Alicia D. Myers, «Prosopopoetics and Conflict: Speech and Expectations in John 8», Vol. 92 (2011) 580-596
This article explores the conflict of John 8 within the larger context of the Gospel and in the light of the ancient rhetorical practice of prosopopoiia: the creation of speech for characters. These speeches add to the credibility of a narrative by being «appropriate» for both the person speaking and the situation in which the speech is given. Although perhaps not prosopopoiia in the traditional sense of speeches from Greek histories, this essay argues that the Gospel nevertheless includes prosopopoetics by creating appropriate, albeit unnerving, words for Jesus that elevate the audience and add to the persuasiveness of the work.
Biblica_1_Layout 1 20/01/12 11:44 Pagina 586
586 ALICIA D. MYERS
of course, knows that what Callirhoe says is true and it is consistent
with her “proud†character. Although these words would be inappro-
priate for a slave, they point to Callirhoe’s true identity and even en-
dear her to Dionysius who, instead of becoming angry at her outburst,
reportedly “admired her spiritâ€. The encounter sparks Dionysius’s
love, which drives the plot of the novel forward as Dionysius and
Chaereas soon struggle over their claims for Callirhoe.
Similar examples exist in Jewish literature from the milieu as well.
Although not necessarily rhetorically trained, Jewish authors never-
theless made use of rhetorical techniques they picked up from their
larger environment. Commenting on such a fact, D.L. Stamps argues
that rhetoric can be understood as a “ ‘universal’ influence upon com-
munication conventions in the Greco-Roman world, including Pales-
tine†18. Others — such as D. Daube and S. Liebermann — have
previously noticed connections between rabbinic middoth and Greco-
Roman rhetorical practices, particularly synkrisis 19. The flexibility and
importance of prosopopoetics translates into Jewish literature as well.
Philo crafts long speeches for Moses as God’s chosen prophet-king 20
and the author of Joseph and Aseneth uses Aseneth’s long prayers to
illustrate the sincerity of her conversion 21. As in the example from
18
D.L. STAMPS, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament as
a Rhetorical Deviceâ€, Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament (ed.
S.E. PORTER) (Grand Rapids, MI 2006) 25.
19
D. DAUBE, Rhetorical Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhe-
toricâ€, HUCA 22 (1949) 251, 259; S. LIEBERMANN, Hellenism in Jewish Pa-
lestine (TS 18; New York 1962) 59-61. Also see P. ALEXANDER, “Quid Athenis
et Hierosolymis? Rabbinic Midrash and Hermeneutics in the Graeco-Roman
Worldâ€, A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature
and History (eds., P.R. DAVIES – R.T. WHITE) (JSOTSup 100; Sheffield 1990)
115, 117; B.L. VITOSKY, “Midrash, Christian Exegesis, and Hellenistic Her-
meneuticâ€, Current Trends in the Study of Midrash (ed. C. BAKHOS) (JSJSup
106; Leiden 2006) 121-125.
20
Philo, Mos. 1.54-57; 1.173-175; 1.201-203; cf. imitation aspect in Mos.
1.158; cf. On Abr. 1.4-5; Somn. 1.176; 2.134.
21
The quick quips in 5.12 fit Aseneth’s description as “arrogant†in 2.1,
which contrast her conversion prayers. In these prayers, her words (in addition
to her appearance) highlight her humility (11.3-14.16-18). In fact, although
she is the same one who had been so quick to comment before, Aseneth prays
by speaking “in her heart without opening her mouth†to further underscore her
humble state. Only in 12.1-13.12 does Aseneth finally speak out loud to God,
only after she has contemplated her wretched state in comparison to Joseph
FOLLOW US