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

Chronology of Paul’s Writings

Paul was in Corinth Autumn 50 to Spring 52 (cf. Acts 18:2, 11, 12).

è1-2 Thessalonians written late 50/early 51 (cf. 1 Thess. 2:17–3:7).¹

Paul was in Ephesus Spring 53 to Spring 56 (cf. Acts 19:1, 8, 10, 22; 20:31; 1 Cor. 16:8).

èGalatians written 53-54?²

èLetter to Corinth written 53-54 (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9), no longer extant.³

è1 Corinthians written early 56 (cf. 1 Cor. 4:19; 16:8).        

Paul was in Macedonia Summer-Autumn 56 (cf. Acts 20:1-2).

è2 Corinthians written mid-late 56 (cf. 2 Cor. 9:2-4).

Paul was in Corinth Winter 56-57 (cf. 1 Cor. 4:18-19; 16:2-7; Acts 20:3).

èRomans written late 56/early 57 (cf. Rom. 15:26; 16:23).

Paul was in Rome Spring 60 to at least Spring 62 (cf. Acts 28:16, 30).

èLetter to the Laodiceans written 60-62? (cf. Col. 4:16), no longer extant.

èColossians written early 62 (cf. Col. 4:18).

èPhilemon written early 62 (cf. Phlm. 1, 9-10).

èPhilippians written early 62 (cf. Phil. 1:12-14; 4:22).⁴

èEphesians written early 62 (cf. Eph. 3:1; 4:1).

Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment ca. 62-63 (cf. Phil. 1:19, 25; 2:24; Phlm. 22; 2 Tim. 4:16-17) and traveled  to Macedonia, Ephesus, Crete, Nicopolis (1 Tim. 1:3; 3:14; Tit. 1:5; 3:12).

è1 Timothy written ca. 63-64 (cf. 1 Tim. 1:3; 3:14).

èTitus written ca. 63-64 (cf. Tit. 1:5; 3:12).

Paul’s second Roman imprisonment as early as 64 and no later than 68.

è2 Timothy written ca. 64-65 (cf. 2 Tim. 4:6-8, 16).⁵

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ First Thessalonians was penned not long after the three-man missionary team had departed from Thessalonica (2:17). Although later copyists seem to have amended the text, what many consider to be the better manuscripts of 1 Thess. 1:1 have the abbreviated greeting, “grace to you and peace” (cf. N/ASV), while all other Pauline letters have the added phrase “from God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ.” This may suggest that the stereotypical Pauline greeting developed after the earliest letter (1 Thessalonians) had been written. Further, in the opening of 1 and 2 Thessalonians Paul is mentioned only by name with no reference to his apostleship or any other appendage, while in every subsequent correspondence a descriptive designation is added. See The Thessalonian Letters.

     ² This immediately follows a visit to Galatia (Acts 18:23) where Paul would have gained first-hand knowledge of the problems he needed to address in the letter. Moreover, a logical sequence is evident in Paul’s correspondence concerning the collection for the poor in Jerusalem, beginning with his agreement to organize it (Gal. 2:10), followed by more specific instructions and comments (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8–9; Rom. 15:25-28). There is also a literary affinity between Galatians, on one hand, and 1-2 Corinthians and Romans, on the other (see esp. J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians 40-56; also C. Kruse, 2 Corinthians 45-48), suggesting a comparable time frame. Since the setting of Galatians fits well into the rise of Jewish nationalism during Nero’s reign (cf. B. Reicke, Re-examining Paul’s Letters 13-15), a later date (i.e. 54 or beyond) is possible. A number of scholars, however, date Galatians earlier (cf. M. C. Tenney, New Testament Survey 267-73).

     ³ It is possible that the “severe” or “tearful” letter alluded to in 2 Cor. 2:3-9; 7:8-12 is another non-extant Pauline letter, but many equate it with 1 Corinthians while others propose that it comprises 2 Cor. 10–13. See The Missing Letters of Paul.

     ⁴ When Philippians was written Paul seems to have been expecting release from imprisonment (Phil. 1:19, 25; 2:24). Timothy is named in Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon but not in Ephesians, which may suggest that Ephesians was written after Timothy had been sent away (Phil. 2:19-23). See Paul's Prison Epistles.

     ⁵ When 2 Timothy was written Paul appears to have been anticipating death (2 Tim. 4:6-8). According to tradition he was executed during the reign of Nero, who instigated the persecution of Christians in 64 and died in 68.

Related Posts: First Missionary Journey

Image credit: http://julianfreeman.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Apostle-Paul-writing-in-prison.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