Paul as a Parrhesiastes

Sino-Christian Studies, no. 18 (2014): 9–42 Copyright © Chung Yuan Christian University ISSN: 1990-2670

Paul as a Parrhesiastes

身為直言者的保羅

謝樂知 Le-Chih (Luke) Hsieh Holy Light Theological Seminary [email protected]

投稿日期 Submitted Date: Oct. 16, 2013 接受刊登日期 Accepted Date: May. 30, 2014

Hsieh.indd 9

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:49

漢語基督教學術論評 Sino-Christian Studies

摘

要

Parrhsi, a 是希羅道德政治生活中的重要概念。當代哲學 家傅柯 (Michel Foucault) 認為這概念囊括了五個不同的構成元 素：坦率、真理、危險、批評及義務。危險中以羞辱最具威脅 性。希羅時期無論是哲學家或辯士皆十分看重Parrhsi, a ，保羅 亦不例外。他在書信中時常援用這個概念，教會是保羅實踐 Parrhsi, a 的場域。保羅以大膽和坦率的方式言傳真理，並以此 為職志，目的是為叫眾人得益處。

關鍵字： 說真話、希羅政治哲學、希羅修辭學、保羅倫理學、傅柯

10

Hsieh.indd 10

第十八期 二○一四年十二月

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:49

Hsieh: Paul as Parrhesiastes

This paper explores the concept of frank speech, its essence, its practice in the Greco-Roman world, and how it is employed by Paul in his speech-letters. This paper is divided into five sections: (1) Frank speech, as noted by Foucault, involves five different elements: frankness, truth, danger, criticism, and duty. (2) It stands in sharp contrast to the danger of shame. (3) Diogenes’ speech against Alexander epitomizes the practice of frank speech. (4) Frank speech is highly valued by Greco-Roman intellectuals who are eager to portray themselves as parrhesiastae, i.e., practitioners of frank speech. (5) Likewise, Paul presents himself as a parrhesiastes in the exordium of his speech-letters.

I. The Concept of Frank Speech Citizens in the Greek poleis regularly gathered at the agora to discuss public issues. On the day of the assembly, the herald would call out to all those who are present: “who wishes to address the assembly?” (ti,j avgoreu,ein bouletai,).1 All citizens were allowed to respond, and citizens only.2 Women, slaves, and foreigners were excluded. This equal opportunity to speak, a privilege reserved for the citizens, is called ivshgori,a.3 Often this concept of equal freedom to speak is paired with the concept of frank speech (parrhsi,a).4 The word parrhsi,a is made 1 Demosthenes, Cor. 170, 191; Aristophanes, Ach. 45; Thesm. 380; Eccl. 130; Aeschines, Tim. 23, 27. 2 Demosthenes, Cor. 273. By “everyone” Demosthenes means “citizens.” 3

Herodotus, Hist. 5.78; Isocrates, Archid. 97; Demosthenes, Rhod. lib. 18; Mid. 124; Epitaph. 28; Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 10.15.4; 10.19.1; 4.9.9; 10.26.4; 10.29.5; 7.7.5; 7.42.2; 7.44.2; 10.3.2; 10.1.2; Philo, Prob. 48.1; 49.2; 50.3; 51.3; 51.5; 52.2; 53.2. 4 Isocrates, Archid. 97; Polybius, Hist. 2.38.6; 2.42.3; 4.31.4; 6.8.4; 6.9.5. Cf. Jeffrey Henderson, “Attic Old Comedy, Frank Speech, and Democracy,” in Democracy, Empire, and

No. 18 December 2014

Hsieh.indd 11

11

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:49

漢語基督教學術論評 Sino-Christian Studies

up of two components: pan, all, and rhēsis, speech. It means to “say it all.”5 Frank speech is the freedom to say it all, whether it be to praise or blame, approve or condemn, extol or berate. And the referent of the speech can be either a fellow citizen or an official leader or a policy or the polis as a whole. Everything is permissible. Frank speech is the freedom to say whatever one has in mind, and to say it without fear. Since to meet and to debate at the assembly was one of the core obligations of the citizen, frank speech therefore became one of the essential characteristics of citizenship.6 It was an identity marker that marked out the citizen. With this perspective in mind, Euripides’ prayer becomes apprehensible: “May the sons whom I have brought into the world have a free man’s frank speech (evleu,qeroi parrhsi,a)| ” (Euripides, Hipp. 421). This same high praise for frank speech also is found in authors such as Demosthenes, who says in his memorable Funeral Speech: “Democracy has many other beautiful and just things to which those who think rightly ought to hold fast, and especially parrhsi,a from which it is impossible that the truth not be safe and sound, that the truth not be made clear” (Demosthenes, Epitaph. 26). Later in the Roman imperial period, frank speech is still regarded as one of the most precious assets of a citizen (Dio Chrysostom, 2 Tars. 39). To attain a deeper understanding of this concept, one must turn the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens, ed. Deborah Boedeker and Kurt A. Raaflaub (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 255–73. On Parrhsia: David Konstan, “Parrhesia: Ancient Philosophy in Opposition,” in Mythos and Logos: How to Regain the Love of Wisdom, ed. Albert A. Anderson, Steven V. Hicks, and Lech Witkowski (New York: Rodopi, 2004), 19–34. 5 H.-C. Hahn, “Openness, Frankness, Boldness,” NIDNTT 2:734. 6 This is true throughout Greco-Roman antiquity. Public speech and public deliberation is the occupation of off-duty soldiers. The close relationship between speech and citizenship is expressed in the Roman world through the Latin term “libertas.” Thomas N. Habinek, Ancient Rhetoric and Oratory, Blackwell Introductions to the Classical World (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2005), 2.

