In his look at Romans 16, Preston Sprinkle spend a bit of time looking at Phoebe. He observes:
“Two facts about Phoebe immediately jump out. First, Paul calls her a “deacon [or servant, diakonon] of the church in Cenchreae.” Second, she was a “benefactor [prostatis] of many people, including” Paul. A third significant point isn’t explicitly stated, but it’s strongly implied: Phoebe carried Paul’s letter to the Romans, which may also mean she was the one who read, and perhaps interpreted, Paul’s words to the Christians in Rome.[1]
Dealing with the first two points quickly, first of all, whilst some commentators do not consider “deacon” to be a formal office here, I agree with Sprinkle that servant leadership is reflected in the term. In regards to the second, I’ve commented previously on the presumption that benefactors were de-facto leaders. Whether or not Phoebe had a formal role in a local church, and I consider that a possibility, she certainly seems to have had prominence in the church.
It’s the third claim that I want to pay attention to here though. Sprinkle argues that:
“Virtually all scholars agree that Phoebe carried Paul’s letter to Rome. Customarily, the person who carried a letter would also read it to its recipient(s). This too is widely agreed upon by scholars. But “reading” a letter in the ancient world wasn’t just reading out loud, as we might think of it today. Most experts in ancient letter writing use the word perform rather than read to describe how a letter carrier conveyed its message. “Ancient authorities on rhetoric dating to Paul’s time considered the reader’s voice, gestures and even his face to be an essential part of effective communication.” Cicero, for instance, goes into great detail about the various emotions and body parts involved in an effective delivery.[2]
Again, I have no problem with the view that Phoebe not only carried the letter to Rome and read it. I’m not sure about the possibility that she would have “performed” it. Whilst there seems to have been a tradition of rhetorical performance among letter carriers, we might note that Paul himself disavowed Greek rhetoric. It would seem strange for him to disavow this for himself whilst those representing him continued to employ such methods.
Sprinkle continues:
“Letter carriers commonly provided additional information, personal comments, and (if necessary) further explanations of what was written in the letter. 24 Because of this, it “was advantageous to both Paul and his recipients to have an informed carrier read the letter so as to provide the proper inflections and nuances.” 25 Letter carriers often received prior coaching from the author in how the letter was to be read. Some even memorized its contents. Those who didn’t memorize it would have at least a thorough knowledge of the letter, helping to ensure that their performance would capture both the content and the presence of the author. [3]
There are two further problems with his argument. First of all, remember that this was about Paul communicating with his contemporaries. Whilst Peter acknowledges that Paul’s letters can be challenging, the expectation surely still is that there isn’t anything mystical or hidden in what he writes. It’s not that Paul leaves things unsaid. It’s that following his reasoning requires care and patience because of how his arguments develop. This relates to something referred to as “the perspicuity of Scripture”, it’s the idea that Scripture is clear or has clarity, that we can understand it for ourselves.
Linked to this, if Phoebe was able to interpret the letter based on her personal interaction with Paul and if there were additional clarifications and explanations from him, then we now have another unintended consequence from Sprinkle’s argument. You see, we end up with what is in effect another source of revelation. We have revelation through Scripture but we also have an oral tradition passed on presumably not just to those who carried Paul’s letters but to those who carried the epistles of James, John, Peter and Jude as well as those who carried and read out the Gospel accounts.
What Sprinkle is doing here is replacing exegesis with speculative comment on historical culture which he is then applying to the text to seek understanding. Whatever our conclusions on Phoebe, this is another example of an unhelpful approach leading to unintended consequences.
[1] Sprinkle, Preston. From Genesis to Junia: An Honest Search for What the Bible Really Says About Women in Leadership (p. 122). David C Cook. Kindle Edition.
[2] Sprinkle, Preston. From Genesis to Junia: An Honest Search for What the Bible Really Says About Women in Leadership (p. 127). David C Cook. Kindle Edition.
[3] Sprinkle, Preston. From Genesis to Junia: An Honest Search for What the Bible Really Says About Women in Leadership (pp. 127-128). David C Cook. Kindle Edition.
Faithroots 