[S]pecial circumstances created their own medium, with the result that a Pauline letter is generally much longer than the majority of papyrus letters, can at times approximate to the solemn court style of the royal missive, can open with a variegated form of thanksgiving as an overture in which the main themes of the letter are introduced, and can include in its main part the scriptural argumentation of a rabbi, the style of the hellenistic diatribe, the elevated language of prophecy, the formulations already traditional in the Church – all this without ever ceasing in the process to be a real letter.
At present, that Paul authored seven letters and had them delivered as genuine correspondence – Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon – is widely assumed and rarely questioned. Despite significant differences between the form and style of Pauline and other ancient Greco-Roman letters, the authentic-letter perspective endures. As I indicate in this chapter, seven Pauline letters came to be recognized, rationalized, and then normalized as authentic and genuine through various dubious methodologies. Indeed, the allowance of “special circumstances” – a term used by Evans in this chapter’s epigraph – is a recurring rationale coursing through scholarship that enables the letters’ status to remain authentic, in part historically reliable, and as genuine correspondence.
Over the long history of Pauline letter interpretations, the authentic-letter perspective is a relatively recent phenomenon. It has roots in the Enlightenment, in which the letters attributed to Paul were valued and then mined for their potential historical reliability, as evidence of early Christianity. In modern scholarship, a dominant and highly influential promoter of this view was the nineteenth-century scholar F.C. Baur. The letters’ status as genuine correspondence took hold in the early-twentieth century, as influenced by the extensive scholarship of Adolf Deissmann. The earliest witnesses of the letters, however, valued them as scripture-like authoritative writings, mining them for their theological content and import. Pauline teachings were the source of debates among the earliest witnesses. In what follows, I provide an abbreviated status quaestionis of Pauline letters along three classifications: authoritative scripture-like,Footnote 1 authentically Pauline and historically reliable, and genuine correspondence.
Pauline Letters (and Paul) Recognized as Authoritative
Early “Christian” authors such as Irenaeus (c. 130–202 ce), Tertullian (c. 160–220 ce), and the Valentinian teacher Ptolemy (fl. c. 180 ce) considered the Pauline letters authoritative, scripture-like writings, no different in kind and equal in weight to other biblical-like sources, such as the book of Acts and the Gospels. They relied heavily on Pauline letters to support their theological/philosophical positions. Indeed, Paul and the Pauline letters were of such authority and importance that these authors (and others) argued over “Paul’s” beliefs, the details of the teachings, and their interpretation.
Characterized as the “first great theologian,”Footnote 2 IrenaeusFootnote 3 relied upon the entire Pauline corpus (thirteen letters, exclusive of Hebrews)Footnote 4 for his theology. Whereas his opponents,Footnote 5 ValentinusFootnote 6 and Marcion,Footnote 7 maintained a two-god philosophy – a creator god exemplified in the Hebrew scriptures and a good/true redeeming god of Greek scriptures – Irenaeus argued that one god was both creator and redeemer and that this one god was in evidence within the later Greek scriptures.Footnote 8 To make his case for only one god, he turned to 1 Cor 8:6 and Eph 4:6 (Haer. 3.6.5; 4.33.3, 7; 2.2.5; 5.18.2).Footnote 9 By way of Gal 4:8–9, 2 Thess 2:4, and 1 Cor 8:4–6, he contended that only one in scripture is called “god,” who is also called the “father god” (Haer. 3.6.5). Elsewhere, in reliance again on Pauline letters (Gal 3:24; Rom 13:10; 1 Cor 10:11; Rom 3:23), Irenaeus asserted against Valentinus and Marcion that the same god who sent his son was likewise responsible for the Mosaic law.Footnote 10 In the following passage, Irenaeus contends that the Apostle Paul himself witnesses to only one god:
Let Paul himself refute those who assert that he alone had knowledge of the truth, inasmuch as the mystery was manifested to him by revelation. For he said that one and same God who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked also through himself for the Gentiles [Gal 2:7–8]. Hence, Peter was the apostle of the same God as Paul; the very God and the Son of God, whom Peter announced to those in circumcision. Him Paul announced among the Gentiles. Surely, the Lord did not come to save only Paul, nor is God so poor that He would have only one apostle who would know the economy of His Son.Footnote 11
The above passage likewise reveals something about Irenaeus’ understanding of the status of Paul: He is considered authoritative and made so on account of the scriptural-like status of Galatians, to which this passage refers. Paul, like Peter, is an apostle and biblical worthy.
TertullianFootnote 12 also draws extensively from the Pauline corpusFootnote 13 in support of his theology and to oppose alternate perspectives held by his opponents,Footnote 14 those who likewise rely on the authority of Pauline letters.Footnote 15 Tertullian subscribes to Irenaeus’ understanding of one god and the unity of god throughout Hebrew scriptures and “Christian” scripture-like writings. In addition, he maintains that Jewish law derives from the one god and that by rejecting the law, the Apostle Paul was not thereby denying the unity of God.Footnote 16 Tertullian draws alternately and freely from Acts and Pauline letters, providing evidence that he considers both literatures similar in kind (scripture-like) and equally authoritative.Footnote 17
Tertullian likewise argues against Marcion’s understanding that the Apostle Paul held a unique status. In the estimation of Irenaeus and Tertullian, Marcion privileged Paul to the exclusion of any of the other apostles. In distinction from these proto-orthodox authors, Marcion – as Tertullian reports – considered that Paul derived from the same god as Christ, a god separate from the creator god. Against this view, Tertullian writes as though to Marcion,
So then accept the apostle on my evidence, as you do Christ: he is my apostle, as also Christ is mine. Here too our contest shall take place on the same front: my challenge shall be issued from the same stance, of a case already proven: which is, that an apostle whom you deny to be the Creator’s, whom in fact you represent as hostile to the Creator, has no right to teach anything, to think anything, to intend anything, which accords with the Creator, but must from the outset proclaim his other god with no less confidence than that with which he has broken loose from the Creator’s law.Footnote 18
Tertullian objects to Marcion’s understanding that the Apostle Paul belongs exclusively to Christ, a Christ who is distinct from the creator god. In Tertullian’s view (shared by Irenaeus), Paul is one among many apostles and proclaims a Christ associated with the one god. The passage indicates that Tertullian and Marcion are in a contest over Paul’s beliefs. Both authors want to claim Paul as their own, and to do so, they assess his beliefs differently. For Tertullian and his opponent Marcion, Paul is first and foremost an apostle associated with a divine figure. He is among a core group of scriptural authoritative figures. Paul’s earthly existence or that he authored actual sent correspondence is not at issue nor of concern.
In his philosophical letter, Epistula ad Floram,Footnote 19 the Valentinian Ptolemy deploys Pauline letters to argue for a theological position different from these two proto-orthodox authors. Addressed to a likely fictitious female student named Flora, the literary letterFootnote 20 consists of an assessment of Torah regulations. In contrast to Irenaeus and Tertullian, Ptolemy argues that there are multiple gods, a perfect and non-engendered god and an intermediate god (Flor. 33.6.6).Footnote 21 For evidence of multiple gods, Ptolemy turns to legislation within his sources. According to him, there are three different types of laws:Footnote 22 spiritual laws (such as circumcision) that replace literal ceremonial rulings (Rom 2:29); laws that pertain to justice, such as the lex talionis (eye for an eye), which are abolished (Eph 2:15); and holy laws that are fulfilled by Christ (Rom 7:12). The different law-types provide evidence, according to Ptolemy, that the one perfect god (above all other gods) could not have established this variety of laws. Rather, an intermediary god (not the perfect god) authored them (Flor. 33.7.3–4).
