Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] RE: 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] RE: The audience of Romans
  • Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:10:41 +0300 (EEST)


Lee,

I think that your example, PASA in Mt 3:5, does not solve the case. It is
obvious that "all" in your example text does not mean "every single
Judean". We become aware of this on the grounds of the genre of the
writing. The author of the gospel tried to express that the movement
around John was a massive one, and he did this by means of hyperbolic
rhetoric. (In addition, we all know that ancient historians tended to
exaggerate the size of crowds.) Granted that Paul used hyperbolic language
himself, too, 1:7 is not the place where one ought to look for figurative
language. The verse is the formal adscription of Romans, and Paul must
have given a thought to its form. It is not easy to think that Paul might
have dictated "all", if he knew quite well that this "all" does not mean
all the believers. So, I consider your example as a false analogy.

You wrote: "The point is that Rom 7 was recognized PROSOPOPOIIA by those
familiar with the rhetorical device." I repeat my point: certain fathers
of the early church had their own biases; they wanted to save Paul's
reputation - he must not have described himself as a miserable sinner.
Nilus of Ancyra suggested that Paul used EQOPOIIA whereas Origen
tentatively(!) suggested PROSWPOPOIIA. Also Irenaeus, Tertullian, and
Jerome opted for an interpretation according to which Paul did not speak
of himself. But one is to notice that there were even more interpreters,
contemporary to those fathers, who considered that Paul, in a way or
another, included himself when using "I" (Thurén, "Derhetorized," 423-24).
All in all, Origen had his bias to look for an alternative explanation and
PROSWPOPOIIA seemed to be the nearest option. But Origen's tentative
suggestion does not mean that Paul had similar kind of thoughts. If Paul
had any rhetorical training, it was elementary, whereas Origen was
well-educated. And we must think of Roman addressees, too: 5-10 percent of
them were able to read. Do you really think that they noticed the use of
PROSWPOPOIIA, which Origen, with his biases, tentatively suggested?

In ancient PROSWPOPOIIA the theorists are unanimous that the speaker had
to be always identified (which does not happen in Rom 7). The only
exception is Quintilian, who in his Inst. (9.2.37) omits the
identification but views this as an exception. I would not build an
exegetical theory on that. Paul and Quintilian lived in other worlds -
Quintilian's subtleties were not "in the air": he was an upper class
professor of rhetoric. You asked whether I suggest that Stowers has
misunderstood ancient rhetoricians. I think that has happened partly, at
least. See the criticism by R. Dean Anderson (Ancient Rhetorical Theory
and Paul, 201-205). (BTW, your designation "your Mr. Anderson" seems to
hint that you do not qualify him as an authority. Anderson has completed a
degree in ancient classics and Th.D. in Biblical studies. In addition to
his dissertation, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (CBET 18, Peeters
1999), he has published a Glossary of Greek Rhetorical Terms (CBET 24,
Peeters 2000) and edited (co-editor) the English version of H. Lausberg's
Handbook of Literary Rhetoric (Brill 1998). I consider that because of his
merits it would be better to refer to him as Dr. Anderson.)

Antti Mustakallio
Helsinki, Finland








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page