Bulletin for Biblical Research 20.3 (2010) 419–432
The Voices of Scripture:
Citations and Personifications in Paul
joseph r. dodson
ouachita baptist university
This article investigates Paul’s use of personifications to cite Scripture and examines the differences between these citations and more-traditional formulas. After
surveying current categories used to understand Scripture citations and after
defining personification, this article explores the three most developed personifications Paul uses to quote the OT. It argues that these citations do not fit aptly into
any of the current categories proposed by Francis Watson or by Vernon Robbins
and, therefore, suggests that a new category be introduced.
Key Words: Paul, Scripture citation, personification, Rom 7:7, Rom 10:5, Gal 3:8,
the NT use of the OT
Introduction
This article investigates Paul’s use of personifications—namely, γραφη,
νομος, and δικαιοσυνη—to cite Scripture. Such a strategy to introduce OT
Scripture is unusual in the NT; “It is written,” the “prophet”1 or the “Lord
says” are more common formulas used by NT writers to cite OT Scripture.
Scripture (Graphe) is often fulfilled, but nowhere in the LXX and only occasionally in the NT does she actually speak.2 However, in Gal 3:8, Paul
not only gives voice to Graphe; he says that she foresees and prophesies.
Further, outside of the writings of Paul, the only biblical record of the Law
(Nomos) speaking is in 4 Maccabees;3 however, in Romans, Paul personifies
Law as what slips in the back door, rules over people, and even speaks to
Author’s note: This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the British New Testament
Conference held at the University of Durham, September 5, 2008. I am grateful for the insights
offered by the participants. All translations in this article are mine.
1. E.g., Moses (Rom 9:15, 10:19; Mark 7:10; Acts 3:22), Isaiah (Rom 10:16, 15:12; Matt 4:14;
John 12:39), David (Rom 4:6, 11:9; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; Acts 2:25, 34); cf. Hosea (Rom 9:25).
2. E.g., John 7:38, 42; 19:37; 1 Tim 5:18; Jas 2:23, 4:5.
3. Cf. Matthew and John, where the Law prophesies (Matt 11:13) and judges (John 7:51).
Cf. also Contempl. 78, where Philo describes how the Law is viewed by the Therapeutae: “For
to these people the whole Law book (ἡ νομοθεσία) seems to resemble a living creature with
the literal ordinances for its body and the invisible mind, laid up in its wording, for its soul.”
In later Jewish writings, the question is asked, “What did Torah say?” This could point to a
420
Bulletin for Biblical Research 20.3
them. Even more unusual is Paul’s giving of voice to Righteousness (Dikaiosyne) by Faith in Rom 10:5.4
Why does Paul personify these terms rather than employ the more
common phrases used to introduce Scripture citations? Is there a difference between citations introduced by personifications and more traditional
formulas? If there is, what are the distinctive effects and implications of
putting words in the mouth of a personification instead of just using a conventional phrase such as “it is written”? Undoubtedly, there is a reason for
the use of these different constructions that may yield a possible difference
in meaning and intent.
Therefore, this article shall first survey the categories proposed by
Francis Watson and Vernon Robbins in order to understand the utilization
of OT citations in general. Second, personification and personification citation will be defined. Next, three of Paul’s personification citations will be
investigated—Nomos in Rom 7:7, Dikaiosyne in Rom 10:5, and Graphe in
Gal 3:8—with the conclusion that these citations do not fit aptly into any
of the categories proposed by Watson and Robbins.5 Therefore, this article
suggests that a new category be introduced—one in which Scripture is
cited by an inanimate object, abstract concept, or impersonal being. A citation of this sort stresses the voice of Scripture as a whole rather than referencing any individual human speaker, and it emphasizes what is spoken
rather than what stands written. Examples in this category may involve
recitation, recontextualization, reconfiguration, or a combination of them.
Current Categories for Scripture Citations
In Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, Watson discusses the differences between the phrase “it is written,” which he refers to as the standard formula, and other citations of Scripture, which he classifies as alternative
formulas.6 Watson identifies the standard formula, “it is written,” as an
tradition during the time of Paul. Further, Plato gives voice to Nomoi in Crito 50a–54d. For
more on this, see my ‘Powers’ of Personification (BZNW 161; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 148–50.
4. Although scholars tend to conclude that Paul’s use of Righteousness here is merely in
line with Greco-Roman literature, they do not give exact parallels, if any at all [e.g., DietrichAlex Koch, Die Schrift als Zuege des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986), 25–27; Rudolf
Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (2nd ed.; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 87–88; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 522; and D. Francois Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians (WUNT
190; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 113–14. Ep. Arist. 155 (“So we are exhorted through Scripture”) differs from the citations given by Righteousness, Nomos, and Graphe in that they are
the direct speakers of Scripture rather than the means through which Scripture is spoken (cf.