As indicated, these early authors viewed Pauline letters as authoritative, as “scripturally true,”Footnote 23 and comparable in value and status to other scripture-like sources. They mined the letters to validate their theological positions. These authors likewise interpreted the letters strategically and creatively.Footnote 24 They deemed them important not because they were historically reliable or actual sent correspondence, but because they were recognized as being theologically authoritative and thereby credible. Aptly, Blackwell says of Irenaeus – but which can be applied to these other early authors – that he viewed the authority of the law, the prophets, the Gospels and the apostles together, as speaking the same “reality.”Footnote 25 In that these authors are only at a slight remove, likely only several decades, from those responsible for the Pauline letters (see Chapter 4), it is reasonable to assume that their assessment of them as scriptural is how they were first envisioned to be.
Pauline Letters as Authentic and Historically Reliable
A significant shift in the assessment of Pauline letters occurred in the Enlightenment when influential thinkers such as Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) and philosophers Baruch de Spinoza (1632–77) and John Locke (1632–1704)Footnote 26 advanced an alternate historical method of biblical interpretation. Spinoza advanced a “universal rule” of scriptural interpretation: “to accept nothing as an authoritative Scriptural statement which we do not perceive very clearly when we examine it in the light of its history.”Footnote 27 As Johnson-Debaufre correctly notes, Enlightenment scholars offered a new and revised understanding of history. Rather than history as contained within the texts (i.e., Homeric history or Luke’s history [Acts]), history came to mean verifiability by elements surrounding a given text and conformity to the laws of nature and reason. As Johnson-Debaufre explains, the Enlightenment introduced a distinction between “the history in the text and the history of and around the text.”Footnote 28 Texts were crosschecked and compared against each other for verifiability and confirmation. According to Spinoza, “‘history’ of a scriptural statement comprised (i) the nature of the language in which it was written, (ii) an analysis of the book and its arrangement, and (iii) an account of the environment of the book: the author, the occasion, and the reception of the book.”Footnote 29 Importantly, the text’s value comes to be determined by these criteria. The shift in interpretational method ultimately concerns the location of and claims about the truth.
In the Enlightenment period, the designation of Pauline authenticity or authorship (Spinoza’s criterion iii) became one of the indicators of a letter’s authoritative status. While earlier – and atypically of his time – Origen (c. 184–235 ce) had questioned Pauline authorship of the Letter to the Hebrews,Footnote 30 concerted interest in and emphasis on authorship resurfaced in the mid-seventeenth century, and continued with regularity into the later centuries. Scholars Hugo Grotius, Richard Simon (1638–1712), and Johann Salomo Semler (1725–91) reprised the argument against Pauline authorship of Hebrews.Footnote 31
Edward Evanson
Edward Evanson (1731–1805) was among the first modern scholars to deny authenticity of multiple letters of the Pauline corpus.Footnote 32 In his The Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists, and the Evidence of their Respective Authenticity Examined (1792),Footnote 33 Evanson rejected as authentically Pauline Hebrews, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Titus, and Philemon.Footnote 34 He likewise established criteria of authenticity and historical reliability, which included ancient church acceptance; consistency with Acts (deemed historically reliable); logical coherence, including a lack of historical anachronisms; consistency of expression across letters; and an indication of divine authority.Footnote 35 According to him, the letters that satisfied all of these criteria – and thereby deemed authentically Pauline – were 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Timothy.Footnote 36
To establish historical reliability, Evanson chose comparanda that could confirm details within Pauline letters. He distinguished the Gospel of Luke from among the four synoptic Gospels as the only Gospel he considered historically reliable. The Gospel of Luke could be trusted because its author claimed to be a companion of Paul.Footnote 37 Irreconcilable differences in the details between Pauline letters and the Gospels of Matthew,Footnote 38 Mark,Footnote 39 and JohnFootnote 40 meant, according to Evanson, that these three were “spurious fictions,”Footnote 41 and products of the second century.Footnote 42
Evanson likewise privileges Acts, making it serve as a central basis for the determination of the historical reliability of Pauline letters. As indicated, consistency with Acts was one criterion of authenticity and historical reliability. Thus, in that they posit situations that contradict events and chronologies found in the book of Acts, Evanson deemed Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon inauthentic. Romans details events pertaining to Paul during the reign of Claudius, while Acts relates that Paul arrived in Rome for the first time at a later period, during the reign of Nero.Footnote 43 Ephesians cannot be accepted as Pauline, because, like Romans, it assumes an existent church in Ephesus prior to Paul’s presence there (Eph 1:15–16), and contradicts the chronology of Paul’s activities in Ephesus as given in Acts (18–20).Footnote 44 Similarly, in Acts 16:6 and 18:23 Paul preaches in the cites of Phyrgia, a region inclusive of Colossae, while in the Letter to the Colossians, Epaphras is said to have first carried out that task there (Col 1:7).Footnote 45 Philippians mentions events regarding the conversion to Christianity of many among Emperor Nero’s court (Phil 4:22), a fact unattested elsewhere by Luke.Footnote 46 Philemon cannot be genuinely Pauline because Paul speaks of his fellow prisoner (Phlm 23), while in Acts (25:14) Paul is seemingly in prison alone.Footnote 47 To deploy agreement with Acts as a determinant of historical reliability does not comport with current scholarship that deems the book of Acts as a work of literary fiction.Footnote 48
Furthermore, according to Evanson, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Timothy are historically reliable because they contain “a spirit of prophecy.”Footnote 49 To confirm authenticity on the criterion of style, Evanson simply relied on his own list of predetermined authentically Pauline letters and compared them to each other, a method that was not only arbitrary but also lacking in necessary external control. Thus, the Apostle’s self-characterization “servant of God” in Titus (1:1) was inconsistent with the characterization of the faithful as “children of God” (Gal 4:6–7), disqualifying Titus as authentic.Footnote 50 Similarly, Evanson deemed the unique expression “beware of dogs and of the concision” (Βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας … βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν; Phil 3:2) as non-Pauline, further disqualifying Philippians as authentic.
Wilhelm M.L. de Wette
The issue of the environment of the letter, another component of Spinoza’s criterion iii above, is prominent in the work of the German biblical scholar Wilhelm M.L. de Wette (1780–1849).Footnote 51 In his early-nineteenth-century NT introductory textbook, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen Bücher des Neuen Testaments (ET: An Historico-Critical Introduction to the Canonical Books of the New Testament, 1858) de Wette privileges geographic, social, and political issues over the letter’s contents. Adopting a patterned sectional design for his discussions, de Wette starts with details pertaining to a sociopolitical history of the region designated by the letter, and then with the aid of Acts simply places Paul into the specified region. Details of letter contents are only found in summary and outline form. De Wette’s orientation on elements of the environment external to the letters indicates a distinct and observable shift compared to that of their earliest interpreters (Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Ptolemy). It likewise serves to give the impression – without adequate evidence – of the realia of Paul, his communities, and the letters as genuine correspondence.
Regional discussions foreground treatments of all Pauline letters. Thus, with an opening section titled “Founding of the Church at Thessalonica,” de Wette sets the stage for his review of 1 and 2 Thessalonians:
Thessalonica (Θεσσαλονίκη) formerly Thermæ, situated on the Bay of Thermæ, newly built by Cassander and named in honor of his wife Thessalonica, daughter of Philip the Elder, in the time of the Romans capital of the second district of Macedonia, and a very populous commercial city, was visited by Paul in company with Silas, on his second missionary journey. He soon gained adherents there, especially among the Proselytes, but was compelled in a short time to leave the city on account of a tumult raised by the Jews.
With aid from the book of Acts, de Wette handily slides Paul into a known ancient region. The geographic and sociopolitical details orient readers to the realia of place, who are thereby primed to imagine persons and communities in the specified locales.