12

Hsieh.indd 12

第十八期 二○一四年十二月

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:49

Hsieh: Paul as Parrhesiastes

to an important text written by Michel Foucault. In his book Fearless Speech, a discussion of the concept of parrhsi,a in the Greco-Roman world, Foucault argues that parrhsi,a involves five different but related concepts: frankness, truth, danger, criticism, and duty.7 (1) Frankness. In a frank speech, the speaker speaks his mind completely and without reserve. Parrhesiastae say what they have in mind, and only what they have in mind. They speak what is their own. There is a complete identification between “the subject of the enunciation and the subject of the enunciandum (the held belief or opinion).”8 The speakers identify with their own speech, and vice versa. (2) Truth. To speak in frank speech is to speak the truth. Truth not in the sense of “I think it is true,” but that “I know that it is really true”: To my mind, the parrhesiastes says what is true because he knows that it is true; and he knows that it is true because it is really true. The parrhesiastes is not only sincere and says what is his opinion, but

his opinion is also the truth. He says what he knows to be true. The … characteristic of parrhsi,a, then, is that there is always an exact coincidence between belief and truth…. I should note that I never found any texts in ancient Greek culture where the parrhesiastes seems to have any doubts about his own possession of the truth.9

In other words, people who speak in frank speech confidently regard themselves as possessors of truth. They say it all, and they know that all that is said is true. In frank speech there is a congruency between the beliefs of the mind, the words spoken, and the truth. (3) Danger. Foucault observes that while many speak the 7 Michel Foucault, Fearless Speech (Los Angeles: MIT Press, 2001), 11–20. 8 Ibid., 13. 9 Ibid., 14.

No. 18 December 2014

Hsieh.indd 13

13

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:49

漢語基督教學術論評 Sino-Christian Studies

truth, not all are qualified as parrhesiastae. For example, teachers of mathematics and grammar in almost all circumstances speak the truth, but none of them are honored as parrhesiastae. Parrhesiastae are those who take risks in speaking the truth. Parrhsi,a speaks the truth to a friend, accepting the risk of losing the friend. It speaks the truth to the citizens despite the risk of losing popularity. In extreme cases, practicing parrhsi,a involves the risk of losing one’s life. (4) Criticism. To speak the truth and later to be harmed by that truth does not make one a parrhesiastes. For example, one may inadvertently state a fact in a court which later becomes a piece of harmful evidence against oneself. This act of truth speaking is not an act of parrhsi,a. The missing link between the two is criticism. As a parrhesiastes, one speaks the truth with the intention of criticizing the interlocutor, to point out either their deficiencies or their misdeeds. Parrhesiastae intends to challenge their interlocutors. They do not want to leave them untouched by their speech. There is always a desire to shake up the interlocutors so that they may be caught up and be transformed by the truth. (5) Duty. The one who speaks in frank speech always has the choice to remain silent. The parrhesiastes is never forced to speak. A forced speech (e.g., under torture) is not a frank speech. When the parrhesiastae speak, they speak out of duty, for the good of their friends and for the good of their community.

II. Frank Speech and Shame Frankness, truth, danger, criticism, and duty are the essential features of frank speech. “Boldness,” the usual English translation for parrhsi,a, fails to capture the complexity of this word. But “boldness” does highlight one of the most important dimensions of frank speech, and that is the need to stand up against danger. The

14

Hsieh.indd 14

第十八期 二○一四年十二月

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:49

Hsieh: Paul as Parrhesiastes

dangers that an orator might encounter during a speech were many.10 One of the most common threats was that of the qo,ruboj raised by the assembly.11 This threat is widely attested in the Greco-Roman literature. Demosthenes, for example, in his exordium pleads with his audience not to hastily raise qo,ruboj, for that may deprive them of their own advantage: Since, men of Athens, you can choose whatever you wish of what is spoken, it is fair that you listen to all of them. From the qo,ruboj when displeased, you may perhaps deprive yourselves of many useful ideas; by listening with decorum and silence you will act on every sound proposal. (Demosthenes, Exord. 4)

As powerful as Demosthenes was as an orator, he still could not avoid the disrupting and harassing qo,ruboj. This is the reason why orators often in their exordium pleaded for silence and for patience (Demosthenes, Exord. 5.2; Dio Chrysostom, 2 Tars. 2, 4, 6; Nicom. 4, 5; cf. Acts 26:3). Also, there were the threats of being violently dragged off the bema and of being stoned (cf. Acts 18:12–17). Xenophon, for example, notes that Plato’s brother Glaucon had been dragged off the bema “more than once” (Xenophon, Mem. 3.6.1). Isocrates’ speech also provides similar evidence: “in the past you Athenians have been accustomed to drive from the bema everyone except those who speak in favor of your desires” (Isocrates, De pace 3). Chrysostom notes the danger of being stoned (Dio Chrysostom, 2 Tars. 6). These threats were some of the recurrent dangers that an orator had to deal with once he decides to step up to the bema. The audience had no responsibility to stand still and to listen to the whole speech. However, threats were more than merely physical. Accompanying the noise and the violence were the humiliation and shame. Shame was 10 Robert W. Wallace, “The Power to Speak--and Not to Listen--in Anceitn Athens,” in Free Speech in Classical Antiquity, ed. I. Sluiter and R. M. Rosen (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004), 221–32. 11 Acts 17:5; 21:34; 24:18.

No. 18 December 2014

Hsieh.indd 15

15

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:50

漢語基督教學術論評 Sino-Christian Studies

the real risk that confronted the orator. Physical threats were but the

means to induce shame. This is the reason why shame is often mentioned in the context of frank speech (cf. 1 John 2:28 [scw/men parrhsi,an kai. mh. aivscunqw/ men]; 2 Cor 3:7–18; Prov 1:20–22; 13:5; cf. Rom 1:16),12 for frank speech is above all the defiance of shame or the battle against shame. As a speech against danger, and with shame being the greatest dangers of all, frank speech has always the hallmark of shamelessness. Frank speech “is a practice of openness, of a refusal to hide one’s thoughts because of a shame that would bring humiliation or disapproval in the eyes of others.”13 Shame is the force that hides and covers; whereas parrhsi,a is the force that opens and reveals. Shame and parrhsi,a are forces acting against one another. They check and balance one another. Shame is the social mechanism that restricts the deviant behaviors of a society.14 No society can exist without shame. Shame is the result of learning to gaze at oneself through the eyes of others. Through shame, community members learn which actions are appropriate and which are inappropriate. Shame is the force that 12 Philo in one of his writings contrasts aivscu,nw and parrhsi,a in terms of virtue and vice: “Let men who do injurious things be put to shame (aivscune,sqwsan), and seeking hiding places and recesses in the earth, . . . But to those who do such things as are for the common advantage (koinwfelh/), let there be freedom of speech (parrhsi,a), and let them go by day through the middle of the market place where they will meet with the most numerous crowds, to display their own manner of life in the pure sun, and to do good to the assembled multitudes by means of the principal of the outward senses, giving them to see those things the sight of which is most delightful and most impressive, and hearing and feasting upon salutary speeches which are accustomed to delight the minds even of those men who are not utterly illiterate” (Philo, Spec. 1.131). 13

Arlene W. Saxonhouse, Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 78. 14

DeSilva rightly notes that honor and shame are the “dominant means of enforcing all those values that were not actually legislated and of reinforcing those values that were covered by written laws.” David Arthur DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000), 36. The ancients knew of this also: “They are inhibited not so much by fear of the penalties ordained by law as by the sense of shame with which nature has endowed man as a certain dread of just censure. . . . Shame, no less effectively than fear, restrains the citizens” (Cicero, Resp. 5.4).