Robert Jewett, Romans [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], 310–11).
5. When personified, these terms and their synonyms will be capitalized in this article.
6. Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 43–
47. For more on the patterns of Paul’s introductory formulas and lack thereof, see Christopher
D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture (SNTSMS 74; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1992), 253.
Dodson: Citations and Personifications in Paul
421
anonymous citation; that is to say, the reference does not require the audience to recognize the text cited or the person who originally spoke the
words. Due to the formula’s anonymity, Watson argues, “All that is necessary is an understanding of the concept of a normative body of writings,
and an acceptance that the words cited are to be found in it—somewhere.”7
Therefore, the standard formula underlines the representative character of
Scripture—Scripture as a whole.
In contrast, Watson proposes that the alternative formulas, the attributions of a citation to a specific author, highlight the individuality and distinctiveness of a text. Therefore, in this category, knowledge of the original
context or the author or both are indeed important—if not essential—for
understanding the author’s line of reasoning. Furthermore, rather than the
completed “written character of the text,” which the traditional formula
underscores, the alternative formula stresses its spoken character, which
makes the statement contemporary and immediate. For example, rather
than the static nature of “it is written,” the alternative formulas infer that
“in what they wrote, Moses, David, and Isaiah still speak here and now.”8
As spoken word, these authors address the audience in the present; whereas
the written word confronts them in a definite form handed down to the
audience from the past.9 Watson briefly mentions that Scripture itself can
speak to introduce a citation, and he simply places cases such as these in
the category of the alternative formulas without any further explanation.10
In another relevant monograph, Exploring the Texture of Texts, Robbins
provides three more categories by which to understand the quoting of OT
Scriptures—recitation, recontextualization and reconfiguration.11 In recitation, the author quotes Scriptures with only minor variations, if any at all.
Within the recitation category, there is the employment of a chreia, a brief
statement attributing the saying to that person or text in order to evoke an
“explicit image” of a person or text outside of its own (e.g., Mark 7:10: For
Moses said, “Honor your father and mother”). When variations do occur
in the text, most often it is either to polish the text or to make the citation
fit better grammatically.12
In recontextualization, the author presents the OT passage without a
chreia or any other implication that the words are a citation. In contrast to
Scriptures that “stand written,” the author merely works the OT verses
into the current context. For instance, in 1 Pet 2:3, the author quotes Ps 34:8
without a chreia: “Like newborn babes, crave pure spiritual milk . . . for you
7. Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 45.
8. Ibid. (emphasis mine).
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Vernon K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 41–50; see also idem, The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse (London: Routledge, 1996), 102–8.
12. Idem, Exploring the Texture of Texts, 41–42.
422
Bulletin for Biblical Research 20.3
have tasted that the Lord is good.”13 Finally, in reconfiguration, the author
makes “a latter event ‘new’ in relation to a previous event.” The former
event becomes a foreshadowing as the new event now “outshines” it.14 An
example of reconfiguration can be seen in the reworking of Isa 53:4–5 in
1 Pet 2:22–24: “Christ suffered for you . . . he committed no sin . . . no guile
was found on his lips . . . by his wounds you have been healed.”15
Before looking to see whether or not Paul’s use of personifications to
cite OT passages fits well into any of these categories, personification and
personification citations should be defined.
Definition of Personification
and Personification Citation
Personification is the attribution of human characteristics to any inanimate object, abstract concept, or impersonal being.16 Therefore, a personification citation is simply the attribution of speech, namely the citing of OT Scripture,
to any inanimate object, abstract concept or impersonal being. A personification can be so simple that it scarcely has any personality (for example,
weeping willow), or it can be as complex as an idea that has been deified
(for example, Lady Providence).17 Moreover, personifications can serve as
rhetorical devices on the spectrum between these two extremes.18 It is pos13. Idem, The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse, 107.
14. Idem, Exploring the Texture of Texts, 50.
15. Idem, The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse, 107–8.
16. See Wilhelm Kroll et al., eds., “Personifikation,” Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft (ed. T. Erler; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1997), 1043; Pierre Fontanier, Les Figures
du Discours (Paris: Flammarion, 1988), 111; Heinrich Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric
(trans. Matthew T. Bliss et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 895; see also Waltraud Guglielmi, “Personifikation,” in Lexicon der Ägyptologie (ed. Wolfgang Helck; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1982),
978–79. The term personification is derived from prosopopoiia, the act of giving voice to a figure
such as an opponent, a fictive representative of a people, an ancient nobleman raised from
the dead, or even a god. See Erasmus, De Copia in Collected Works of Erasmus (trans. Craig R.