De Wette’s summary analyses are otherwise oriented on circumstances external to the letter (Spinoza’s criterion iii). For example, de Wette discusses the situation of the writing of the letter, Paul’s interest in visiting those in Thessalonica, and the moral condition of the community. Following are the opening lines of a relatively short description of 1 Thessalonians:
According to the indications contained in the Epistle, Paul wrote it in the company of Silvanus (Silas) and Timothy (i. 1), while yet full of the recollection of his visit to Thessalonica (i. 9, ii. 1, ff.); he longed to see the Christians there once more (iii. 10), and was filled with anxiety about them (iii. 5). On this account he had twice purposed to revisit them (ii. 17, f.), and had sent Timothy to them (iii. 1, ff.). In their depressed condition they needed strengthening (iii. 2, f., 13; cf. ii. 14) and further improvement (iii. 10). The accounts brought by Timothy were quieting; the community was firm in faith and active in its love.
De Wette, however, imposes a situation with rationales and emotions of Paul onto the text. His orientation, however, on the “lived” situation of “Paul” and “the Thessalonian community” serves to bring history to life. De Wette’s assessment is overconfident; he is unable to know Paul’s thoughts and feelings. Moreover, with the letter as his sole source, his interpretation is insufficiently supported.
De Wette likewise emphasizes biographical details, another aspect of Spinoza’s criterion iii. He includes a rather lengthy chronology of key events in Paul’s life,Footnote 54 including discussions of his youth, his ethnic, religious, and educational background; his missionary journeys; his imprisonment in Rome and martyrdom.Footnote 55 Evidence of Paul’s life, however, derives only from internal sources, the book of Acts and Pauline letters.Footnote 56
For his determination of a Pauline letter’s genuineness/authenticity – a section found at the end of the discussion of each letter – de Wette relies, like Evanson, on the confirmation of early “Christian” authors along with his own assessments. Regarding the authenticity of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, he comments that because Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Tertullian quote the letters, they “belong to the universally accepted writings.”Footnote 57 De Wette also engages then-current scholarly challenges to claims of authenticity,Footnote 58 and perfunctorily refutes those that do not conform to his own assessments of authenticity. For instance, regarding the critique that 1 Thess 2:14–16 could not be Pauline due to its attack on Jews or that the letter’s conclusion provides an indication that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, de Wette summarily responds that the critiques are subjective in nature.Footnote 59 As is the case during this period, scholars are not in universal agreement on the question of Pauline authenticity. In contrast to Evanson, de Wette reasons that 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and Colossians are authentically Pauline, while Ephesians, Hebrews, and the Pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are not.
The shift in orientation between the earliest witnesses of the letters and the Enlightenment scholar de Wette is stunningly dramatic. There is a distinct conceptual change in orientation from theological/philosophical considerations to historical and contextually social. With Spinoza’s call to accept nothing as authoritatively scriptural except for what can be confirmed as historical, de Wette and others analyze Pauline letters through a nearly exclusive socio-historical lens. Yet, as indicated, de Wette constructs his own history, one which is likewise based only on NT documents and his own assumptions of the situation. While his regional descriptions bring ancient territorial issues into consideration of the letter’s analysis, regional life plays virtually no role in any of the letters. Instead, regional discussions serve rhetorically to orient readers on lived realia. De Wette provides no evidence other than Acts and the letters themselves of Paul or the communities actual presence in the specified regions. The issue of Pauline authorship of the letters likewise presents as an important element of consideration for de Wette, as it was for Evanson. Yet their methods for determining authenticity lack methodological rigor. The imprint of divine authority or citations by early “Christian” authors hardly qualify as sufficient, at least, not by today’s standards.
Ferdinand Christian Baur
While scholars such as Evanson and de Wette represent a shift in the understanding of the Pauline letters from authoritative teachings to that of historically relevant documents, Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860) – described as “the most important NT scholar of his time”Footnote 60 and as one of “the most resolute advocates of the development of historical-critical research in the nineteenth century”Footnote 61 – significantly advanced and seemingly entrenched the understanding of Pauline letters as historically reliable. Baur was highly driven to unearth the origins of the early church, having remarked that the critical and historical investigation of early Christianity is “the great problem of our time” and one that “can only arise from the deepest centre of a universal interest and feeling.”Footnote 62 His work was in part so widely influential – having import into the present timeFootnote 63 – because he combined his analysis with an overarching thesis regarding Christian origins, with the latter serving as a conceptual hook.Footnote 64 In Baur’s estimation, Christianity came into being by means of a fundamental break from Judaism.
Baur considered Paul as Christianity’s hero, remarking, “Everything which Christianity possessed or was likely to attain in respect to its essential distinction from Judaism had been first brought to historical reality by the Apostle Paul, and still entirely depended on his personal influence.”Footnote 65 As Christianity’s chief promoter, Paul worked to establish a religion shorn of the negative influence of Judaism. Baur’s high estimation of Paul helps to account for how he could interpret Pauline letters as historically reliable, even as he discounted nearly every other book of the NT from that status.
In Baur’s estimation, Paul gives voice to what he considered was a strategic rift between Judaism and Christianity, a conflict between a Pauline (non-Jewish) party and a Petrine (Jewish-Christian or Judaizer) party (1 Cor 1:11–12).Footnote 66 Zetterholm elaborates, “To Baur, it seemed clear that the text revealed a basic antagonism between a Pauline, universal type of Christianity, for which the Torah had had its day, and a Jewish-oriented, particularistic type of Christianity, still bound by the Torah.”Footnote 67
Yet Baur assessed only four Pauline letters (Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans) as historically reliable, as only these four, the “chief epistles” or Hauptbriefe, confirmed his theory of Christian origins.Footnote 68 According to him, other Pauline letters, such as 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians were likely from a later period.Footnote 69 Only the Hauptbriefe and Revelation belonged to the earliest stratum of Christian history.Footnote 70 In Galatians, the chronologically first letterFootnote 71 and foundational for Baur’s historical reconstruction,Footnote 72 Paul first encounters his opponents and begins his struggle for Christianity against the influence of Judaism.Footnote 73 In 1 and 2 Corinthians, Paul defends his apostolic authority,Footnote 74 and in Romans, he advances his entire system of thought.Footnote 75 According to Baur, Paul’s chief aim in Romans is to “confute the Jewish exclusiveness so thoroughly and radically that he [Paul] fairly stands in advance of the consciousness of the time.”Footnote 76 Baur was convinced of the authenticity of the Hauptbriefe. He remarks, “There has never been the slightest suspicion of unauthenticity cast on these four Epistles, on the contrary, they bear, in themselves so incontestably the character of Pauline originality, that it is not possible for critical doubt to be exercised upon them with any show of reason.”Footnote 77 Baur, however, never fully defines “Pauline originality,” a criterion also used in the determination of Pauline authenticity in the scholarship that succeeds him (see the subsection “Post-Baur Scholarship”).
Baur’s analysis, however, contained a fatal methodological flaw. He deployed circular reasoning.Footnote 78 That is, “NT documents [the Hauptbriefe] are used to reconstruct early Christian history; the reconstruction of early Christian history provides the framework for the assessment of NT documents [the Hauptbriefe].”Footnote 79 Otherwise put, Baur posits a great rift between Judaism and Christianity from reading the Hauptbriefe, and then relies on those same letters to confirm his historical reconstruction.
Baur otherwise forced the Corinthian text to confirm his theory. As mentioned, the linchpin of Baur’s theory is 1 Cor 1:11–12:
1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters (ἀδελφοί).
1:12 What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” (NRSV)
Verse 12, however, indicates not two main parties or factions as Baur envisioned them to be, but instead four (Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ).Footnote 80 To obtain two factions from the four named individuals, Baur twice combines two of the named persons into a single group. As Baur saw it, there was the Pauline party (comprising Paul and Apollos) and the Petrine party (comprising Cephas and Christ). Baur remarks, “There is no doubt that the Gentile-Christian part of the church preferably joined Paul and Apollos, whereas to such people who had been true to Judaism even as Christians, the name of Peter [Cephas] was at the centre of a closer group.”Footnote 81 By narrowing the factions to two, he obtains a binary opposition, two camps, which for him represent Judaism and Christianity. His reading, however, is subjective and forced.
