The Oxyrhynchus Papyri and The Titles to Paul's Letters

I have been reading through a new book by Benjamin Laird, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Liberty University. This new monograph covers the formation of the Pauline letter collection; "The Pauline Corpus in Early Christianity: Its Formation, Publication, and Circulation."

I was planning on giving a concise review of the book (I was given a copy for review), but haven't yet finished reading it. I found the topic so intriguing and thought provoking, however, that I wanted to give a few of my thoughts before I was completely finished reading through the book. In the monograph, Laird discusses such topics as the early Christian use of the codex, the manner in which Greco-Roman authors circulated "editions" of their letter collections, etc. I hope to comment on these topics in further posts, for now, what has caught my interest was Laird's observations and arguments on the titles to Paul's letter collection. To briefly summarise, Laird highlights the uniformity of the titles to the Pauline letter collection in the earliest extant manuscripts, reviewing such early witnesses as P46 and Codex Sinaiticus among other witnesses (pages 74-82). He notes that the titles throughout all the collections remain consistent (page 82). Laird argues that because Paul's letters were carried by trusted letter carriers that knew the author and the recipients, "it may not have been necessary at the time the writings were originally dispatched for subscriptions or letter titles to be included" (pages 74). Because the Pauline letters were named after the recipients of the letters, Laird argues, it was unlikely that they circulated as part of other letter collections (page 83). He uses Philemon as an example, in this case, the letter was actually addressed to several individuals, Philemon being only one of them (Phlm 1; page 84). Because of this, Laird surmises,

"Because the address includes the names of several individuals, it is not a foregone conclusion that the title ΠΡΟΣ [Φ]ΙΛΗΜΟΝΑ would have been universally recognized had it not been created by a particular individual or a small team on a specific location." (page 84)

Supporting this notion, Laird points to the letter to the Ephesians (page 87). The earliest manuscripts (P46, 01, and 03) all testify to the title ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ. Yet in these earliest witnesses the letter is uniformly written as ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ. According to Laird, this points to the early circulation of an influential edition of Paul's letters.

These assertions had me thinking about the many examples of personal letters that have survived from Oxyrhynchus. There are a plethora of letters preserved that have the recipient written on the reverse side and have a named letter carrier known and trusted by the sender of the letter. Of course, I cannot be exhaustive, but here are a few examples.

P.Oxy 3.530. This second century letter is one from a son to his mother concerning money matters. The letter carrier is named, a certain Chaeremon, and is obviously known and trusted by the sender of the letter because Chaeremen holds money to give to the sender's mother. Even though the letter carrier is known and trusted by the sender of the letter, the name of the one to receive the letter is still written on the back of the document.

"Dionysius to Tetheus his mother, greeting. I have received all the letters concerning which you write, and with regard to the wheat which the collectors have demanded from you it is admitted (?), but I had forgotten to make any order for payment; I have however paid in full the naubion and other taxes. Do not be concerned that the matter about which I wrote to Theon has not been carried out and that I have so long been engaged with Pausirion’s business to no purpose ... Please receive from Chaeremon the bearer of this letter 112 drachmae of silver of which you will give to my friend Sarapion son of Apei 100 drachmae and redeem my clothes, with 8 drachmae on account of interest, and keep 4 drachmae for yourself for the expenses of the festival. If I had had more I would have forwarded a further sum; I have borrowed to send even this. So pay him the money and get my clothes back safe, and put them in a secure place. Do not be anxious about us, for there is nothing the matter with us and we are at harmony with each other. Theonas salutes you. Salute the boys Apion and his brother Hermatois, Dionutas, those with Nice and the little Thaisous, all those with..., Heras and his household, Leontas the proud and his household, those with Taamois, and Thermoutharion. Good-bye. The 20th of the month Caesareus. (P.S.) Send me word about this immediately after the festival, whether you received the money and whether you recovered my clothes. Salute Dionutas and Theon. (Addressed) To my mother Tetheus." (translation taken from https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.oxy;3;530)

The images are available here (https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Papyrus_1530)

P.Oxy 3.530

P.Oxy 3.530 with the reverse showing to whom the letter is addressed:
Τεθεῦτι μητρί (Tetheus my mother)

P.Oxy 6.930. This is a letter written from a mother to her son. The first part of the letter normally containing the opening greeting is missing. Yet the receiver of the letter is preserved, written on the reverse side. Along with this, the mother is equally adressing her son's tutor who is apparently responsible for the boy. Even though the letter is addressed to her son on the reverse, she is also writing to her son's tutor Eros. 