Thompson; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978), 17–28; R. Dean Anderson Jr., Glossary
of Greek Rhetorical Terms (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 61, 107; Fontanier, Les Figures du Discours, 404;
cf. Quintilian, Inst. 9.2.30–36. Rowe extends this distinction even further: he defines sermocinatio
as the giving of voice to any person, real or imagined, and prosopopoiia as the giving of voice to
any nonhuman thing (Galen O. Rowe, “Style,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic
Period 330 b.c.–a.d. 400 [ed. Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 144).
17. In some cases, a personification represents an attribute, passion, or part of a person
and is ontologically the same as or part of that being (see, for example, Cicero’s argument that
Lady Providence and the like are really only figures of speech stressing different attributes of
God— Nat. d., II.29; II.61). Here, the personification takes on even more personality, the personality of the being it represents; metonymy, synecdoche, and ellipsis can be included within
this category. For more on this, see my ‘Powers’ of Personification, 31–33.
18. Emma Stafford and Judith Herrin, eds., Personification in the Greek World (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2005), xix. Dodson, The ‘Powers’ of Personification, 27–40; see also Konrat Ziegler and
Walther Sontheimer, eds., Der Kleine Pauly (4th ed.; Munich: Druckenmüller, 1972), 1042–46;
Jaroslav Cerny, Ancient Egyptian Religion (2nd ed.; London: Hutchinson, 1957), 58; Guglielmi,
“Personifikation,” 979; Siegfried Morenz, Ägyptische Religion (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1977), 30–33; Hugh Blair, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres (3 vols.; Dublin: Whitestone,
1783), 386; John Baines, Fecundity Figures (Chicago: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1985), 15, 19–30; and
Dodson: Citations and Personifications in Paul
423
sible, then, that in some cases, a personification citation will fall on the
side of the scale where the personification has little personality, so commonly used that a comparison is no longer realized.19 If this is the case,
the formula resembles a dead metaphor; for example, today, people rarely
intend to personify Scripture when they use the phrase, “the Bible says.”
(Of course, what one now considers commonplace may have stirred the
imagination of the original audience.)
Nevertheless, this article shall focus on the three personification citations that are the most developed in Paul’s letters, namely, Law in Rom 7:7,
Righteousness in Rom 10:5, and Writing in Gal 3:8. Since this article only
covers these three personifications, the conclusions will be preliminary.20
This article will now look at each of these three personification citations
in turn.
The Voice of the Law in Romans
Paul’s understanding of the Law and its relationship with Sin is quite complex.21 To explain this complicated role, Paul resorts to the personification
of the Nomos in Romans; he even goes so far as to give voice to Nomos in
7:7 in order to introduce an OT citation.2223
Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία;
μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ
ἔγνων εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου· τήν τε γὰρ
ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ᾔδειν εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος
ἔλεγεν· οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις.
What shall we say then? Is the
Law Sin? Of course not! However,
I would not be aware of Sin
without the Law. For I did not
know I should not covet until
Nomos started saying: “Do not
covet.”23
Bertrand H. Bronson, “Personification Reconsidered,” in New Light on Dr. Johnson (ed. Frederick
W. Hilles; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), 199–201.
19. Emma Stafford, Worshipping Virtues (London: Duckworth, 2000), 2. Cf. Harold L. Axtell, The Deification of Abstract Ideas in Roman Literature and Inscriptions (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1907), 86; Bronson, “Personification Reconsidered,” 196; Bloomfield, “Grammatical Approach,” 164.
20. Therefore, this paper invites further inquiry into less-developed personification citations that are beyond its scope: e.g. (in Pauline literature), Rom 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; 1 Cor 9:8;
14:34; Gal 4:30; and (elsewhere) John 19:24, 37, and Jas 2:23; 4:5.
21. See E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (London: SCM, 1983), 151 and
Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), xi–xxxi; see also
E. P. Sanders, “Paul,” in Early Christian Thought in Its Jewish Context (ed. John M. G. Barclay and
John Sweet; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 117.
22. Of these personifications, there are times when Nomos represents Scripture in general; at other times, it stands for the Law of Sinai. For example, in 3:19–20, Nomos encompasses,
but is not limited to, the catena of references Paul just listed. See James D. G. Dunn, Romans
1–8 (WBC 38A; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 152; Jewett, Romans, 264; C. K. Barrett, The
Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), 70; and Leander E. Keck, Romans (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 99. However, in 5:20 and 7:1–6, Nomos stands for the Law of Sinai; see
Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 346 n. 149,
411; Keck, Romans, 154.