Traditional Christian theology – itself derived from anti-Jewish readings of Pauline letters – and societal and political events of his time influenced and seemingly confirmed Baur’s analysis. Baur’s theory derives from a strongly pro-Christian bias. According to him, Christianity was a superior religious manifestation, superior specifically to Judaism. The latter was legislation-bound and thereby not free. He remarks, Christianity is an “absolute religion, the religion of the spirit and of freedom, with regard to which Judaism must be looked at from an inferior standpoint, from which it must be classed with Heathenism.”Footnote 82
Moreover, Baur’s theory was not only positivistic (having unwarranted faith that narrations of the past can yield objective history),Footnote 83 but also highly influenced by a then-dominant Augustinian-Lutheran theology.Footnote 84 As I describe in Chapter 4, the Augustinian-Lutheran perspective recognizes a strong distinction between faith in Christ and Jewish law observance and argues that salvation is unavailable through the latter. By reading Pauline letters through a theological lens, Baur mistakes theology for history.
Nineteenth-century sociopoliticalFootnote 85 anti-JudaismFootnote 86 coupled with German idealismFootnote 87 likewise played large roles in Baur’s construction of early Christianity. German greatness/nationalism was in the political wind during Baur’s time, one that was likewise understood as a form of universalism.Footnote 88 Judaism – recognized as representative of particularism – was considered a social and political threat to German greatness.Footnote 89 Added to these influences, Hegelian philosophyFootnote 90 played a role in Baur’s understanding of history. Hegel viewed history as an ongoing process of higher and higher stages of progress.Footnote 91 As Gerdmar explains, “History consists of antipodes and intermediaries, and the interplay or antagonism between these adds momentum.”Footnote 92 Baur assessed Judaism as the primary antipode of Christianity; it represented superstition out of which sprang a new and higher form.Footnote 93
Baur’s strong and exclusive preference for the Hauptbriefe as historically reliableFootnote 94 had ramifications for later interpretations of the book of Acts. He comments, “The comparison of both these sources [the book of Acts and the Hauptbriefe] must lead to the conclusion that, considering the great difference between the two …, historical truth can only belong to one of them.”Footnote 95 Because Acts minimized the conflict of central significance between Peter and Paul that lay at the heart of Baur’s thesis, and reduced Paul’s dominance over Peter, Baur opted to consider the Hauptbriefe as historically reliable, and not Acts.Footnote 96 Baur’s assessment of Acts has played a role in its subsequent determination as being historically unreliable.Footnote 97 Indeed, since Baur, Pauline chronologiesFootnote 98 are drawn nearly exclusively from the seven “authentic” Pauline letters, without reference to Acts.
Post-Baur Scholarship
Baur’s thesis that only four Pauline letters were authentic and historically reliable was met with significant scholarly backlash.Footnote 99 Post-Baur scholars felt that more Pauline letters than the Hauptbriefe should be deemed authentic and historically reliable. Describing the situation as a perceived problem, Richard Knowling comments that the reduction in the number of reliable sources to only four letters was insufficient for a historical rendering of early Christianity:
Every student of Apologetic Theology in England is aware how much stress has been recently laid upon what is called “the argument from the Pauline Epistles” for the historical basis of the life of Jesus. This argument has been confined, for the most part, to those four Epistles [the Hauptbriefe] which are regarded as practically undisputed, but the course of modern criticism increasingly justifies us in adding to the number at least three others, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon, and, in part, the Epistle to the Colossians.Footnote 100
While post-Baur scholars evaluated additional Pauline letters as authentic and historically reliable, with overall assessments that differed from one another, their criteria and methods of analysis were no more critical or rigorous than Baur’s. Indeed, in many cases they relied on Baur’s poorly substantiated and inadequately derived thesis concerning Paul's opposition to Judaism to justify the inclusion of additional letters as historically reliable.
To set the stage, scholars who weighed in on the authenticity of Pauline letters had a very high regard for Paul. Their high esteem for him clearly influenced their acceptance of additional letters as authentic and historically reliable. Accepting the Hauptbriefe along with 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon (eight letters in all) as authentic and historically reliable,Footnote 101 the nineteenth-century scholar Georg H. Ewald considered that Paul reigned above other authors in his ability to communicate truth with such clarity and certainty (solcher klarheit und sicherheit).Footnote 102 According to Ewald, Paul had a unique spirit (einzigartigen geistes);Footnote 103 and his letters “radiate confidence, grace, and beauty” (zuversicht ja anmuth und schönheit zu strah len).Footnote 104 He comments that never before have epistles emerged from a time of great tribulation, from an author’s deep pain and suffering, and yet contain “such health, cheerfulness, and strength” (eine solche gesundheit heiterkeit und kraft).Footnote 105 Similar sentiments regarding Paul and the Pauline letters are found in the work of Bernhard Weiss, who accepted thirteen Pauline letters (exclusive of Hebrews) as authentic.Footnote 106 According to Weiss, a “lively warmth” (lebensvolle Wärme) “pulsates in all his [Paul’s] letters” (in allen seinen Briefen pulsirt); the letters are themselves “gripping” (ergreift).Footnote 107 Eduard Reuss – who deemed the Hauptbriefe plus 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon as authentic – remarks of Philemon that it reflects “the expression of a beautiful understanding of Christian duty and a witty and amiable sense of humor.”Footnote 108 Carl Weizsäcker – who in 1861 acquired Baur’s chair in church history at Tübingen – notes that it was only possible for Paul to express himself in “full vitality of his inner life and to give of his whole person at every moment.”Footnote 109 Their high estimation of Paul clearly prejudices their acceptance of letters as authentic and historically reliable.
One factor these scholars considered to determine authenticity and historical reliability was a letter’s ability to either confirm or not entirely conflict with Baur’s theory of Christian origins. Thus, Adolf HilgenfeldFootnote 110 – whose analysis resulted in the current consensus of seven authentic Pauline letters – comments that the contrast between “legal Jewish-Christianity and a law-free Paulinism will prove to be the historical background of the most important epistles of Paul.”Footnote 111 In a comment that echoes the sentiments of Baur, Hilgenfeld remarks that Paul wrote from an “inner struggle” and fought against an “intolerant Jewish Christianity” (unduldsames Judenchristenthum).Footnote 112 He considered Philippians authentic, as it, like the Hauptbriefe, indicates Paul’s struggle with Jewish Christianity.Footnote 113 To accept letters in which Baur’s theory of opposition was not readily apparent, scholars made allowances, arguing that Paul’s principal theology emerged over time. Thus, Weiss remarks that Paul only gradually came to the view of freedom from the law for Gentile-Christian congregations. According to him, it is a great error to assess only the Hauptbriefe as authentic, letters like 1 Thessalonians and Philippians show that the main principle is there but developing.Footnote 114 Similarly, James Martineau – who accepts the Hauptbriefe as well as 1 Thessalonians and Philippians – assesses that the six letters should be taken together as authentic, as they indicate a strong “personal unity” and a “growing mind.”Footnote 115
A second factor they considered to determine authenticity and historical reliability was Pauline style. Yet this category was not at all well defined and was greatly influenced by their high regard for Paul. Thus, Auguste Sabatier assessed that a sign of the letters’ authenticity was their “indelible imprint” (empreinte ineffaçable) of Paul, a highly imprecise description of Pauline style but one that well characterizes the analysis of many other post-Baur scholars who weighed this question.Footnote 116 Equally imprecise and meaningless was Hilgenfeld’s notion of Pauline style. Regarding 1 Thessalonians, he remarks that the whole of it reflects Pauline language.Footnote 117 According to Ernest Renan, the style of 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Philippians “possess[es] a character of authenticity which overcomes every other consideration.”Footnote 118 Pauline style was also thought to contain a tone of sincerity. Of Colossians, Renan remarks, “[F]or few pages have a tone of such decided sincerity; Paul alone, as far as it appears, was able to write this little masterpiece.”Footnote 119 In a similar regard, Hilgenfeld comments that the entirety of Philemon “bears the stamp of simple truth.”Footnote 120 Hilgenfeld assessed Philemon (vv. 11, 20) authentic on account of its puns (Wortspielen).Footnote 121 And, according to him, Philippians was Pauline because in it one finds his swan song (Schwanengesang).Footnote 122 As is indicated in the examples, scholars assessed Pauline style subjectively, according to what they thought it was and according to their particular preferences. Their determinations are likewise drawn only by reference to the letters themselves. Whether or not statements were sincere is, of course, a matter of authorial intent, something that is unknown to later readers. Moreover, similarities of style and language across letters do not provide evidence of the Apostle Paul as author.
