the information  following the connective is secondary in relevance and is intended to trigger inferential  sequences in the minds of his readers. These sequences will lead to a conclusion based on  contextual factors, and the resulting conclusions serve to reinforce or strengthen Paul\u2019s primary  message. Casson constructed the following frame for applying this thesis to the text; much of the book shows how instances of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> can be understood within this construction, referred to as  procedure G<\/em> (69).<\/p>\n

P<\/strong>: the propositional form of the information needing strengthening<\/p>\n

Q<\/strong>: the propositional form of the premise introduced by \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1  <\/em><\/p>\n

IA<\/strong>(s): the contextual assumption(s) made accessible in the cotext<\/p>\n

 C<\/strong>: the conclusion, a reiteration of P, confirmed by backward strengthening,   which thus represents a more firmly held version of P.<\/p>\n

            For her analysis Casson identified every instance of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> in Romans, classifying them into one of  three categories. The first group she refers to as straightforward<\/em>; these are instances where the  strengthening use of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> is intuitive and is widely accepted by scholars. They account for 49% of  uses in Casson\u2019s analysis. The second category she labels as somewhat complex<\/em>. Included here  are sequences where strengthening is more difficult to establish and relies upon contextual  information less accessible to the modern reader, making them more difficult to trace with  certainty. Casson places 33% of the uses of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> in Romans within this category. The final group,  referred to as highly problematic<\/em>, constitutes the remaining 18% of occurrences. Naturally, it is  to the latter two categories that Casson devotes the bulk of her attention in the remainder of the  book. Categorizing over half of the uses of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1 as less than straightforward does place a  significant burden on Casson to demonstrate that her thesis is valid. In most cases, however, she  does very well with providing a satisfactory and plausible explanation. There are a few highly  problematic examples where Casson\u2019s thesis does not provide a coherent and reasonable  accounting of the text. We will illustrate the application of Casson\u2019s procedural approach with a  straightforward example, before highlighting some of the more difficult cases from chapter 4.<\/p>\n

            For each demonstration of procedure G, Casson gives the passage in Greek and explains  the relevant contextual factors that can be reasonably constructed. She then shows the  strengthening and guiding process that \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1 initializes. An example in chapter 3 from the \u201cstraightforward\u201d category comes from Romans 8:2 and is mapped in this way (72-73).<\/p>\n

Explicit claim P<\/strong> (v. 1): There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.<\/p>\n

Premise Q introduced by<\/strong> \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> (v. 2): The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set   those in Christ Jesus free from the law of sin and death.<\/p>\n

Implicit premise IA<\/strong>: If a person is set free from the law of sin and death, there is no   condemnation for that person.<\/p>\n

Conclusion C deduced from Q and IA<\/strong> (reiterating, independently confirming, and thus   strengthening P in v. 1): There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.<\/p>\n

With this framework as a template, Casson argues that \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> is a key guide to understanding the text. It indicates that the statements that follow it (premise Q) are less salient than the preceding  claim (P), and it initiates a sequence of inferences (implicit premises) that strengthen the author\u2019s  point.<\/p>\n

            In the above example, such an interpretation seems quite clear. In chapter 4, however,  Casson demonstrates how this approach relates to more difficult passages. One of these is  Romans 2:23-25, which requires a series of no less than seven inferences (IA1-IA7) to establish  a strengthening and procedural process initiated by \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> (128-129). These inferences are an  interpreter\u2019s best efforts to recreate the original cognitive processes of the readers; this becomes  quite a tenuous exercise when so many inferences must be supplied.<\/p>\n

            There is one other set of \u201chighly problematic\u201d occurrences of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> that merits mention. In  some contexts, an inferential sequence cannot be constructed, and the connective does not fit the  usual pattern that procedure G describes. Casson references Romans 15:24 as one such example.  Here, Paul states his intentions to visit the church in Rome. His use of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> in this passage does not follow the usual pattern of triggering a strengthening inferential sequence. Romans 6:19 is  another instance where \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> does not fit the expected pattern. Casson argues that in such cases the  connective serves a rhetorical function. It is already associated with strengthening in the readers\u2019  minds, therefore \u201c(e)xpectations of relevance are satisfied with the impression of strengthening created by \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em>, and effort is not expended in the search for a logical strengthening series that  rationally confirms a preceding claim\u201d (160). Such an explanation displays some of the flaws of  traditional translations of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> as variable by context. The argument that \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> serves a  strengthening function apart from the inferential sequences of relevance theory is not all that  different from the widely accepted understanding of the word as a \u201cmarker of cause,  clarification, or reason\u201d (BDAG, 189). Such rhetorical uses of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> are a challenge to Casson\u2019s  proposal of Procedure G as the key to understanding the connective\u2019s function.<\/p>\n