23. All translations in this article are mine.
424
Bulletin for Biblical Research 20.3
As seen above, some personifications may not be very developed;
nevertheless, the personification here is more developed for at least three
reasons. First, in 3:19–20, Paul has already stressed the role of Nomos as a
speaker against Israel. Second, in addition to 3:19–20, Paul has personified
Nomos further in Rom 5–7. Third, Paul uses an imperfect verb rather than
a simple aorist- or present-tense verb.
First of all, in 3:19–20 Paul has already stressed that the Law speaks.
Paul says:
οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὅσα ὁ Νόμος λέγει
τοῖς ἐν τῶι νόμωι λαλεῖ, ἵνα πᾶν στόμα
φραγῆι καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ
κόσμος τῶι θεῶι·
For we know that whatever
Nomos says, it speaks to those in
Nomos, so that every mouth may
be shut and the whole world be
made accountable to God.
Furthermore, in this verse, the apostle employs a verb that emphasizes the
act of speech; rather than the more generic λέγω (“I say”), Paul uses λαλέω
(“I speak”). Whereas λέγω places emphasis on what is spoken, λαλέω focuses
on the act of speaking.24 That is to say, having given an extensive list of
verses to prove his point, Paul changes his focus from what is written to
what is being spoken and, consequently, by whom it is spoken. Thereby,
Paul expresses “the notion that the Law ‘speaks’ directly to its adherents.”25
Moreover, with the verb λαλέω combined with the present-tense verb, the
stress is on the perpetual act of speaking, so that Nomos continues to convict people every time he opens his mouth (cf. 2 Cor 3:15, Rom 3:23).26 In
contrast to 7:7, where the personification introduces a citation, Paul here
uses the personification of the Law in 3:19–20 to refer back to a catena of
OT citations just quoted and to apply these for his current audience.
The second reason one should take special notice of Nomos speaking in
7:7 is because Nomos has been personified throughout Romans and is even
personified in the immediate context, 7:1–6. In chaps. 5–6, Paul has referred
to Sin and Death as they who lord (κυριεύω) and rule (βασιλεύω) over all
unredeemed humanity (5:14, 17, 21; 6:9, 12, 14). Already, the apostle has
equated the lordship of Sin with being under Law (6:14) and has personified the Law as slipping into the world to increase trespass (5:20). In 7:1–6,
Paul goes so far as to personify Law as a lord itself, seemingly allied with
Sin and Death in order to enslave humanity.27
The third reason the personification should be seen as more developed
here is that Paul uses an imperfect verb, which signifies “protracted action
in past time.”28 Rather than a simple aorist- or present-tense verb—which
24. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:196.
25. Jewett, Romans, 264.
26. For more on this, see my ‘Powers’ of Personification, 140–43.
27. Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (ECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 295; Jewett, Romans, 430; Dunn, Romans, 359.
28. See C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 8. According to Wallace, the significance of the imperfect is
Dodson: Citations and Personifications in Paul
425
one might expect with a chreia—Paul uses ἔλεγεν, the imperfect, to stress
that the Law was speaking (or, taken as an ingressive imperfect, “as soon
as the Law began speaking”).
In 7:7, the voice of Nomos restates the principle from 3:20—Nomos
gives people knowledge of Sin. In chap. 3, Paul demonstrated this fact with
his litany of quotations from the OT followed by the personification of
Nomos. Here, however, the apostle places the tenth commandment directly
into the mouth of Nomos.29 Rather than saying, “I would not have known
the Law had Moses not written” or “had it not been written,” Paul gives
voice to the Law: “Nomos started saying, ‘Do not covet.’ ”
In chap. 3, Paul says Nomos speaks to condemn humanity as sinners;
now Paul has Nomos speak so that Nomos will not be condemned as sin.
Here it is not humanity on trial as before; now it is the Law—who works
wrath in 4:15, who slips in the back door in 5:21 and who lords over those
who have not died with Christ in 7:1–6. Before, Nomos spoke to say that he
was not the way to salvation; now Nomos speaks to argue that he is not Sin.
It is as if the apostle says, “Nomos is not Sin, for Nomos tells you not to sin.”
This passage stands in contrast to at least a couple of other instances
where personifications are employed to cite OT Scripture; however, in
these cases the personification citations are used to argue that the Law
helps people overcome sin. Rather than the Law’s voice exciting sin in its
audience as in Rom 7, the author of 4 Maccabees and Philo give voice to
Nomos and Logos respectively to conclude that the voice of Torah keeps
the audience from sin. In 4 Macc 2:5–6, the author shows that when Nomos recites the tenth commandment, its voice gives the hearer the ability
to obey:
Therefore, Nomos says, “Do not covet the wife of your neighbor nor
anything that is his.” And yet since Nomos had said “Do not covet,”
I wish I could persuade you that reason is all the more able to control
desires.30
So also, Philo has Logos quote the Law in Leg. 3:118:
Since Holy Logos knows the power of the impulse of the passion for
both anger and lust, he bridles each of them by setting reason as their
chariot-driver and their guide. And therefore he [Logos] speaks.31
seen in contrast to the aorist; whereas “the aorist takes a snapshot of the action,” the imperfect
“takes a motion picture, por­traying the action as it unfolds” [Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar
beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, 541].