A third factor scholars turned to for their determination of Pauline authenticity and historical reliability was a letter’s external testimony in early “Christian” authors. Clement of Rome’s knowledge of 1 Corinthians provides Martineau sufficient evidence to deem six Pauline letters authentic. He comments that Clement’s testimony “permits us to expect, and, being unopposed, suffices to assure us, that, in the first group of writings, we are really in contact with the primitive expression of the new faith.”Footnote 123 Yet these later citations, as mentioned, do not provide evidence of authenticity or historical reliability.
A fourth factor these scholars adopted to determine Pauline authenticity and historical reliability was – like Evanson and de Wette – agreement with Acts. Even as Baur rejected the historical reliability of Acts, post-Baur scholars returned to it to corroborate “facts” in Pauline letters. Thus, Hilgenfeld assessed 1 Thessalonians and Philippians historically reliable due to confirmation of Paul’s journeys into those regions as found in Acts.Footnote 124 For his part, Renan argued that the Pastorals cannot be Pauline as they posit a chronology of the life of Paul that differs from Acts.Footnote 125 Hilgenfeld and Weizsäcker concluded that the Hauptbriefe along with 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon (seven letters in all) were authentic and historically reliable. Their assessments brought the field to its modern-day consensus.
In sum, the Enlightenment brought an important difference in the determination of the value of Pauline letters. Being scripturally authoritative alone no longer qualified as valuable: for biblical literature to be credible and worthy, it needed to be historically reliable. Again, Spinoza’s adage was “to accept nothing as an authoritative Scriptural statement which we do not perceive very clearly when we examine it in the light of its history.”Footnote 126 Yet, as already indicated, the determination of historical reliability was forced: discussions of place/regions are insufficient as evidence of a letter’s historicity; Paul’s discussions and activities drawn exclusively from the letters and/or Acts do not in themselves indicate historical reliability; and enchantment with Pauline turns of phrase and particular dictums are not guarantees of Pauline authorship.
De Wette rendered his analyses of Pauline letters using a fixed pattern prefigured to emphasize social and geohistorical details. He began with the assumption of a letter’s authenticity and historical reliability and then simply placed the Apostle in the region specified by the letter. With the aid of Acts, he described Paul’s movements and behaviors vis-à-vis the targeted community within the specified region. By emphasizing social and geographic events over theological-ideological content, he rendered – but without the needed and critical verification – a view of Paul, his community, and by association the letter itself, as historical and genuine.
As indicated, Baur’s determination of the Hauptbriefe as authentic and historically reliable, lacked methodological rigor at every turn. Deploying circular reasoning, he simply made the Hauptbriefe support his predetermined assessment of early Christian history. To increase the number of authentic letters beyond the Hauptbriefe, post-Baur scholars adopted methodologies no more rigorous than their predecessor. Their high regard for Paul and his letters underlies their determinations of authenticity. They likewise advanced Baur’s uncritically developed theory of Christian origins, applying it as a criterion of authenticity for additional letters. While they cite style as a determining factor of authenticity, they posit no credible definition of it.
Pauline Letters as Genuine Correspondence
In addition to the Enlightenment injunction and subsequent scholarly impetus to interpret biblical texts as historical sources, there was another and near-concurrent movement to confirm Pauline letters as genuine correspondence. The highly prolificFootnote 127 German theologian and philologist Gustav Adolf Deissmann (1866–1937)Footnote 128 was in large measure responsible for initiating this orientation to Pauline letters. Following on Deissmann – and working under the assumption that the “authentic” Pauline letters were genuine correspondence – post-Deissmann scholars advanced the genuine-correspondence perspective through their studies of letter form, style, function, and type. Many of these studies sought to align Pauline letters with contemporaneous and seen-as-actual Greco-Roman correspondence.
In his 1895 Bibelstudien (Bible Studies)Footnote 129 and 1908 Licht vom Osten (Light from the Ancient East, ET: 1927),Footnote 130 Deissmann undertook extensive comparative and philological studies in support of his perspective that Pauline letters were “real” letters, namely, genuine correspondence, and not “literary.” Like F.C. Baur, Deissmann’s evaluation of Pauline letters was greatly influenced by his understanding of earliest Christianity, and he interpreted the letters to reflect his reading of that history. Even as subsequent scholarship soundly refuted all the primary arguments Deissmann employed to support his evaluation of Pauline letters, finding flaws in his methodology,Footnote 131 current NT scholarship nonetheless continues to hold to his overall assessment that at least some letters, namely, the seven, are Paul’s genuine correspondence.Footnote 132
Deissmann held to what can be called the “Big Bang” or miraculous conception of Christian origins: Christianity began with the spirit, not with writing.Footnote 133 In the beginning “there was only the “living word, – the gospel, but no gospels.”Footnote 134 According to him, earliest Christianity, “Primitive Christianity” (Urchristentum), was shorn of doctrine and a product of the unlearned;Footnote 135 it was a lower-class development in opposition to high culture.Footnote 136
To reiterate, Deissmann’s interpretation of Pauline letters (Briefe) parallels his understanding of earliest Christianity. According to him, the Pauline letters are documents/writings, but just barely so. Creating a pun on the German for “document” (Urkunde), Deissmann hyphenates the word as “Ur-Kunde,” altering its sense to “original tidings” or “pristine knowledge.”Footnote 137 New Testament Briefe in their “nonliterary” form indicate an originating spirit,Footnote 138 a spontaneity and even naturalnessFootnote 139 that lay at Christianity’s origin.
