Der Philipperbrief des Paulus. Eve-Marie Becker

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ How history-writing “manipulates” letter-writing

      In his portrait of Seneca, Tacitus does not seem to be interested in mentioning the philosopher as a literary author (but see ann 12.8.2). In fact, the historian never characterizes Seneca as a letter-writer.1 However, Ker shows how Tacitus, within and even beyond depicting Seneca in his historiographical writings, “appropriated many words, phrases, colors, and thoughts from the writings of Seneca … Tacitus makes intertextual allusions to Seneca that are not robotic but creative, integrating Seneca’s language and thought into his own work” (p. 314). Such a literary principle of an imitative remodeling is reflected by Seneca himself (ep mor 84.5Senecaep mor84,5). How does Tacitus make sense of it? In various Tacitean writings, for instance, ep mor 70Senecaep mor70 is echoed and remodeled (see ann 15Tacitusann15.57Tacitusann15,57 and ep mor 70.19ff.Senecaep mor70,19ff.; ann 15.61f.Tacitusann15,61f. and ep mor 70.5, 27Senecaep mor70,27Senecaep mor70,5) without being mentioned as such. Ker even goes so far as to claim that “Tacitus infuses his Senecan episodes with the complexity of Seneca’s writing, both as a stylistic and conceptual reservoir and as a form of communication that served as a component of the historical Seneca’s actions” (p. 316). Ep mor 70Senecaep mor70, which reflects the “different factors influencing one’s deliberation about suicide” (J. Ker, p. 324), certainly becomes important for how Tacitus depicts the report of Seneca’s exitus (ann 15.61f.Tacitusann15,61f.; ep mor 70.5Senecaep mor70,5, 27Senecaep mor27). In ann 15.62.1, it is not only Seneca’s literary work as such but rather his “life and … the lessons of his writings” that Tacitus alludes to as an exemplar (J. Ker, p. 324).

      Moreover, Tacitus provides a variety of allusions to Seneca’s writing without quoting them or making them explicitly visible to his readers. One reason for this must be that Tacitus does not want to quote literary works2 since he considers them to be already known to the public. In ann 15Tacitusann15.63.3Tacitusann15,63,3 Tacitus explains this very phenomenon to his readers: instead of reciting the ultimate discourse Seneca dictates to his secretaries shortly before his death, Tacitus refrains “from modifying” since it “has been given to the public in his own words” (… in vulgus edita eius verbis invertere supersedeo).3

      As indicated earlier, Luke alludes several times to Pauline letters in and beyond Acts 2005Apg20:105Apg20,18ff.05Apg20,18ff. We could even see in the very end of Acts, in 28:3105Apg28,31 (παρρησία) an echo of Paul’s language used in Philippians (Phil 1:20; but also: 2 Cor 3:12082 Kor03,12; 7:4). In terms of semantics and specific motifs, Paul’s letter to the Philippians stands clear behind Acts 20:18ff. By not quoting the letter, and by not mentioning it explicitly, Luke does not only leave out valuable information – something different, “manipulative” is going on when letters are reproduced in the frame of history-writing: first, Luke would presuppose the Pauline letters to have reached public status. They are disseminated already and cannot be reproduced as “letters,” but rather within speeches. Second, letters in history-writing, best described as “insertion letters,” per se have a different function: they are either fictitious texts, or they are used (or rephrased) for documentary purpose (e.g., Acts 15:2305Apg15,23b-29; Tacitus, ann 14.11Tacitusann14,11).4 In other words: it is the ancient culture of literary activity as such which prevents Luke (and Tacitus) from documenting “real literary” letters and inserting them into history-writing. However, to ignore Paul as letter-writer also has consequences for how Luke reproduces Paul: third, since Luke consciously wants to reshape the image of the apostle, he remodels the “epistolary Paul” as “free speaking Paul.” While the apostle in his letter to the Philippians says farewellAbschiedsrede(n) to a Macedonian community by epistolary means, indeed as a prisoner, the Lukan Paul gives a speech in Asia Minor. He speaks as a free man and, only in Acts, is Paul able to present his “apostolic” selfSelbst, self, selfhood-understanding to a community delegation of Christ-believers. It is hardly accidental then that only in Acts 20:18ff.05Apg20,18ff. can Paul do what he normally does in his letters: address Christ-believing communities.

