[B-Greek] Ro 7.7-25: autobiography or speech in character?

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Mar 6 12:36:41 EST 2003


> While researching an unrelated topic, I ran across an article by Stanley
> K. Stowers entitled "Romans 7.7-25 as a Speech-in-Character
> (PROSWPOPOIIA)." (_Paul in his Hellenistic Context_, ed. Troels
> Engberg-Pedersen, pp 180-202.) Stowers argues that Paul's speech in Ro 7
> about the conflict between the law of the mind and the law of the flesh
> is not actually a description of his own struggles, but rather the
> standard Greco-Latin rhetorical device of proswpopoiia, speaking in the
> character of a gentile who has gone from paganism to Judaism to
> Christianity.
>
> However, Stowers' argument fails on one key point: he does not present
> any evidence of the use of implicit proswpopoiia in written,
> non-narrative texts. As far as I am aware, whenever proswpopoiia is used
> in non-narrative texts (e.g. philosophical dialogs), the non-authorial
> voices are introduced explicitly. I find it hard to believe that Paul
> would introduce a non-authorial voice in an epistle without explicit
> indication.
>
> So I'd appreciate the opinion of those who have more experience reading
> Greek texts than I do (which would be everybody here :->). Does it seem
> plausible or probable to you that Paul is speaking "in character" here?

Douglass Moo (NIC - Romans) in his note 12 on p. 427 follows Theissen in
suggesting three possible uses of "I":
(1) Personal - depicting one's own experience
(2) Typical - one's own experience as typical of others
(3) Fictive - no personal reference is intended

He gives a number of references both within the NT and outside which I am
not going to copy here.

However, I am not convinced that Paul's use of "I" here is necessarily any
one of those three. I rather think he is using (3) in combination with

(4) Polite - I appear to be talking about myself, but I am in fact rebuking
you, the hearer. My reason for using "I" rather than "you" is in order not
to offend you. I hope you still get what I am driving at. (When Paul
commends his hearers, he will always use "you").

In my understanding this is what Paul is doing in Gal 2:18 where he is
rebuking Peter for retreating back to life under the Law. Paul says "If I
rebuild what I destroyed I prove to be a law breaker."
Paul had no intention of rebuilding that which he had "destroyed", but
appears to use the "I" as hypothetically himself, but at the same time - and
not hypothetically - as an indirect reference to his hearer. He is saying to
Peter: You are rebuilding what I thought you had agreed was already
"destroyed".

Likewise, I think Paul is using "I" in Romans 7 partly as a hypothetical
person, partly as an indirect reference to his audience, those (Christian?)
Jews who wanted to live under the Law (without the power of the Spirit). The
summary in 7:24-25 seems to describe that kind of person quite well: "A
slave to the Law in my (his) mind, but a slave to sin in my (his)
body/flesh". But whoever finds himself in that wretched situation can be
delivered through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

So, it does seem to be the case that the Greek EGW has a wider usage than
the English "I", at least wider than option (1). Actually, the polite "I" is
probably found in many languages and cultures. Is it not common to say "I
would not have done that" where the intended meaning is "You should not have
done that"?

Iver Larsen



More information about the B-Greek mailing list