PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

We know that the letters that Cicero wrote were real historical letters. Here is a sample list:

To Atticus (At Athens)
To Atticus (At Athens)
To Cn. Pompeius Magnus
To Atticus (In Epirus) (A I, 17)
To Terentia, Tulliola, and Young Cicero (At Rome)
To His Brother Quintus (On His Way to Rome)
To Atticus (In Epirus)
To His Brother Quintus (In Sardinia)
To Atticus (Returning from Epirus)
To L. Lucceius
To M. Fadius Gallus
To M. Marius (At Cumæ)
To His Brother Quintus (In the Country)
To His Brother Quintus (In Britain)
To P. Lentulus Spinther (In Cilicia)
To C. Trebatius Testa (In Gaul)
To Atticus (At Rome)
To M. Porcius Cato (At Rome)
To Atticus (In Epirus)
M. Porcius Cato to Cicero (In Cilicia)
To M. Porcius Cato (At Rome)
To Tiro (At Patræ)
To L. Papirius Pætus (At Naples)
To L. Papirius Pætus (At Naples)
To L. Papirius Pætus (At Naples)
To Aulus Cæcina (In Exile)
Servius Sulpicius to Cicero (At Astura)
To Servius Sulpicius Rufus (In Achaia)
To Atticus (At Rome)
To Atticus (At Rome)
To Atticus (At Rome)
To Atticus (At Rome)
To C. Trebatius Testa (At Rome)
M. Cicero (The Younger) to Tiro
Quintus Cicero to Tiro
To M. Iunius Brutus (In Macedonia)

Looking at the Letters of Cicero, we immediately see one thing. They are all addressed to a single person.

Looking at the historical letters of Pliny, we find the same thing:

I. -- To Septicius.
II. -- To Arrianus.
III. -- To Caninius Rufus.
IV. -- To Pompeia Celerina.
V. -- To Voconius Romanus.
VI. -- To Cornelius Tacitus.
VII. -- To Octavius Rufus.
VIII. -- To Pompeius Saturninus.
IX. -- To Minutius Fundanus.
X. -- To Attius Clemens.
XI. -- To Fabius Justus.
XII. -- To Calestrius Tiro.
XIII. -- To Sosius Senecio.
XIV. -- To Junius Mauricus.
XV. -- To Septicius Clarus.
XVI. -- To Erucius.
XVII. -- To Cornelius Titianus.
XVIII. -- To Suetonius Tranquillus.
XIX. -- To Romanus Firmus.
XX. -- To Cornelius Tacitus.
XXI. -- To Plinius Paternus.
XXII. -- To Catilius Severus.
XXIII. -- To Pompeius Falco.
XXIV. -- To Baebius Hispanus.

All these real historical letters are addressed to a single person.

This makes sense. There was no post office, so to deliver a letter the sender either sent a slave or sent it with a friend traveling to a particular place. When the slave or friend arrived, he would find the person that the letter was addressed to and deliver it.

Would it be possible to send a letter to a Church? Today, we can do it because there are buildings called Churches and the post office delivers mail to them. But there were no buildings called churches in Paul's time. There were household churches, which meant that people met in a person's house. Did they always meet in the same person's house or was the meeting at different person's houses?

In any case, the messenger would have to deliver the letter to a specific person. This is the problem with Paul's letters. He never addresses the person who must have received the letter. If Paul was sending an actual letter which he wished to be read to members of the Church, he would have had to explain this in the letter to the person he sent the letter to. We would expect Paul to have some kind of relationship with the recipient of the letter, something on the order of "Hi Woody, remember when we got drunk together in Philadelphia. how are the wife and kids doing? If people are still gathering in your house for meals, Please read the following words to them: Greetings to the Church at ..."

Even if Paul had told his messenger to deliver it to Bob or Jerry or anybody he could find who was a member of the Church, Paul would still need to instruct the person receiving the letter in what he wanted done with the letter.

