Paul's Autographs, Inspiration, and an Early Letter Collection

Many years ago, I published the following JETS article, "What are the NT Autographs?" the paper proposed that,

"in reference to the NT, the "autograph," as often discussed in biblical inerrancy doctrinal statements, should be defined as the completed authorial work which was released by the author for circulation and copying, not earlier draft versions or layers of composition." (see previous post here)

One of the wonderful things about online venues such as social media and blogs is that one can receive almost immediate feedback to published articles. One particular line of feedback that kept surfacing was "what about Paul's epistles? Perhaps Paul edited his letters and published them into a collection, would these be 'inspired autographs'? How would my definition handle this particular situation?"

I had originally intended to include a section discussing a Pauline letter collection but quickly realized that this topic moved the article in a new direction, away from the thesis and opted instead to excise the discussion all together and address the question more directly in a future publication (E. Randolph Richards has addressed some of these issues in his excellent work “Paul and First-Century Letter Writing"). I had written the article in order to specifically address the process leading up to publication and release, and not the collection/reception process, which is really where the discussion of an “inspired” Pauline letter collection belongs. It seems to me that speaking of an “inspired” or “inerrant” letter (or Gospel) collection conflates the inspiration of the scriptures as they were composed, with the reception and collection of these writings in the canonical process. Perhaps some see these developments as the same, but in my understanding, these are two very different phenomena. I see that the inspiration event concerns the inscripturation of God’s revelation to man and the canonical process concerns the reception, collection, and circulation of this revelation. 

With that said, Richards has argued that Paul archived his own letters in a personal notebook (pg. 218-223). I think that, considering what we know about ancient letter writing, this was highly likely (we are dealing with probabilities here and not absolute certainty). As people requested copies of Paul’s letters, either asking Paul directly, or asking his associates, then copies would have been made at that time from these archived copies (See this occurring in real time with Ignatius's letters in Polycarp, Phil 13.2). More than likely, an “official edition” of Paul’s letters, created from these archived copies, would have been “published” posthumously (Richards, pg. 223). This would account for the varying manner in which his letters were gathered (single letters, varying order of collection, etc.) In my mind, releasing a collection in this way is not “composition" rather it is fully in the realm of copying and circulation. Thus, I think that it falls outside the composition/inspiration process (the inscripturation of God’s revelation to man). Again, referring back to Richards’s discussion of inspiration (pg. 224-229), I think that it is more accurate to envision inspiration as an event or process over a period of time, one that includes the unique circumstances that each particular Christian community was experiencing, and Paul’s unique, letter addressing these issues. Therefore, even if Paul did gather a collection and polish them up, and release them at a later date, I am not sure that we can call this an “inspiration event,” if you will. This is where one’s theological leanings come into play. If one believes that Paul was dissatisfied with his letters and wanted to [edit:“correct them"] "polish them up" before publication, then the first versions did not perfectly convey the message that God intended his Church to read (i.e., they were not "inerrant").

If Paul did have a personal hand in collecting his letters and editing them into a more polished collection, then there raises the possibility of multiple versions of Paul's letters being in circulation. Benjamin Laird proposes this very possibility, suggesting that there were at least three different copes of the letter to the Romans made with three distinctive endings (Laird, "Creating the Canon," 61-62). There are several historical and textual problems with this suggestion, as I indicated in a previous book review. Setting these technical problems aside, if this were the case then there could be a situation in which there were three different versions of the letter to the Romans, each copied under the authority of Paul. In my suggestion above, only one of those letters would be truly "inspired," the version that Paul had made for the Church in Rome, the version that was made for the "inspiration event" (to use the conception of Richards). The other two versions of Romans would then be the products of copying, and the excised (or added) text would not be inspired in this understanding of the process.

The problem for modern scholars and theologians would be untangling this copying history. There would be no way to know with absolute certainty which version was the "first," intended for the original audience (such as Rome in the example above). Even though this textual history is complex, it does not mean that the text of Romans was never divinely inspired or inerrant, it means that our access to this text is limited by our finite human knowledge.

__________________________________

Benjamin P. Laird, Creating the Canon: Composition, Controversy, and the Authority of the New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2023)

E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004)

Book Review: The Pauline Corpus in Early Christianity by Benjamin Laird

The Pauline Corpus in Early Christianity: Its Formation, Publication, and Circulation. By Benjamin P. Laird. Peabody: Hendrickson Academic, 2022, xx + 371 pp., $59.99 hardback.

Investigations into the theology of the Pauline corpus abound, yet few studies have examined the historical circumstances that gave rise to the Pauline corpus as a letter collection. The Pauline Corpus in Early Christianity is a fresh in-depth analysis of the historical evidence, both physical and literary, into the development of the Pauline letter collection. Benjamin P. Laird (PhD University of Aberdeen) is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

This book is an expanded and revised version of Laird's doctoral thesis. It is composed of an introduction, six chapters, and three appendices.

The introduction begins by highlighting the fact that Paul preferred personal interaction to letter writing, yet Paul is known today through his extant letters (pp. 1-3). Paul's epistles were likely the earliest Christian writings to be valued, circulated and collected (p. 3). After a summary of the contents (pp. 4-9), Laird concludes by discussing the challenges to this study (pp. 10-11) and the wider implications that this volume might have on Pauline scholarship (pp. 11-15).

Chapter 1 examines first century letter writing practices in the Greco-Roman world (pp. 19-31). This chapter advances the notion put forward by several recent studies that Paul worked with secretaries in the writing of his letters (pp. 31-34). Along with this, these secretaries made duplicate copies for Paul's personal collection or those of his associates (pp. 34-39). It is likely that these personal collections were the source from which an early edition of the Pauline corpus was produced.

