Christian Askeland, over at ETC, drew my attention to this classic post-card (from A.G. Grenfell to his brother, B.P. Grenfell who was leaving to collect papyri at Oxyrhynchus [image from the Oxy web site]):















It is a good example of a letter where we have to reconstruct preceding conversation and decode the style of communication.

Co-authors as letter carriers?
William G. Doty thought that the mention of co-workers as co-authors (at the outset of a Pauline letter) had a two-fold reason: ‘first, he wanted to establish that what he wrote derived not from his own fantasy but from the developing Christian communities; second, the persons mentioned by name were often the trusted persons who were transmitting the letters and whose authority the addressesses were to acknowledge. A very common feature in Hellenistic letters, mention of the carrier established the carrier’s relationship to the writer, and guaranteed that what he had to say in interpreting the letter was authorized by the writer. The feature was especially important in Hellenistic letters where the actual information to be conveyed was trusted (only) to the messenger.’
W.G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity(Guides to Biblical Scholarship; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), 30.
This association between co-author and letter carrier seems to me basically wrong. A list of co-authors is: 1 Cor 1.1: Paul and Sosthenes; 2 Cor 1.1: Paul and Timothy; Gal 1.1: Paul and ‘all the brothers with me’; Phil 1.1: Paul and Timothy; Col 1.1: Paul and Timothy; 1 Thess 1.1: Paul, Silvanus and Timothy; 2 Thess 1.1: Paul, Silvanus and Timothy; Phile: Paul and Timothy. For Paul alone as author: Rom 1.1; Eph 1.1; 1 Tim 1.1; 2 Tim 1.1; Tit 1.1. None of these named figures are obviously letter carriers, and others (Phoebe, Rom 16; Epaphroditus, Phil 2; Tychicus, Col 4) clearly seem to be better candidates. Only in the case of Galatians is it likely that one of 'all the brothers with me' may also have carried the letter. (Doty refers to Galatians and may simply have wrongly extrapolated from the rather exceptional Gal 1.1)

Paul's Letters as official letters.

It is interesting that Chapa (see previous post) supports Stirewalt's view, that Paul's letters were 'official letters in a loose sense' (pp. 651-2). He makes a number of points on this:

1. although occasional, Paul's letters are not private, but are rather public: 'a kind of public document'
2. Paul has an 'authoritative position in relation to the recipients'
3. The mention of co-authors and so-senders bestows an official character.
4. The letters would probably have been received as official letters.
   

J. Chapa, ‘The Living Letters of Paul’ The Incarnate Word 2.7 (2009), 643-678.

This is an interesting general study, reflecting papyrological background and manuscript transmission. Definitely worth reading - you can download the entire issue from the link above. May pick up some issues from this in coming days.

There are clearly many points of interest raised in the previous cited letter (II AD). Three in particular concern interesting aspects of epistolary communication:
a) The letter is addressed to Ptolemaios' mother and sister (who it is clear have sent other letters to Ptolemaios), and yet they are apparently illiterate and Ptolemaios calls upon someone (anyone!) to read and translate this letter to/for them. He is able to presume that this would happen, although I don't see this as performed by the letter carrier, who is nowhere named or mentioned here.
b) Twice Ptolemaios refers to other letters, but both times he associates letters with personal messengers: 'You blame me through letters and through people as if I had done wrong ...' (DIA GRAMMATWN KAI DIA ANQRWPWN, lines 7-8), and 'I blame you because you enquired about me neither by words nor by letters' (OUTE DIA LOGWN OUTE DIA GRAMMATWN, lines 18-19). (Yes, he does get a bit defensive here!)
c) Ptolemaios refers to a specific previous letter that they had sent, which he claims not to have received. He realises that such a claim - I never received your previous letter - is such a commonplace, so he adds a further denial: 'No, I did not tear it up'!:

Concerning the letter which you sent to me, [I,] as [I] did [not] receive it, said: "No, by Sarapis, I did not tear it up; for I am not stupid. (lines 52-57)

For Greek text and photos: A. Bulow-Jacobsen & V.P. McCarren, ‘P. Haun. 14, P. Mich. 679, and P. Haun 15 – a re-edition’ ZPE 58 (1985), 71-79.