            In chapter 5, Casson demonstrates that a procedural reading of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> can provide  significant guidance in interpreting theologically difficult passages. She examines two key  passages, presenting two diverging interpretations for each and showing that a relevance theory  approach eliminates one of these. By indicating which information is most salient and providing  structure to the author\u2019s argument, \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> as a procedural marker can bring clarity to the exegetical  task. It will be helpful to summarize the discussion of Romans 10:4 to illustrate this process,  where Paul makes the following statement: \u03c4\u1f73\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bd\u1f79\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2<\/em>. Casson points out that the  Greek word \u03c4\u1f73\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2<\/em> has a range of semantic meanings. It has traditionally been understood as either  fulfillment, goal, or termination (190). Thus, the passage can be read as saying that Christ  (\u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2<\/em>) has either fulfilled the law (\u03bd\u1f79\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5<\/em>), terminated the law, or is the goal or completion of the law. There are major theological implications for each of these understandings. Casson convincingly demonstrates that Paul\u2019s use of \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1<\/em> within this verse and the surrounding context eliminates the \u201cterminated\u201d reading of the passage. With this analysis, Casson convincingly  demonstrates that relevance theory has the potential to clarify historically difficult passages of  Romans.<\/p>\n

            Chapter 6 explores some of the contesting arguments for the overall purpose and theme of Romans. Casson argues that \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em> can be understood as a communicative signpost, and that  \u201cthis allows us at various points to trace more clearly the thrust of Paul\u2019s argument, seeing the argumentative woods for the trees, thus avoiding the pitfall of being sidetracked by theological  questions that are not Paul\u2019s primary focus\u201d (203). She makes the case Romans 1:16, Paul\u2019s  famous \u201cI am not ashamed\u201d statement, is not a thesis for the book as many theologians have claimed. Rather, it is secondary material that is used to strengthen or support Paul\u2019s claim in verse 15, that he was eager to preach the gospel in Rome. This eliminates verse 16 as an isolated thesis statement and places it within the broader context of Paul\u2019s introductory remarks. Casson\u2019s analysis here provides strong support for the value of a relevance theory approach to \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1<\/em>. If the  connective can correctly be understood as a procedural marker, it gives clear direction to the reader as to the author\u2019s intent and leaves little doubt about the primary and secondary themes of the text.<\/p>\n

            The book concludes with a brief discussion regarding the application of relevance theory  to the broader treatment of the New Testament. Casson posits that other words in koine Greek that are traditionally seen as simple connectives may be understood better within a relevance theory framework. She discusses the approach that translators should take to \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1, cautioning that a simple gloss such as for<\/em> is likely insufficient to capture the notion intended in the original. She  also provides an appendix with a listing of every use of \u03b3\u1f71\u03c1, indicating what category each use  falls under in terms of difficulty.<\/p>\n

            Although Casson\u2019s thesis has a few significant and unresolved difficulties, her work makes a great contribution to exegesis and biblical study. Linguistic study has much to offer to  the understanding of the biblical text. The rigorous analysis of Romans that is presented in this  book is not just useful in its own right; it also provides a clear template for the intersection of contemporary linguistics and biblical study.<\/p>\n

References<\/h3>\n

Blakemore, Diane. Semantic Constraints on Relevance<\/em>. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987.<\/p>\n

Blass, Regina. \u201cConstraints on Relevance in Koine Greek in the Pauline Letters.\u201d Paper presented at a SIL International seminar in Nairobi, Kenya, May 1993.<\/p>\n

Danker, Fredrick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English  Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature<\/em> (BDAG). 3rd ed.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.<\/p>\n

\n
    \n
  1.  <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Paul Russell (Graduate\u00a0Category)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":123,"featured_media":6585,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[46],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-2022-winners"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pad6JM-1Ic","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/learningcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6584","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/learningcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/learningcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/learningcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/123"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/learningcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6584"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/learningcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6584\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6959,"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/learningcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6584\/revisions\/6959"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/learningcommons\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/learningcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/learningcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/create.twu.ca\/learningcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}