29. The terms ἐπιθυμία and ὀρέξις are often used in very negative contexts in Judaism.
The former recalls the tenth commandment in Exod 20:17, which became a summary of the
Decalogue (cf. Rom 7:9), as well as the cause of humanity’s fall (Vita 19:3). See also Sir 18:30;
Philo, Spec. 4:84. Cf. Plato, Tim. 70A; Phaed 82A.
30. Gr.: λέγει γοῦν ὁ νόμος οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον σου ούδὲ` ὅσα τῶι πλησίον
σού ἐστιν. καίτοι ὅτε μὴ ἐπιθυμεῖν εἴρηκεν ἡμᾶς ἡμᾶς ὁ νόμος πολὺ πλέον πείσαιμ᾽ ἂν ὑμας ὅτι τῶν
ἐπιθυμιῶν κρατεῖν δύναται ὁ λογισμός κτλ.
31. Gr.: Εἰδὼς γοῦν ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος ὅσον ἡ ἐκατέρου δὺναται ὁρμὴ πάθους, θυμοῦ τε καὶ ἐπιθυμίας,
ἐκάτερον ἐπιστομίζει, ἡνίοχον καὶ κυβερνήτην ἐφιστὰς τὸν λόγον. καὶ πρότερον περὶ τοῦ θυμοῦ,
426
Bulletin for Biblical Research 20.3
From here, Logos cites Exod 28:30.
While both the author of 4 Maccabees and Philo use personifications
to cite Scripture in order to argue that their voices give people power over
sinful desires, according to Paul, the instant the Law speaks the listener is
rendered powerless to accomplish the Law or control Sin.
To return to the discussion of citation categories, the personification
citation in Rom 7:7, like Watson’s standard formula, is anonymous in that
it is not attributed to Moses and appeals to the whole of Scripture instead.32 However, like Watson’s alternative formulas, the stress is on the
spoken word rather than written word. Moreover, rather than the present
tense, which Watson attributes to the alternative formulas, or the perfect
tense associated with the standard formula, here Paul employs the imperfect.
The personification does recite the passage accurately, but its chreia
does not inform the reader of a specific human author or the original context. Nevertheless, the citation would not fall into Robbins’ category of recontextualization because it does in fact have a chreia. Whether this citation
includes reconfiguration depends largely on the context. Much debate surrounds the actual context to which Paul is referring—be it the Paradiesgebot
given to Adam, the Sinai Covenant for Israel, Paul’s personal encounter,
all of the above or even none of the above.33 Rather than getting bogged
down in the welter of arguments, one can assume that if the citation refers
to any context beyond Mt. Sinai, it is a reconfiguration.
The Voice of Righteousness in Romans
The Law is not the only personification to speak in Romans; whereas the
Law quotes from the Decalogue, Righteousness by Faith “misquotes” Deuteronomy. The personification is developed here (1) due to its more unusual
subject—Righteousness by Faith—and (2) because it has already been personified previously in Romans. The reason Paul uses Dikaiosyne to cite OT
Scripture is difficult to explain. Whereas one can more easily understand
how a concept may develop from Scripture that is written, and thus to
Scripture that is read aloud, and then ultimately to the statement, “Scripture says,” it is more difficult to grasp the development from the virtue of
righteousness to the personification of Righteousness quoting Scripture.
Although Nomos and Graphe at least tacitly refer to an authoritative body
of text, this is not the case for Dikaiosyne.
θεραπεύων αὐτὸν καὶ ἰώμενος, διαλέγεται οὕτως.
32. The context would have been immediately recognized by some. See Christopher D.
Stanley, Arguing with Scripture (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 68–69. Stanley gives three different categories of Paul’s audience members: the informed, competent, and minimal. The
informed audience would have known the original context, the competent would have known
the broader context, and the minimal would have just taken Paul’s word for it.
33. For a summary of this debate, see Jewett, Romans, 440–45.
Dodson: Citations and Personifications in Paul
427
Second, the personification of Righteousness has already been developed earlier in Romans. Just as Paul expands the personification of Law
in Romans, he does the same with Righteousness. Righteousness develops from a status and gift for the righteous (5:17), to the means through
which Grace reigns over the righteous (5:20–21), to a slave master herself
who rules over them (6:18–20). Finally, the development continues so that
Righteousness actually speaks.