An interesting letter (P. Haun 14-15 + P. Mich 679; ET from APIS here)

Sarapis! You, whoever you are, who are reading the letter, make a small effort and translate to the women what is written in this letter and tell them.
Ptolemaios to his mother Zosime and his sister Rhodous, greetings.
You blame me through letters and through people as if I had done wrong, so I swear by all the gods that I have done nothing of what has been said, except only about the donkey of Karas. But you seemed to be lying in wait for me. And if you are angry because I did not send anything though I had heard, the reason is that I was kicked by a horse and was in danger of losing my foot [or even] my life. I blame you because you enquired about me neither by words nor by letters. The gods willing it would be well; ... [ca. 20 lines lost] ... but also I detained him and he enjoyed himself for four days, night and day. On the next day, when there was not even a bit to drink, he stood up saying to me: "Do you want a mina of meat bought for you?" I said: "Yes." At once I gave him two four-obol pieces for the mina of meat. Although he took the two four-obol pieces, he did not bring either the meat or the money nor has he been seen by me up to now. I write to you not for the sake of the money but in regard to his state of mind about my sister. On account of the respect for all of you I had forbidden her to speak to him about the money which he owed her. By the gods ... I was distressed when I heard [where he ended up] because of a bit [of money]. I felt bad that you, Rhodous ... did not come up for the twenty-fifth of the god. I entreat you to come for the seventieth of the god, to come to me as to your own home. The same affection remains. Entreat also the old woman to come. Concerning the letter which you sent to me, [I,] as [I] did [not] receive it, said: "No, by Sarapis, I did not tear it up; for I am not stupid. " ... [6 lines very damaged; 1 or more lines missing] ... though she ... and took into account (?) that, at once, I might form an opinion. She is completely inconsiderate. Since you were away from me, I was in distress for four days lest she was sick or had experienced some other trouble, and I sent my sister, using Karas as a pretext. In learning about her health I revealed the entire matter. Her brother, Ammonios, {told ? PMH} my sister that she was away. When I heard that she was away, it made me happy that she was not ill and no evil had befallen on her, but I am angry because she did not bid me good-bye, but went away without me. But there is nothing unusual in their lack of consideration. For I wanted to send you everything.
I pray that you are good health. Greet Tapsois and her mother, Isarous.

'Letter Carriers in the Ancient Jewish Epistolary Material'

The book in which my chapter on 'Letter Carriers in the Ancient Jewish Epistolary Material' appears has arrived today in the mail (Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon). If you are interested here is the conclusion:

Given the variety of material considered it is important to note that any generalizations will be a little dangerous. It is clear that the letter carriers do sometimes have an important role in the communication process (esp. when named, where it is generally assumed that they will have a larger role). An important place is given to specifically ambassadorial language in connection with the role of envoys/embassies in the delivery of official and royal letters. This can be both real/historical and redactionally introduced (e.g. in Maccabean literature and Josephus). From the notes of the Bar Kokhba revolt through to the royal letters of Jewish kings we do find letter carriers involved in reinforcing and supplementing the message of the written letter and thus facilitating the communication process envisaged by the author and sender of the letter.

You can buy the book (see also the link on the side panel), or drop me an email if you want an offprint of my chapter.

Robin Osborne, 'The letter: a diplomatic history'

A summary of Osborne's presentation at the Ancient History Seminar in London last week is provided by Charlotte Tupman over at Current Epigraphy. Very interesting to read. It is mostly about very early letters and focuses on generic features of letters (esp. over against decrees), such as the relationship which exists and which the letter fosters between sender and recipient.

Douglas Campbell and Phoebe
In Douglas Campbell's new reading of Romans (in The Deliverance of God) he assigns a significant role to Phoebe in communicating the "speech in character" aspect of large parts of Romans 1-3. This was mentioned by DC in the Q&A at SBL (audio recording here - about 75% through); but comes up only once in the book, and there without any discussion:

"it seems fair to suggest that Romans 1:18-32 could have been performed as speech-in-character. (And had Paul composed this passage in this way, he presumably would have given Phoebe explicit instructions in how to perform it.)" (p. 532)

It is surprising that considering the importance of this performative possibility in DC's reading, his presumption is not explained or defended in any way. It is worth noting that there is less evidence for letter carriers involvement in reading/performing the letter which they are carrying than Campbell presumes here (for the documentary papyri see my JSNT article).

David Miller has an interesting post on Paul's geographical horizon and eschatological mission agenda based on Rom 15.19 and ancient (well, relatively ancient) maps. Here.