Chapter 2 looks into the extant Greek textual witnesses (pp. 40-64) and ancient translations relating to the earliest state of the Pauline collection (pp. 89-101). As a corollary to the discussion, the advent of the codex book form and its rapid adoption within Christian communities (pp. 64-73), and the origin and use of the letter titles are examined (pp. 73-89). Along with this, early testimony from historical figures such as Marcion, Origen, Eusebius, Athenasius, the Muratorion Fragment, and Church councils are taken into account (pp. 101-112).

Chapter 3 delves into a diversity of writings written from the late-first through to the early-fifth centuries. The familiarity these authors had with the various Pauline epistles is ascertained and weighed (pp. 123-189). References from 1 Thess 5:27, Col 4:16, and 2 Peter 3:15-16 are analyzed for the light they might shed on the development of the Pauline canon (pp. 113-123). Most of the chapter is given up to culling through Patristic references to the Pauline writings (pp. 123-189).

Chapter 4 investigates the external evidence for the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews. Laird wrestles with the various scholarly challenges to the authenticity of Hebrews (pp. 202-232) and the Pastorals (p. 190-202) and their canonical relationship to the undisputed letters. According to Laird, the Pastorals and Hebrews have a more tumultuous reception history when compared with the rest of the Pauline corpus. Larid proposes that "the text of Hebrews was a Pauline speech that was later produced as a literary document" (p. 233).

Chapter 5 surveys and evaluates the many influential scholarly theories that attempt to account for the initial development and acceptance of the Pauline canon. These theories are separated into four categories, The first includes those theories that propose a formation of the collection after long years of neglect or limited circulation (pp. 236-241). The second category includes theories that generally postulate that the collection developed gradually as new writings were produced and the writings became more well known (pp. 241-261). The third category contains theories that hold to a gradual development by a Pauline school that may have had a hand in writing pseudepigraphal letters in Paul's name (pp. 261-268). The fourth and final category includes theories that hold to an early development, circulation and collection of Paul's letters (268-278). This collection was initially organized by Paul himself shortly before his death or immediately after his death by his close associates.

Chapter 6 provides an overview of the formation, publication, and circulation of the Pauline letter collection. The chapter identifies the earliest editions of the corpus that circulated and standardized the letter titles and the orientation of the writings with reference to each other within the collection (pp. 280-317). The theory proposed in this chapter takes into account both the external and internal evidence laid out in the previous chapters. The main proposal is this,

"[A]t least three major archetypal editions of the corpus began to circulate as early as the first century or soon thereafter, each of which circulated for several decades until a fourteen-volume edition became widely recognized by the fourth century." (p. 9).

There are a few places where the discussion and evidence do not seem to support some of the conclusions. First is the idea that the letters must have by necessity been bound together in a type of edition for the Pauline epistles to have been recognized and the titles of the epistles to have been standardized. This does not actually accord with the manner in which books were conceptualized in antiquity. In the Greco-Roman world a written piece was often composed of separate and unbound rolls. It was not uncommon for a reader to possess only some of the bookrolls. Nevertheless, these other bookrolls were still conceptually linked in the mind of the reader as a complete work. This can be illustrated with P. Oxy 2192. In this papyrus fragment in a postscript the sender of the letter makes a request. 

"Have a copy made of books six and seven of Hypsicrates’ Men Who Appear in Commedies and send it to me. Harpocration says that Pollio has them among his books, and probably others may have them too. And he also has prose epitomes of Thersagorus’s Myths of Tragedy.” 

Here the writer of the postscript conceptually links all the books (i.e. separate bookrolls) of Hypsicrates’ Men Who Appear in Commedies even though they are not physically bound together with his own copies of books one through five (assuming he possessed them already). Another example are the titles to the canonical gospels. P.Bodmer II (P66) is a codex that only contains the Gospel of John and has ευαγγελιον κατα ιωαννην written at the top. This title conceptually links this gospel with the other three even though it is not physically bound together with the other three in a single codex. 

Further still, the titles themselves could have been standardized by use and convention organically through circulation without having to have been derived from a single official edition with the letters physically bound together. The titles could have been derived from the addressees written on the backs of the letters (see previous post). The titles might have derived from the letter carrier as directed by Paul himself, perhaps when it was read out before the congregation. In either case, none of this necessitates that the letters be physically bound within a single codex or edition for them to be conceptually linked by the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Just as the writer of the postscript in P.Oxy 2192 conceptually links all the separate bookrolls of Hypsicrate's woks, Peter could have conceptually linked all of the extant letters of Paul that were not physically bound together. These factors seem to nullify the need for postulating various bound editions with seven, ten, thirteen, or fourteen letters contained in a single codex. Despite this, Laird is careful to note that an officially published edition of Paul's epistle do not negate the fact that the letters also circulated amongst the various Christian communities for a time (p. 316).

Despite the criticisms noted above, Laird provides an exhaustive look into all the physical and literary evidence for the Pauline letter collection. Though there is disagreement with the necessity for an official edition of the Pauline epistles, it is likely that such an edition did arise. The most compelling argument made in the book is the notion that Hebrews was likely an oral speech by Paul that was taken down and prepared for publication by Luke or another of Paul's associates (pp. 225-234). This appears to take into account all of the available evidence and best explains the early acceptance of Hebrews and its close connection with Paul from an early period. Despite some minor criticisms mentioned above, Laird's monograph is an excellent resource that contains all of the evidence for the circulation of the Pauline canon in a ready handbook.

Timothy N. Mitchell

PhD, University of Birmingham, UK

Demetrius on Letter Writing and Christian Epistles

I came across an interesting reference by a figure dating from either the second or first century BCE, Demetrius, who some have attributed as the Demitrius under whom Cicero studied. He is famous for being familiar with Aristotle's work "Rhetoric" and references it throughout his own writing, "On Style" (Περι Ερμηνειας).

