Rhetorical dissimulatio artis in the New Testament?

在奥古斯丁在他的作品中恢复异教修辞的教义基督教，使修辞为基督教公告生产之前，这种修辞是一个教会父亲的问题：它形成了异教教育传统的重要组成部分；因此，它是有吸引力的，同时可恨的。在新约圣经中，我们只发现其中一个方面：非常消极的态度。尤其是保罗的书信在这里是相关的。保罗似乎既不懂修辞，也不欣赏修辞。一方面，他称自己是“外行”(哥林多后书11：6)。另一方面，他对所有的修辞都持否定态度，因为在他眼里，修辞是世界智慧的一部分，而他自己却决定了上帝的智慧(哥林多前书1-4)。虽然保罗坚决反对修辞，但今天的许多译者相信他利用了修辞。大量的出版物分析了他书信中的修辞手段。同样，教父在处理波林的言论时，已经暴露出一种明显的矛盾，对保罗在哥林多后书11：6(“外行说话”)中的自我评价，当时和现在的反应是相互矛盾的。保罗是否成功地传播了福音，尽管他不能说得很好，或者他的宣告是成功的，因为他能说得很好，尽管他进行了所有的自我批评？这些观察引起了人们对一种可能的解释的注意，这种解释并不总是被现代学者足够认真地对待：像哥林多后书11：6这样的陈述可能是谦虚的拓扑，也可能是更全面的修辞策略的一部分，所谓的不模拟艺术(Litterly：“隐藏的艺术”)。在古代文化中，这一现象不仅存在于修辞中，而且还存在于许多领域：一件艺术品应该尽可能地隐藏其所应用的技巧。如果在这样的语境下阅读，保罗似乎将自己与修辞学分离开来的话实际上是对修辞学的信任宣言。要回答我们是否真的在这里找到了脱节的问题，首先需要对这一修辞现象进行更多的研究。在古典文献学中对它没有太多的关注；在注释出版物中，它充其量是顺便提到的。这里提出的研究是为了澄清它的实现和它在古代异教文学中的作用。然而，这项研究的主要目的是回答这样一个问题：保罗和其他新约作者是否使用类似于不模拟阿尔蒂斯的修辞手段，以及这是否与早期基督教对上述修辞的矛盾心理有关：是否有可能不仅是奥古斯丁，而且新约已经提供了一种适应基督教并融入基督教自我理解的修辞？

Before Augustine rehabilitated pagan rhetoric in his work De doctrina Christiana, making rhetoric productive for the Christian proclamation, this rhetoric was a problem for the church fathers: It formed an essential part of the pagan tradition of education; as such, it was attractive and detestable at the same time. In New Testament texts we find one of those aspects only: a very negative attitude. Especially Paul’s letters are relevant here. Paul does neither seem to know anything about rhetoric nor to appreciate it. On the one hand he calls himself an “amateur in speech” (2Cor 11:6). On the other hand he judges all of rhetoric negatively, because in his eyes it is part of the wisdom of the world, while he himself has decided for the wisdom of God (1Cor 1-4).Although Paul emphatically rejected rhetoric, many interpreters today are convinced that he made use of it. A great number of publications analyzes rhetorical means in his letters. Similarly, statements of the church fathers dealing with Pauline rhetoric already betray a conspicuous ambivalence.There are conflicting reactions to Paul’s self-assessment in 2Cor 11:6 (“amateur in speech”) then and now. Does Paul spread the gospel successfully, although he is not able to speak well, or is his proclamation successfull, because he can speak well despite all of his self-criticism?These observations draw attention to a possible interpretation which has not always been taken seriously enough by modern scholarship: Statements like 2Cor 11:6 could be topoi of modesty and could as such be part of a more comprehensive rhetorical strategy, the so-called dissimulatio artis (litterally: “concealment of art”). This is a phenomenon which in ancient culture is to be found not in rhetoric only, but in many areas: A work of art should conceal the skill applied to it as far as possible. If read in this context, Paul’s words by which he seems to dissociate himself from rhetoric would in reality be a declaration of trust in rhetoric.To answer the question whether we really find dissimulatio artis here, it is first necessary to do more research into this rhetorical phenomenon. There has not been much attention to it in classical philology; in exegetical publications it is being mentioned in passing at best. The study proposed here is meant to clarify its realization and its functions in pagan literature of antiquity. Mainly, however, this study aims to answer the question whether Paul and other New Testament writers use rhetorical means which resemble dissimulatio artis and whether this has to do with the early Christian ambivalence toward rhetoric indicated above: Is it possible that not only Augustine, but already the New Testament provided a rhetoric adapted to Christianity and integrated into Christian self-understanding?