Prosopological exegesis

How did prosopon (“face” or “mask”) become the accepted term for the “persons” of the Godhead in the East.  In a 1988 article in Theological Studies , Michael Slusser examines what other scholars have called “prosopological exegesis,” exegesis done with attention to the variety of speakers in a biblical text.

He quotes this from Justin: “But when you listen to the words of the prophets spoken ‘as from a person’ ( hos apo prosòpou ), do not suppose that they are said by the inspired people themselves, but by the divine Logos which is moving them. For sometimes by way of prognostication it says what things will happen, sometimes it speaks as from the person of God the Ruler and Father of all things, sometimes as from the person of the Christ, sometimes as from the person of the people responding to the Lord or to his Father—just as even in your writings it is to be noticed that while there is one who writes everything, there are distinct persons speaking.”

And adds,

“Over the next several pages Justin proceeds to give examples of what he means, showing that in the Old Testament sometimes the Father is speaking (chaps. 37, 44), sometimes the Christ (38), sometimes the prophetic Spirit is foretelling things to come (39-42) or teaching (44), sometimes the people is speaking (47). Even the tenses of the prophets’ words are to be noted, for with the past tense the Spirit ‘foretells what it surely knows will happen as already having happened’ (42). Grammatical analysis of the text forms the basis of Justin’s method of interpretation.”

Slusser finds similar analysis in Tertullian’s treatise against Praxeas, and in this from the first of Athanasius’ orations against the Arians: “Now it is right and necessary here, as in the case of all divine Scripture, faithfully to grasp the time ( kairon ) of which the Apostle wrote, and the person ( prosopon ), and the subject ( pragma ), lest the reader, from ignorance either of these things or anything similar, may remain outside of the true understanding. For even that eunuch so eager to learn understood this, when he entreated Philip asking: ‘I pray you, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?’ For he was afraid that, taking the reading in the wrong person ( para prosopon ), he would err from the sound understanding.”

These more strictly exegetical inquiries are linked with explicitly Trinitarian treatment of various passages.  In his discussions of Genesis 18-19, 28, and Exodus 3 with Trypho the Jew, Justin argues that “there are two to whom the names ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ are applied.  He does not use the term prosopon in this passage, but that does not diminish the fact that even here he is consider the prosopa, the kind of literary analysis to which I have been referring, in which one tries to determine exactly who is speaking, who is spoken to, who is being referred to.”

This is historically interesting, because it shows Trinitarian theology arising not from “Hellenization” but from biblical exegesis.  Theologically it is equally important, because it connects the personhood of the Trinitarian Persons directly to speech.  The Persons are identifiable by each one’s unique “tone” and “grammar.”