In a fascinating section of this work Demitrius gives instructions on the proper style of letters and correspondence. He describes what he believes is the correct manner of writing correspondence; " A letter’s aim is to express friendship briefly, and set out a simple subject in simple terms" (231).

"(223) We will next discuss the style for letters, since that too should be plain. Artemon, the editor of Aristotle’s "Letters", says that a letter should be written in the same manner as a dialogue; the letter, he says, is like one of the two sides to a dialogue.
(224) There is perhaps some truth in what he says, but not the whole truth. The letter should be a little more formal than the dialogue, since the latter imitates improvised conversation, while the former is written and sent as a kind of gift."

"(227) Like the dialogue, the letter should be strong in characterisation. Everyone writes a letter in the virtual image of his own soul. In every other form of speech it is possible to see the writer’s character, but in none so clearly as in the letter.
(228) The length of a letter, no less than its range of style, should be restricted. Those that are too long, not to mention too inflated in style, are not in any true sense letters at all but treatises with the heading, “Dear Sir.” This is true of many of Plato’s letters, and that one of Thucydides."

"(231) If anyone should write in a letter about problems of logic or natural philosophy, he may indeed write, but he does not write a letter. A letter’s aim is to express friendship briefly, and set out a simple subject in simple terms.
(232) It has its own beauty, but only in expressions of warm friendship and the inclusion of numerous proverbs. This should be its only permitted philosophy, permitted since the proverb is ordinary, popular wisdom. But the man who utters sententious maxims and exhortations seems to be no longer chatting in a letter but preaching from the pulpit."

It is interesting how many of the New Testament epistles and not a few of the Apostolic Fathers's letters fall into these descriptions. For example, Romans and Hebrews in the New Testament, and 1st Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas can very much be described in the words of Demetrius as "not in any true sense letters at all but treatises with the heading, “Dear Sir.” (228). His reference to a letter including expressions of friendship and "the inclusion of numerous proverbs" broadly encompasses some of the more informal pastoral epistles, or the letters of John.

______________________________________

Aristotle, Longinus, Demetrius, Poetics. Longinus: On the Sublime. Demetrius: On Style (Translated by Stephen Halliwell, W. Hamilton Fyfe, Doreen C. Innes, W. Rhys Roberts. Revised by Donald A. Russell. Loeb Classical Library 199. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 477-483

Cicero: Making Duplicates of Letters

Scholars have often recognized the ancient practice of writers keeping copies of their own letters. One example from Cicero (54 BC), illuminates the many difficulties that arise out of the practice of communicating through letters. Writing to his brother Quintus,

"I forgot to write to you about Caesar; for I see what sort of a letter you have been expecting. But he wrote to Balbus and told him that the whole packet of letters, in which were mine and Balbus's, was so soaked with water when he received it that he did not even know there was any letter from me. He had, however, made out a few words in Balbus's letter, to which he replied in the following words : "I see that you have written something about Cicero, which I could not understand, but as far as I could conjecture, it was the sort of thing that I thought more to be desired than hoped for." So later on I sent Caesar an exact duplicate of my letter." (Ep. ad Quint. Frat. 2.12)

There are a few interesting incidental details that reveal the problems associated with letter writing. First, there was an entire packet of letters delivered to Caesar all at once. The phrase in Latin here is "fasciculum ilium epistularium," which is just referring to a packet or parcel of letters. It seems to imply a loose bundle of individual leaves rather than anything that was bound together like a codex. One can infer that these letters, though written likely over a span of several days, were delivered to Caesar at one time, indicating that it may have taken some time to deliver them.

Second, the material, either papyrus or parchment, was damaged by inclement weather. Either the pages were so stuck together that they couldn't be separated and the writing made out, or the ink had been completely washed away by the rain (or likely both). This reveals the precarious nature of the material written upon. It is a miracle that there are any documents that have survived from the ancient world at all.

Third, this side note by Cicero reveals that a common practice was for letter writers to keep a duplicate copy of their correspondence on file for just such a circumstance. Cicero was able to make another copy of the letter and re-send it to Caesar.

Finally, this anecdote presents an example of social networks preventing the loss or corruption of texts. In this instance, it was not the deliberate alteration or misuse of a written text that was being guarded against, but the loss of text through damage by rain and moisture. It looks like Balbus, upon receiving his reply from Caesar, notified Cicero that his letter to Caesar had been damaged and lost and Cicero was able to re-write the letter and thus allowing the transmission of the message or information to be completed.

This example brings together a few themes from the ancient world that often surface. First, that the written material was highly volatile and susceptible to environmental damage or loss (such as this example from Arsinoites in Egypt during the first and second centuries AD). As in the story of the worn archival documents at Arsinoites, the only insurance against the loss of these documents was in having duplicates of these texts, in this case, the duplicates of Cicero's letters. And second, one aspect of this preservation against the loss or corruption of texts was through social networks guarding against this loss.

_______________________________

Cicero, Letters to his Friends. M. Cary trans. LCL. Vol 3. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960. Page 523.