16

Hsieh.indd 16

第十八期 二○一四年十二月

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:50

Hsieh: Paul as Parrhesiastes

aligns a person to the values of a society. It is a conservative force that preserves the traditions of a society, its power structure, its class hierarchy, and its religious ideologies. Frank speech, on the contrary, is an act that ignores the needs of shame. It knows no limits. It says it all, with no reservation. Frank speech, as it is exemplified by Socrates and Diogenes, is above all a refusal to blush.15 It knows of no traditions, no hierarchies, and no ideologies. Frank speech is militant. It serves only the truth. Wherever and whatever truth demands, it obeys and speaks. Shame, therefore, is a static force; whereas frank speech is a dynamic and revolutionary force. Shame sets a limit to frank speech, just as frank speech sets a limit to shame. No community can do without either. Shame propagates injustice and errors, hiding them from being exposed. Frank speech propagates chaos and disorder, setting all things loose from regulation.

III. The Practice of Frank Speech The practice of parrhsi,a is best (and paradigmatically) illustrated by the well-known encounter between Diogenes and Alexander reported by Diogenes Laeritus (DL 6.38; cf. 6.32, 44, 45, 60, 63, 68).16 Alexander represents the summit of human achievement. He owns wealth, glory, and honor; while Diogenes has nothing but himself: When he was sunning himself in the Craneum, Alexander came and stood over him and said, “Ask of me any boon you like.” To which he 15

Blushing is the ultimate expression of shame. Cicero, for example, notes: “The judgment of the censor imposed on the condemned scarcely any penalty save the blush” (Cicero, Resp. 4.6.6). This means that the blush was in itself penalty enough. Similarly, Seneca notes that: “If we can cause the man who murdered Cicero to blush, we will have succeeded” (Elder Seneca, Cont. 7.2.1). Cf. Carlin A. Barton, “Roman Blush: Delicate Matter of Self-Control,” in Constructions of the Classical Body, ed. James I. Porter (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999), 212–34. 16 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers , Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972).

No. 18 December 2014

Hsieh.indd 17

17

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:50

漢語基督教學術論評 Sino-Christian Studies

replied, “Stand out of my light” (DL 6.38).

Diogenes is bathing under the sun. The image of the sun recalls Plato’s famous allegory of the cave, where the sun represents that which is true and real. Bathing in the sun conveys the message that Diogenes has a direct relationship with the truth. His whole being is conditioned by the truth. He stands in the presence of truth. There is nothing between him and the truth. He stands face-to-face with the truth. He has the knowledge of what is true and real. Alexander enters the stage with his back facing the sun, casting shadows upon Diogenes. Read metaphorically, this means that although Alexander holds the riches of the world, he neither knows the real, nor the truth. The scene reverses their roles: the one who has all and is revered by all becomes the one who stands against the truth; the one who has nothing and is despised by all stands in direct contact with the truth. The story ends with Diogenes, speaking as though he were the king, commanding Alexander to leave his place and return him “the light.”17 Dio Chrysostom understands this allegory perfectly well. Thus, in his fourth oration, he speaks plainly about Diogenes’ relationship with the truth. Chrysostom picks up this story and expands it into a provocative dialogue between Diogenes and Alexander. He introduces Diogenes with the following words: “Diogenes cajoled no men by flattery, but told everybody the truth” (Dio Chrysostom, 4 Regn.10). The setting of the story is again Diogenes warming himself under the sun (Dio Chrysostom, 4 Regn. 14). Alexander comes along, attracted by the courage of Diogenes: For it is somehow natural for the courageous to love the courageous (oi` qarrale,oi tou.j qarrale,ouj filei/n), while cowards eye them with misgiving and hate them as enemies, but welcome the base and like them. And so to the one class truth and frankness (toi/ 17

Foucault has another reading of this story: “Ordering Alexander to step aside so that the sun’s light can reach Diogenes is an affirmation of the direct and natural relation the philosopher has to the sun, in contrast to the mythical genealogy whereby the king, as descended from a god, was supposed to personify the sun.” Foucault, Fearless Speech, 121.

18

Hsieh.indd 18

第十八期 二○一四年十二月

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:50

Hsieh: Paul as Parrhesiastes

j avlh,qeia kai. parrhsi,a) are the most agreeable things in the world, to the other, flattery and deceit (toi/j kolakei,a kai. yeu/doj). The latter lend a willing ear to those who in their intercourse seek to pleasure, the former, to those who have regard for the truth (avlhqeia). (Dio Chrysostom, 4 Regn. 15) Not long after they enter into dialogue, Diogenes provokes Alexander by saying that it would be hard for him to understand his words, just as it is hard for men with weak eyes to see the light (Dio Chrysostom, 4 Regn. 18). Similar provocative speeches are repeatedly raised throughout the dialogue. Diogenes is eager to hurt Alexander’s pride, to the extent that Alexander is infuriated and wants to run through Diogenes with his spear (Dio Chrysostom, 4 Regn. 64). Diogenes shows no fear. Instead, he warns Alexander that if he kills him, he will have no chance of knowing the truth, for “I am the only man from whom you will get the truth” (Dio Chrysostom, 4 Regn. 59). This story represents the paradigm of the Greco-Roman frank speech that is to speak the truth frankly and out of a sense of duty with no fear but for the good of others.