Deissmann was not the first scholar to distinguish earliest Christianity by its compositional forms. Earlier, Franz Overbeck (1837–1905) argued that at its origin and until the mid-second century ce, Christianity produced Urliteratur (preliterature). By Urliteratur Overbeck meant a total correspondence between literary form and content and an immediacy and mutual recognition between writer and reader. With regard to Urliteratur Overbeck commented, “Here the written word, without intending as such to signify anything, is nothing but a completely artless and accidental surrogate for the spoken word.”Footnote 140 It was because these early writings were considered as natural, without contrivances, that they could serve as factual and historical. Overbeck believed that Urliteratur developed out of Urgeschichte (prehistory), an era typified by “originality and intensity of religious experience.”Footnote 141 Once Christianity turned to literature – to the use of standard forms (c. mid-second century) – it became a literary movement that self-consciously exploited existing forms to interest its readers, and as a result became no longer reliable as history.Footnote 142 Deissmann adopted Overbeck’s romanticized and insufficiently theorized understanding of literature and of early Christianity and deployed it as a lens for interpreting Pauline letters.Footnote 143
Best known for his classification of NT letters into two distinct types, Deissmann, like Baur, organized the available data to make it conform to and confirm his historical reconstruction of early Christianity. According to him, a “real” (wirklichen) letter (Brief) was artless, personal, genuine, and historically reliable, while a “literary” letter (Epistel)Footnote 144 was carefully crafted, a work of art, and destined for a public audience. He remarks that an Epistel
is an artistic literary form [literarische Kunstform], a species of literature, just like the dialogue, the oration, or the drama. It has nothing in common with the letter except its form; apart from that one might venture the paradox that the epistle is the opposite of a real letter. The contents of an epistle are intended for publicity – they aim at interesting ‘the public’ [Publikum].Footnote 145
By contrast, a Brief
is something non-literary [Unliterarisches], a means of communication between persons who are separated from each other. Confidential [intim] and personal [persönlich]Footnote 146 in its nature, it is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed, and not at all for the public [Öffentlihkeit] or any kind of publicity. A letter is non-literary, just as much as a lease or a will. There is no essential difference between a letter and an oral dialogue; it might be described as an anticipation of the modern conversation by telephone, and it has been not unfairly called a conversation halved [halbierte Zwiesprache].Footnote 147
As nonliterary Briefe, Pauline letters were also historically reliable. Each Pauline letter was “a piece of life” (Stück Leben).Footnote 148 He comments,
the non-literary characteristics as letters are a guarantee of reliability, their positive documentary value for the history of the apostolic period of our religion, particularly the history of St Paul himself and his great vision.Footnote 149
By contrast, literary records are “insufficient to give him [the Christian historian] a reliable picture.”Footnote 150 Deissmann’s list of Pauline Briefe went beyond the “authentic seven” and comprised thirteen letters: Philemon (least in doubt as being an actual letter), Ephesians, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, Colossians, Philippians,Footnote 151 and the three Pastorals.Footnote 152 By contrast, NT letters such as James, Peter, Jude, and Hebrews were literary epistles (Episteln),Footnote 153 and postdate earliest Christianity.
Deissmann set out to prove his theory of the naturalness and genuineness of the letters he deemed “real” and representative of Urchristentum in two related ways. In his Bibelstudien and elsewhere, he conducted detailed philological workFootnote 154 to refute the notion that biblical words were unique and thereby distinct from the then-common secular vocabulary, as found in “nonliterary” sources.Footnote 155 His assumption was that common language indicated a common or ordinary origination. And in Licht vom Osten, he extensively analyzed a recently discovered cache of Ancient Near Eastern largely everyday letters to argue that these ancient artefacts compared favorably in form, style, and language to Pauline letters.
The breadth of Deissmann’s philological study is impressive. He locates instances of many otherwise biblical- or ecclesiastical-only words among small papyri samples and inscriptions.Footnote 156 His study contributed to the notion that biblical language is not unique.Footnote 157
Yet Deissmann’s philological studies did little to advance his theory of Christianity’s pristine and primitive beginnings. For instance, he locates the Thayer classified biblical-only word βροχή (rain or moistening) in a lease among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (n. 2805) dated to 88–89 ce,Footnote 158 and another biblical-only classified word πληροφορέω (to fulfill) in several first- and second-century ce papyri.Footnote 159 Instances of these words in the papyri letters, however helpful for disabusing of the notion that biblical language is unique, do not in themselves indicate influence on NT compositions, nor do they of necessity suggest a low- or common-class social context for NT letters.
Deissmann likewise located several biblical-only words in upper-class contexts, in those he would otherwise classify as “literary” texts. Such findings compromise his thesis of a lower-class nonliterary setting for early Christianity. For example, he locates ἀλλογενής (of another race, a stranger, foreigner), found only in Luke 17:18, in a limestone block inscription from Herod’s temple in Jerusalem.Footnote 160 Its provenance and physical characteristics hardly indicate a common, lower-class milieu; the stone inscription itself is carefully crafted.Footnote 161 Take also Deissmann’s investigation of ἐπισυναγωγή (a gathering), found in 2 Macc 2:7; 2 Thess 2:1, and Heb 10:25, a word whose root συναγωγή (transliterated as “synagogue”) has considerable significance in NT studies. Deissmann locates an instance of this word in a Decree of Honor stele inscription (second century bce),Footnote 162 again, not among the lower-class nonliterary papyri of the ancient world.
In Licht vom Osten Deissmann looked at ancient letters written on papyri, ostraca, and stone of seemingly lower-class origination, examining them against Pauline letters for their comparability.Footnote 163 Yet here, too, these ancient artefacts made for poor comparanda against Pauline letters. In general, the ancient cache consisted of legal documents, “leases, bills and receipts, marriage-contracts, bills of divorce, wills, decrees issued by authority, denunciations, suings for the punishment of wrong-doers, minutes of judicial proceedings, and tax-papers.”Footnote 164 Their content was hardly comparable to Pauline letters. The letters range in date from the fourth century bce to the seventh century ce, with provenances in Fayûm, Athens, Alexandria, Palestine, Thebes, and elsewhere. Some letters are clearly not from the lower classes and several date well beyond the second century,Footnote 165 such that they may have been influenced by Pauline letters, rather than the reverse.
An exemplar from Deissmann’s study is the oldest known extant Greek letter. From an Athenian to his housemates, the fourth century bce Letter from Mnesiergus is inscribed on a lead tablet. The addressee is listed on the outside of the tablet and reads as follows:
Φέρεν ἰς τὸν κέραμ- ον τὸυ Χυτρικόν ἀποδôναι δὲ Ναυσίαι ἢ Θπασυκλῆι ἢ θ᾿ ὑιῶι. | To be taken to the potter’s working-house; to be delivered to Nausias or to Thrasycles or to his son.Footnote 166 |
On the inside resides the sender-name, greetings, and letter body.
Μνησίεργος ἐπέστελε τοῖς οἴκοι Χαίρεν καὶ ὑγιαίνεν καὶ αὐτὸς οὕτως ἔφασ[κ]ε [ἔχεν]. στέγασμα εἴ τι Βόλεστε ἀποπέμψαι ἢ ὤας ἢ διφθέρας ὡς εὐτελεστά<τα>ς καὶ μὴ σισυρωτὰς καὶ κατύματα. τυχὸν ἀποδώσω. | Mnesiergus sendeth to them that are at his house greeting and health and he saith it is so with him. If ye be willing, send me some covering, either sheepskins or goatskins, as plain as ye have, and not broidered with fur, and shoe-soles: upon occasion I will return them.Footnote 167 |
From this sample ancient letter, Deissmann claims, without citing other supporting evidence, that letters originally had their addressee listed on the outside. Regarding the letter’s content, Deissmann remarks that the request for a covering (στέγασμα) resonates with Paul’s request for a cloak (φαιλόνην) in 2 Tim 4:13. Yet not only is the Greek word for cloak different, but the content, tone, and style of the fourth-century letter are not at all comparable to 2 Timothy or to any other Pauline letter.