Paul’s Letter Carriers Tychicus And Onesimus

Ancient writings were largely circulated within communities through copying and distributing, with no legal copyright or formal system to control plagiarism. Once a work began to circulate the author became powerless to control the quality of the copying process or to select the audience that would read the work. The permanency of writing and the lack of control over who came into contact with a composition often led authors to exercise caution concerning the work they committed to writing. This realization was expressed well by Plato (ca. 370’s BCE), who wrote,

"Once a thing is put in writing, the composition, whatever it may be, drifts all over the place, getting into the hands not only of those who understand it, but equally of those who have no business with it; it does not know how to address the right people and not to address the wrong. And when it has been ill-treated and unfairly abused it always needs its parent to come to its help, being unable to defend or help itself.” (Plato, Phaedrus 275 d-e; Alexander, 54-55)

The physician Galen (ca. 160’s CE) expressed a strikingly similar concern. He feared that his lectures would disseminate more broadly than those who were present at the time a lecture or demonstration was given (Mattern, 12). In one particular instance, Galen told of a public demonstration in which he was speaking about several ancient medical writers. The demonstration quickly escalated into a debate between Galen and a follower of Martialius (a rival physician). Galen’s criticism and debate with the follower of Martialius drew great praise from those present who were watching the spectacle. Because of the fame, Galen wrote that a friend

“begged me to dictate what I had said to a person he would send to me who was trained in a form of shorthand writing, so that, if he suddenly had to leave Rome for his home city, he would be able to use it against Martialius during examinations of patients. When I subsequently returned to Rome on my second visit (at the summons of the emperors), the friend who had taken this document had died; but to my amazement the book, written in the context of the rivalry of a particular moment, and while I was quite young (still in my thirty-fourth year), was now in the possession of a large number of people. (De libr. propr., 14-15; Translation taken from, Singer).

Galen regretted that this debate, meant for a specific audience in a unique context, had disseminated so widely and vowed never to give a public lecture again.

The lack of control by the author over a written work that was circulating was also felt by those who wrote and dispatched letters. During Cicero’s time (60-40’s BCE) the crumbling Roman Republic was fraught with political intrigue and Cicero had to be sure that letters to his friends did not contain any sensitive political or military information. To combat this danger he would send verbal messages along with the written epistle which were conveyed to the letter carrier, who was charged with delivering this verbal message along with the written dispatch. Following are a few of these examples.

In June 48 (BCE), Cicero wrote to his longtime friend Atticus,

“You ask me about the war news. You will be able to learn it from Isidorus [the courier of this letter]. It looks as if what remains won't be too difficult. Do please see to what you know I have most at heart [Tullia's dowry]. ... Brutus is my friend; he is zealous in the cause. That is as much as I can prudently put on paper.” (Att. 11.4a; Nicholson, 42)

In another letter he wrote to Atticus,

“You will be able to learn what is going on here [at Pompey's camp in Dyrrachium] from the bearer of this letter.” (Att. 11.3.1; June 48 (BCE); Nicholson, 42)

To Appius Claudius, Cicero wrote in July 51 (BCE),

“I arrived at Tralles on 27 July. There to meet me was L. Lucilius [otherwise unknown] with your letter and messages. You could not have sent me any friendlier or, as I suppose, better qualified or more sensible informant to tell me what I want to know. I was glad to read your letter, and I have listened carefully to Lucilius.” (Fam. 3.5.1; Nicholson, 42)

There are a few instances in the Pauline corpus that exhibit a similar practice as illustrated by the example of Cicero. Scholars have argued that the letter carrier would read out and even perform the message of Paul’s epistle, though other scholars argue against this practice (for a brief overview with examples and references, see Head, 280-282). It is true, however, that Paul sometimes incorporated a verbal message along with the written contents of the letter both of which were conveyed by the dispatch carrier. This can be seen in the role of Tychicus and Onesimus the couriers who brought Paul’s letter to the Church at Colossae. At the end of the epistle Paul wrote,

“Tychicus will tell you all about my activities. He is a beloved brother in the Lord. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are and that he may encourage your hearts, and with him Onesimus, our faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They will tell you of everything that has taken place here.” (Col. 4:7-9: ESV: Head, 280)

There are many reasons that a letter writer might wish to convey a message verbally rather than in writing (for several examples from the Oxyrhynchus papyri see Head, 289-296). And Paul could have given verbal messages for those reasons. It is also equally possible that Paul wished to control the audience of this message and did not wish for the details of his circumstance to fall into the wrong hands. Paul always had intended his letter to the Church at Colossae to be circulated widely beyond the original recipients (Col. 4:16). Paul was in prison at the time of writing (Col. 4:18) and it is possible that Tychicus and Onesimus had sensitive information about his imprisonment that Paul did not want to be widely circulated. Peter noted at the end of his epistle that there were those who were twisting the words of Paul’s epistles,

“And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; ESV)

Of course, there could be many other reasons for conveying a message orally, yet Paul might have needed to exercise control over who heard this information because of his captivity. In his letter to the Philippian Church Paul notes that his imprisonment became widely known “throughout the whole imperial guard” (Phil 1:13; ESV). He also shared that though some Christians were emboldened by his imprisonment, others were preaching the Gospel from “envy and rivalry”(Phil 1:15, 17). This “rivalry” was somehow connected with the occasion of Paul’s imprisonment, these individuals were seeking to harm Paul in some way (Phil 1:15, 17; ESV). In light of this, Paul had every reason to exercise caution in purveying news of his imprisonment. 
____________________________

Alexander, Loveday. “Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing.” Novum Testamentum 28.1 (1986): 48-74.

Galen, Selected Works (P. N. Singer, trans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).

Head, Peter M. "Named letter-carriers among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri." Journal For The Study Of The New Testament 31, no. 3 (March 1, 2009): 279-299.

Mattern, Susan P. Galen and the Rhetoric of Healing (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008).

Nicholson, John. “The Delivery and Confidentiality of Cicero's Letters.” The Classical Journal 90.1 (1994): 33-63

Review of; "Walk Worthily" by Jeff Smelser

“Walk Worthily: A Commentary on Ephesians.” By Jeff Smelser. Cillicothe, OH: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017, 273 pp., ISBN:9781936341948, $19.00.