IV. Parrhesiastes as Self-portrait In the Greco-Roman ethical tradition, public orators often portray themselves as parrhesiastae . They present themselves as speakers of truth. They speak what they must out of a sense of duty. They are not forced to speak, nor are they enticed to speak as flatterers for the sake of honor and gain. They speak without fear, not afraid of losing popularity, nor afraid of igniting anger among the audience and creating danger for themselves. They speak not for their own good, but for the good of others, criticizing them so that they may find true advantage and may therefore live well. Isocrates, for example, stresses the difference between parrhsi,a and flattering: “Give frank speech (parrhsi,an) to those who have good judgment (eu= fronou/sin), in order that when you are in doubt

No. 18 December 2014

Hsieh.indd 19

19

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:50

漢語基督教學術論評 Sino-Christian Studies

you may have friends who will help you to decide (sundokima,sontaj). Distinguish between those who artfully flatter (kolakeu,ontaj) and those who loyally serve you” (Isocrates, Ad Nic . 2.28). Isocrates associates parrhsi,a with friendship.18 Parrhsi,a helps friends to make good decisions. In his speech On Concord, Isocrates criticizes the audience for being foolish, treating those who show no care for their welfare as practitioners of parrhsi,a, and those who do care, as men who work injury to the state (Isocrates, De pace 8.14). Despite their foolishness, Isocrates unyieldingly comes forth “not to seek your favor nor to solicit your votes, but to make know the views I hold” (Isocrates, De pace 8.15). In other words, Isocrates comes forth as a parrhesiastes. He is not afraid of the dangers that may well up from the audience. He is adamant to speak what he has in mind (frankness), which he knows to be the truth. He speaks not as a flatterer seeking his own advantage or the pleasures of his audience. He speaks as a friend out of duty for the good of the public (criticism) (Isocrates, De 19 pace 8.16). Demosthenes also makes a clear distinction between 20 parrhesiastae and flatterers. Parrhesiastae are speakers of truth. They speak out of goodwill, for the well-being of the other: This is the truth spoken with all freedom (tau/t v evsti. tavleqh/ meta. pa,shj parrhesi,aj), simply in goodwill and for what is best, not a speech using flattery for the sake of harm and deceit, making money for the one speaking and handing the affairs of the city to its enemies. (Demosthenes, 4 Philip.76 [J. H. Vince])

In a speech delivered in Athens, Demosthenes chastises the 18 “Frank advice given by his friends for his benefit” (Let. Aris. 125). 19 Frank speech involves risk. Isocrates notes that frank speech involves “reservation and the fear of arousing ill-feeling” (Isocrates, Evag. 39.2) and “shame” (Isocrates, Big. 22.5). Isocrates pleas his audience to be patient “with the manner of my discourse and with my frankness of speech” (Isocrates, Antid. 179). 20 Demosthenes, Epitaph. 26.3; Philo, Sacr. 12.3; Josephus, A.J. 16.108; 1 Clem 35.2; Plutarch, 716a, c; Appian, Bell. civ. 5.5.42; Dio Chrysostom, 3 Regn. 3; 4 Regn. 15.

20

Hsieh.indd 20

第十八期 二○一四年十二月

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:50

Hsieh: Paul as Parrhesiastes

Athenians for being interested only in flattering speeches, in words that are pleasant to hear. He, on the contrary, utters truths with frank speech (tw/n avlhqw/n meta. parrhsi,aj) for the true advantage of the Athenians (Demosthenes, 3 Philip. 3–4).21 For Polybius, parrhsi,a is the act of truth speaking practiced by sincere friends, good citizens, and responsible historians: Now neither do I think that a man who is timid and afraid of speaking his mind (tou.j meta. parrhsi,aj lo,gouj) should be regarded by those qualified to judge as a sincere friend, nor that a man should be regarded as a good citizen who leaves the path of truth because he is afraid of giving temporary offence to certain persons; and in a writer of political history we should absolutely refuse to tolerate the least preference for anything but the truth. (Polybius, Hist. 38.4.3 [W. R. Paton]) Truth speaking always involves dangers. But the dangers must not hinder the parrhesiastes from speaking the truth.22 Dionysius Halicarnassus contrasts parrhsi,a with flattering. Parrhsi,a will not always sound melodious to its listeners. But pleasant or not, it will always be for the good of others. He expresses his conviction that he is willing to speak in parrhsi,a even at the risk of death: These remarks, whether they are pleasant for you to hear or vexatious, have been uttered and hazarded by me in all sincerity; and I had rather lose my life by using a freedom of speech that is advantageous for the commonwealth (parrhsi,a| sumferou,sh| tw/| koinw/)| than save (sesw/sqai) it by flattering you. (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 9.32.7; cf. 9.53.7) 21 Cf. Demosthenes, 3 Olynth. 32; 2 Philip. 31 [I vow that I will tell you the truth with parrhsi,a and keep nothing back (ouvk avpokru,yomai)]; Chers. 21, 24, 32; 4 Philip. 53, 54; Fal. leg. 237; Aristocr. 28, 204; 1 Steph. 79; [Theocr.] 60, 68; [Neaer.] 28; Halon. 1; Rhod. lib. 1; Epitaph. 26; Exord. 27; Ep. 4.11. 22 Cf. Polybius, Hist. 2.8.9–12 [at the risk of death]; 7.12.9; 11.4.9; 11.6.7; 15.1.6; 15.2.2; 18.14.9 [only traitors abolish frank speech]; 18.52.3; 20.12.7; 21.18.4; 21.21.6; 21.23.12; 27.4.7; 27.10.2; 30.31.10, 16; 33.16.6; 38.22.3.

No. 18 December 2014

Hsieh.indd 21

21

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:50

漢語基督教學術論評 Sino-Christian Studies

V. Paul as a Parrhesiastes Paul also frequently fashions himself as a parrhesiastes. In the NT the noun parrhsi,a appears 31times; the verb parrhsia,zomai, 9 times. The former appears 10 times in the Pauline corpus (2 Cor 3:12; 7:4; Eph 3:12; 6:19; Phil 1:20; Col 2:15, 1 Tim 3:13, Phlm 8); the latter, twice (Eph 6:20; 1 Thess 2:2).23 Like a skilled and learned orator, Paul in almost all of his speech-letters begins with an exordium establishing his ethos as a reliable parrhesiastes. This phenomenon has not been well appreciated by NT scholars, for often NT scholars draw a false dichotomy between the public (political) and the private (moral) practice of parrhsi,a, and confine Paul’s practice of frank speech to the latter type.24 Scholars have failed to integrate parrhsi,a with the fact the Paul’s letters are speech-letters publicly addressed to the ekklesia.25 Classical scholars are probably the ones to blame 23

Peter Thomas O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982), 287. 24 David E. Fredrickson, for example, repeatedly in his article (“Parrhsia in the Pauline