Deissmann likewise assesses that a papyrus letter of consolation from Oxyrhynchus dated to the second century ce, in which an Egyptian upper-class woman named Irene writes to a family in mourning, compares favorably to Pauline letters on stylistic grounds. It reads,
Εἰρήνη Ταοννώφρει καὶ Φίλωνι εὐψυχεῖν. οὕτως ἐλυπήθην [καὶ] ἔκλαυσα ἐπὶ [τῶι] εὐμοἰρωι, ὡς ἐπὶ Διδυμᾶτος ἔκλαυσα. καὶ πάντα ὅσα ἦν καθήκοντα ἐποίησα καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐμοί, Ἐπαφρόδειτος καὶ Θερμούθιον καὶ Φίλιον καὶ Ἀπολλώνιος καὶ Πλαντᾶς. ἀλλ᾿ ὅμως οὐδὲν δύναταί τις πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα. παρηγορεῖτε οὖν ἑαυτούς. εὖ πράττετε. Ἀθὺρ ᾶ.Footnote 168 | Irene to Taonnophris and Philo, good comfort. I am so sorry and weep over the departed one as I wept for Didymas. And all things, whatsoever were fitting, I have done, and all mine, Epaphroditus and Thermuthion and Philion and Apollonius and Plantas. But, nevertheless, against such things one can do nothing. Therefore, comfort ye one another. Fare ye well. Athyr I.Footnote 169 |
According to Deissmann, the writer “ponders over sentences to fill the sheet,” and that genuine feeling (die wahre Empfindung) is in evidence.Footnote 170 The letter ends with the expression, “Comfort ye one another” (παρηγορεῖτε οὖν ἑαυτούς), which Deissmann compares to a similar sentiment in the Pauline corpus (1 Thess 4:13, 17, 18). While 1 Thess 4:18 contains the phrase, “encourage one another” (παρακαλεῖτε ἀλλήλους), it is a poor lexical and content match to the expression Irene employed. Deissmann, too, is ill-positioned to determine the writer’s genuineness or lack thereof. And if the writer is “pondering” over sentences, she is hardly spontaneous, one of Deissmann’s criteria of a genuine letter. The letter likewise has an upper-class provenance,Footnote 171 which makes it weak example of a letter from the lower classes. Like the Letter from Mnesiergus, in terms of its style and content, the Letter of Irene is a not a good comparison to Pauline letters.
Other examples include a letter in the form of a receipt addressed to King Ptolemy concerning the sending of animals, or a request-letter dated to 245 bce from a wealthy Egyptian to a police official for goods and for an effeminate (τὸν μαλακὸν) musician.Footnote 172 Like the Letter of Irene, these letters are not of lower-class provenance and their content greatly differs from Pauline letters.
Letter length is yet another factor jeopardizing favorable comparability across these ancient papyri, ostraca, and inscription letters and Pauline letters.Footnote 173 In general, Ancient Near East letters are very short. E.R. Richards notes that the average length of approximately 14,000 private ancient Greco-Roman letters is around eighty-seven words, while the average length of letters of classical authors such as Cicero and Seneca are 295 words and 995 words, respectively. The average length of the thirteen NT Pauline letters (exclusive of Hebrews) is 495 words. The shortest Pauline letter is Philemon at 335 words, with Romans the longest at 7,111 words.Footnote 174 By the criterion of length, Pauline letters are much closer to ancient authors such as Cicero and Seneca than to the Ancient Near Eastern letters.
All Deissmann’s assumptions supporting his categorization of NT letters into “real” and “literary” have been challenged and subsequently refuted.Footnote 175 He received swift criticism for his romantic view of the purity of lower-class society and lower-class writings,Footnote 176 yet this aspect remained central to his thesis and permeates his work.Footnote 177 His distinction between “real” and “literary” is not theoretically sound. All language has a conventional aspect to it. As Stowers comments, “All letters … are literature in the very broadest sense.”Footnote 178 Style, even simple style, can be and is manufactured. Moreover, language and style are not reliable indicators of either genuineness or fabrication. As Margaret M. Mitchell aptly comments, a natural style does not necessarily indicate that one encounters a real person, one can “just as easily find an author.”Footnote 179 The assurance of genuineness requires knowledge of authorial intent (Absicht), something that in ancient compositions, in particular, cannot be known.Footnote 180
Deissmann’s distinction between public and private posits another false binary and is not determinable by letter form, style, or content. Just as style is a matter of authorial intent, so too is a letter’s distribution. Indeed, this was a point of which Deissmann himself was aware, remarking that the publishing of a letter is “sondern in letzter Linie nur die Absicht des Verfassers” (in the end, only the intention of the author).Footnote 181 In antiquity, personal and family letters – so-called private letters – were written for publication and/or later published.Footnote 182 It is a well-known fact that Cicero later published family and other seemingly private letters.Footnote 183 In addition, in that they are addressed to communities, with little indication that the apostle knew every member (e.g., Romans),Footnote 184 the category “private” for all Pauline letters is a stretch.
Deissmann posited an understanding of early Christianity that was ahistorical, and mythical. There was no Urchristentum as Deissmann (and Overbeck) imagined.Footnote 185 Modern scholars of religion remark that rather than a concept or belief at a religion’s core, one finds instead practices.Footnote 186 Only later is meaning applied to those practices.Footnote 187 To posit an originating spark only serves to reify a tradition, such as Christianity. Deissmann attempted to map letters by their form, style, and content onto a nonexistent historical reality. Yet even as Deissmann’s assessments of Pauline letters as natural, spontaneous, genuine, personal, and private have been debunked in subsequent scholarship, his overall assessment of the letters as genuine correspondence nonetheless prevails in Pauline scholarship.
Deissmann’s Influence on Later Epistolary Studies
Deissmann’s assessment of Pauline letters as genuine correspondence served as a generative force for further investigations of the letter genre interpreted along the lines of actual letters (sent correspondence). Indeed, in the years following Deissmann – and influenced by his prolific writings – NT studies in ancient epistolography flourished. Scholarship includes anthologies of ancient letters,Footnote 188 general studies of ancient epistolography,Footnote 189 letter formulae,Footnote 190 letter form and function,Footnote 191 letter types,Footnote 192 and the letter compositional process.Footnote 193 This post-Deissmann scholarship sought to locate Pauline letters within a contemporaneous stream of Greco-Roman letters. It has served to reinforce and even reify Pauline letters as genuine correspondence. Yet, and as seen in this chapter, common everyday Greco-Roman correspondence is poor comparanda to Pauline letters. This later scholarship is likewise variously flawed methodologically. Moreover, to circumvent various incompatibilities between common Greco-Roman and Pauline letters, this scholarship assesses the latter as a unique type of letter.
Following Deissmann’s lead, Francis Exler also extensively investigated ancient letter collections. In addition to the Fayûm cache of Ancient Near East letters, Exler examined other recently published collections, including eight volumes of Oxyrhynchus Papyri, the Rylands Papyri, a second volume of the Lille Papyri, and papyri published by the Societa Italiana. Taken together, the letters date from the third century bce to the third century ce.Footnote 194 Exler discerned a consistent pattern in letter-opening and letter-closing formulae across these collections and time periods.Footnote 195 With only a little variation, the letters adopt a standard opening formula (prescript), which takes the form A (Sender) – to B (Recipient) – χαίρειν (hail, welcome, or greetings).Footnote 196 These letters likewise indicate a standard closing formula: ἔρρωσο (be strong, be of good health) or εὐτύχει (be prosperous), changing somewhat in the first century ce to διευτύχει (continue prosperous).Footnote 197
In his influential Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischn Briefe bis 400 n. Chr., the Finnish papyrologist Heikki Koskenniemi studied the structural elements (opening, body, and closing) of ancient letters.Footnote 198 Koskenniemi argued that by virtue of their location and arrangement within the letter genre, basic structural elements could provide determinable significations to letter recipients. According to him, the constituent elements of the letter functioned like speech acts.
The basic scheme of the Greek letter: prescript, letter-body proper, and concluding formulas which remain unchanged until the fourth century C.E., can be compared in its parts with a personal encounter. The prescript corresponds to the greeting; the concluding formulas to the leave-taking. These parts frame the epistolary encounter, and the epistolary situation puts its stamp on them to a greater degree than the rest of the letter.Footnote 199
An early adopter of Koskenniemi’s epistolary theory was the influential New Testament scholar Robert W. Funk.Footnote 200 Funk argued that letters were unique among ancient compositions, the letter – as Koskenniemi assessed – was a conveyor of speech. Funk remarked,
the letter is a written means of keeping conversation in motion; formerly it corresponds to friends meeting, saying ‘hello,’ conversing, bidding each other goodbye. A letter is thus oral speech at the threshold of writing, i.e., the letter, as genre, is only one step removed from an actual conversation.Footnote 201
According to Funk, a letter was simply one short step away from speech. Implicit in this view is that, unlike written communication, oral speech was genuine, unfiltered.