“Walk Worthily” is a commentary on the epistle of Ephesians by Jeff Smelser, who has written articles in several confessional periodicals and edits a website that hosts courses in New Testament Greek.[1] The ‘Preface’ indicates that “this work has been prepared having in mind the first or second year Greek student” (p. 10). Those seeking a highly technical commentary on the level of a “Hermenia” or “International Critical Commentary,” that exhaustively interacts with the scholarly literature and examines every textual variant may be disappointed. “Walk Worthily” is best suited for the pastor, beginning student, or layman.

Despite its beginner level, the introduction is quite comprehensive and at fifty pages, consumes roughly one fifth of the work. The length reveals the importance Smelser places upon a proper understanding of the historical setting and recipients of the epistle. He argues that issues of Pauline authorship can be resolved by accurately determining the intended recipients (p. 16). According to Smelser, the epistle was not written to the Ephesian church specifically, but rather was originally intended as an encyclical (p. 32-38).

He gives the resemblance of Ephesians to Colossians as evidence in favor of Pauline authorship arguing that the similarity reveals that both epistles were likely written at the same time and place (p. 16). Smelser compares the outline and wording of both epistles and concludes that both have similar main ideas (p. 17-24). Ephesians being at 4:1, “Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling which you were called,” and Colossians being at 2:6, “Therefore as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, in him walk” (p. 24). Yet Colossians includes very specific and individualized comments, whereas Ephesians does not, which would be out of place if the Ephesians were the intended recipients, considering Paul’s long history with the Church there (cf. p. 25).

Another clue that allegedly points away from an original Ephesian destination is the overall gentile focus of the letter. Pointing to the events described in Acts 18 and 19, Smelser highlights the primary Jewish rather than gentile membership of the Church at Ephesus (p. 26-27). Thus, it seems out of place for a letter allegedly sent to the Church at Ephesus to be addressing gentiles primarily (p. 27).

The most convincing clue tipping away from an original Ephesian destination is of course the lack of the words “in Ephesus” in a few manuscripts. These are P46, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus, among others, all of which are important witnesses to the text of Ephesians (p. 28). Also, several early Church fathers are witnesses to the lack of “in Ephesus” in the manuscript tradition. Origen (early 3rd cen. CE), and Basil (late 4th cen. CE) having extensive discussion of this verse (p. 29-30).

Accumulatively, the evidence discussed above has led the author to conclude that the letter of Ephesians was not originally intended for the Ephesian Church, but was meant as an encyclical letter, written at the same time as Colossians and Philemon, and carried by Tychicus to the various Churches in Asia Minor (p. 32). Smelser gives a detailed proposal as to the route Tychicus may have taken in bearing the letter (p. 33). He suggests that Tychicus traveled the “Syrian Gate” and left copies of the encyclical letter in the cities along the route, which included the city of Laodecia (p. 32-38). This might explain Marcion’s association of the letter with Laodicea (p. 30).

Rome rather than Ephesus or Caesarea is given as the likely place of composition (p. 43-50). A date range of composition at 60 CE and no later than 64 CE is assigned to the epistle based upon the details given in the book of Acts (p. 55). Smelser gives a lengthy chronological discussion of the events in Acts, anchoring his dates on the time of Gallio’s term as Procunsul of Achaea (p. 50-52).

In the text of the commentary Smelser focuses in at the verse and clause level, rather than at the discourse level. He begins each discussion by giving his own English translation of the verse under examination. In describing his intent behind the translation, he writes,

“I have not attempted to provide a fluid, easily readable translation. Rather, my goal has been to produce a translation that will facilitate ready comparison with the Greek text for those who have some knowledge of Greek.” (p. 10)

Though the author does not reproduce the Greek text for each verse in its entirety, however, he does include the text taken from the NA 28 when the discussion requires it.

Throughout the work Smelser references most of the standard Greek grammars and lexicons. According to the “Works Consulted” list in the back, the following original language resources were used (p. 267-273); C.F.D. Moule’s, “An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek,” Richard Chenevix Trench’s “Synonyms of the New Testament,” Daniel Wallace’s “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics,” and Maximillian Zerwick, “Biblical Greek.” 

Unfortunately, this list is not representative of every work referenced within the commentary. Scanning through the footnotes the following sources were also consulted by the author; A.T. Roberton’s “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Reasearch,” “A Manual Gramar of the Greek New Testament,” Herbert Weir Smyth, “A Greek Grammar for Colleges,” Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, “A Greek Grammar of the New Testament,” Dana and Mantey, “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament,” Kittel, Friedrich and Bromiley, “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,” as well as BAGD, and BDAG.

Considering my own interests in textual criticism, composition, and publication of the New Testament writings, the introduction was the most interesting to read and thus garnered the most attention in this review. Smelser gives some great insight into the circumstances surrounding the composition and distribution of the letter. Despite this, I was disappointed at the lack of interaction with scholarly literature on this issue. There was no mention of Günther Zuntz’s work and his discussion of encyclical Hellenistic royal letters extant in the papyri that had a blank space for the names of the recipients to be entered at each destination.

Despite the drawbacks, “Walk Worthily” is an affordably priced commentary that balances approachability with detailed analysis. Beginners will not be over intimidated by technicality and more advanced readers may yet find insight and scholarly commentary to satisfy their curiosity.
_____________________________________
[1] http://www.ntgreek.net/. For a list of his published articles see the website here.

Teaching Aids for Ancient Christian Readers

Some of the earliest copies of the New Testament writings were copied in such a way that they aided the reader in their task of deciphering the scriptio continua. Bookrolls from the Roman world (1st -3rd century CE) which contained works of literature had very little by way of assistance for the reader. Take for example P. Lond. Lit. 134 (ca. 200 CE), a copy of  Hyperides, In Philippidem. It has a steady stream of letters uninterrupted by spaces or any type of punctuation.