Epistles,” in Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World, ed. John T. Fitzgerald [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996]) sets up the contrast between orators and philosophers, between civil and moral, between public concern and friendly concern (165–70). He compares Paul mostly with the philosophers and above all with the cynics (170). Similarly, J. Paul Sampley in his article “Paul’s Frank Speech with the Galatians and the Corinthians,” in Philodemus and the New Testament World, ed. John T. Fitzgerald, Dirk Obbink, and Glenn Stanfield Holland (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004) confines frank speech to the realm of the moral (private) sphere. He cites Konstan for approval (see note 24 below). None of the recent studies on parrhsi,a have been able to connect parrhsi,a with the rhetorical and political nature of Paul’s speech-letters. See W. C. van Unnik, “The Christian’s Freedom of Speech in the New Testament,” in Sparsa Collecta (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973–83), 2.269–89, Stanley B. Marrow, “Parrhēsia and the New Testament,” CBQ 44, no. 3 (1982): 431–46, Craig Hovey, “Free Christian Speech: Plundering Foucault,” Political Theology 8, no. 1 (2007): 63–81, J. Paul Sampley, “Paul and Frank Speech,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2003), 293– 318; David E. Fredrickson, “Paul’s Bold Speech in the Argument of 2 Cor 2:14–7:16” (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1990). 25

This claim lends support to the theses put forth by scholars such as Richard A. Horsely, Dieter Georgi, and N. T. Wright. They claim, rightly in this author’s view, that Paul is not concerned with “private” religion, but with “the political,” seeking to establish the ekklesia an alternative political system positioned against Rome. See Richard A. Horsely ed.,

22

Hsieh.indd 22

第十八期 二○一四年十二月

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:50

Hsieh: Paul as Parrhesiastes

for this problematic dichotomy between the public (political) and the private (moral) practice of parrhsi,a. Konston, for example, claims that during the Hellenistic period parrhsi,a morphed from “from the political to the moral sense.”26 Similarly, Foucault sees an evolution in frank speech. It was first defined in contrast to sophistry (rhetoric), then in close relationship to Athenian democracy (politics), and finally, in the Hellenistic period in close relationship to the art of life (philosophy).27 However, this dichotomy between private and public and this supposed morphosis of parrhsi,a from public to private has recently been exposed as false in a thesis presented by Dana Farah Fields.28 She rightly argues that “ethics and politics do not make up separate spheres” and that parrhsi,a actually provides “a window onto the intersections of ethics and politics in the Greek-speeking world” (6). Citing texts from Dio Chrsystom, Plutarch, and Lucian, Fields concludes that “the word parrhsi,a retained its political significance during the Principate” (145). Indeed, orators in this period are still inspired by the high value of parrhsi,a in their public (political) orations. Paul is no exception.29 He also as an orator repeatedly Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2004); N. T. Wright, “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire,” in Paul and Politics, ed. Richard A. Horsley (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2000), 160–83; Dieter Georgi, Theocracy: In Paul’s Praxis and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991). 26 David Konstan, Friendship in the Classical World, Key Themes in Ancient History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 104. 27 Foucault, Fearless Speech, 20–24. 28 Dana Farah Fields, “The Rhetoric of Parrhesia in Roman Greece” (Ph. D. Thesis, Princeton University, 2009). 29 Many scholars have made detailed comparisons between Paul’s letters and the Greco-Roman orations, and have proved convincingly that Paul’s letters are not unlike the first-century Greco-Roman rhetorical speeches. See for example, Margaret M. Mitchell,

Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993); L. L. Welborn, Politics and Rhetoric in the Corinthian Epistles (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997); Elan Mouton, “The Communicative Power of the Epistle to the Ephesians,” in Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter

No. 18 December 2014

Hsieh.indd 23

23

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:50

漢語基督教學術論評 Sino-Christian Studies

presents himself as a parrhesiastes in his speech-letters. Paul often emphasizes in the exordium part of his letters that he is not a flatterer, but a speaker who is fearless in speaking the truth for the good of others. In Philemon, Paul claims that he has the parrhsi,a in Christ to command Philemon to do what is fitting (Phlm 8). The contrast between the parrhsi,a to command and the more subtle approach of appealing suggests that parrhsi,a is a form of frank speech where one can openly speak one’s mind without reserve. The prepositional phrase “in Christ” conveys a sense of truthfulness, for Paul often evokes either God or Christ to support the truth of his claim (Rom 9:1; 2 Cor 1:23; 11:39; 12:19; Gal 1:20; Phil 1:8; 1 Tim 2:7). In proclaiming the truth, Paul risks the danger of breaking the decorum between him and Philemon. The care Paul takes to avoid the dangers of breaching decorum can be recognized through the large number of rhetorical devices employed within the letter, such as the wordplay between “benefit,” “Onesimus,” and “Christ” in Philemon 11. Criticism is the purpose behind Paul’s practice of parrhsi,a. It is to instruct Philemon of what is fitting: that Philemon should accept Onesimus as a brother in Christ. For Paul, to practice parrhsi,a is his duty. For he and Philemon are brothers in Christ (Phlm 8), and are friends of the same fellowship (Philm 17, cf. 6). As a brother and as a friend, Paul has the duty to speak the truth to Philemon. It is clear, therefore, that the word parrhsi,a means more than “boldness” or “openness.”30 It means that Paul knows that to and Thomas H. Olbricht (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), ?–?(page number); Te-li Lau, The Politics of Peace: Ephesians, Dio Chrysostom, and the Confucian Four Books (NovTSup; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2010); Fredrick J. Long, Ancient Rhetoric and Paul’s Apology: The Compositional Unity of 2 Corinthians, SNTSMS 131 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004). 30 Commentators struggle to understand the meaning of parrhsi,a. Peter O’Brien thinks that it means “openness” and “with affection”: “Philemon’s fine Christian character, mentioned explicitly in the preceding verses, meant Paul could speak openly and with affection” (emphasis mine). This understanding does not cohere well with the act of “command.” Nor does it explain why Paul would rather choose to appeal to Philemon

