Der Philipperbrief des Paulus. Eve-Marie Becker

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ I would avoid the use of the term “literary dependence” when describing Luke’s way of “using” Pauline letter-writing. As I intend to show in this paper, the relation between Acts and Pauline epistolography is much more complex – as the general principles of how Luke (re)shapes the image of Paul in Acts are much more diverse (s. below). Second, in contrast to how Buitenwerf in his interpretation of Acts largely repeats the long lasting prejudice that “as historiography, Acts is not very reliable” (p. 61), I would argue, instead, that – seen specifically in light of ThucydidesThukydides/Thucydides1,22’ methodological reflections mentioned above – Luke’s attempt to reshape rather than to record Paul by creative means has to be seen as an authenticating strategy. This is especially true when Luke presents Paul as an orator and creates speeches that cannot be verbatim reports, and thus are hardly “historically precise” – because Luke has to rely on various, manifold, and partly divergent kinds of “sources.” Luke in fact reproduces Paul. Luke himself would consider this way of (re)shaping Paul to be the most accurate depiction of the apostle’s life and mission (deeds and words). Reshaping rather than recording the “past” is how historians – especially within speech sections – claim to achieve historiographical accuracy.

      In a manner similar to how ThucydidesThukydides/Thucydides1,22 describes the principles of historiographical speech-making, therefore, Luke has to be reproductive. He has to combine, reshape and interpret what were most likely oral reports or testimonies, contemporary images of Paul, and the Pauline letter-writing in a meaningful sense. As a historian, Luke recalls and revisits Paul as a protagonist of his historiographical account, indeed adequately, and this means from his, i.e. Luke’s, interpretive point of view. By programmatically reproducing the image of Paul, Luke uses (a) eyewitness reports (“How was Paul remembered as an orator?”), (b) contemporary, evaluative images of the apostle (“From the perspective of later decades, what did Paul actually contribute to the mission and expansion of the gospel message?”) as much as (c) Paul’s own literary products (that is, his letter-writing).

      Such a revising Lukan approach to “Paul” is – as I argue – in particular to be found in Acts 2005Apg20:18ff.05Apg20,18ff. The image of Paul here must be the creative result of Luke’s consultation and reproduction of the diversity of “sources” he could examine. As I have indicated elsewhereDemut7 Acts 20:18ff.05Apg20,18ff. contains a variety of motifs and literary devices that make it highly plausible to imagine an intertextual relation between Acts and Paul’s letter to the Philippians. First, the motif of Pauline humility (ταπεινοφροσύνη: Acts 20:1905Apg20,19; see Phil 2:3), related to a concept of service (δουλεύειν: Acts 20:19; see Phil 1:1; 2:7, 22) performed amid tearstear(s)Träne(n) (δάκρυοι: Acts 20:19; see Phil 3:18-21), presents an inventory of semantics that is typical, if not specific of Philippians – especially since the term ταπεινοφροσύνη only occurs once in the authentic Pauline letters (Phil 2:3). Also Luke’s mention of elders/presbyters (Acts 20:2805Apg20,28; Phil 1:1: “bishops and deacons”) and “praying” (Acts 20:3605Apg20,36; Phil 1:9) interconnects both texts. Second, Luke draws on metaphors which he finds in Philippians. The motif of δέσμοι (Acts 20:22f.05Apg20,22f.; Phil 1:7, 13ff.; in both texts used as a metaphor) and the agonistic metaphor of running (Acts 20:2405Apg20,24; Phil 3:13f.) pick up Paul’s language and terminology used particularly in this letter. Third, in terms of its personal or even emotional tone Acts 20:18ff.05Apg20,18ff. takes up the general narrative outline of Philippians which presupposes a cordial friendship of Paul and his audience (reflected in Acts 20:37f.05Apg20,37f.). Fourth, we can identify in both texts similar concepts of the Pauline “selfSelbst, self, selfhood”: Carl R. Holladay points out in regard to Acts 20:2405Apg20,24 how Paul’s way of valuing “one’s own life … transcendentally rather than self-referentially is a firmly established Pauline sentiment (Phil 1:18-26) that resonates with the Lukan Jesus” (see Lk 9:23ff.03Lk09,23ff.; 12:2303Lk12,23; 14:2603Lk14,26; 17:3303Lk17,33).8