P. Lond. Lit. 134. (Johnson, "Bookrolls and Scribes," 400)

Those fortunate children in antiquity with access to an education had to be taught methods of deciphering this system of writing. Grammarians (ancient teachers) facilitated this instruction by creating models of ancient works such as Homer's Iliad that incorporated spaces between words and markings differentiating syllables and sense units. One example of a teacher's model is a wooden tablet from Roman Egypt that contains Homer's Iliad (3rd century). The wooden slate uses spaces between words and markings to assist beginning readers in comprehending the text.

AM 13839 (Cribiore, "Gymnastics of the Mind," 135)

Similar phenomena of reading aid can be detected in some early copies of New Testament writings. For example, spaces between words can clearly be seen throughout P46 (2nd/3rd century), a collection of Paul's epistles.

The beginning of Galatians in P46

Spaces and limited punctuation can be seen in P66 (2nd/3rd century), a copy of John's Gospel. 

The beginning of the Gospel of John in P66.

There are some interesting parallels between early New Testament manuscripts such as P46 and P66 and teachers models such as AM 13839. Both types of documents employ clear and legible scripts, give generous space between lines, and use spacing between words and sense units. These features have been highlighted elsewhere on this blog (here, and here). It has already been noted that reading aids seem to reveal that these Christian books were produced for less than capable readers.
Coupled with this, perhaps the presence of reader's aids in copies of New Testament manuscripts also reveal another parallel with teacher's models; that of instruction. Just like teacher's models were used almost exclusively in the context of learning, perhaps these Christian manuscripts were produced so that they could be used primarily within teaching contexts.
_____________________

Cribiore, Raffaella. Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Johnson, William A., Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.

Paul and His Letter Carriers

It can be difficult to imagine the writings of Paul as individual letters, unbound and separate from the contents pages of our modern Bibles. Each of Paul's letters had their own unique reason for being written, and each had a specific intended audience. Each unique circumstance required intimate knowledge and communication with the recipient Churches. At first glance, this may appear easy enough, in our modern age of social media, email and public mail services. It was not so easy in the first century Roman world of Paul's time. Our knowledge of how the ancient world communicated would be sparse at best if not for the vast amounts of papyrus documents found in the garbage dumps of antiquity (The largest quantity of papyri were found in the ancient Egyptian city of Oxyrhynchus). These papyrus documents are mainly personal letters, receipts of sale, contracts, daily correspondence, inventories, left over remnants of daily life from several hundred years before and after the time of Paul in the first century. Studying these papyri gives access to a wealth of information on how people lived their lives thousands of years ago. Particularly, they give us insight into how people corresponded and communicated during Paul's time.


The Letter Carrier
If someone wanted to write a letter in antiquity, to ensure that it made its way to the intended recipients, one had to obtain the services of a letter carrier. As can be seen in the many examples of papyrus letters, finding someone to act as courier (especially a trustworthy person) could prove difficult (Head, 283). Thus finding a reliable letter carrier often times occasioned the need to write (Epp, 45).  Peter Head quotes this papyrus letter from the early first century (the name of the letter carrier is missing);

Since...is going up stream, I judged it necessary to salute to you by letter and in invite you to write to me about what ever you may want. (Head, 284; P. Oxy 3806)

In a similar fashion, it appears that Paul took advantage of Epaphroditus' recovery from poor health to write to the Philippians;

But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier; who is also your messenger and minister to my need; because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. (Phil 2:25-26).

Though not mentioned specifically in the verse, Epaphroditus undoubtedly carried Paul's epistle to the Philippian believers, and Paul took the opportunity of Epaphroditus' trip back to Philippi to send the letter (Llewelyn, 338).
The papyri also illustrate that the letter carrier often functioned as a purveyor of goods from the writer to the recipients of the letter (Head, 287). This is illustrated by a letter from the second or third century C. E. (Head, 288);

Unopened ancient papyrus letter with seal (BAR, 48)

Chaereas to his brother Dionysius, greeting. I have already urged you in person to have the horoscope (?) in the archives prepared and also the sale of the slaves' children, and to sell the wine that comes from both the near and the far vineyard, keeping the money in a safe place until I come. I send you some good melon seeds through Diogenes the friend of Chaereas the citizen, and two strips of cloth sealed with my seal, one of which please give to your children. Salute your sister and Cyrilla, Rhosope and Arsinous salute you. I pray for your health. (P. Oxy 117; Vol. 1, pg. 183)

Epaphroditus had acted as a "messenger" for the Philippian Church, and doubly functioned as a purveyor of their financial gifts, which were carried to Paul in his imprisonment (4:18).
Stephanus and Fortunatus and Achaicus came to Paul for service from Corinth, and probably brought provisions and money for Paul from the Church (1 Cor 16:17). Also, they are most likely the ones who brought the letter from the Corinthians asking Paul questions concerning doctrine and Christian living (7:1). Also, Paul asked Corinth for letter carriers to carry letters from him as well as money;

And when I arrive, whomever you may approve, I shall send  them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem. (1 Cor 16:3)

The papyri also give examples of requests for information and for the recipient to give word or to visit. Consider this very old third century B.C. letter;

Polycrates to his father, greeting. I am glad if you are in good health, and everything else is to your mind. We ourselves are in good health. I have often written to you to come and introduce me, in order that I may be relieved of my present occupation. And now if it is possible, and none of your work hinders you, do try and come to the Arisinoe festival; for if you come, I am sure that I shall easily be introduced to the King. Know that I have received 70 drachmas from Philonides. Half of this I have kept by me for necessaries, but the rest I have paid as an installment of interest. This happens because we do not get our money in a lump sum, but in small installments. Write to us yourself that we may know you are circumstanced, and not be anxious. Take care of yourself that you may be well, and come to us in good health. Farewell. (Milligan, 7-8; P. Petr II)

Compare the above exchange with Paul's elaborate instructions, greetings and requests given to Timothy;

Make every effort to come to me soon; for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Pick up Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service. But Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. When you come bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments. Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. Be on guard against him yourself, for he vigorously opposed our teaching. At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them....Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. Erastus remained at Corinth, but Trophimus I left sick at Miletus. Make every effort to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, also Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren. The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you. (2 Tim 4:9-22)

Digging up ancient papyrus at Oxyrhynchus (ancientlives.org)

The papyri bring a real cultural and historical perspective on the epistles of Paul. What now comprises most of the New Testament were real letters, written in particular circumstances, for specific people and places, and carried by real people. Paul felt the need to find trustworthy couriers to bring his letters faithfully to their recipients, and to carry money and gifts (such as to the Jerusalem church). Paul also benefited from Churches sending their own messengers to carry letters, money and provisions to care for him in his ministry and imprisonment.