24

Hsieh.indd 24

第十八期 二○一四年十二月

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:50

Hsieh: Paul as Parrhesiastes

command Philemon to accept Onesimus is the true way to proceed, and he knows also that to command Philemon would involve an act of breaching decorum, and while he knows that such dangers are involved, he nevertheless is ready to speak for the sake of truth (criticism) and for the sake of friendship (duty). The best way to translate “having parrhsi,a” is perhaps to use its negative form: “not being a men-pleaser or a flatterer.” 31 In Galatians, after the salutation (Gal 1:1–4) and the cry of astonishment (Gal 1:6–9), Paul writes the following statement: “For am I now seeking the favor (pei,qw) of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men (zhtw/ avnqrw,poij avre,skein)? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ” (Gal 1:10). To seek the favor of men and to please men are the characteristics of a flatterer. In Paul’s understanding, the servant of God cannot be at the same time a flatterer, for he or she must necessarily speak the truth. To contrast the men-pleaser with the servant of Christ is to place the latter in the position of the parrhesiastes. Paul assumes precisely this role of the parrhesiastes in the historical narrative in Gal 1:11–2:14.32 through love. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 288. Douglas Moo thinks that is has both the meaning of “boldness” and “openness,” with a tilt toward the former idea. Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 402. 31 Paul’s strategy in Philemon looks similar to the advice given by Rhetorica ad Herennium: “If Frank Speech of this sort seems too pungent, there will be many means

of palliation, for one may immediately thereafter add something of this sort: ‘I here appeal to your virtue, I call on your wisdom, I bespeak your old habit,’ so that praise may quiet the feelings aroused by the frankness. As a result, the praise frees the hearer from wrath and annoyance, and the frankness deters him from error. This precaution in speaking, as in friendship, if taken at the right place, is especially effective in keep the hearers from error and in presenting us, the speakers, as friendly both to the hearers and to the truth” (Rhet. Her. 4.48). Paul therefore says in Philem 9: “I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love.” 32

Sampley (“Paul’s Frank Speech with the Galatians and the Corinthians”) rightly observes that Paul is eager to establish his ethos in the first two chapters of Galatians: “By noting his past comportment and his on-going concern, Paul commends himself to the Galatians and puts himself in a position to employ frankness with them…The first two chapters of Galatians are a refinement of Paul’s h=qoj and an offering of himself as a model” (299). Sampley however fails to grasp the importance of “truth” in Paul’s selfrepresentation. Also, interestingly, he has overlooked Gal 1:10, the verse that demonstrates

No. 18 December 2014

Hsieh.indd 25

25

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:50

漢語基督教學術論評 Sino-Christian Studies

First, he makes it clear that his message is true (Gal 2:5, 14), for the message comes not from men but from God through revelation (Gal 1:12, 16; 2:2). Secondly, his speeches are frank, for he proclaims what he receives and what he receives he proclaims (Gal 1:11, 16). Thirdly, Paul is not afraid of the dangers that he might engender through his speech. In Jerusalem, he firmly stands against “the acknowledged leaders” on the issue of circumcision. In Antioch, Paul stands in opposition against “people from James” and against both Peter and Barnabas. Confronting them all, Paul speaks directly in the face of Peter before all the members of the Christian community. He presents himself as a parrhesiastes adamant for the truth and not afraid of breaking the decorum. Fourthly, Paul speaks out of a sense of duty. He is neither forced to speak nor cajoled to speak. He speaks for he has been entrusted by God with the Gospel (Gal 1:15; 2:8). Finally, Paul speaks for the good of others. His message is true and it gives freedom to all who are willing to receive the message (Gal 2:4). In Eph 3:1-13, 33 Paul again assumes the role of the most clearly that Paul is presenting himself as a parrhesiastes. Many who work in the field of rhetorical criticism miss the point by classifying Gal 1:12–2:14 as the narratio, assigning it the task of introducing facts that are indispensable for the case (Quintilian, Inst. 4.2.11). Hans Dieter Betz, “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians,” in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 12–17. First published in 1975. Joop Smit, “The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech,” in The Galatians Debate, ed. Mark D. Nanos (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002), 47–51. Others argue that Paul is presenting himself as a paradigm. This is closer to the truth. It represents a via media approach. It acknowledges both the importance of Paul’s ethos and the importance of the narrative as an introduction to the letter. Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul's Letter to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 89. B. R. Gaventa, “Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm,” NovT 28, no. 4 (1986): 309–26. This paper, however, agrees with Sampley, that the primary purpose of Gal 1:12–2:14 is not introductory (Betz, Smit), nor paraenetic (Witherington, Gaventa), but for Paul to establish his selfidentity, i.e., as a parrhesiastes. 33 Ephesians 3:1–13 begins and ends with the same emphasis: “a prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles” (Eph 3:1) and “my sufferings for you” (Eph 3:13). Both verses speak of Paul’s suffering and the purpose of his suffering. These two sayings form an inclusio to Eph 3:1–13. This suggests that the whole passage is about Paul’s imprisonment. But also on how to evaluate his imprisonment, for the very last sentence (“they are your

26

Hsieh.indd 26

第十八期 二○一四年十二月

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:50

Hsieh: Paul as Parrhesiastes

parrhesiastes. He shows to the Ephesians that he knows the truth34 and is commissioned by God (duty) to speak the truth to everyone

including the rulers and authorities (criticism). He identifies his act of proclamation (prosagwgh,) as an act of parrhsi,a (Eph 3:12).35 Practicing parrhsi,a, Paul suffered the dangers of imprisonment. He however is not ashamed (the force against parrhsi,a) of his sufferings; instead, he considers it as his glory and honor. He wants the Ephesians to honor him as well, for it is for their sake (Eph 3:1; 13) and for the sake of proclamation that he has been imprisoned. Similar notes on parrhsi,a appears also in Eph 6:19: “Pray also for me, so that when I speak, a message may be given to me to make known with parrhsi,a the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it with parrhsi,a, as I must speak.” Here again one finds emphases on truth (message divinely given), on the dangers of criticism (chains), on duty (I must speak), and on frankness (message given and proclaimed). In 1 Corinthians, Paul repeatedly emphasizes that his speech is not based on sophistry (“words of wisdom”; 1 Cor 1:17; 2:1, 4, 5, 13), but on the wisdom and power of God. Paul does not stress his role as the parrhesiastes in 1 Corinthians, for at the time of the letter writing Paul maintains a good relationship with the Corinthians and so there is little need to establish his ethos. This is shown by the fact the letter enters into the propositio (1 Cor 1:10) immediately after the thanksgiving (1 Cor 1:4–9) without an extended exordium. 2 Corinthians is completely different. Paul displays here a massive glory”) suggests that Paul wants the Ephesians to evaluate his imprisonment in a certain way. 34 To prove that he knows the truth, Paul refers back to what he has written previously in Eph 1–2: “the mystery was made known to me by revelation as I wrote above in a few words, a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ” (Eph 3:3–4). Thus, one of the purposes of Paul writing Eph 1–2 is to provide a warrant to his claim as a parrhesiastes. 35

Louw-Nida writes, “This noun [prosagwgh,] denotes the right or opportunity to address someone, with the implication that the person addressed is of higher rank or status” L&N 33.72.

