Abstract
In this carefully researched and eminently readable volume, Benjamin Laird reconsiders the process by which the letters of Paul were brought together and assembled to form the collection known from early Christian manuscripts. After a careful examination of the evidence, Laird concludes that at some point after the individual letters were written the corpus of Pauline writings emerged as three variant collections. These were ‘those that contained ten epistles (Hebrews and the Pastoral Epistles omitted), thirteen epistles (Hebrews omitted), and fourteen epistles (Hebrews and the Pastorals included)’ (p. 286). In regard to the ten letter collection, it is argued that, ‘[t]he earliest known witness to this collection is found in Marcion’s Apostolikon’ (p. 287). The evidence for this collection is based on patristic testimony, rather than manuscript evidence. This ten letter form is seen as having emerged as early as the late first century.
Maybe only slightly later, but by the beginning of the second century, Laird argues for the circulation of the thirteen letter form of the collection. Here 1 Clement is seen as an important witness with ‘references or allusions to the text of Titus and possibly 1 Timothy’ (p. 291). This is a point that will be considered in more detail below. Additionally, there are two ninth century codices, Augiensis (F 10) and Boernerianus (G 012), that are seen as providing evidence in favour of a thirteen letter form. It is noted that Augiensis does contain Hebrews in Latin but not in Greek, whereas Boernerianus is lacking Hebrews in both Greek and Latin. The evidence of these two manuscripts might not be as conclusive as suggested. First, Augensis and Boernerianus actually both end their Greek text at Philemon 20, thus both omitting the final five verses of Philemon. It is likely that these two manuscripts were copying a common exemplar. Hence, this break at the end of Philemon 20 suggests that the exemplar had lost pages by the time it was copied in the ninth century. Otherwise it would appear strange that both would have stopped copying Philemon at the same point. Given this, it is possible that Hebrews was part of the exemplar and that it originally followed the lost portion of Phlm 21-25. Additionally, Augiensis has two columns on each page with Latin the outermost column where there is Greek and Latin text, and for the end of Philemon, but with Hebrews the Latin occupies both columns on the following pages. Therefore, it appears that the scribe of Augiensis did not find Phlm 21-25 or Hebrews in the exemplar due to a loss of pages, but had access to Latin manuscripts to supply the missing text. The format of Boernerianus is different. It is an interlinear manuscript, with the Latin written in smaller script above the Greek. It simply stops at Philemon 20. Although interestingly further down that final page there is the incipit for an epistle addressed to the Laodiceans. Thus the evidence is more ambiguous, and may not lend strong support to a thirteen letter form of the Pauline corpus.
Finally, Laird discusses the fourteen letter form of the Pauline corpus. Here the evidence is more compelling. This form is attested by the major majuscule codices from the fourth and fifth centuries as well as most other manuscripts after that period, although the order of the letters, particularly in regard to Hebrews, is variable.
In terms of the formation of these collections, Laird advocates for the possibility that ‘Paul or his associates kept copies of his letters’ (p. 301). Specifically it is suggested that Luke is a likely candidate to have edited the initial ten letter collection. Moreover, he argues that ‘additional evidence indicates that he [Luke] also played a significant role in the production of the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews, contributions that would also tie him to one or both of the expanded editions of the corpus’ (p. 303). Thus Laird views the initial ten letter form of the collection being formed soon after Paul’s death by a close associate such as Luke, and being formed from duplicate copies of those letters that had been retained by his associates. This initial collection was then expanded to include first the Pastoral letters, and then additionally Hebrews, and that these expansions occurred remarkably early and therefore account for the relativity stability that one finds in the corpus of Paul’s letters.
In order to establish this overarching theory, Laird sets his argument out in the form of a brief introduction and six carefully argued chapters. The introduction provides a synopsis of the volume. In the first chapter, Laird provides an illuminating discussion of literary culture and the formation of letter collections broadly contemporaneous with Paul’s own literary activities. The main point that Laird seeks to establish in this chapter is the possibility that at the time of the writing of Paul’s letters duplicates of letters were also produced and that these were retained by the author or his associates (pp. 34-39). Chapter two then surveys relevant manuscript evidence. The discussion of the highly significant manuscript of the Pauline letters, P46, is particularly valuable especially in regard to the original contents of this manuscript. Although tentatively stated, Laird is open to the possibility suggested by Jeremy Duff, ‘that the scribe added more leaves to the single quire in order to include the entire corpus in the codex’ (p. 50). Based on this possibility, Laird sees P46 as providing the latest possible date for the emergence of the fourteen letter form of the collection. However, since the extent of the contents of P46 are ultimately unknown, a more secure observation is that the earliest textual evidence for the fourteen letter collection is found in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus which, depending on how one dates these manuscripts, were written sometime around the middle of the fourth century.
