Prosopological Exegesis (1): Overview

What is it? And, more importantly, why should anyone care? Well, for one thing, it just might explain how and why Paul uses the OT in the way that he does.

Prosopological exegesis (PE) is a technique of interpreting Scripture common in the early church. As Matthew W. Bates describes it, PE “explains a text by suggesting that the author of the text identified various persons or characters (prosopa) as speakers or addressees in a pre-text, even though it is not clear from the pre-text itself that such persons are in view” (The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation, 183). By “text,” Bates refers to “any specific instance in which a NT author, such as Paul, directly cites the scriptures” (53), while a “pre-text” means “a specific textual source that the NT author utilized” (54). Thus, when Paul cites Hab 2:4b LXX in Rom 1:17, Rom 1:17 is the text and Hab 2:4b LXX is the pre-text.

According to Bates, the first study of the use of PE in the early church was carried out by the German scholar Carl Andresen in his article “Zur Entstehung und Geschichte des trinitarischen Personbegriffes,” ZNW 52 (1961): 1-39. Andresen’s interest was piqued by Tertullian’s commentary on Gen 1:26 (“let us make man in our image”), which he understood as God the Father speaking to God the Son. Tertullian (Adv. Prax. 11-13) found evidence of various members of the Trinity addressing one another throughout the OT, even in prophecies such as Isa 45:14-15, which appears to be addressed to a generic audience and not to Christ. Thus, “Tertullian believes that the prophet can speak in this manner in the words of a persona (or prosopon) not explicitly in view in the source text” (Proclamation, 186). This was not an invention of Tertullian or even of Christians more broadly (e.g., Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 36.1-2); instead, it was in fact somewhat common within pagan literary criticism, drama, and rhetoric (e.g., Heraclitus), as well as contemporary Jewish literature (e.g., Philo).

Surveying all of this literature, Bates comes up with the following technical definition for PE: “Prosopological exegesis is a reading technique whereby an interpreter seeks to overcome a real or perceived ambiguity regarding the identity of the speakers or addressees (or both) in the divinely inspired source text by assigning nontrivial prosopa (i.e., nontrivial vis-à-vis the “plain sense” of the text) to the speakers or addressees (or both) in order to make sense of the text” (Proclamation, 218).

Bates identifies the following four criteria for detecting PE within ancient literature (219-20):

(1) Speech/dialogue: the pre-text must involve a person who is speaking.

(2) Nontriviality of person: the speaker in the pre-text must be ambiguous or not identified.

(3) Introductory formulas or markers: the exegete usually (but not always) indicates in the text who (s)he believes the speaker to be.

(4) Intertextual evidence: especially in the case where (3) is absent, if contemporary or later texts use PE to interpret a given pre-text, it is more likely that the text under consideration is also using PE when interpreting the same pre-text. Bates seems to be particularly interested in this application of reception history.

Next time: does Paul use PE? An example, and its significance. See part 2 and part 3.

Advertisements

About krhughes14

Smyrna, Georgia
This entry was posted in Prosopological Exegesis and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Prosopological Exegesis (1): Overview

  1. brucelmartin says:

    Would it be fair to say, then, that all NT usage of OT as explanatory material would be considered PE? I.e., would Matthew’s “out of Egypt” reference be considered PE?

    • Greg says:

      Bruce: Great question! As someone who has read through Bates’ book, I think I’ll take a stab at answering.

      To the first question, the answer is No. Not all NT usage of the OT would be considered PE. Bates gives a couple examples, although I don’t have the book in front of me now for the exact passages (I think Romans 10:20-21 is one). It needs to meet the four criteria (especially the ambiguity in the source passage).

      I would not consider Matthew 2:15 quoting Hosea 11:1 as PE because there really is no ambiguity of who is speaking in the source passage–it is clearly God. There is a change between who “my son” refers to- but this is not PE. (There is even a change between the Hebrew MT “my son” and the Greek LXX “my children,” but this is beside the point.) I think its more of a typology (Israel as a type in the OT for the Messiah) or a fulfillment (as Matthew says to introduce the quotation). I think this even though Matthew does say “the word of the Lord through the prophet Isaiah” which would seem to introduce PE because it designates the speaker. The problem is, as I said above, the speaker is clear in the source passage. Here the meaning of the “my son” referent is changed, not the speaker.

      Feel free to disagree with my analysis here- I’m no expert! It would be nice if PE were applicable here, as this is a thorny OT in the NT passage. Unfortunately we are stuck, I think, with Matthew pulling Hosea’s words out of context.

    • Greg says:

      Bruce: I’d also add another example of an OT citation that is not PE, Ephesians 5:31 quoting Genesis 2:24. This one does not meet any of the four criteria.

  2. Pingback: Prosopological Exegesis (3): The Spirit Speaks | Early Christian Archives (τὰ ἀρχεῖα)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s