" ... do not hesitate to write to me about anything which you require. It grieved me to learn from the daughter of our teacher Diogenes that he had sailed, for I had no anxiety about him, knowing that he intended to look after you to the best of his ability. I took care to send and ask about your health and learn what you are reading; he said that it was the sixth book and testified at length concerning your attendant. So my son, I urge both you and your attendant to take care that you go to a suitable teacher. Many salutations are sent to you by your sisters and Theonis’ children, whom the evil eye shall not harm, and by all our friends by name. Salute your esteemed attendant Eros ... (Addressed) ... to her son Ptolemaeus." (translation taken from https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.oxy;6;930)

The images are available here (https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/library/files/special/teach/papyrus/oxyrhynchus930.html)

P.Oxy 6.930

Both of these papyri are examples of why Laird's observations on the titles of Paul's epistles do not necessitate an early edited and released collection published in a single codex. The titles of Paul's letters most likely came from the recipient written on the back of the letter as we see from these two examples. Or, for the longer epistles, written on the outside of the folded sheets of papyrus. P.Oxy 3.530 is an example of a trusted letter carrier (Chaeremon) who is known by the sender, yet the address is stil written on the back. P.Oxy 6.930 helps to answer Laird's concerns over Ephesians. In this oxyrhynchus letter, the written recipient is not preserved at the beginning of the letter (as is the case for Ephesians in P46, etc). Yet we still know who the intended recipient of the letter was because it was preserved by being written on the back of the letter. The same could be true for the letter to the Ephesians. Assuming the theory of a circular letter is true, if the earliest copy of the letter to Ephesians had the recipients omitted in the text of the letter, but the first copy was sent to the Church at Ephesus and the recipient was written on the back, then this could account for the recipients being left blank in the body of the text, but the title being preserved as "to the Ephesians."

Considering these two letters, it is much more likely that the titles of the Pauline letters actually derived from the intended recipients being written on the outside of the original folded and dispatched letter. Especially when we consider that Colossians 4:16 actually gives evidence that individual letters were being circulated at the begining and not as part of an "official" published edition.

"And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea." (Col 4:16; ESV)

Despite this disagreement with Laird on the title origins of the Pauline letter collection, I still have found Laird's book thought provoking and suggestive. I hope to post more thoughts and reflections in the near future.

Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Pauline Authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy

Page from Codex H (015) at 1 Tim 2.2-6 (6th Century)

I recently read an older article in the academic journal Vigiliae Christianae that argues for Polycarp's belief that 1 and 2 Timothy were written by Paul. 

Kenneth Berding, "Polycarp of Smyrna's View of the Authorship of 1 and 2 Timothy," Vigiliae Christianae 53.4 (Nov., 1999): 349-360.

Here is the conclusion of the article as a summary.

"This paper has sought to demonstrate that there is a marked tendency in Polycarp's letter to the Philippians to cluster Pauline citations and allusions in the three passages in which he mentions the name of Paul. This indicates that Polycarp (consciously or unconsciously) considered the references to be Pauline. In addition, the first cluster contains a phrase from 1 Tim 6:10 followed by one from 1 Tim 6:7. The second cluster contains a phrase from 2 Tim 4:10. The most plausible conclusion which can be drawn is that Polycarp considered these also to be Pauline. If Harrison (and much of modern scholarship) is correct in linking Titus to 1 and 2 Timothy, Polycarp has become the earliest external witness to the belief in the early church that Paul was the author of the Pastoral Epistles." (pg 360).

I find the collective evidence presented as pretty persuasive. In support of this early attestation, it appears that Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Ephesian church, may have had 1 and 2 Timothy in view when he made a passing reference to Paul.