Righteousness by Faith speaks to show the way to salvation. In fact,
she stands up as Paul’s witness to reinterpret the OT. Romans 10:5–8
says:
Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει τ`ὴν δικαιοσύνην
τὴν ἐκ [τοῦ] νόμου ὅτι ὁ ποιήσας
αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς.
ἡ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως Δικαιοσύνη οὕτως
λέγει· μὴ εἴπηις ἑν τῆι καρδίαι σου· τίς
ἀναβήσεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν; τοῦτ᾽
ἔστιν Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν·
ἤ, τίς καταβήσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον;
τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν
ἀναγαγεῖν ἀλλὰ τί λέγει; ἐγγύς σου
τὸ ῥῆμά ἐστιν ἐν τῶι στόματί σου καὶ
ἐν τῆι καρδίαι σου, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τὸ ῥῆμα
τῆς πίστεως ὃ κηρύσσομεν.
For Moses writes about
righteousness from the Law that
the one doing these laws shall live
by them. However, Righteousness
by Faith says: “Do not say in your
heart, ‘Who shall ascend into
heaven,’ this is to bring Christ
down; neither say, ‘Who shall
descend into the abyss,’ this is to
bring Christ up from the dead.”
But what does she say? “The
word is near you, in your mouth
and in your heart”—this is the
word of faith which we proclaim.
Although Paul has only personified Righteousness before, here he adds
the “by faith” (ἐκ πίστεως) qualification in order to distinguish it from the
righteousness that comes by works which Paul accuses the non-Christian
Jews of pursuing.
Whereas Paul personified Law in discussions that contrasted works
of the Law with the gospel of grace, he personifies Righteousness in the
midst of a conversation about God’s faithfulness and the salvation of Israel.34 Although the focus of the argument has shifted, the contrast persists
between pursuits for salvation through the Law and salvation achieved by
faith. Therefore, Paul gives voice to a personification to make his point that
Faith, not Torah, is the means to obtaining true righteousness.
According to Paul, whereas the words of Moses stand written, Dikaiosyne speaks.35 In fact, she even reconfigures the words of Moses by
conveniently leaving out the parts referring to the commandment and the
observation of it:
34. For more on the context, see Otfried Hofius, “Das Evangelium und Israel: Erwägungen zu Röm 9–11,” ZTK 83 (1986): 300–310.
35. Both citations are in the present tense: Moses writes and Dikaiosyne speaks so that
both categories are contemporary realities; that is to say, Paul suggests that one can live under
what Moses says or what Dikaiosyne proclaims (cf. 2 Cor 3:3–18).
428
Bulletin for Biblical Research 20.3
Deuteronomy 30:11–14 (LXX)
For this commandment which I
command you today is not too
excessive for you, nor is far
from you. It is not in heaven,
as if one is saying, “Who shall
ascend to heaven for us to get the
commandment so that when we
hear the commandment, we shall
observe it?”
Nor is it beyond the sea, as if one
is saying, “Who will cross over
to the far side of the sea for us to
get the commandment and make
it audible for us so that we shall
observe it?” Rather, the word is very
near you; it is in your mouth and
in your heart and in your hands, so
that you observe it.
Romans 10:5–8
Do not say in your heart, “Who
shall ascend into heaven,” this
is to bring Christ down; neither
say, “Who shall descend into the
abyss,” this is to bring Christ up
from the dead. But what does
Righteousness by faith say? “The
word is near you, in your mouth
and in your heart”—this is the
word of faith which we proclaim.
Rather than just citing Scripture, then, Paul has Righteousness quote Scripture and even modify the original text so that “its latent sense is alleged
to be identical with the manifest claims of his own proclamation.”36 Such
is the nature of Paul’s appeal to authority that to reject his gospel is to disagree with Righteousness herself, who correctly interprets Scripture and
proclaims truth.37
Once again, this quotation is anonymous (as in Watson’s standard formula) in that it does not cite the original author. In fact, the citation is
placed over against the original author. As with the alternative formulas,
the word is being spoken in the present. It is a judgment call as to whether
this falls into Robbin’s recitation category, because, although the recitation has only minor variations in words, the omitted words are significant.
Further, the citation does have a chreia; yet, the chreia does not necessarily refer the audience back to a sacred text. For a person unfamiliar with
36. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (London: Yale University Press, 1989),
82–83. “Although it appears that the quoting author is momentarily stepping aside and letting
the source speak for itself, the author’s act of selecting and embedding a quotation into a new
rhetorical context actually amounts to a substantial deconstruction and reconstruction of the
original text” (Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 34).