      The close intertextual relation between Acts 2005Apg20 and Philippians does not exclude the possibility of Luke having various other Pauline letters in his mind.5Apg20,33f.071 Kor09071 Kor09,12ff.05Apg20,35071 Kor08,12082 Kor08,8f.05Apg09,79 Rather, the observation of intertextual relations between Acts and Philippians – here and at other places (e.g., Acts 16:1005Apg16,10 and Phil 4:15) – leads to the question: what does Luke do with Philippians? Does he allude to it, does he intentionally create echoes, or does he merely quote Pauline language? And why does the auctor ad Theophilum neither mention the (epistolary) source behind the speech nor Pauline letter-writing as such?Jerusalem05Apg15,2305Apg23,2505Apg23,3310 Does letter-writing in Paul’s case have a bad connotation? Or does Luke, for whatever reason, simply want to ignore Pauline letter-writing as such, and/or Philippians in particular?

      2. Conceptual analogies? Tacitus’s depiction of Seneca in and beyond ann 12-15

      Tacitusann12-15By entering the field of ancient historiography another time, we might learn more about Luke’s concept of reproducing Paul rather than recording him. We will, for now, look at the field of early imperial historiography, specifically at Tacitus’s reproduction of Seneca. Here we can study, first, how a historian remodels the image of a historical agent who may well also be a letter-writer, and, second, how historiography transforms, or “manipulates” letter-writing.

      In Tacitus’s ann 12-15Tacitusann12-15 we find the most comprehensive Tacitean engagement with Seneca. This section contains his only explicit references to the philosopher.Tacitusann12-151 Ann 12-15Tacitusann12-15 comprises the first mentioning of Seneca (12.8.2Tacitusann12,8,2) – as being remitted by Agrippina of banishment – up to the philosopher’s suicide (15.60-64Tacitusann15,60-64). James Ker2 has demonstrated how Tacitus all the way through depicts Seneca in a “Tacitean portrait” (p. 305), indeed, both, in his deeds or historical achievements as a statesman and in his literary activities. In terms of, both the philosopher’s image as well as the reception of his works, ann 15Tacitusann15.60-64Tacitusann15,60-64 seems to be the “hermeneutical key” to Tacitus’s interpretation of Seneca. How does Ker in general describe the profile of the “Tacitean Seneca?”

      2.1. Remodeling the image of Seneca as a historical agent in ann 12-15

      Tacitusann12-15According to Ker (a) the Tacitean portrait of Seneca is always characterized by incidents “Tacitus does not mention” (p. 307); (b) Tacitus’s “entire narrative on Seneca exhibits the tendency toward an ‘audience-based’ portrait …, incorporating the conflicting judgments of several internal audiences” (p. 308); (c) Seneca’s character is “pulled in different directions by certain structural pressures in the Annals” (p. 308); (d) already Tacitus’s “first mention of Seneca … introduces many motifs that will recur …” (ann 12.8.2Tacitusann12,8,2; p. 313).

      (e) We might add to this list of compositional principles, which Tacitus follows when reproducing “Seneca,” the fact that the historian, especially in the part on the Neronic time (ann 13-16Tacitusann13-16), frequently makes use of forerunning historians like Cluvius Rufus (e.g., 14.2.1Tacitusann14,2,1), Fabius Rusticus (15.61.3; 13.20.2; 14.2.2) and Pliny the Elder (15.33.3) – these authors are most likely to be Tacitus’s “triad of sources” (Quellentrias; e.g., 13.30).Tacitusann151 The bonds to his sources impact the way in which Tacitus creates his story. Even though he has shown earlier in his Annals a critique of F. Rusticus who was, from Tacitus’s perspective, much too close a friend of Seneca (ann 13.20.2), he might follow F. Rusticus (ann 15Tacitusann15.61.3Tacitusann15,61,3) especially in the report of Seneca’s death (ann 15.60-64Tacitusann15,60-64), and hereby accept the pro-Senecan tendencies which he finds here. The overall portrait of Seneca in the Annals is thus not fully cohesive (see, e.g., ann 15.60.2Tacitusann15,60,2 versus 15.45.3Tacitusann15,45,3).

      To СКАЧАТЬ