"You are the highway of those who are being killed for God's sake; you are fellow initiates of Paul, who as sanctified, who was approved, who was deservedly blessed─may I be found in his footsteps when I reach God!─who in every letter remembers you in Christ Jesus." (Ign. Eph. 12.2)

Which letters may Ignatius be referring to here? Obviously, it is likely he is referring to the New Testament writing, Ephesians. However, this is only one letter, why does he mention "every letter" (πάση επιστολη), which seems to be referring to every letter in the Pauline corpus? Most commentators of Ignatius see this reference as hyperbole. Paul mentions the Ephesian Christians in only four of his letters, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and first and second Timothy (pg 163-164).

Perhaps another solution is that Ignatius is referring to letters that were written to the Ephesian Church directly. This would include of course Ephesians, but also 1 and 2 Timothy as well for Paul had left Timothy in Ephesus to minister and instruct the Christians in the city (1 Tim 1:3). Thus it might be that once Timothy received the letter, he read it out to the Church there. If this is what Ignatius is referring to (granted this is speculative) then Ignatius is attributing Pauline authorship to the letters of 1 and 2 Timothy.

______________________________________

Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

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

Clement of Rome and the Holy Rule Handed Down

While reading through 1 Clement in Greek, I came across an interesting phrase,

"Therefore let us abandon empty and futile thoughts, and let us conform to the glorious and holy rule of our tradition." (1 Clement 7.2; Holmes, 37)

"διὸ ἀπολίπωμεν τὰς κενὰς καὶ ματαίας φροντίδας, καὶ ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τὸν εὐκλεῆ καὶ σεμνὸν τῆς παραδόσεως ἡμῶν κανόνα." (1 Clement 7.2; Holmes, 36)

The author (traditionally thought to be Clement of Rome, ca. 96 CE), appears to be referring to the "rule of faith" or the "rule of truth." This was commonly appealed to as a standard of doctrine, Christology, and belief that separated the orthodox from the heterodox. For example, Eusebius, in his history, recounts that Dionysius (ca. 170) wrote a letter to the Nicomedians "in which he combats the heresy of Marcion and compares it with the rule of the truth (τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας παρίσταται κανόνι)" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.23.4; LCL, 379).

The "rule of faith" appears to have governed the manner in which the scriptures were interpreted as well. Irenaeus (ca. 180 CE) wrote that

"he also who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule (κανόνα) of the truth which he received by means of baptism, will doubtless recognize the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the Scriptures" (Haer. 1.9.4; ANF 1:303).

Some early Christian writers use the phrase in a way that seems to include, not only the basic theology of the church, but also an accepted body of scripture handed down from the Apostles. Tertullian of Carthage (ca. 200 CE), in his "On the Prescription of Heretics," wrote that,

"For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions." (Praescr. 19; ANF 3:251–252)

Tertullian is here including a received body of Scripture as an integral element of the "rule of faith." Returning to 1 Clement, it may be that the author (Clement) had a received body of scriptures in mind (along with "true" theology) when he wrote of the "glorious and holy rule of our traditions." There are a few clues in the context of 1 Clement they may support such a reading of 7.2.

Immediately following the author's admonition to "conform to the glorious and holy rule of our tradition" (7.2), is a long series of examples drawn from the Hebrew Bible. The author writes,

"Let us review all the generations in turn, and learn from generation to generation the Master has given an opportunity for repentance to those who desire to turn from him." (1 Clement 7.5; Holmes, 37)

From this point, Clement lists, in the fashion of Hebrews 11, Noah (7.6), Jonah (7.7), Enoch (9.3), Abraham (10.1), Lot (11.1), and Rahab (12.1). Previously, the author brought to mind, Abel (4.1), Jacob and Esau (4.8), Joseph (4.9), Moses (4.10), and David (4.13).
After an exhaustive quotation from Isaiah 53, and a brief line taken from Psalms 22 (a Psalm commonly quoted as a prophecy concerning Christ's crucifixion), Clement applies these passages to Christ's incarnation and death on the cross and then writes,

"You see, dear friends, the kind of pattern (ὑπογραμμὸς) that has been given to us; for if the Lord so humbled himself, what should we do, who through him have come under the yoke of grace?" (1 Clement 16.17; Holmes, 47-49)

The noun ὑπογραμμὸς, of course, can mean simply "pattern," but it is interesting that in its basic meaning refers specifically to a "written pattern" that students used to copy texts as they were learning to write (LSJ references Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.8.49,48). Because the phrasing follows extensive quotations from Isaiah 53, it suggest to me that Clement is referring to the example of Christ "written" in the Scriptures he referenced. Because of these citations and allusions to Old Testament themes, it is hard not to see that the author is referencing written sources here, the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, as part of these traditions handed down mentioned in 7.2.

