In a helpful 2003 essay, David Aune discusses “the use and abuse of the enthymeme in New Testament scholarship” (New Testament Studies 49, no. 3, 299–320). According to the article’s abstract,
Though the enthymeme is usually defined as a truncated syllogism, that definition does not go back to Aristotle. By the first century CE there were four ways of understanding the enthymeme in both Greek and Latin rhetorical theory, of which the truncated syllogism was just one. Aristotle’s theory of the enthymeme had little effect on the subsequent history of the enthymeme, just as his Rhetorica had only a restricted circulation and impact from the first century BCE on. In light of these considerations, the work of seven scholars who have used the enthymeme to understand argumentation in the NT is reviewed and critiqued.
Materially, the essays biggest contribution is Aune’s analysis of the formalist perspective on “enthymemes” that he found in the literature he surveyed. Another area of repeated concern is how easily it is for New Testament scholars to fall into incompletely outlining arguments.
For subscribers or users at subscribing institutions, see the essay in NTS, ProQuest, or other similar providers.
William Baird, History of New Testament Research (3 vols.)
With last year’s release of the third volume, From C. H. Dodd to Hans Dieter Betz, William Baird brought his helpful series on the recent history of New Testament Studies to a close. Cliff Kvidahl has an informative review that, despite some criticisms, rightly praises Baird’s work as “informative while remaining entertaining. [Baird] brings the reader through the life and work of each scholar without getting bogged down in too much detail.” Those interested can also find the whole 3-volume set available among Logos Bible Software’s prepublication listings.