Like Koskenniemi and Funk, John L. White also investigated the form and function of the ancient letter.Footnote 202 White posited an integral relation between the form of a letter (its structural elements) and its contents. Borrowing from the field of structural linguistics, White noted,
the epistolographer finds himself [sic] in a situation formally resembling that of the structural linguist. Like phonemes, [epistolary] elements are elements of meaning; they acquire meaning only if integrated into systems. [Epistolary] element systems, like phonemic systems, are built at the level of unconsciousness … in the case of epistolography as well as linguistics, the observable phenomena result from laws which, though general or necessary, are implicit.Footnote 203
Otherwise put, and following closely on Koskenniemi, White assessed that epistolary structural elements – opening, body, and closing – convey meaning simply by virtue of their location and arrangement within a letter.
In his specialized study of Philemon – the shortest of the Pauline letters – White sought to draw comparisons between its structural elements and those of the common Greek letter. However, rather than similarities, his research uncovered numerous differences.Footnote 204 Philemon employs a nonstandard letter prescript (opening). Rather than the customary opening salutation, “χαίρειν” (Greetings!) one finds an expanded expression χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστου (Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ; Phlm 3, NRSV).Footnote 205 Rather than the conventional health wish common to ancient-letter closings (ἔρρωσο; be strong, be of good health or εὐτύχει; be prosperous), Philemon concludes with an unparalleled, Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν (The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit; Phlm 25, NRSV).Footnote 206 Philemon’s expression of thanksgiving differs both “formally and functionally” from other common Greco-Roman letters that include this feature.Footnote 207 White likewise observes an otherwise undocumented and “inordinately long request” in Philemon’s letter body (Phlm 7–14),Footnote 208 as well as a significant difference in the length of its letter body when compared to other common Greco-Roman letters.Footnote 209 Rather than allow these differences to affect Philemon’s status as genuine correspondence, White instead comments that the opening and closing formulae are present in Philemon but in a “distorted form”;Footnote 210 that the unusually long request can be attributed to “Paul’s own creativity, working in conjunction with conditions prevailing in his ministry”;Footnote 211 and that on-the-ground circumstances led Paul to create “new formulae, appropriate to the situation.”Footnote 212
In sum, influenced by Deissmann’s extensive studies, post-Deissmann scholarship on ancient epistolography sought to align Pauline and Greco-Roman letters by structure, formulae, and function. In so doing, the scholarship reinforced and thereby kept alive Deissmann’s perspective on Pauline letters as genuine correspondence. Yet post-Deissmann scholarship does not achieve its intended goals. Indeed, a principle of exceptionalism appears to be in play. While ancient Greco-Roman letters evince standard opening and closing formulae – as Exler’s findings confirmed – none of the extant Pauline letters conform to that standard. In his careful analysis of Philemon, White consistently and continually makes special allowances (e.g., creative license or unique social circumstances) to account for the distinct differences between it and the private Greco-Roman letter. While ancient letters are recognizable by their structural form, to argue, as did Koskenniemi and others, that the standard three-part epistolary feature renders predictable significations is methodologically flawed. Here, too, Koskenniemi is arguing that there is something unique about the ancient letter genre. His theory is unattested in ancient rhetoric and epistolary theory. It diminishes the role of the letter author and presumes without warrant determinable recipient responses.Footnote 213 A letter is not a near equivalent to oral speech. As already mentioned, all writing, even the simplest of letters, involves human agency (“All letters … are literature in the very broadest sense”).Footnote 214
Conclusion
In this chapter I have assessed three different classifications of Pauline letters: authoritative-scriptural, historical-documentary, and genuine correspondence. The earliest readers and interpreters of the letters – authors such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Ptolemy – assessed Pauline letters as authoritative and scripture-like. When interpreted as authoritative, the letters functioned handily as reputable sources in the development of their various theological positions and arguments against theological and ideological opponents. The letters were “true” because they were deemed of high value theologically. This understanding of the letters endured up to the seventeenth-century.
Enlightenment scholars reassessed the worthiness of biblical texts. Rather than being valued as scripturally and theologically authoritative, biblical texts needed to be assessed according to historical standards. Spinoza’s adage was “to accept nothing as an authoritative Scriptural statement which we do not perceive very clearly when we examine it in the light of its history.” During this period, scholars turned to Pauline letters for the purposes of making historical claims, yet deployed inadequate and insufficient methods. Evanson selectively chose the book of Acts without questioning its historically reliability or the possibility that Acts and Pauline letters could be mutually dependent on each other. To ground Paul and his communities in social-temporal realia, de Wette privileged discussions of regions and their social-political histories. The discussions afforded the sense of Pauline activity in the specified regions without providing adequate evidence of it.
The highly influential scholars F.C. Baur and Adolf Deissmann likewise assessed Pauline letters for their historical worth. Their predetermined understanding of Christian origins was the primary criterion of their evaluations of the historical reliability of Pauline letters and their status as genuine correspondence. For his part, Baur rejected as being historically unreliable all but the Hauptbriefe (Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans), as these were the only Pauline letters able to confirm his theory that Christianity emerged in opposition to a legalistic Judaism. Baur provided no credible external verification of his thesis, which scholars have convincingly argued derived from his religious convictions and the then-current German social and political environment. His method of determining the Hauptbriefe as historically reliable was circular, determined only from the four letters themselves. According to Deissmann, the Apostle Paul was present at the earliest, primitive, and genuine era of earliest Christian history. All Pauline letters exclusive of Hebrews reflected that naturalistic on-the-ground situation and were thereby nothing other than “real” and genuine correspondence. Deissmann positioned Pauline letters in this ahistorical setting, but his assessment of Pauline letters as “real” failed by every metric. No written document is entirely “real” or genuine, all comprise conventional aspects. The determination of a letter as private or public requires knowledge of authorial intent, information inaccessible to later readers.
Deissmann’s study spurred interest in various aspects of the letter genre. To confirm a status of Pauline letters as genuine correspondence, post-Deissmann scholarship sought to create convincing parallels between Greco-Roman and Pauline letters. Yet their analysis revealed that Pauline letters do not conform to common Greco-Roman letters. Their opening and closing formulae differ, their structures differ, and Pauline letters are considerably longer by comparison to common Greco-Roman letters. To indicate genuineness of Pauline letters, Koskenniemi and others posited functions of an ancient letter that made the genre unique among ancient writings. While ancient epistolographers rhetorically aimed for historical credibility and to have their letters appear speech-like, letters themselves were distinguished from speech. Furthermore, ancient and modern rhetorical theory and practice posit human agency and authorial intent behind writings of all kinds, including letters.
Hilgenfeld and Weizsäcker – those whose work helped to determine the modern consensus of seven authentic letters – and other post-Baur scholars applied nonrigorous and uncritical criteria to determine Pauline authenticity and historical reliability. In many cases, they returned to Baur’s poorly substantiated theory of Christian origins to justify the inclusion of additional Pauline letters. The criterion of Pauline style as a determinant of authenticity derived from Pauline letters themselves and was influenced by their high regard for Paul. The scholarship likewise assumes without warrant that similarity of style and language provide evidence of Pauline authorship. References to Pauline letters in later “Christian” authors qualifies as a valid criterion for relative dating but not for authenticity or historical reliability. Post-Baur scholars seem simply to have resolved to agree on the now-current list of seven letters as genuinely Pauline.
In Chapter 2, I challenge several central assumptions of the authentic-letter perspective. These include the historicity of Paul, Pauline activity firmly dated to the mid-first century ce, and the historicity of Pauline communities. I likewise reassess the characterization and date of early external evidence of Pauline letters. The chapter more generally indicates a widespread lack of evidence for assumptions grounding the authentic-letter perspective.