The idea that Christian communities in the first century accepted some type of Greek translation of the Jewish writings as scripture is not very controversial. However, it seems that Clement has a collection of received Christian "New Testament" scriptures in view here as well. In the preceding context of 1 Clement 5, the author is speaking of the saints who gave the ultimate testimony in sacrificing for the name of Jesus through martyrdom, namely the Apostles Peter and Paul. He then uses the same noun as in 16.17,

"Finally, when he had given his testimony before rulers, he thus departed this world and went to the holy place, having become an outstanding example (ὑπογραμμὸς) of patient endurance." (1 Clement 5.7; Holmes, 35)

Of course, one should be careful not to take too much from the use of this word. But coupled with the extensive quotations from the Septuagint discussed above, it seems that Clement is also here referring to a "written" example of Paul.

This view is strengthened by the explicit reference to the letter of 1 Corinthians made in 47.1, "Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle" (Holmes, 83). The gospels are alluded to and loosely quoted in several places as well (13.2-7; 15.2; 24.5; 43.6; 46.7-8; 49.1), as well as Hebrews (36.2-5) along with other New Testament writings (Gregory, 129-157).

The view that I am entertaining here, that the "holy rule of our tradition" in 1 Clement 7.2 includes a body of scriptures, Septuagint and some "New Testament" writings, does not seem to be widely held in the academy. Concerning this 1 Clement 7.2, Lee Martin McDonald wrote,

"Later, Clement of Rome (ca. 90 CE) used "canon" in reference to the church's revealed truth when he encourages the Christians at Corinth to "put aside empty and vain cares, and let us come to the glorious and venerable rule of our tradition." (McDonald, 50)

McDonald does not entertain the possibility that this "rule" that was handed included a core body of scriptures, at least at this early date. Yet, I think that it may be necessary to rethink this understanding of Clement's "holy rule of our tradition." That the statements of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, that the "rule of faith" included a received body of scriptures, may date at least from the time Clement took up the pen to admonish the Church at Corinth in the 90s CE.

Finally, in further support of understanding 1 Clement 7.2 as including some kind of received body of scriptures, Paul (if you accept traditional Pauline authorship) in 2Thessalonians 2:15, uses the same word as Clement of Rome to refer to the teaching likely transmitted by word of mouth and to teaching contained within a letter sent from Paul.

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions (παραδόσεις) which you were taught, whether by word of mouth (λόγου) or by letter (ἐπιστολῆς) from us." (NASB)

Here Paul is including both oral teaching and a written text with received traditions taught to the Thessalonian Church.

I am not attempting to anachronistically back load later meanings of "canon" (κανών) into 1 Clement 7.2. I do not think 1 Clement is using "canon" here to refer to an authoritative list of books. Rather, I am proposing that, in 1 Clement 7.2, "canon" includes not only a body of received apostolic teaching, but a group of scriptural works that convey this apostolic teaching. This likely would have included the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, and Christian writings such as some of Paul's letters and a gospel, though the exact contours of this collection is unkown.
_______________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bokedal, Thomas, "The Rule of Faith: Tracing its Origins." Journal of Theological Interpretation 7.2 (2013): 233-255.

Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History, Volume I: Books 1-5. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. Loeb Classical Library 153. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926.

Gregory, Andrew. "1 Clement and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament," pages 129-157 in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Hagner, D.A. The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome. NovTSup 34. Leiden: Brill, 1973

Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Vol. 1. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian. Vol. 3. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

An image of Papyrus 6. Containing fragments of 1st Clement (Coptic), the Epistle of James (Coptic), and the Gospel of John (Coptic and Greek).