      By tremendously re-shaping the image of Paul, Luke himself chooses how much and what kind of Pauline thinking he wants to preserve and to carry forward. At the same time, Luke’s compositional technique cannot simply be seen as contingent or arbitrary. It seems to me that – as stated above – to Luke three principles are decisive when composing (especially the speeches in) Acts: Luke’s image of Paul is based on (a) eyewitness reports, (b) contemporary, evaluative images of the apostle which Luke shares with his audience(s), and (c) Paul’s letter-writing as such. In a conceptual sense then, what Luke does with Paul is not so different to the way Tacitus “manipulates” the image of Seneca as a literary author.

      3. Some conclusions for the interpretation of Paul’s letter to the Philippians

      Acts 2005Apg20 and Paul’s letter to the Philippians share a lot of semantics and motifs. Luke probably used Philippians when composing the farewellAbschiedsrede(n) speech in ch. 20. Could, however, Luke’s reception of Philippians also illuminate our understanding of the letter – could the phenomenon of intertextuality lead to mutual illuminations of both texts (without necessarily playing themselves out in a kind of a circular argument)? Luke’s supposed reception of Philippians can reveal some intriguing insights, not only into Luke’s compositional technique but also into the early history of reading and interpreting Philippians. Let me conclude with some brief reflections.

      (a) As pointed out earlier, Luke does not and cannot see himself limited to sources such as Paul’s letters, for instance the letter to the Philippians, when composing a speech or a farewellAbschiedsrede(n) scene. He has to consider other sources of information as well (s. above). His interpretive task is to combine and reconcile diverse, partly divergent types of sources and to satisfy his reading audience. This view on Luke might shed interesting light on the (authoritative) status of Pauline epistolography (Philippians included) in the end of the 1^st century.

      (b) In light of Acts 2005Apg20:105Apg20,18ff.05Apg20,18ff., Paul’s letter to the Philippians seems to be perceived by Luke as a farewellAbschiedsrede(n) discourse since the historian draws on it to a remarkable extent. The debate about Philippians’s literary genre and rhetorical purpose (see J. ReumannReumann, John) might be enriched by comparing Philippians to Acts 20:18ff.05Apg20,18ff. and by observing how the letter was read and interpreted by Luke.

      (c) Having said this, we will also have to make crucial distinctions between both texts. Even though Acts 2005Apg20:105Apg20,18ff.05Apg20,18ff. and Philippians are close in terms of semantics and motifs, and even though both texts might share conceptual features of ancient farewellAbschiedsrede(n) discourse literature, significant differences come to light: first, Acts 20:18ff.05Apg20,18ff. contains a farewell speech, which is pretty close to farewell discourses which we know from the Jewish world (s. above), while Philippians entails consoling motifs also, which rather derive from consoling literature of the Greco-Roman world.1 Second, Luke’s overall purpose of presenting Paul in ch. 20 is apologetic; in his letter-writing to the Philippians, in contrast, Paul intends to implement mimetic ethics. Third, while the epistolary setting has an ethical purpose in Philippians, it widely serves an apologetic purpose in Acts 20:18ff.05Apg20,18ff. Luke transforms the ethical teacher Paul, whom he finds in Philippians, and Paul’s legacy therein, into the paradigm of a Christ-believing witness who practices apologiaἀπολογία, apologia.ἀπολογία, apologiaSelbst, self, selfhood2 As such a paradigm of an “apologist,” the Lukan Paul finally appears as a moral example: accordingly, the reader might understand in a new way, and indeed different to Phil 2:3, what ταπεινοφροσύνη and παρρησία are about.

      (d) In his perception of Philippians, Luke sees himself no longer bound to address any specific congregation: In Acts 2005Apg20 he rather remodels early Christian topography in a quite complex way (MacedoniaMakedonien/Macedonia, EphesusEphesus, MiletusMilet(us)). Luke is obviously less СКАЧАТЬ