Let us assume that this part of the letter had been cut out. We still would expect Paul to mention the receiver of the letter in his sermon, at least to thank him for delivering his message to the congregation.

There is also the problem of reception. How would Paul know if the letter was in fact read in the Church or what the reaction was. How does Paul know if the letter is being read to four people who have never heard of him or one hundred people who have discussed his every word at length? In most of the genuine letters of Cicero and Pliny, an answer is requested. How does a Church give an answer?

It appears that all the Pauline letters addressed to a church are undeliverable rhetorical exercises, not real letters interacting with real people.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

andrewcriddle

Some of the letters do contain instructions about what to do with them. 1 Thessalonians 5:27 Colossians 4:16

More generally the messenger would have been instructed by Paul about such points. Paul on more than one occasion emphasises how much the messenger is in his confidence.

The absence of a named addressee may indicate the non-hierarchical nature of these early Christian congregations.

Andrew Criddle

tanya

Thank you Jay, for this profound question. I did a little, (very little) digging, and it seems that credit is given to Caesar Augustus for building roads, reducing military garrisons, and creating an effective mail service, throughout the Roman empire.

With respect to how "Paul" would know if a letter had been received, I suspect that the mail worked in both directions....

Personally, of course, I think the entire business a hoax. The oldest extant copy of a letter attributed to Paul dates from about 200 CE, according to David Trobisch (p46). I suppose someone will offer patristic evidence with a date prior to that, but then, the question will arise regarding that author's manuscript evidence....

I don't think one can impeach the existence of Paul's letters based on either the mail system, or lack of a person's name, in the header. However, I thank you for raising these possibilities, points I had never thought about....

:notworthy:

PhilosopherJay

Hi Tanya,

Thanks. As far as I know the mail system was only for the army and could not be used by private individuals. If you have any source that says it could, please let me know.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

It is NOT at all difficult to understand how letters were delivered in antiquity before any proper mailing system was established. Even today people give letters, notes, parcels and even money to private individuals to deliver to the recipient when such a person travels to the recipient's address.

Remarkably in Acts, Paul and his companions were COURIERS, Mailmen, for the Jerusalem Church.

Acts 15:30 KJV Paul and his companions in Acts were supposedly on a Second Tour of the Roman Empire so it makes sense to have them act as MAILMEN for the Jerusalem Church.

In Acts, the Jerusalem Church was the AUTHORITY not the Mailmen, like Paul.

PhilosopherJay

Hi andrewcriddle,

Thanks for these. These lines are good evidence that we are dealing with a rhetorical speech masquerading as a letter.

Look at 1 Thessalonians 5:27 in context:

Paul is telling the Church to read this to all the brethren. This is addressed to "all the brethren."

Who is being addressed? The whole church is being addressed. My main point is that there was no such such real entity called "the Church" that could have been addressed in this way. The church is a group of individuals, but not an individual. This only makes sense as an instruction to an individual. Why should he order five or ten or fifty people to read this passage in front of these same five or ten or fifty people in the Church? What he should have said if this was a real letter and not a rhetorical speech is something like "I have instructed Marcus Brutus Levy to read this letter in front of all of you today," or "I have instructed Marcus Brutus Levy to make sure that all members hear this letter."

The same thing applies to the previous line "Greet all the brethen with a holy kiss." How can you tell all the brethen to "greet all the brethen with a holy kiss." The noun of direct address is the subject and object, It is like saying, "Andrew, make sure that Andrew kisses Andrew."

The same recursive problem occurs in Colosians 4:1. However, there, we find a solution.

