I base this question on Krajewski's opinion that
"the dialogue associated with rhetoric also defines hermeneutics--where one enters into a conversation with a text" (Krajewski, B. (1992). Traveling with Hermes: Hermeneutics and rhetoric. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. (p. 8))
Also, he seems to imply that some devices of interpretation have critical dependencies on rhetoric as it appeals to Ockham's razor.
"any attempt to justify an interpretation cannot rely on syllogistic proofs or absolute truth but must instead appeal to the probable and the common--the rhetorical" (p. 12).
I have tried to make this question as specific as possible. I understand that some might consider it too void of qualification. However, I would like to avoid erring on the side of presumption, with regard to what those qualifications might be. So, if you have caveats, feel free to express them.
My initial apprehension, regarding this question, was one of scope. I regret, that in the process of negotiating that concern, I become remiss in terms of presumption, with regard to my audience. This is a significant embarrassment to the subject of my post, considering that it is Cicero's (all controversy of authorship aside) first principle of [Invention], the first canon of rhetoric, found in his first century Latin text(Rhetorica ad Herennium). For me, that is too many firsts to excuse.
As a result, I may have inadvertently been responsible for drawing at least one individual into an embarrassing situation. Please accept my apology along with the following clarification which I had no right to assume, even in an academic setting.
(Provision of Ethics) Roland Meynet, Jesuit, Doctor-es-Lettres, has taught for twenty years at St. Joseph University in Beirut and the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Jerusalem. For twenty years he has been teaching Biblical Theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University. In 2006 he was awarded the Grand prix de philosophie de l'Académie Française.
Here is an English translation, composed of his topics relating to rhetorical analysis and exegesis, taken from this source.
(Meynet, Roland. (Ed. & Trans.). (2012). Treatise on Biblical Rhetoric : International Studies in the History of Rhetoric (Vol. 3)).
My clarification based on these sources:
Rhetorical analysis is not rhetoric. It is a specific paradigm of critical analysis, which holds rhetoric as its subject; assuming at least, Cicero's first three canons. Being that biblical exegesis is the context, I have excluded the fourth and fifth canons, which apply mainly to oration and gesture. However, in the case of any coincidental narrative which provides insight to the authors passion, such as tone of voice or gesture, these should be considered when attempting to derive the authors intent.
Rhetorical analysis is not textual-criticism. It does, however, primitively enforce the following intrinsic probabilities of internal evidence, as outlined in Metzger's criteria for textual-criticism.
Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 209-210
-style and vocabulary of the author throughout. (Who, How)
-Immediate context. (When, Where, Why)
-Harmony of the author throughout. (Who, How, When, Where)
-Cultural background and influence. (Who, Where, When)
This is nowhere near a complete definition of rhetorical analysis. The grasp that anyone may have of this; its concepts, will be directly proportional to their comprehension of rhetorical devices; the subject of analysis.
Apparently, I also need to include a definition for rhetoric. Once again, my apologies.
This first definition, from Mariam Webster, is the one we are concerned with.
-the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
Greek literal is "to say". Reason->rhetoric, is as, soul->body. This is the only association in which these two words can be brought into union, with respect to their disparate, and persistent etymologies.