Understanding the Bible: the Study of Ancient Letter Writing

The letter is one of the oldest forms of written communication, becoming a very important means of interaction in the early church. Epistolography, the study of ancient letter writing, is particularly relevant to biblical analysis because the letter is the most common literary genre in the New Testament. Twenty-one of the New Testament’s twenty-seven documents are rendered in letter form. All of Paul's extant writings are letters. The General Epistles exhibit epistolary features, and Hebrews, despite the ongoing debate concerning its genre, has an epistolary conclusion. In addition to these, there are two letters imbedded in Acts (15:23; 23:26), and even the book of Revelation has an epistolary frame.¹

Due attention ought to be given to the exegetical implications of this mode of communication whenever New Testament writings are examined. For at least three centuries before and after the beginning of the Christian era, rigid epistolary conventions were in force. Much of our knowledge of ancient letter writing has come since the latter part of the 19th century, with the discovery and subsequent analysis of papyrus letters from Egypt.²

A particularly important contribution of Greek papyrus materials is the abundant evidence they provide of the frequent, if not common, presence of amanuenses in letter writing during the Hellenistic age. Business documents were often written in two, three or more different hands. Many personal letters show signs of having been drafted by an amanuensis on behalf of another. Repeatedly a refined hand is seen in the body of the letters, with the closing subscription written in a less sophisticated hand. During the time approximating the composition of New Testament letters, it appears from the papyri evidence that it was a common practice to use a secretary to draft a document, after which the correspondent himself would often add a word of farewell, his personal greetings, and the date in his own hand. 

That Paul and other New Testament writers used amanuenses in writing their letters is generally acknowledged. Paul appears to have followed the customary practice of his contemporaries by employing the aid of secretarial expertise (Rom. 16:22) and then writing his own subscription (1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; 2 Thess. 3:17; Philem. 19).³ Even in the letters wherein attention is not specifically drawn to Paul having taken the pen from his amanuensis, the original autographs probably evidenced a shift to the apostle’s distinctive handwriting (cf. 2 Thess. 3:17). Apparently this was Peter’s convention as well (1 Pet. 5:12).

Even though New Testament letters are not private correspondence in the usual sense, the inspired authors did not abandon the immediate epistolary situation to write theological essays with merely an epistolary flavoring (W. G. Doty, Letters 26-27). New Testament letters were occasioned by real situations, requests, and problems in different Christian communities, and while the letters differ considerably in content, they show a consistent general pattern in form, particularly at the beginning and end.   

The letter in the Greco-Roman world served as a means of communication between separated parties and functioned in three basic ways: to sustain contact with friends and family, to disseminate information, and to request information or favors. For New Testament authors, however, the letter was more than just a mode of conversation – it was also an extension of divine authority as inspired communicators of heavenly truth.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See E. S. Fiorenza, “Composition and Structure” 367-81; J. M. Lieu, “Grace to You” 172-73; J. L. White, “Saint Paul” 444.

     ² See K. L. Moore, “Epistolography and the Writings of Paul,” in A Critical Introduction to the NT 100-114; also J. H. Greenlee,  Introduction to NT Textual Criticism 8-23; B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman, The Text of the NT (4th ed.) 3-33, 206; J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer 1-41.  

     ³ G. J. Bahr suggests that the noticeable difference between Paul’s unimpressive oratory and his impressive letters (2 Cor. 10:10) may be attributable to the writing ability of his secretary (“Letter Writing” 476). W. G. Kümmel notes that the specific references to Paul’s own handwriting were likely included because the letters were read aloud and this was the only way for the listening audience to be made aware of the fact (Introduction 251). In one of the most comprehensive studies on Paul’s use of secretarial services, E. R. Richards concludes that the following letters were probably written by or with the help of an amanuensis: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon (Secretary201).

Related Posts: Study of Ancient History, Study of Ancient Rhetoric, Production of NT Part 1 and Part 2 

Image credit: http://studiu-biblic.ro/studiu-majori/2015/09/06/saul-din-tars.html

Paul's "Prison Epistles"

     Paul’s correspondence to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon has traditionally been labeled “Prison Epistles” because of the allusions to the apostle being incarcerated at the time (Eph. 3:1, 13; 4:1; 6:20; Phil. 1:7-16; Col. 4:3-18; Philm. 9, 10, 13, 23).¹ While he was also a prisoner when 2 Timothy was drafted (2 Tim. 1:8, 12, 16-17; 2:9; 4:6, 16), this letter is not included among the others because it appears to have been written during a later imprisonment and because of its close connection with 1 Timothy and Titus. 

PROVENANCE

     The question is, during which confinement(s) were these documents penned? Clement of Rome reports that Paul was in bonds a total of seven times (I Clement 5:6). In the latter part of 56 Paul alludes to having been imprisoned on more than one occasion (2 Cor. 11:23; cf. 6:5), but at this stage in the Pauline chronology the only incarceration on record was at Philippi (Acts 16:23-25). Later the apostle spent two years as a prisoner in Caesarea (Acts 24:27) and then another two years in Rome (Acts 28:30), and after apparent release he was incarcerated a second time at Rome (2 Tim. 1:16-17; 4:16-17). Some have suggested Ephesus as another possibility,² but there is no definitive record of an Ephesian internment, although Paul did suffer many afflictions there (Acts 19:23-41; 1 Cor. 15:32; 2 Cor. 1:8-10).