It is clear that he cannot be insructing the whole church to say to Archippus, "Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it." Are each of the five or ten or fifty members of the Church supposed to say this individually to Archippus, or are they to get together in a chorus and all say this to him at the same time. The instruction does not make sense this may. However, when we look at the text that comes before, we see what was in the original letter and what was originally meant (NIV text):

For a moment, assume that Luke, the dearly-loved physician, is an interpolation. In this case, the noun of direct address would be Demas. Let us suppose that Demas is not sending greetings, but is receiving them. We get this:

This now makes perfect sense. It is exactly what it should be if it were a real letter. Demas is being instructed to give greetings to the brothers at Laodicea and to Nympha and her house church. After someone has read the letter to Demas, he is to make sure that it is read in Nympha's house church in Laodicean and the letter from Laodicea.

Note that Demas is mentioned as a friend of Paul in the opening line of Paul and Thecla:

The last part about reading the letter from Laodicea still does not make sense. What Letter from Laodicea? Demas must be in Laodicea, why should he read the letter from Laodicea? Which letter from Laodicea? Probably the letter was from Nympha to Paul. Paul is instructing Demas to read the letter that Nympha sent to him. The editor is trying to hide that Nympha, a woman, wrote to Paul and Paul is answering by telling Demas to read Nympha's letter.

This was orignally a letter responding to Nympha and was meant to be read in Nympha's house church in Laodicea. Where is the original letter from Nympha of Laodicea to Paul?

We do have an epistle from Laodicea

(from Wikipedia We may assume that this was actually the letter from Nympha to Paul and the greeting has been falsified. It should read "to Paul," or "Greetings, Paul." and "from the brethen that are at Laodicea" Note how feminine the letter sounds:
Note that the request to read letters at Colossae and Laodicea makes sense if this is an exchange of letters between Nympha and Paul. Paul is then asking Demas to carry out Nympha's orders of the mutual reading of letters.

One can well imagine that an epistle from the women leader of a house church instructing Paul at Colossae would be rejected and changed by Second century Christians, first by Marcion and then by the more Orthodox.

We find in Revelations 3 a letter perhaps addressed to Nympha which is charged with eroticism:

It is clear that we have a set of love letters from and to Nympha the head of her own church in Laodicea. This forms the basis of the later letters, the one in Revelation and the one allegedly from Paul to the Laodiceans.

It is important to note that Laodicea was a rich Jewish center. According to Wiki (Laodicea) "Antiochus the Great transported 2,000 Jewish families to Phrygia from Babylonia.[12] Many of Laodicea's inhabitants were Jews, and Cicero records that Flaccus confiscated the considerable sum of 9 kg of gold which was being sent annually to Jerusalem for the Temple (Pro Flacco 28-68)." Antiochus ruled ruled 222–187 BC.

stephan huller

Perhaps the proper question in this regard is - if it was really impossible to address a letter to a whole community why did the second century forger ignore this reality (living closer to the age than us) and develop 'forged' letters to communities? Notice that the Pastorals which are certainly forgeries are addressed to individuals rather than communities. Also Ignatius's Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Philadelphians etc. The pattern of expansion than marks the Pauline epistles (= from Marcionite original to orthodox longer texts) is evidenced here too.

PhilosopherJay

Hi stephan,

This is an incredibly insightful and thoughtful question.

First we should consider that if this is correct and Colossians contains a letter to Demas of Laodicea, this section must have been part of the pastorals which are addressed to individuals. Thus the final form of Colossians must be after the writing of the pastorals.

I think the answer to the question of how Paul could be sending a letter to a church when it is impossible to send a letter to an entire church may lie in an earlier literary form that would allow for the fictional nature of such an address. To understand how this convention of addressing letters to Churches developed we have to look at the letters in Revelation and the letters of Ignatius.

If we look at the book of Revelation, we have this testimony
In this text, John hears a voice (which later turns out to be Jesus Christ' voice) to write a book and send it to the seven Asia churches. Sending a book to an Asia church would have been easy enough. All John needed was the name of whoever was the head of the church and he could send a slave on a long trip to deliver them.

Jesus Christ then tells John:

I assume that by saying "angel," he is saying to write to the woman who heads the Church. There is a great deal of poetical ambiguity here. He seems to be writing to "the angel" or woman who heads the church, but he is really giving his opinion of the whole church and giving orders to the whole church.