No. 18 December 2014

Hsieh.indd 27

27

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:51

漢語基督教學術論評 Sino-Christian Studies

effort to present himself as a parrhesiastes.36 (1) The truth of his proclamation is emphasized (2 Cor 4:2; 6:7; 7:14; 11:10; 12:6; 13:8). His knowledge of God is emphasized (2 Cor 2:14; 4:6; 6:6; 8:7; 10:5; 11:6). He depicts himself as being in the presence of God (2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; 7:12; 12:19) and in the presence of Jesus (2 Cor 2:10; 4:6; 8:21; cf. 4:2; 12:19). (2) The frankness of his speech is emphasized (2 Cor 1:12; 2:17). Paul repeatedly denies that he is a deceiver corrupting God’s word (2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; 7:2; 12:16-18). (3) Parrhsi,a as a duty is fully articulated in the climatic statement in 2 Cor 13:8: “For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.” (4) The dangers involved in parrhsi,a are expressed through the many hardship lists (2 Cor 4:8–9; 6:4-10; 11:23–28; 12:10). (5) The criticisms involved in parrhsi,a are articulated in passages such as 2 Cor 337 and 2 Cor 7 and in Paul’s claim to build up their fellowship in Christ (2 Cor 5:1; 10:8; 12:19; 13:10).38 Features of parrhsi,a are found also in 1 Thessalonians 2:1–12. 39 First, there is the frankness in Paul’s speech. He speaks and speaks 36 Terms for parrhsi,a abound in 2 Corinthians: parrhsi,a (2 Cor 3:12; 7:4; cf. 6:11); qarre,w (2 Cor 5:6, 8; 7:16; 10:1, 2); evgkake,w (2 Cor 4:1, 16). A great deal of scholarly ink has been spilt on this subject. 37 The word “shame” is found in the 2 Cor 4:2. 38 The plea to “know yourselves” (2 Cor 13:5) is also a function of parrhsi,a. Plutarch notes that: “for the flatterer always takes a position over against the maxim ‘know thyself,’ by creating in every man deception towards himself and ignorance both of himself and of the good and evil that concerns himself ” (Plutarch, Adul. amic. 49b). 39 This passage has been understood either as a work of apology, or a work of paraenesis, or a work of self-recommendation. Apology: Jeffrey A. D. Weima, “The Function of 1 Thessalonians 2:1–12 and the Use of Rhetorical Criticism: A Response to Otto Merk,” in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? ed. Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 114–31; Traugott Holtz, “On the Background of 1 Thessalonians 2:1–12,” in Donfried and Beutler, The Thessalonians Debate, 69–80. Paraenesis: Abraham J. Malherbe, “Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess 2,” NovT 12, no. 2 (1970): 203–17; Otto Merk, “1 Thessalonians 2:1–12: An Exegetical-Theological Study,” in Donfried and Beutler, The Thessalonians Debate, 89–113. Self-recommendation: Johan S. Vos, “On the Background of 1 Thessalonians 2:1–12: A Response to Traugott Holtz,” in Donfried and Beutler, The Thessalonians Debate, 81–88. Weima notes that “virtually all recent

28

Hsieh.indd 28

第十八期 二○一四年十二月

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:51

Hsieh: Paul as Parrhesiastes

only of what God has entrusted to him (1 Thess 2:4). Secondly, Paul speaks nothing but the truth. Twice in 1 Thess 2:2, Paul qualifies his speech in terms of God: “We had frank speech (evparrhsiasa,meqa) in our God to declare to you the gospel of God” (cf. 1 Thess 2:4, 5, 8, 9, 10). God guarantees the truth of his words. Moreover, Paul contrasts his words with those that spring from error, impurity, and deceit (1Thess 2:3). Also, he contrasts himself with flatterers (1 Thess 2:4), and with those who speak in pursue of gain and honor (1 Thess 2:5, 6). Thirdly, Paul speaks parrhsi,a in the face of danger. In Thess 2:2, Paul sets parrhsi,a in the context of suffering, humiliation, and opposition. Before Paul arrived at Thessalonica, he had already suffered and been humiliated in Philippi. With these sufferings of the past in mind, and with the dangers of “great opposition” at hand, Paul refuses to refrain from proclaiming the gospel, but instead proclaims the gospel in parrhsi,a. He speaks the truth without fear. Fourthly, the purpose of Paul’s proclamation is to exhort the Thessalonians to “lead a life worthy of God” (1 Thess 2:12). He speaks not for his own good but for the good of others (criticism). Finally, Paul speaks because it is his duty to speak. He is an apostle of Christ entrusted by God with the gospel (1 Thess 2:4). Paul’s self-presentation as a parrhesiastes usually appears in the exordium part of his speech-letter. Philippians is no exception. Here again in Phil 1:12-26 Paul presents himself as a parrhesiastes. The frankness of his speech is expressed through the identification of his being with his speech. He not only proclaims Christ and his gospel (Phil 1:15–18), but also claims that he embodies Christ and his gospel (Phil 1:20–21). Thus, a total identification exists between his being and his speech. The truthfulness of Paul’s speech lies in its content, which is none other than Christ. Paul speaks this truthful message in the face of danger. The dangers confronting him include the dangers of incarceration (Phil 1:13, 14, 17), shame (Phil 1:20), and death (Phil commentators have rejected the traditional, apologetic interpretation of 2:1–12 and opted instead for its exclusively paraenetic or exemplary function” (115). This paper supports the latter understanding.

No. 18 December 2014

Hsieh.indd 29

29

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:51

漢語基督教學術論評 Sino-Christian Studies

1:20). Paul however shows no fear toward these dangers. Instead, in joy, he shamelessly and boldly proclaims the truth of the Gospel.

