Читать книгу Paul Among the Gentiles: A "Radical" Reading of Romans - Jacob P. B. Mortensen - Страница 41

From the observations discussed above, I find it difficult to overestimate the importance of the persuasive persona of the imaginary interlocutor that Paul constructs through the literary device of προσωποποιία. This persuasive mask that Paul constructs and shapes, informs the letter in such a way that it has a deliberate and calculated effect on the addressees in the specific and final paraenesis (Rom 14–15). In short, Paul applies the rhetorical device of προσωποποιία for a reason. All the elements Paul brings into play (background, emotions, history, concerns, ethnicity, religion, status, etc.) cumulatively contribute to the calculated creation of a persuasive persona and character. The language may sometimes reflect an artificial, exaggerated, or rhetorical position of enunciation, as though uttered from a stereotypical (Jewish) worldview, without the warmth of actual flesh and blood. The convincing and realistic tone may be lacking at times, but there is sufficient realism in the presentation to win our sympathy. At times the language may be monotonous, and may border on the excessively rhetorical, but it is equally clear and soothing. It may also be artificial. But in 7:7–25, the very artificiality of the passage bestows on it a lasting quality, and it realizes the message. Consequently, what may be lost by reason of its being a ‘stereotype on steroids’, in language removed from ordinary life, is gained from the pleasant style. Thus, we should evaluate Paul’s use of προσωποποιία based on its communication of a certain message and presentation of a certain ethnic, religious, and social person. Even more importantly than this, we should not feel forced to choose between literature and life, between rhetoric and realism. We may enjoy a ‘speech-in-character’ as a clever and brilliant treatment of a (literary, ethical, religious, ethnic) theme enriched with enough of the human touch to suggest to the reader the illusion of an actual individual. Paul’s stereotypical, religio-ethnic persona no doubt interests us as a literary figure. But even this characterization possesses qualities that give him a semblance of realism: The religio-ethnic Gentile is cocksure, boastful, calculating, impenitent, arrogant, bookish, double-tongued, a braggart, a windbag, and a wiseacre (cf. 2:1–24; 7:7–8:2). He is such a complete failure that he becomes untrustworthy and exaggerated, as did the stereotypical account of the Gentiles in 1:18–32, who did not just do one tiny thing wrong, but did everything wrong. At the same time he is also dedicated, interested, devoted, understanding, remorseful, penitent, happy, and overexcited (3:1–9; 7:7–8:2). Thus, we find it easier to identify with him. This also means that his literary and rhetorical persona reaches beyond the confines of the textual borders, and all these rhetorical and realistic features help Paul to communicate his message.

As a final consideration, we may evaluate the ‘actual’ speech-in-character in 7:7–8:2. This is a highly rhetorical piece, both in its ostensible persuasiveness, and in its mode of expression. This follows naturally from the fundamental purpose of communication: Paul demonstrates and comments on a certain way in which his letter as a text can negotiate relationships, and mediate between writer and reader, concerning the difficult question of identity. He presents two different perspectives – his own and the Gentile interlocutor’s – and facilitates a fictive dialogue. Thus, the purpose is revealed as not merely persuasion, but also the engendering of a response from, and a sense of identification in the addressees. Consequently, Paul combines rhetoric with confession, in order to create a persuasive paraenesis (cf. Rom 12–15); he frames the experiences of the addressees – actual, stereotypical, or exaggerated – through the devices of rhetoric and confession, in order to achieve his interventional goal in the paraenetic part of the letter. At the general level of discourse, he combines persuasion and paraenesis – the fundamentals of deliberative rhetoric. He presents them as synonymous processes, or as cumulative and consecutive processes. And as a paraenetic text with an overtly persuasive agenda, Romans establishes this overlap as it achieves persuasive paraenesis at the personal (confessional) level of the encoded reader/audience (in 7:7–25), and also (and more importantly) at the level of the actual, historical, Roman addressees.