Читать книгу Paul Among the Gentiles: A "Radical" Reading of Romans - Jacob P. B. Mortensen - Страница 38

Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata (‘preliminary exercises’ i.e. to the study of rhetoric) date to approximately the first century CE.1 Theon’s Progymnasmata consist of seventeen exercises that prepared a student for the study of rhetoric through a series of short, but increasingly long and complex compositional practices. If Paul was instructed in the Progymnasmata, he may (but improbably) have been instructed by Theon’s account. This would have required him to be instructed in the second level (of three) of the ancient literate education. The consensus among New Testament scholars is that Paul received some sort of rhetorical instruction higher than mere reading and writing (first level instruction), but not to the level of sophistication of Philo of Alexandria or Josephus (a third level of education including technical rhetorical instruction and philosophy).2 The level of rhetorical instruction described in the Progymnasmata matches Paul’s level of education quite well, as evidenced by his letters. Besides, we know that the Progymnasmata were used as the culmination of the second level of education, as a transition to the third (and rhetorical) level. We may think of the Progymnasmata as a ‘high school’ (gymnasium) curriculum, beyond elementary education, but not at the level of philosophy. Stanley Stowers clearly summarizes the scholarly consensus on Paul’s educational attainments: ‘Paul’s Greek educational level is roughly equivalent to that of someone who had primary instruction with a grammaticus or a ‘teacher of letters’ and then had studied letter writing and some elementary rhetorical exercises’.3 This description corresponds to what Theon writes in the chapter on προσωποποιία: ‘Under this genus of exercise fall the species of consolation and exhortation and letter writing’ (Theon 1997, 70). From these observations we may infer that Paul probably received instruction in literate education up to the second level of education. And since he was instructed in the Progymnasmata at this second level, he would have received instruction in προσωποποιία, which is one of the elements or exercises of the Progymnasmata. There is no precise English translation of the Greek προσωποποιία, but it may be translated as something like ‘speech-in-character’ or ‘impersonation’.

In the Progymnasmata, Theon points out that the species of consolation, exhortation, and letter-writing fall under the genus of exercises in προσωποποιία (Theon 1997, 70). The grammaticus or second-level teacher would ask the student to compose a letter or a speech by imagining what a certain person would say to a certain addressee on a certain occasion. According to Theon, προσωποποιία is ‘the introduction of a person to whom words are attributed that are suitable to the speaker and have an indisputable application to the subject discussed’ (Theon 1997, 70). Hermogenes of Tarsus (who flourished in the time of Marcus Aurelius 161–180 AD), who also composed a Progymnasmata, explained that it was ‘an imitation of the character of a person supposed to be speaking’ (Hermogenes 2003, 84). These definitions reveal to us that the exercise of προσωποποιία consists of speech-in-character or impersonation, because it involves the creation of a fictive speech that fits the character of some legendary, historical, or type of person (Theon 1997, 70). The exercise requires the student to reveal a person’s character through speech, as that person confronts a specific circumstance. This is exactly the reason the Latin poet Ovid (43 BCE–17/18 CE) has the famous and mythico-historical characters in his Heroides write fictive letters – Penelope to Ulysses, Helen to Paris, and so on. Thus, if Paul had received instruction in letter-writing, he would have received instruction in προσωποποιία (and exhortation). Furthermore, as a fundamental part of the literate education in antiquity, προσωποποιία would be important, partly because the specific process of learning how to read ancient Greek texts involved the identification of characters and persons, partly because προσωποποιία was one of the elementary exercises closely related to learning prose and poetic composition in general. Therefore, Paul must have known how to identify instances of προσωποποιία before he knew how to produce pieces of προσωποποιία himself. The level of education reflected in Paul’s letters – even before one observes Paul’s own use of speech-in-character – makes it plausible that he received instruction in these subjects. Thus, reading Romans in terms of προσωποποιία offers a strong reading from a literary-historical perspective.

In a 1995 article, Stanley Stowers argues that Rom 7:7–8:2 should be understood as speech-in-character or προσωποποιία.4 Also, in Stowers’ main opus, A Rereading of Romans, he argues that the imaginary conversation of 2:1–5, 3:1–9, and 3:31–4:2 ‘is best read with this ancient rhetorical technique of speech-in-character’.5 In general, I fully agree with this observation. However, whereas Stowers switches back and forth between a Gentile and a Jewish interlocutor for Paul, I stick to a Gentile interlocutor throughout, because it provides a more consistent and coherent reading of Romans. In the following pages, I will explain the theoretical background of speech-in-character, and why it makes more sense to stick with a single interlocutor throughout Romans. There are good theoretical reasons for sticking with the same interlocutor, and good exegetical reasons. Ultimately, the results of sticking to a single interlocutor are a more conceivable interlocutor who stands out as a definite persona, and a stronger interpretation of Romans in terms of continuity, unity, and coherence.