________________
 Bibliography

BAR Magazine. “Biblical Archaeology Review.” Vol 35 No 3.

Epp, Eldon. “New Testament Papyrus Manuscripts and Letter Carrying in Greco-Roman Times.” The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (ed. B. A. Pearson, in collaboration with A. T. Kraabel, G. W. E. Nickelsburg, and N. R. Petersen; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1991) 35–56.

Head, Peter M. "Named letter-carriers among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri." Journal For The Study Of The New Testament 31, no. 3 (March 1, 2009): 279-299.


Llewelyn, Stephen. "Sending Letters in the Ancient World : Paul and the Philippians." Tyndale Bulletin 46, no. 2 (November 1, 1995): 337-356.


Milligan, George. Selections from the Greek Papyri. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912.

Colossians 4:16 and Early Canon Formation

    When reading through the  New Testament I often think about the early Christian communities who first received Paul's letters and I wonder about how their initial treatment and acceptance of them would have been. While reading through the last part of Colossians recently one verse in particular caught my attention and caused me to think on the early Church and the beginnings of the New Testament canon.

"And after you have read this letter, have it read to the church of Laodicea. In turn, read the letter from Laodicea as well. (Col. 4:16, NET)"

     There are several features of the early Church that can be understood from this verse, but I would like to focus on one aspect that is significant to me, that of copying, collecting and distributing Paul's letters. Though Paul does not specifically command the Colossian Church to copy his letter in this verse, it is implied in his command to have his letter read in another city. Rather than send the original, the community would have copied  the letter and sent it on its way to Laodicea. The same would have been true of the Laodicean letter (most likely Ephesians; a subject of another post); it would have been copied then sent along its way to Colossae. Hierapolis, Laodicea and Colossae were important cities in close proximity to each other in the Lycus valley (part of western Turkey). Tychicus, most likely the bearer of the letter (Col. 4:7), would have walked straight through Laodicea on his way to Colossae, they were only a few miles apart. Thus it would have been no trouble to circulate the letter as Paul directed them by copying and distributing.
     Perhaps here in Colossians 4:16 we can begin to see the New Testament canon already developing, at least where Paul's epistles are concerned. Most likely, the church at these locations began to gather Paul's letters onto a single scroll or bound them into a single papyrus codex for further copying and circulation, or for their own use.
     This probably happened at Paul's end as well. One of his close companions, say Luke or Timothy, could have kept copies of Paul's letters for publication as a collection. It was very common in antiquity for notable figures, scholars or statesmen to collect and publish their correspondence in a single volume, whether scroll or codex, for their followers to read.
     Pliny the Younger (ca. 61-112? CE) was a Roman statesman and an accomplished orator and writer in his day. He often made joyful comments in his letters when others compared him to Cicero, Tacitus or the like. Pliny must have enjoyed some popularity and a following in his day. A friend of his, whether pupil or peer, urged Pliny to gather his numerous letters and publish them as a collection for others to enjoy.

"To Septicius Clarus,
You have often urged me to collect and publish any letters of mine which were composed with some care. I have now made a collection, not keeping to the original order as I was writing history, but taking them as they came to hand. It remains for you not to regret having made the suggestion and for me not to regret following it; for then I shall set about recovering letters which have hitherto been put away and forgotten, and I shall not suppress any which I may write in the future. (Pliny, Letters, 1.1)"

     This is the first of Pliny's letters and must have been the driving force behind this published collection which has survived from antiquity. It is also interesting to note that book ten of Pliny's correspondence would have been gathered after his death by a friend and included in the publication.
   This same situation could have occurred with Paul's epistles. As the letters circulated among the various Christian communities they would have been gathered and copied into a single scroll or codex, which was the common practice of the time.

P46 showing 2 Corinthians (Wikimedia Commons)

    One superb example of this gathering activity has survived surprisingly well, despite the ravages of time. Papyrus P46, as it has come to be designated, is an early collection of Paul's epistles in a single codex. Though under some discussion, the approximate date is some where around 200 CE and originates in the Fayum of Egypt (Comfort, 206). The codex contains the texts of Romans, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians and, though missing now, would have originally contained 2 Thessalonians as well (Royse, 202). 
    The codex of P46 was made only 100 years after the time Colossians was written. In this space of time Paul's epistles were collected into a single volume and widely distributed to at least as far as Egypt. It is safe to assume that this collecting and publishing occurred very early most likely when Paul was still alive. This activity occurred not only as a result of Paul's commands like we see in Col 4:16, but because the early Christians valued and cherished his epistles.

Comfort, Philip Wesley and David P. Barrett. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001.

Radice, Betty, trans. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. London, England: Penguin Books, 1969.

Royse, James R. Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Gladiator Games and Early Christians

Gladiator games were a morbid and grotesque aspect of ancient Roman culture. Most of the gladiatorial games were sponsored by rich patrons in honor of a holiday, a victorious tribute, or in honor of a friend or loved one at their funeral. I have been leisurely reading through the letters of the younger Pliny and came across a letter which he had written to a friend who had sponsored games in a city of northern Italy.

