Rhetoric at the Boundaries: The Art and Theology of New

Testament Chain-Link Transitions

Bruce Longenecker

Waco: Baylor University Press

2005, 305 pp., hardcover, $49.45
Reviewed by Matthew P. O’Reilly

Bruce Longenecker has discovered a missing link in New Testament criticism and
interpretation which he has identified as the “chain-link transition.” By carefully analyzing the
form, utility, and theological significance of the chain-link interlock, Longenecker demonstrates
the importance of this rhetorical transitional device and how the neglect of this construction has
led to faulty interpretation of key New Testament texts. The author, a Senior Lecturer in New
Testament at St. Mary’s College, University of St. Andrews, has made an important contribution
to New Testament studies that will require multiple interpretive endeavors to be revisited and
revised.

Because the chain-link construction has been so little known, Longenecker’s task is
twofold. He must demonstrate both that the chain-link interlock existed in the ancient world and
how an understanding of the device is important for interpreting texts. To accomplish the first
task, the author’s method involves a “triangulation of evidence” in which he relies on three areas
of evidence: (1) first- and second-century Graeco-Roman rhetorical handbooks, (2) sources prior
to or contemporary with the New Testament, and (3) the New Testament itself (9). The result is
three mutually reinforcing pools of data which together make a convincing case for the existence
and regular use of the chain-link construction in ancient texts.

Longenecker first cites evidence for the chain-link transition from the second-century text
How to Write History by Lucian of Samosata who speaks of attaching components of a narrative
together like a chain. It is from this text in Lucian that Longenecker derives the term “chain-link
transition.” He then cites evidence from Quintilian’s late first-century Institutio Oratoria which
speaks of textual units being interwoven to strengthen one another as two people who join hands
for mutual stability and strength. Longenecker believes that Lucian and Quintilian are referring
to the same type of construction which he models as “A-b/a-B” where “A” and “B” are major
textual units whose material interlocks across a textual boundary (indicated by “/”). The
overlapping of material from two distinct units across a boundary is a distinct characteristic of
the chain-link construction making it an “inter-unit” construction and distinguishing it from
“intra-unit” features such as inclusio, chiasm, or alternating parallelism.

Some may object that this evidential basis is far from strong enough to conclude that
something like a chain-link construction was a well known and viable feature of ancient rhetoric.
Longenecker anticipates this objection, though, and points out that the widely accepted chiastic
structure does not appear in the rhetorical handbooks until the fourth-century CE (9, 253). He
also points out that neither Quintilian nor Lucian provide any instruction on proper use of the
chain-link transition indicating that their readers were likely familiar with the form and function
of the construction.

The author offers further support from his second evidential database, sources prior to
and contemporary with the New Testament. Longenecker cites evidence from nine ancient
sources including the Old Testament, Philo of Alexandria, Plutarch, and Josephus. He notes that
the presence of the chain-link transition in both Hebrew and Graeco-Roman sources suggests
that the construction was not limited to Graeco-Roman rhetoric but was characteristic of wider
Mediterranean and Near Eastern literature.

Having shown that the chain-link transition was discussed in ancient rhetorical
handbooks and that the device was widely used in literature prior to and contemporary with the
New Testament, Longenecker moves to his third evidential database showing fifteen occasions
in the New Testament where the chain-link transition occurs. Using material from the gospel of
John, Luke-Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Revelation, he demonstrates the importance of
knowing the form of the chain-link for interpreting texts and shows how commentators have
often misunderstood these texts because they were unaware of chain-link constructions.

For example, Longenecker shows how discussion of the much debated Romans 7:25
would benefit from an awareness of chain-link transitions. Interpreters have been keenly aware
that Paul’s statement in 7:25a, “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord,” fits better with
the content of 8:1-39 than it does with that of 7:7-25. Longenecker cites proposed solutions that
suggest the text was misconstrued in transmission or was the product of scribal confusion. The
author shows that such explanations are unnecessary because the transition from 7:25-8:1 is
structured by a chain-link interlock and that 7:25a is not poorly located but, rather, it is the
anticipatory interlock in the chain-link construction. This text which has been used as an
occasion to question Paul’s rhetorical skill is actually a carefully structured chain-link transition.

Two major contributions of this volume are worth noting. First, it provides a
methodological basis for further study of chain-link transitions not only in the New Testament
but in the many available non-canonical Jewish and Graeco-Roman texts. Longenecker’s work
was not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, it draws attention to the chain-link construction and
provides the foundation for further study by other.

A second major contribution of this book is its demonstration that New Testament
scholarship has been weakened by lack of familiarity with first-century rhetorical conventions.
Despite recent growth, rhetorical criticism remains a small field within the New Testament guild.
Rhetoric at the Boundaries demonstrates the importance of attentiveness to the rhetorical
structure of New Testament texts and how a lack of awareness regarding rhetorical conventions
can lead to poor interpretation. Longenecker is to be commended for drawing scholarly attention
to an important but neglected phenomenon, the chain-link interlock.