McCabe on Phoebe

Over at the SBL forum, Elizabeth A. McCabe posts a paper entitled "A Reexamination of Phoebe as a “Diakonos” and “Prostatis”: Exposing the Inaccuracies of English Translations"
This is not the strongest argument about Phoebe I have ever seen. On her role as letter carrier of Romans she writes:

The alternate definition for diakonos, namely an “intermediary” or “courier,” is also appropriate here. Diakonos in this regard means “one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction.”[3] In terms of Phoebe, this distinction would classify her as the letter carrier to the book of Romans. In light of the fact that many letters did not reach their designated locations in antiquity, the appointment of a woman as the carrier of the book of Romans is noteworthy, particularly since Romans is arguably the most significant book in the New Testament.

Note 3 is: [3] “diakonos,” Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.; Chicago, 2000), 230.

There are several problems here. First, she has already argued that diakonos is some kind of role associated with the church at Cenchrea (fair enough); but you can't then piggy-back an additional meaning based on a further possibility found in the lexicon. Secondly, precisely because she was 'deacon of the church of Cenchrea', this was not a word that evokes the idea of mediation or letter carrying (since the letter does not come from Cenchrea!). Thirdly it is not a "fact" that many letters did not reach their destination in antiquity (although as a matter of "fact" we don't actually know if Phoebe succeeded in delivering this one to Rome). Fourthly, I do think the use of a female letter carrier is significant, but not because of a rather arbitrary and arguable view of the significance of Romans (this is a later projection).

So, I know it is meant to be 'be nice to women bloggers month', but this paragraph is unfortunately weak.

Here is my handout from today's presentation:

‘“Witnesses between you and us”:

The Role of the Letter-Carriers in 1 Clement’

Peter M. Head

Second British National Patristic Conference

Cambridge Sept 2009

1. Introduction

- broader project on epistolary communication and the role of letter-carriers in Greco-Roman antiquity and early Christianity

- letter-carriers important for security, confidence in delivery, personal contact

- named letter-carriers often have further role in communication

2. 1 Clement unusually explicit about role of letter-carriers

- closing summary (62-63)

- purpose of letter (63.2) co-ordinated with purpose of emissaries (63.3)

- ‘peace and concord’ (63.2; 65.1)

- the relationship between 63.3-4 and 65.1: the same people

a) linked by task (restoration of ‘peace and concord’)

b) linked by commission (sent from Rome)

c) linked by urgency

- no specificity about ‘carrying’ the letter (not unusual)

- not paralleled in other deliberative epistles appealing for concord

3. The nature and role of the emissaries/letter-carriers

- faithful: Noah (9.4); Abraham (10.1); Moses (17.5; 43.1); this is a characteristic which the recipients ought to display (48.5; 62.3)

- soberminded: a quality which the Corinthians are depicted as having once had but lost (1.2). Schism is described as a kind of madness/insanity (1.1; 21.5; 46.7)

- old: schism is attributed to younger men (so 3.3: the young were stirred up against the old/elders, cf. also 47.6)

- blameless: used three times in 1 Clement 44 to describe the behaviour of those who had been removed from ministry in the schism (44.3, 4, 6).

- witnesseses [Perhaps cf. Deut 19.15, but no verbal allusion at all]

- urgency: 63.4; and then is repeated three times in 65.4

- named (Greek, imperial freedmen of Claudius)

4. Concluding Reflections

- emissaries/letter-carriers essential to communication by letter and to successful reception of the epistle (from Roman perspective)

- emissaries/letter-carriers chosen carefully to reflect nature/purpose of communication and absolutely fundamental to that communication

- emissaries/letter-carriers interpret, reinforce, and even personally embody the appeal of the written letter to the recipients

- written letter did have significant Wirkungsgeschichte

- some parallels with Pauline practice (cf. generally 5, 47): sending language, pistos in recommendations, anticipated return; but not the only/major influence (Roman setting, embassies to cities, appeals for concord etc.)

‘Witnesses between you and us’: the role of the letter-carriers in 1 Clement

My paper at the Second National Patristic Conference is scheduled for next Thursday (10th Sept) at 12:20. Must get it tidied up and finished. (For normal techniques see here). Further details: SECOND NATIONAL PATRISTIC CONFERENCE

Interview with Nijay Gupta
Nijay was so keen on my article in JSNT that he asked me a load of questions about this Letter Carrier project. You can read all about it here.
Up-date: Nijay's interview won the coveted Paul Post of the Week Award. A stunning achievement.