When we look at the Letters of Ignatius (which either the Letters of Paul grew out of, or were originally Letters of Paul) we see him first writing to individuals:
In his letter to Philadelphia, which is just a few kilometers north of Laodicea, he appears to be writing to to the Church of Philadelphia, but the first few lines make it clear that he is really writing to the Bishop of the Church of Philadelphia:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, which is at Philadelphia, in Asia, which has obtained mercy, and is established in the harmony of God, and rejoiceth unceasingly1 in the passion of our Lord, and is filled with all mercy through his resurrection; which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit. Which bishop,4 I know, obtained the ministry which pertains to the common [weal], not of himself, neither by men,5 nor through vainglory, but by the love of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ; at whose meekness I am struck with admiration, and who by his silence is able to accomplish more than those who vainly talk. For he is in harmony with the commandments [of God], even as the harp is with its strings. Wherefore my soul declares his mind towards God a happy one, knowing it to be virtuous and perfect, and that his stability as well as freedom from all anger is after the example of the infinite6 meekness of the living God.

Having beheld your bishop, I know that he was not selected to undertake the ministry which pertains to the common [weal], either by himself or by men,7 or out of vainglory, but by the love of Jesus Christ, and of God the Father, who raised Him from the dead; at whose meekness I am struck with admiration, and who by His silence is able to accomplish more than they who talk a great deal. For he is in harmony with the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, even as the strings are with the harp, and is no less blameless than was Zacharias the priest.8 Wherefore my soul declares his mind towards God a happy one, knowing it to be virtuous and perfect, and that his stability as well as freedom from all anger is after the example of the infinite meekness of the living God.

The letter was clearly being sent for the Bishop of the Church at Philadelphia. That it is why it is filled with such praise of him at the beginning. One can surmise that the Bishop was actually named in the original epistle and his name (or perhaps her name) was erased for some reason.

The letter to the Church of the Trallians shows a later development. He is no longer writing to the Bishop of a Church, but is writing to a Church on behalf of the Church's Bishop, Polybius. This is the crucial transition letter. It is clear that Polybius has visited Ignatius and is taking the letter back with him to read at the Church. That is the assumption that is made in the text.

This is perhaps the key text where because of the visit by Polybius the bishop, Ignatius is able to write directly to a Church. The special situation, that Polybius is visiting Ignatius and taking back the letter himself, gets lost in all future letters addressed directly to churches. The rest of the letters in Polybius and Paul that are addressed directly to Churches forget to mention the special situation in this letter.

After this letter, addressing letters directly to churches becomes "a convention" or a "trope".

We may compare it to what happened in the Star Trek universe which "warp speed." (from Wikipedia: Warp Speed):

Because of the way it was introduced as a discovery which broke the laws of physics, nobody could say afterwards when "time warp" technology was used that they were breaking the laws of physics. A "Trekkie" would have just said to a "Newbie" who proposed that this was not realistic, "Didn't you see "The Cage," where they already explained that the laws of physics was broken? Don't you know anything." In the same way, if anybody in early Christianity had raised the objection that a letter couldn't be sent to a church, a more experienced Christian might say, "Didn't you read the letter to the Trallians, where Polybius took back a letter for his Church."

The Epistle to Ignatius to the Magnesians is another important example of this technique of addressing a church through the return visit of a Bishop:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the [Church] blessed in the grace of God the Father, in Jesus Christ our Saviour, in whom I salute the Church which is at Magnesia, near the Moeander, and wish it abundance of happiness in God the father, and in Jesus Christ. Having been informed of your godly1 love, so well-ordered, I rejoiced greatly, and determined to commune with you in the faith of Jesus Christ. For as one who has been thought worthy of the most honourable of all names,2 in those bonds which I bear about, I commend the Churches, in which I pray for a union both of the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ, the constant source of our life, and of faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred, but especially of Jesus and the Father, in whom, if we endure all the assaults of the prince of this world, and escape them, we shall enjoy God. Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, inasmuch as he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ, [I now write to you].

