Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] The audience of Romans

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Antti V J Mustakallio <amustaka AT cc.helsinki.fi>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] The audience of Romans
  • Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:18:28 +0300 (EEST)


Lee,

you admit that 1.7 "seems to indicate that 'all the believers
[including Jewish ones]' are addressed." You, however, think that it is
important to "recognize additional comments" what Paul means in 1:7. But,
don't you think that it is pretty iffy to redefine meanings of such words
which do not conform to our views? My impression is that you turn "all"
into "all Gentile Christians" because "all" just cannot refer to every
believer in Rome, according to your opinion. I, instead, would like to
give words their full weight. Why did Paul not dictate PASIN TOIS EQNESIN
TOIS OUSIN EN RWMH etc., or something along those lines?

Like Stowers, you appeal to diatribal character of Romans. But the problem
is that at many places in the letter the alleged diatribe differs from
those in popular philosophical literature of antiquity. According to R.
Dean Anderson, diatribal dialogues were "always of such nature that the
remarks of the two speakers concerned are immediately identifiable without
the aid of separate markers in the text." (Ancient Rhetorical Theory and
Paul; p. 217 n. 59) Further, Anderson notes that "unless it is absolutely
obvious from the text which words belong to which person, the ancients
indicated this in the text." Thus, e.g. the "diatribe" beginning from 3:1
is so complex that it would probably be best to call it dialogue-like, not
a diatribe. I think that Paul tried to dictate in a manner which would be
understandable by his original addressees (who were not necessarily
educated). A highly complex diatribe would be in danger of remaining
unintelligible.

I asked your opinion about the weak and the strong because Paul seems to
direct his words at both parties: "Why do you pass judgement on your
brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister?"
(14:10) Runar Thorsteinsson, who has studied the use of epistolary
interlocutor in antiquity, concludes: "[T]he interlocutor remains the same
throughout the letter in question, unless otherwise stated or implied."
(Paul's Interlocutor in Romans, p. 150). It seems to me, that Paul
addresses real people in ch. 14. If we consider the "weak" to be mainly
Jewish Christians, it follows that here Paul addresses Jewish Christians,
who are thus part of his audience.

I am aware that there are many scholars who read ch. 7 as
non-autobiographical. This reading was conceived by W. G. Kummel, who
defined his interpretation as rhetorical solution. But, in my opinion,
this is a notorious example of misuse of rhetorical criticism. If a reader
faces challenging and problematic theology he/she should not escape the
trouble by appealing to rhetoric if no known rhetorical devices have not
been used. In antiquity, there was no rhetorical device which would
exclude the speaker when he/she said "I". If this was what Paul meant, his
readers would not have understood him.

Stowers appeals to Origen's reading. But Anderson (p. 204-205) shows quite
well that Origen had theological difficulties with the passage, and, in
order to get rid of those, he tentatively(!) suggested PROSWPOPOIIA.
Moreover, that was not the only interpretation Origen offered. Origen does
not show how and why an ancient reader would have understood Rom. 7:7-25
as PROSWPOPOIIA (contra Stowers), because "most ancient readers did not
share his Christian tendencies." (Thurén, "Romans 7 Derhetorized" [in
Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible], p. 425)

Stowers' definition of PROSWPOPOIIA is also unusual: P. is "a rhetorical
and literary technique in which the speaker or writer produces speech that
represents not himself or herself but another person or type of
character." ("Romans 7.7-25 as a Speech-in-Character"; p. 180) He refers
to J. Martin, but as Thurén has remarked, the definition is somewhat
different in Martin as well as in other handbooks: P. "usually referred to
the personification of inanimate objects or abstract concepts; moreover it
was sometimes used of people who had died or had never lived, but were
represented as living." ("Derhetorized"; p. 429).

All in all, Stowers' suggestion (ch. 7) is probably not right. I quote
Anderson: "[T]he complete lack of any introduction or identification of
the speaker of any supposed PROSWPOPOIIA, combined with the absence of
any other markers in the context suggesting that Paul means anyone other
that himself by his use of the first person, must weigh heavily against
this interpretation." (Ancient; 205)

Sincerely,

Antti Mustakallio
Helsinki, Finland






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page