37. Similarly, Hays argues that Paul can read “the ancient Scripture text as a trope, which
speaks by indirection about his own message and ministry,” and sometimes even manipulates
the original text so that “its latent sense is alleged to be identical with the manifest claims of
his own proclamation” [Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 82–83]. Cf. also M. Jack
Suggs, “The Word Is Near You: Rom 10:6–10 within the Purpose of the Letter,” in Christian
History and Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 304–8; Suggs argues
that Paul’s formulation reflects Sophia in Sir 24:5 and Bar 3:29–30. So also, Hays believes that
“Paul echoes the idea that the covenant depends on grace from start to finish rather than on
Israel’s own righteousness. Echoing Job, Baruch, and Sirach, Paul hints at the notion that the
word of God spoken in the Law is identical with the Wisdom of God . . . not as Torah, as Israel’s
sages affirmed, but in the person of Jesus Messiah,” 82.
Dodson: Citations and Personifications in Paul
429
Deuteronomy, there is little to indicate that Dikaiosyne is quoting from
it.38 In this sense, Rom 10:5 is closer to recon-textualization rather than
recitation. Also, there is reconfiguration here because what Scripture now
says through the citation outshines the original setting, making the original
context, at most, a foreshadowing.39
The Voice of Scripture in Galatians
Paul also uses a personification in Galatians to cite Scripture. The personification here is even more developed than that of the Nomos and Dikaiosyne in Romans, because the personification in Galatians, Graphe, does not
merely speak: she foresees and prophesies.40 In Gal 3, Paul depicts Graphe
as a prophetess, who foresaw God’s justification of the gentiles by faith and
consequently prophesies to Abram, “All nations shall be blessed in you”
(Gen 12:3). As with Nomos and Dikaiosyne in Romans, this personification
of Graphe points to faith as the way to righteousness rather than works
of the Law.41
More specifically, Paul argues that the children of God are those whose
righteousness is by faith rather than works of the law. To continue his argument, he gives voice to Graphe in Gal 3:8:
προϊδοῦσα δὲ` ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως
δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ θεὸς, προευηγγελίσατο
τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ὅτι ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν
σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη·
But having foreseen that God
would justify the Gentiles by faith,
Graphe prophesied to Abraham:
“All the Gentiles shall be blessed
in you.”
Most scholars argue that, for Paul, this prophecy by Graphe is a mere figure of speech.42 For example, Franz Mussner concludes that the phrase
“Scripture says” is just an expression.43 Hans-Joachim Eckstein admits that
38. Cf. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 38–61.
39. See Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts, 50.
40. “The attributing of foresight to Scripture is a figure of speech for the divine foresight
expressed in Scripture, comparable to the rabbinic personification of Torah in the statement,
‘What has the Torah seen?’ ” (Longenecker, Galatians, 115). See also H. Strack and P. Billerbeck,
Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (3 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1926), 3:538.
41. In Galatians 3, Paul engages in his intense contrast between works of the Law and
the hearing of faith. According to Tolmie, there is a shift in Paul’s argument to a new type of
argument in Gal 3:6–14 —one based on the authority of Scripture (Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 113–14). Within this context, Paul gives five Scripture proofs intended to support the
thesis of 3:7 (see Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 138).
42. According to Martyn, within this section, “Paul uses the personifying reference in a
way peculiar to him, presupposing a simple syllogism.” Martyn does not say, however, what
he means by “simple syllogism” (e.g., does he mean “an argument from general to specific” or
“a subtle or specious piece of reasoning”?), nor does he tell us how this personifying reference
is peculiar (does he mean in style, wording, or manner?). See Martyn, Galatians, 301.
43. Franz Mussner, Der Galaterbrief (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 252, my translation and emphasis. Also, F. F. Bruce infers that Graphe here stands “more or less as an extension of divine
personality” (F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Paternoster, 1982],
156). Similarly, Longenecker concludes that it is “a figure of speech for the thought that the
430
Bulletin for Biblical Research 20.3
Paul speaks of Scripture as a “personhaften Wesen”; he concludes, nonetheless, that in the end Paul really sees God as the “eigentliche Subjekt” of
the verse.44 Similarly, Gottlob Schrenk states that this is Scripture merely
personified as “a declaration of the divine will,”45 so that, in the words of
Strack and Billerbeck, “was hat die Schrift gesehen” is simply “was hat
Gott gesehen.”46 Francois Tolmie goes so far as to accuse those who find
more than a “mere metonymy” for God in personifications such as “overinterpreting” them.47
However, to say that Paul could have just substituted the word “God”
for the personification misses the point: the significance lies in the fact that
Paul does use personification, γραφή, rather than the divine Person, θεός.48
In fact, Paul even distinguishes between Graphe and God: Graphe is the
prophetess who foresees God’s plan and gives the promise to Abraham.