Notice that Damas is the Bishop of Magnesia and he and the presbyters Bassus and Apollonius have given Ignatius a report on the church and he is undoubtedly bringing back the letter of Ignatius to the Church. "Damas" is sufficiently similar to "Demas" in the Pauline letter to the Collosians that we may assume it to be the same character.

Finally we can look at Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning1 of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united2 and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace. I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which ye have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers6 of God, and stirring up7 yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. For, on hearing that I came bound from Syria for the common name and hope, trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome, that so by martyrdom I may indeed become the disciple of Him "who gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God,"8 [ye hastened to see me9 ]. I received, therefore,10 your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love,11 and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop

It is through their Bishop Onesimus that the Ephesians are presumably getting this letter. This is likely the same Onesimus that appears in Colossians 4:9:

It is so nice that not only does Ignatius vouch for the holiness of Onesimus, but Paul does too. Onesimus is Paul's child who appears in his Pastoral Epistle to Philemon:

I would speculate that Onesimus, the Bishop of Ephesus, was claiming to be the love child of Nympha and Paul when he wrote some of the basic pastoral letters of Paul, some of which evolved into the letters of Ignatius and some which found their way into the other imaginary letters of Paul.

Warmly,


Jay Raskin

steve_bnk

By the time of Nicea there were communities with indepenent bishops. Paul makes a reference to a community with a leader not preaching what Paul thought to be the true faith.

Undoubtedly divergence began quickly.

stephan huller

I don't know what the solution is. The problem of having letters addressed to communities is profound. I think you might have overlooked an example or typology in your initial list. Emperors typically sent epistles to communities of people. Claudius's letters to the Alexandrians comes to mind (I can only think of examples involving Alexandria - Constantine too). I rarely peddle my own pet theory but I can't help but think that the ONLY model which makes any sense is that the apostle is 'like' an Emperor.

Why then to these communities?

Well you have to take into account the divergent list of epistles in the Marcionite canon. But my guess is that the apostle had some sort of authority to deal with this community.

But what was this community called? The letters never use the term Christian. So who or what were 'they' in the letters. Notice the use of the term 'Jew' in Romans:

This has always struck me as odd. The Marcionites 'retained' this line but how could this have fit into their supposedly 'anti-Jewish' agenda? The only answer I can come up with is that the Marcionites saw themselves as the 'new Judaism' because this was the religion of Elisha ben Abuyah. Of course this is for another time but for the moment at least the idea that the Jews were forcibly converted to this new religion helps explain why the epistles are addressed to communities rather than individuals.

The Corinthians address too presumes that there are members of the community who are traditional Jews. Notice the 'wise' (= hakhim), wisdom and the like. The material only makes sense if the community has individuals who want to GO BACK to traditional Judaism. Not 'Christians' who want to go back to Judaism. But Jews who are resisting the effort to impose this new cultus on them through this figure 'the apostle' an agent for the Imperial government.

The proof that the Jews of the Common Era were resisting some kind of Imperial tampering with their religion is clearest from the surviving Birkat HaMinim http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...3_0_02999.html

Many here know that according to my presuppositions the letters were written after the destruction of the temple not before. The gospel had already been published by the apostle himself. Are the people being addressed Jews who had been forcibly converted to this new religion recently invented by 'the apostle' in order to fill the vacuum in Judaism now that the temple had been destroyed and the people subjugated and forced to endue a tax?

When you start thinking about the Marcionites and their 'epistle to the Alexandrians' (deleted or renamed by the orthodox) the idea that the community were Jews and the apostle a figure who was officially sanctioned to be the head of this ethnos becomes a working possibility.

The Marcionites did not accept Acts or its claims about the identity of Paul (sorry about having to state the obvious).