Prosopopoeia (speech in character) in Romans 7?
For a fuller discussion see my more developed post on Romans 7.
I’ll comment on what I think about this later, and what exactly might be the implications of such a reading, but just wanted to throw the material out for preliminary reference:
Eurepides’ Medea:
“Ah, me! a wretched suffering woman I! O would that I could die!”
“Oh, oh! Would that Heaven’s levin bolt would cleave this head in twain! What gain is life to me? Woe, woe is me! O, to die and win release, quitting this loathed existence!”
“This one brief day forget thy children dear, and after that lament; for though thou wilt slay them yet they were thy darlings still, and I am a lady of sorrows.”
Seneca’s Medea:
“Why, soul, dost hesitate? Why are my cheeks wet with tears? Why do anger and love now hither, now thither draw my changeful heart? A double tide tosses me, uncertain of my course; as when rushing winds wage mad warfare, and from both sides conflicting floods lash the seas and the fluctuating waters boil, even so is my heart tossed. Anger puts love to flight, and love, anger. O wrath, yield thee to love.”
“Why dost thou delay now, O soul? Why hesitate, though thou canst do it? Now has my wrath died within me. I am sorry for my act, ashamed.”
“What, wretched woman, have I done? wretched, say I? Though I repent, yet have I done it!”
Romans 7
“For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate . . . So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.”
“For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.”
“Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”
Tags: Medea, Pauline studies, prosopopoeia, Romans
History, Theology | Christopher Kou | 
March 19, 2008 9:34 AM
Subscribe
i was just glad that i understood the text in the NIV translation. now i'm suppossed to understand the style?Why would I need to? i ask that because there must be a reason to know the style. It is merely for intrepreting books that were to be selected for the Bible or to be rejected? Could it be to find out how they wrote and looked at things in the 1st Cntury?.Why is it important? Id like to know. I'm fairly intelluctual. Why?
Oh, don't worry. I'm certainly not questioning the validity or authority of the text. Only taking a look at the possibility that Paul was deliberately using the literary device of speech-in-character to make a specific point to the Roman congregation, who would have been extremely well-versed in the Medea, both of Euripides and Seneca, as well as many other similar passages in repertoire of the Greek stage.
Ii did not think that you were questioning anything. I only thought that possibly we'd need to know that speech in character method if a person was one of the early Bible translators. i did not mean you. nor was i accusing you of anything, only asking to get understanding. It is weird to think that people of that day understodd differently than we do today, and vise versa. But i do not know those other words that you used, so I still ask the question is it important to understand that "p" word that you used and if so how will it benefit my understanding of the Bible? Thank you for educating me on this stuff. Though i studied the Bible for 14 years,Ii never looked at anything in this way so it is very interesting. I just did not understand why it was important to know. Please educate me more about this "P" word or literary styles, if you have time. unless you feel that you did n your comment. i will look further into the words Medea, Euripides and Seneca.
Well, prosopopoiia is a rhetorical device used in Greek literature. It's speech-in-character. It was part of the basic rhetoric curriculum of the 1st century Greco-Roman world. Basically, when an author or speaker employs prosopopoiia he dramatically takes on a particular character who is understood not to be the author or speaker. He might use the device to make or to emphasize a point, perhaps for instance speaking or writing in the voice and role of oppressed slaves in order to argue against their oppression.If Paul is employing the rhetorical device of prosopoiia in Romans 7, then the "O wretched man" passage is not autobiographical, but written in the voice of a third party in order to emphasize a point Paul is making.I do intend to comment on this reading in the near future, so stay tuned.
Good stuff, Christopher. A couple of thoughts. First, is it possible that, as a Jew, Paul is using the style both to reach a Greco-Roman audience, while offering an autobiographical image as well? Since the ancient Hebrew mind thinks in terms of plurality of meaning/picture/sign, then Paul might be using a rhetorical device common to his audience, but also providing the audience with "his" story. I like where you are going with this though. Paul uses Greek rhetorical devices in his Mars Hill apologia, so why couldn't he use it here?
Second, and related point: Christians often turn to Rom. 7 in times of repentance and after having been confronted with sin, as a reminder of the goodness of God and the wickedness of man–and most importantly the deliverance found in Jesus (vs. 24-25). It is sometimes read as if it were the New Testament's Psalm 51. From a pastoral perspective, this is a very good thing, I think. However, one might say that this passage is only autobiographical in the sense that it is autobiographical for any person being taught out and brought out of Judaism into Christ. I don't think it's autobiographical in the sense that Paul is writing it as a Christian. He's writing it as a Jewish Christian. But, I like to have my cake and eat it to. So I think it can be autobiographical in one sense but without losing it's timeless pastoral emphasis in the slightest.