Furthermore, Paul goes on to develop the personification of Graphe as a
prison warden who locks up all humanity under sin (v. 22).
Once again, the speaking personification stresses the representative
character of Scripture (as in Watson’s standard formula).49 Yet, as opposed
to the standard formula, it is important for the audience to have an understanding of who Abraham is and the context of the promise made to
him. Although Paul used an imperfect verb with Nomos in Rom 7:7 and a
present verb with Dikaiosyne in Rom 10:5, here the apostle uses an aorist
verb with Graphe. Therefore, as opposed to Watson’s alternative formulas,
Graphe does not continue to speak; rather, she has spoken.50 Here then,
the use of Graphe is closer to the standard formula in that it confronts the
divine foresight is expressed in the Scripture in question” (Longenecker, Galatians, 115). See
also Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, 138.
44. Hans-Joachim Eckstein, Verheissung und Gesetz (WUNT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1996), 108.
45. Gottlob Schrenk, “γράφω, γραφή, κτλ,” TDNT 1:754. Michel is content to say Scripture
“is endowed with divine authority” (Otto Michel, “συγκλειω,” TDNT 7:746).
46. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar, 3:538.
47. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians, 113–14. Albeit, Tolmie does not say what he means
by over-interpretation, nor does he give reasons why he see this as one. Perhaps his comment
is directed at those who go so far as Betz, who argues that Graphe in Gal 3:22 is “an entity
working almost like Fate” (Betz, Galatians, 175).
48. Should one read all the usages of Graphe as “practically equivalent” to God based
on the similarities between Gal 3:22 and Rom 9:17? For instance, Eckstein argues that since
Gal 3:8 is parallel to Gal 3:22, which is parallel to Rom 11:32, then Gal 3:8 should be defined
by Rom 11:32 (Eckstein, Verheissung und Gesetz, 108). In light of different contexts and possible
development in Paul’s thought, one should be careful in reaching this conclusion too quickly.
Even so, Romans scholars conclude that the instances in which Graphe speaks in Romans
merely imply that “Gott spricht” (Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer 6–11 [EKK; 3 vols.;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978], 200 n. 881). See also Dunn, Romans, 2:553. Cf.
Jewett, Romans, 310 n. 46 and Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 208–9.
49. So also, within this contrast, Paul again calls forth Graphe as his witness, as one who
“embodies and perpetuates the promise, so that the good news . . . is still preached by the
Scripture to those who read it or hear it read” (Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 156).
50. However, since Paul presents the words of Graphe as a prophecy, he considers that
which she spoke in the past to have present implications for his audience.
Dodson: Citations and Personifications in Paul
431
audience in a definite form handed down from the past. In this chreia, because Scripture recites the verse, the original speaker (that is, God) is not
highlighted; but the mention of Abraham keeps the verse in its original
context. Reconfiguration occurs in that Scripture speaks rather than God.
Conclusion
Overall, when investigating Paul’s use of personifications to introduce OT
citations, one can see that these instances do not fit properly in either of
Watson’s categories (that is, standard formula or the alternative formulas) or into Robbins’s categories for OT citations (that is, recitation, reconfiguration or recontextualization). Therefore, another category should be
introduced—one in which Scripture is cited by an inanimate object,51 abstract concept, or impersonal being—namely, a “personification-citation”
category.
From what has been seen so far, in the personification-citation category (like Watson’s alternative formulas), the stress is on the voice of
the personification—that it “speaks” rather than that it was “written.”
However, in the citation’s exclusion of the original speaker (as in Watson’s
standard-formula category), the stress is on the representative character of
Scripture—Scripture as a whole rather than an individual human speaker.
Furthermore, the personification formula can involve recitation, reconfiguration, and recontextualization. As with the recitation category, in
the personification citation there is a chreia; but again, its chreia refers to a
personification speaking rather than to something written by the original
author or specific text. Despite having a chreia, with the omission of the
original author or context, the personification citation can involve recontextualization (as with Nomos) as well as reconfiguration (as with Dikaiosyne). With this article as a starting point, one can now go on to investigate
other personification citations to see what else Scripture has to say.52
51. That is to say, what a modern reader might consider inanimate.
52. Further investigations can highlight for each particular passage the effects and implications of employing personifications rather than using other formulas. Moreover, perhaps
these individual investigations will lead to a better understanding of how the NT authors
view the nature of Scripture and the role of the OT as a whole, in order to contribute to larger
discussions such as the NT use of the OT (e.g., G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary
on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007]). In light of this sort
of research, scholars will be in a better position to consider whether Scripture was seen as an
individual entity or as a rhetorical device merely referring to the voice of God or as something
in between these two extremes.