Paul the Letter Speaker
Mark Goodacre has a brief pod on the subject of 'Paul the letter speaker' - about the use of dictation and secretaries in the composition of the Pauline correspondence (Rom 16.22, Gal 6.11). NT pod 2

Over at his blog - Paul of Tarsus in Historical Context- Kevin Scull has offered some comments on my JSNT article “Named Letter Carries among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri” - which I may have mentioned once or twice in earlier posts on this blog.
This is the second in a series of posts on Paul's Envoys and Letter Carriers - a subject of obvious interest - the first of which discussed Margaret Mitchell's article “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus” JBL 111 (1992): 641-662.
Kevin has promised some more interaction in the next instalment to this series (see his comment on this post at ETC.

Kathy Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement (LNTS 325; London: T&T Clark, 2007).

Reviewed by Thomas R. Blanton IV at RBL: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6503_7033.pdf

The book doesn't seem to mention letter-carriers (based on the review); but in treating the relationship between Paul and his addressees in an apparently nuanced manner (so Blanton) it looks like a useful resource.

Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon (eds. C.A. Evans & H.D. Zacharias; SSEJC 13; LNTS 70; London: T & T Clark / Continuum, 2009) is now listed on the Continuum web-site (as published in April 2009). Here is a brief description:
A fascinating collection of essays that builds upon the growing interest in manuscripts as artifacts and witnesses to early stages in Jewish and Christian understanding of sacred scripture.

My paper ‘Letter Carriers in the Ancient Jewish Epistolary Material’ is on pp. 203-219.

The Table of Contents is as follows:
Introduction — C. A. Evans and H. D. Zacharias
John P. Flanagan, “Papyrus 967 and the Text of Ezekiel: Parablepsis or an Original Text?”
Gregg Schwendner, “A Fragmentary Psalter from Karanis and its Context”
Thomas Kraus, “‘He that dwelleth in the help of the Highest’: Septuagint Psalm 90 and the Iconographic Program on Byzantine Armbands”
Don Barker, “Another Look at Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1353?”
Scott D. Charlesworth, “Public and Private — Second and Third-Century Gospel Manuscripts”
Pamela Shellberg, “A Johannine Reading of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840”
Peter Arzt-Grabner, “‘I was intending to visit you, but . . .’: Clauses Explaining Delayed Visits and their Importance in Papyrus Letters and in Paul”
Annette Bourland Huizenga, “Advice to the Bride: Moral Exhortation for Young Wives in Two Ancient Letters”
Marianne Schleicher, “Transitions between Artifactual and Hermeneutical Use of Scripture”
Larry Hurtado, “Early Christian Manuscripts of Biblical Texts as Artifacts”
Stephen Reed, “Physical and Visual Features of Dead Sea Scrolls Scriptural Texts”
Eduard Iricinschi, “‘A thousand books will be saved’: Manichean Manuscripts and Religious Propaganda in the Roman Empire”
Kirsten Nielsen, “The Danish Hymnbook: Artifact and Text”
David Chalcraft, “Some Biblical Artifacts in Search of a Sociological Theory”
Dorina Miller Parmenter, “The Bible as Icon: Myths of the Divine Origin of Scripture”
Peter M. Head, “Letter Carriers in the Ancient Jewish Epistolary Material”
Juan Hernández, “The Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus”

Congratulations to Lutz Doering on his recently revealed/announced move to Durham (HT: nijay). Notable because Lutz is very interested in various matters epistolary, partly connected with his ongoing work on 1 Peter, but also more broadly concerning Jewish epistolography. E.g. (excerpted from his list of publications):

‘Jeremiah and the “Diaspora Letters” in Ancient Judaism: Epistolary Communication with the Golah as Medium for Dealing with the Present’, in: Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretation (ed. K. de Troyer & A. Lange; SBLSymS 30; Atlanta (Ga.): SBL, 2005), 43–72.
‘First Peter as Early Christian Diaspora Letter’, in: A New Perspective on James and the Catholic Letter Collection (ed. K.-W. Niebuhr & R. Wall; Waco: Baylor University Press, forthcoming).

His is also working on a collection:
Ancient Jewish Letter Writing (publication in TSAJ, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; expected for 2009).

The Postman

Last night I watched, strictly for research purposes, the Kevin Costner movie The Postman (based on a novel by David Brin). In many ways this was typical Costner: an over-long post-apocalyptic hope movie, with shallow characterisation and cheap plot-devices. The one feature of interest is the way that the Postman and the facilitation of communication by letter-carriers between isolated communities produces hope and restores civilisation. The letter-carrier motto is iconic in this movie.