     The first Roman detention of 60-62 is the more likely setting for the composition of these letters, though technically Paul was not in “prison” at this time but was confined to house arrest (Acts 28:16, 23, 30). Aristarchus, who accompanied Paul to Rome (Acts 27:2), is specifically named (Philm. 24), even as Paul’s “fellow-prisoner” (Col. 4:10). Luke, who accompanied Paul to Rome (Acts 28:16), is also specifically named (Col. 4:14; Philm. 24). Others who are mentioned link these epistles together: Tychicus (Col. 4:7; Eph. 6:21), Epaphras (Col. 4:12; Philm. 23), Mark (Col. 4:10; Philm. 24), Demas (Col. 4:14; Philm. 24), and Timothy (Phil. 1:1; 2:19; Col. 1:1; Philm. 1).

     Reference is made to the praetorian guard and to Caesar’s household (Phil. 1:13; 4:22). The question is whether the expression tō praitōriō (‘the praetorium’) in Phil. 1:13 refers to a place or to persons. This is its only occurrence in Paul’s writings, though elsewhere in the New Testament it is used of the Roman procurator’s residence in Jerusalem (Matt. 27:27; Mark 15:16; John 18:28, 33; 19:9) and of the palace-fortress built by Herod the Great in Caesarea (Acts 23:35). If the apostle is using the term in a similar sense, it could be an allusion to the emperor’s palace in Rome, or the praetorian barracks attached to the palace, or the camp of the praetorian guards outside the city, although there is no external confirmation of such usage. There is, however, abundant evidence from Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Josephus, and various inscriptions of the employment of this word for the praetorian guards (cf. ESV, N/ASV, NIV, NKJV, N/RSV). While this is not conclusive proof that the letter’s provenance was Rome (cf. BDAG 859), mention of “the household of Caesar” (Phil. 4:22) strengthens this conclusion.³

DATE

     Since Paul spent the winter of 59-60 on the island of Malta, his arrival in Rome would have been in early spring 60 (Acts 28:11-16).⁴ The narrative of Acts closes with the apostle having been incarcerated in Rome for “two whole years” (v. 30), bringing the account to early spring 62. Luke’s record indicates neither what happened to Paul nor what was about to happen to him, presumably because his fate was still uncertain at this time. “Roman imprisonment was usually temporary while the accused awaited a magistrate’s hearing or a formal trial and was rarely used as a long-term punishment. Those found guilty of serious crimes or unable to pay fines were sentenced to exile or death” (L. M. White, From Jesus to Christianity 189).

CHRONOLOGY

     The close relationship between Colossians and Philemon suggests a comparable timeframe,⁵ but by the time Philemon was penned, Paul had apparently received some indication of potential release (v. 22) that is expressed even more confidently in Philippians (1:19-26; 2:24). In Colossians, Paul’s appeal for prayers involved a petition for evangelistic opportunities in view of his “chains” (Col. 3:3), whereas in Philemon and Philippians the prayer requests included his anticipated release.

     Accompanying the letters to the Colossians and Philemon was Onesimus (Col. 4:9; Philm. 12), and accompanying the letters to the Colossians and the Ephesians was Tychichus (Col. 4:7-8; Eph. 6:21-22), further suggesting a comparable timeframe. Since Ephesians appears to be a further development of Colossians and is the only prison epistle not to name Timothy in the opening address, it was probably written subsequent to the others and after Timothy had been sent away to Philippi (Phil. 2:19-23). The proposed chronological arrangement of the prison epistles is as follows: (1) Colossians written in early 62, immediately followed by (2) Philemon, then (3) Philippians, and finally (4) Ephesians.

CONCLUSION

     It is interesting to note that these prison epistles comprise the most personal writings (Philemon, Philippians) and the most impersonal writings (Colossians, Ephesians) in the Pauline corpus. Nevertheless, collectively they demonstrate that the apostle Paul, despite his circumstances, exemplified the Christlike principle: “Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4; cf. 1 Cor. 10:33–11:1).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Although R. Reitzenstein, in his Hellenistic Mystery Religions (1978), argues that Paul’s “imprisonment” allusions should be understood metaphorically rather than literally, this proposal is difficult to harmonize with clear statements such as Phil. 1:25-26; 2:24; and Philm. 22 (see D. G. Reid, “Prison, Prisoner,” in DPL 752-54).

     ² See L. E. Keck, Paul and His Letters 5-7; R. P. Martin, Colossians 22-32; R. E. Brown, Introduction to the NT 493-96, 507-508; L. M. White, From Jesus to Christianity 185-88. This is usually suggested for the provenance of Philippians and Philemon, while Ephesians and Colossians are regarded as “disputed” Pauline letters.