Chapter three (pp. 113-189) very helpfully sets out the various evidence from early Christian writers concerning the contents of the Pauline corpus. From these writers one is able to observe which letters are used or cited. The discussion commences with the reference in 2 Pet 3.15-16 to various letters of Paul without any specific reference to which letters are in mind and lacking citation of their contents. While the issue of the date of 2 Peter is briefly addressed, this has been the subject of much recent discussion with some willing to place its composition in the second half of the second century. A later date might have an impact on the way one understands the development of the Pauline letter collection.
Next Laird turns to 1 Clement, of which he states ‘[m]ost scholars assume a date of composition for 1 Clement somewhere between 95-97 CE, though some date the work as early as the temple’s destruction (70 CE) or as late as 140 CE’ (p. 125). Once again, this supposed consensus has been the subject of significant challenge over the last decade or so (for instance, see the work of L.L. Welborn among others). The more significant piece of evidence that Laird draws from 1 Clement is in regard to its potential knowledge of Paul’s letter to Titus. The key passage is ἕτοιμοι εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν (‘ready for every good work’; 1 Clem 2.7) and the possible parallel πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι (‘to be ready for every good work’; Tit 3.1). While there is certainly some similar vocabulary the correspondence is not exact, the exhortation that one should be prepared for ‘every good work’ is not an unexpected phrase, and 1 Clement does not present this injunction as a citation. This is not conclusive for determining the author’s knowledge of Titus, and Lona in his commentary on 1 Clement views the explanation of similarity with the Pastoral as being due to a common background rather than as a result of direct literary dependence. By the time Laird turns to Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians, he is on much stronger ground with an author who draws on a greater range of Pauline letters with more extensive and stronger literary parallels.
Chapter four is an extremely detailed discussion of ‘The Canonical Reception of the Pastorals and Hebrews’ (pp. 190-234). Here Laird convincingly demonstrates that early Christian writers such as Ignatius and Polycarp cited the letters to Timothy and that manuscripts of larger collections of the Pauline letters regularly included the Pastoral Epistles, with P46 being a case where certainty is not possible (pp. 191-202). The discussion of Hebrews occupies the bulk of the chapter, and here Laird presents some fascinating ideas that are certain to generate much discussion and further scholarship. In regard to the manuscript evidence it is noted that an early manuscript such as P46 placed Hebrews near the beginning of the collection, and that other manuscripts due to page numbers (P13 and P126), or due to marginal numbering (Codex Vaticanus), may suggest in the former case that other Pauline letters were included prior to Hebrews, or that Vaticanus drew upon an exemplar where Hebrews was placed near the beginning of the corpus. Here it might have been useful to consider all early papyrus witnesses to Hebrews (P12, P17, P89, P114, P116, P130) to see if they were consistent with this supposition. Presumably, these are too fragmentary to yield any conclusive results. However, a fuller analysis would have potentially strengthened the argument. More weight is placed on the postscript to Hebrews (Heb 13.18-25), where many have detected elements that echo Pauline language. Here Laird skilfully discusses previous scholarship on these verses. He advances his own theory that the postscript is consistent with the idea that ‘Paul personally authenticated the work of an associate such as Luke – a conclusion that places the composition of Hebrews within Paul’s lifetime’ (p 233).
The fifth chapter sets out previous proposals on the formation of the Pauline corpus. These are ‘Publication Following a Period of Neglect’ (pp. 236-245), ‘Gradual Development and Expansion’ (pp. 245-261), ‘Formation through a Pauline School’ (pp. 261-268), and ‘Formation through Personal Involvement’ (pp. 268-278). Typically, such a history of research would be found near the beginning of a discussion. In this case the reasons for delaying it are sensible. Laird also provides an evaluation of these various proposals in light of the evidence assembled in the previous four chapters. Laird stands closest to the final option especially in regard to the notion that Paul or his associates retained duplicate copies of his letters. However, he develops that idea by seeing the collection assembled in its first phase shortly after Paul’s death by a figure such as Luke, and with the collection quickly evolving into the standard fourteen letter collection.
Laird is to be commended for producing such an accessible and interesting volume that deals with varied and complex evidence. This is a perennially fascinating topic, and the book offers a strong case for the early emergence of three major archetypal editions for the Pauline letter collection. This is based on Laird’s own configuration of the surviving evidence, which due to the sparsity of evidence from the period before 200 C.E. perhaps can be understood in different ways. Notwithstanding this, Laird has advanced the discussion in a meaningful manner and his work will become a standard piece of scholarship relating to ways to understand the emergence and formation of the collection of Paul’s letters.