David,I agree, Romans 7 should lose no part of its pastoral value by placing one's reading of the passage in a historical context. It may, however, change the nuances and the focus of what the pastoral use of the passage should be.I don't believe that Paul here is speaking of Jews at all. There is too much about the passage that seems very incongruent with what a Jew might say. For instance, what Jew would make the statement, "I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came"? What Jew would say that there was a time when he was not under the law?It seem more that the passage is written from the perspective (character) of one who did not know the law, but then learned it, and though acknowledging that it was good and right, found in himself no power to obey it.The key to the passage, I believe, is the contrast Paul makes in this section and surrounding sections between "flesh" and "Spirit."
EXHORTATION:V.5 "For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death."V.6 "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code."PROSOPOPOIIA:V.14 "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin."V.18 "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh."V.24 "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"EXHORTATION:Chapter 8V.9 "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you."Hehe. I am sort of telegraphing my next follow-up post here, but oh well. I'll just have to be even more detailed in the next one. I, of course, did not come up with any of this. I'll disclose my sources in the next post.
Convincing arguments, Chris. So is Paul addressing Jews in 7.1 ("for I speak to them that know the law")? Your third paragraph in your response to me, could be applied to every Jew in an epistemological sense. In other words, every Jew became aware of the law and his lack of power to obey it at some point, in his Judaism–so one interpretation of this section of Ch.7 is that Paul is writing from the vantage point of the Jew seeing the "horrible dawn." I am enjoying your posting here immensely. Where does Paul resolve Platonic dualism?
The Platonic dualism apparent in the section is another reason I think it is unlikely that Paul is speaking "in character" of a Jew. That kind of dualism is characteristic not of Jews but of Greeks, who would have been quite familiar with similar texts in their literature and everyday entertainment. Also, I am not convinced that the epistemological "horrible dawn" can sufficiently explain the wording in v.9.I don't think that Paul is speaking primarily to Jews. "Those who know the law" does not necessarily refer to Jews. I believe the explanation that fits the text best is that Paul is speaking to Gentile God-fearers who have become Christians. The Platonic dualistic dilemma was theirs while they acknowledged the goodness of the law but had no power to keep it while "of the flesh, sold under sin." That is why he employs the rhetorical device of prosopopoiia to vividly portray their existence in the flesh before being set free by the "law of the Spirit of life."
A resident of the city of Rome (or any other Greco-Roman city) would have immediately connected Paul's words with similar passages from their contemporary literature. That was their pop culture. The allusion would be as apparent to them as it would be to us if someone wrote the words "there is no spoon."
He might not be speaking *primarily* to the Jews, but to a mixed congregation including a good number of converted Jews (Ch. 2, 4:1, 9:24). The Jews of Paul's day were probably as affected by Greco-Roman philosophy as we are, especially the ones in Rome. And we can use both Greek dualism and Hebrew picture-telling with the same mind as they could have. I say that only to point out that if Paul is addressing himself to Jewish Christians, it does not negatively affect your prosopopoiia study.
Hmmm . . . I do have my doubts about the mixed congregation because of both internal and external evidence. I wasn't really going to go into the constitution of the Roman congregation, but I suppose I might touch on it in my next post. You're right though. A prosopopoiia reading doesn't demand an primarily Gentile audience.
Chris, I would like to continue this discussion regarding the internal/external evidence–if you could point me in the direction. Either here or via email "dmhouf…at…gmail…dot com"
Well, the two best sources for the all-Gentile audience of Romans position are Stanley Stowers' "Rereading Romans" and A. Andrew Das' "Solving the Romans Debate." Das's book is written after Stowers', so offers some helpful correctives and clarifications. Both explore the prosopopoiia reading of Romans 7. Both also deal with the question of the "Jewish direct diatribal address" in Romans 2.Also Thomas Schreiner has some helpful material in his commentary on Romans.I don't mind discussing at all, but since I would probably (at least at first) be mostly restating what Das has already written, it might make more sense for you to check out the book and then we can discuss from that base.BTW, Das was my Pauline studies professor in college, so we've discussed this at length over several occasions. I have a somewhat different reading of Romans 11 than he does, but I think I agree with him on Romans 7 and regarding the audience of the epistle.
Oh, and in regards to internal/external evidence, my view on that in general is that internal evidence (the text itself) must be the first and primary key to its own interpretation. Secondarily would be other Biblical texts, with the caveat that some Biblical authors do use similar language to speak of different things.External evidence is tertiary, but far from irrelevant, since it provides us with the historical context. It is of course necessary to take the historical contexts into account if we want to be careful of the caveat in secondary Biblical sources.
[...] will be seeking to demonstrate here that Paul’s use of the first person is a prosopopoeia (speech in character) from the perspective of an preregenerate person, and specifically a Gentile [...]