     ³ See J. B. Lightfoot, Philippians 99-104, 171-78; J. H. Michael, Philippians 28-30; P. T. O’Brien, “Caesar’s Household,” in DPL 83-84; B. Reike, “Captivity Epistles,” in Apostolic History 285; contra J. F. Hall, “Caesar’s Household,” in ABD 1:798. Scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ⁴ For more chronological details, see K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament 44, 154-74.

     ⁵ In both letters Timothy is named as co-sender, while reference is also made to Epaphras, Archippus and Onesimus (Col. 1:7; 4:9, 17; Philm. 2, 10, 23). In both letters Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke are included as the apostle’s immediate companions (Col. 4:10, 14; Philm. 24).

Related Posts: Ephesians: Why So Impersonal?, Philemon, Colossians Part 1, Colossians Part 2, Philippians Part 1

Image credit: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1168542/thumbs/o-PRISON-CELL-facebook.jpg

Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 4 of 4)

Assumption # 5: "Ancient authors were reclusive individualists, solely involved in the production of their works with no outside influences or contributors."

Paul by Rembrandt

     If a writer’s unique literary habits can be identified, a seemingly objective standard is then available to discern between authentic and spurious works produced in his name. However, the entire focus of this popular analysis is limited to the individual author, while no consideration is given to any number of significant external factors. Were biblical writers as solitary and confined as current critical scholars seem to imagine?
     The concepts of solidarity and individuality may be relevant to modern literary cultures and westernized thinking but are viewed quite differently in the context of oral cultures and ancient practices. The more common procedure in the ancient Mediterranean world was to orally dictate information to a skilled amanuensis who was then responsible for putting it into writing. Note, for instance, that Baruch wrote for Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:1-32), Tertius wrote for Paul (Romans 16:22), and Silvanus wrote for Peter (1 Peter 5:12). The intriguing question is, how much compositional freedom was the trusted scribe allowed in the writing process? While a definitive answer is beyond determination and would no doubt have varied from one situation to the next, the reality of tandem compositions makes the appraisal of an author’s literary features much more tentative if not contestable, particularly when more than one secretary may have been involved. 
     Beyond the secretarial component and of even greater consequence is the issue of joint-authorship. Consider, for example, the book of Psalms, which is universally understood as the product of multiple authors. David, Asaph, Korah’s sons, Solomon, Moses, Heman, Ethan, and various anonymous writers all contributed to this collection of poetic compositions. Would it then be legitimate to isolate the authorial peculiarities of only one of these contributors and then critique the entire volume with this restrictive focus? In light of conventional literary procedures in the historical-cultural settings of biblical writings, how should the compositional features of a given text be evaluated? The idea of a lone author producing his work in solitary confinement is a fairly modern, westernized concept that does not fit the ancient biblical model.
     Probably more than anyone else the apostle Paul has been victimized by this anachronistic misrepresentation. The real historical Paul comprehended, executed, and communicated his mission in the context of a community of fellow believers and co-laborers. Not only is this demonstrated in the Acts narrative, where Paul is rarely depicted alone, but even in his own writings we find copious references to co-senders and co-workers, prolific use of exclusive "we" terminology, and allusions to collaborative ministry. He was undoubtedly an influential leading figure in his group of associates, but "Paul the individualist" is an unfounded misconception. Collective responsibility appears to have been the norm. To speak of "Pauline theology," for example, fails to effectively appreciate that the theology of Paul was something mutually formulated and shared within a cooperative environment. Far from being a lone maverick, the apostle understood his calling, his message, and his work as an integrated part of a whole, never discounting the indispensable partnership of trusted companions.
     Seeing that most of the New Testament documents were written in letter-form, a unique insight into the production of a first-century apostolic manuscript is provided by the letter embedded in Acts 15:23-29. The context reveals that after a group discussion and consensus among the Jerusalem apostles and elders under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (v. 28), a letter was commissioned to convey their decision. Two of their number, Judas-Barsabbas and Silas, served as amanuenses (note v. 23, graphō = to "write"). These two men were further authorized to verbally communicate the contents of the letter to the recipients (v. 27). Upon its completion, Judas and Silas delivered the letter to the Antioch congregation by publicly reading it, while they (as prophets) also imparted additional instruction (vv. 30-32).
     In view of current critical analysis, how would one go about assessing the language and style with which the contents of this apostolic missive were conveyed, and to which of the multiple contributors would the whole enterprise be ascribed? Even though a negative case against the traditional authorship of a number of biblical books has been carefully constructed by generations of liberal scholars, the foundational premise is invalid. The presumption of an author’s virtual independence is contrary to what the evidence supports. Notwithstanding the prophetic instrumentality and influence of a prominent figure, the legitimacy of any objection that focuses on the literary features of a solitary writer must therefore be called into question.
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Authorship of Ephesians, Biblical Authorship Part 1, Biblical Authorship Part 2, Biblical Authorship Part 3