"To Valerius Maximus

You did well to put on a show of gladiators for our people of Verona, who have long shown their affection and admiration for you and have voted you many honors. Verona was also the home town of the excellent wife you loved so dearly, whose memory you owe some public building or show, and this kind of spectacle is particularly suitable for a funeral tribute. Moreover, the request came from so many people that a refusal would have been judged churlish rather than strong-minded on your part. You have also done admirably in giving the show so readily and on such a lavish scale, for this indicates a true spirit of generosity.

I am sorry the African panthers you had bought in such quantities did not turn up on the appointed day, but you deserve the credit although the weather prevented their arriving in time; it was not your fault that you could not show them. (Pliny Letters, 6.34; Radice, 183-184)"

Amphitheater in Verona Italy (Wikimedia)

 This letter was written some time around the first decade of the second century (100-110 AD). Pliny gives us a snapshot of an event which occurred over 1,900 years ago. I can almost hear the roar of the crowds as the gladiators fight to the death. The bad weather prevented the panthers from showing up in time for the games. But I am sure they had a magnificent hunt planned in which gladiators would pursue the wild beasts around the arena. The panthers would also have been used to attack condemned prisoners, possibly even Christians. Though there was no empire wide persecution of Christians during the reign of Trajan who was emperor at the time. A beautiful mosaic (shown below right) from around the same time this letter was written depicts games which most likely would have been very similar to the ones Pliny describes in his letter to Maximus. Also, the amphitheater in Verona where these games were sponsored and most likely took place still stands to this day (pictured above left).

Mosaic of Gladiator Games, 2nd century (Wikimedia)

Take special note of the mosaic at right. Notice the prisoners who are being attacked by a panther while tied to posts. And below there is another prisoner being lead by a whip to an awaiting lion. Also, gladiators are depicted as fighting amongst themselves and a hunt is shown in which panthers, lions, bears, deer, antelope and other animals are in pursuit of each other. It is most likely that the panthers which were delayed by bad weather were going to be used in a similar fashion.

Many Christians faced the threat of being tortured to death in an arena such as is depicted by this mosaic and by the description of Pliny. Ignatius, the Bishop of the Roman city of Antioch, faced just such a threat. He stated as much to the Christian community in Rome to which he wrote a letter, right about the same time Pliny wrote his letter above. He composed this while a prisoner on his way to Rome;

"I am writing to all the Churches and am insisting to everyone that I die for God of my own free will—unless you hinder me. I implore you: do not be ”unseasonably kind” to me. Let me be food for the wild beasts, through whom I can reach God. I am God's wheat, and am being ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I might prove to be pure bread. Better yet, coax the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb and leave nothing of my body behind. (Ign. Rom. 4:1-2; Holmes, 171)"

Amphitheater at Ephesus (Wikimedia)

    Ignatius was arrested for being a Christian, and he knew what the consequences were for adhering to the faith, it was death in the arena!

    The apostle Paul revealed to the Corinthians that he himself had fought with wild beasts (1 Corinthians 15:32). He did this in the city of Ephesus and both the amphitheater and the ancient hippodrome are still standing to this day. Paul most likely would have encountered the beasts during the gladiatorial games and it most likely would have taken place either in the hippodrome, or in the theater (pictured at left).

    There is no doubt that the Gladiatorial games were brutal and violent. Many Christians spoke out against this violent inhumanity, encouraging other Christians to boycott the games so they would not inadvertently support their cruel punishments. Tertullian was a Bishop in the city of Carthage and was a prolific author. Though his comments are nearly one hundred years removed from the time of Pliny the Younger and Ignatius, his condemnation of the games paints a vivid picture of their cruelty and the Christian's abhorrence of this violence.

"We shall now see how the Scriptures condemn the amphitheatre. If we can maintain that it is right to indulge in the cruel, and the impious, and the fierce, let us go there. If we are what we are said to be, let us regale ourselves there with human blood. It is good, no doubt, to have the guilty punished. Who but the criminal himself will deny that? And yet the innocent can find no pleasure in another’s sufferings: he rather mourns that a brother has sinned so heinously as to need a punishment so dreadful. But who is my guarantee that it is always the guilty who are adjudged to the wild beasts, or to some other doom, and that the guiltless never suffer from the revenge of the judge, or the weakness of the defence, or the pressure of the rack? How much better, then, is it for me to remain ignorant of the punishment inflicted on the wicked, lest I am obliged to know also of the good coming to untimely ends—if I may speak of goodness in the case at all! At any rate, gladiators not chargeable with crime are offered in sale for the games, that they may become the victims of the public pleasure. Even in the case of those who are judicially condemned to the amphitheatre, what a monstrous thing it is, that, in undergoing their punishment, they, from some less serious delinquency, advance to the criminality of manslayers! But I mean these remarks for heathen. As to Christians, I shall not insult them by adding another word as to the aversion with which they should regard this sort of exhibition; though no one is more able than myself to set forth fully the whole subject, unless it be one who is still in the habit of going to the shows. I would rather withal be incomplete than set memory a-working. (Tertullian, Spect. IX)"

     From Tertullian's last two sentences above, one can determine that he himself had attended gladiatorial games and in discussing their cruelty he had brought to mind the violence of past events he had witnessed. Keep in mind too that Tertullian was speaking out against these games at a time when it was technically illegal to be a Christian and thus he would have suffered death in the arena himself if the authorities pressed the issue! What courage on the part of these earliest Christians!

_____________________
Bibliography

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian. ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Holmes, Michael W.. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Updated Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.

Radice, Betty, trans. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. London, England: Penguin Books, 1969.