VI. Conclusion To conclude, frank speech involves the elements of frankness, truth, danger, criticism, and duty. Public figures in the Greco-Roman world often depict themselves as practitioners of frank speech. Paul closely follows this rhetorical tradition portraying himself as a parrhesiastes. Always Paul presents himself as a speaker of truth even in the presence of immediate danger. And constantly he insists that he as an orator speaks not for gain nor for flattering, but for the good of his listeners. He believes that he has a message for the benefit of others. Paul’s self-presentation as a parrhesiastes usually appears in the exordium of his speech-letter. Portraying himself as a parrhesiastes, Paul intends to gain the goodwill of his audience. He wants to assure them that he, being a parrhesiastes, willing to speak the truth in the face of the dangers of death and shame, will surely be willing to speak the truth to his brothers and sisters in Christ, and reveal to them what is truly to their advantage.

30

Hsieh.indd 30

第十八期 二○一四年十二月

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:51

Hsieh: Paul as Parrhesiastes

Bibliography 參考文獻 Barton, Carlin A. “Roman Blush: Delicate Matter of Self-Control.” In Constructions of the Classical Body, edited by James I. Porter, 212–34. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999. Betz, Hans Dieter. “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul's Letter to the Galatians.” In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, edited by Mark D. Nanos, 3–28. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. DeSilva, David Arthur. Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. Down1ers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000. Fields, Dana Farah. “The Rhetoric of Parrhesia in Roman Greece.” Ph. D. Thesis, Princeton University, 2009. Foucault, Michel. Fearless Speech. Los Angeles: MIT Press, 2001. Fredrickson, David E. “Parrhsia in the Pauline Epistles.” In Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World, edited by John T. Fitzgerald,163–83. Leiden: E. J. Brill,

1996.

———. “Paul's Bold Speech in the Argument of 2 Cor 2:14–7:16.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1990. Gaventa, B. R. “Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm.” NovT 28 (1986): 309–26. Georgi, Dieter. Theocracy: In Paul's Praxis and Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991. Habinek, Thomas N. Ancient Rhetoric and Oratory. Blackwell Introductions to the Classical World. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2005. Henderson, Jeffrey. “Attic Old Comedy, Frank Speech, and Democracy.” In Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens , edited by Deborah Boedeker and Kurt A. Raaflaub, 255–73. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Holtz, Traugott. “On the Background of 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12.” In The

Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? edited by Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler, 69–80.

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000.

Horsely, Richard A., ed. Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2004.

No. 18 December 2014

Hsieh.indd 31

31

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:51

漢語基督教學術論評 Sino-Christian Studies

Hovey, Craig. “Free Christian Speech: Plundering Foucault.” Political Theology 8 (2007): 63–81. Konstan, David. Friendship in the Classical World. Key Themes in Ancient History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. ———. “Parrhesia: Ancient Philosophy in Opposition.” In Mythos and Logos: How to Regain the Love of Wisdom, edited by Albert A. Anderson, Steven V. Hicks and Lech Witkowski, 19–34. New York: Rodopi, 2004. Lau, Te-li. The Politics of Peace: Ephesians, Dio Chrysostom, and the Confucian Four Books. Noveum Testamentum Spplement. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2010. Long, Fredrick J. Ancient Rhetoric and Paul's Apology: The Compositional Unity of 2 Corinthians. Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Malherbe, Abraham J. “Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess 2.” NovT 12 (1970): 203–17. Marrow, Stanley B. “Parrhēsia and the New Testament.” CBQ 44 (1982): 431– 46. Merk, Otto. “1 Thessalonians 2:1–12: An Exegetical-Theological Study.” In Donfried and Beutler, The Thessalonians Debate, 89–113. Mitchell, Margaret M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians . Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Moo, Douglas J. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. Mouton, Elan. “The Communicative Power of the Epistle to the Ephesians.” In Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, p–p (page number) Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. O’Brien, Peter Thomas. Colossians, Philemon. Word Biblical Commentary 44. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982. Sampley, J. Paul. “Paul and Frank Speech.” In Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, 293–318. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2003. ———. “Paul’s Frank Speech with the Galatians and the Corinthians.” In Philodemus and the New Testament World, edited by John T. Fitzgerald, Dirk Obbink, and Glenn Stanfield Holland, 295–321. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004.

32

Hsieh.indd 32

第十八期 二○一四年十二月

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:51

Hsieh: Paul as Parrhesiastes

Saxonhouse, Arlene W. Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Smit, Joop. “The Letter of Paul to the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech.” In The Galatians Debate, edited by Mark D. Nanos, 39–59. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2002. Unnik, W. C. van. “The Christian’s Freedom of Speech in the New Testament.” in Sparsa Collecta, 2:269–89. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973–83. Vos, Johan S. “On the Background of 1 Thessalonians 2:1–12: A Response to Traugott Holtz.” In Donfried and Beutler, The Thessalonians Debate, 81–88. Wallace, Robert W. “The Power to Speak—and Not to Listen—in Anceitn Athens.” In Free Speech in Classical Antiquity, edited by I. Sluiter and R. M. Rosen, 221–32. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2004. Weima, Jeffrey A. D. “The Function of 1 Thessalonians 2:1–12 and the Use of Rhetorical Criticism: A Response to Otto Merk.” In Donfried and Beutler, The Thessalonians Debate, 114–31. Welborn, L. L. Politics and Rhetoric in the Corinthian Epistles. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997. Witherington, Ben. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul's Letter to the Galatians. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998. Wright, N. T. “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire.” In Paul and Politics, edited by Richard A. Horsley, 160–83. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2000.

No. 18 December 2014

Hsieh.indd 33

33

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:51

漢語基督教學術論評 Sino-Christian Studies

Abstract This paper is a study of the concept of parrhsi,a and how Paul employs this concept in his letters. Michel Foucault argues that parrhsi,a involves five different elements: frankness, truth, danger, criticism, and duty. Among the many dangers that threaten Parrhsi,a, shame stands out as the most threatening of all. Frank speech is highly valued by Greco-Roman intellectuals and orators. Paul is of no exception. Like all other Greco-Roman orators, Paul presents himself as a parrhesiastes, i.e., a practitioner of parrhsi,a in the exordium part of his speech-letters. He practices parrhsi,a in the public setting of the ekklesia. He speaks fearlessly and frankly about the truth out of a sense of duty for the well-being of his brothers and sisters in Christ.

Key-words: parrhesia, Greco-Roman political philosophy, GrecoRoman rhetoric theory, Pauline ethics, Michel Foucault

34

Hsieh.indd 34

第十八期 二○一四年十二月

2014/7/31 下午 05:34:51