No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 September 2024
On five occasions in Pauline literature, the author claims to write in their own hand. In three of the five instances, the autograph is reserved for the final greeting and the greeting alone. In Galatians 6.11 and Philemon 19, however, Paul writes more than the letter's greeting in his own hand, as the comment about his autograph appears well before the closing salutations. This article engages one of these texts, Philemon, and argues that it was written entirely in Paul's hand. The letter was a Pauline holograph. To make this argument, the article first assesses the ‘cheirographic rhetoric’ of Philemon 19. Paul alludes to a type of documentary writing, the cheirograph, that recorded various sorts of financial proceedings. Paul's autographic guarantee recalls validation statements that were integral to this genre of text. Comparanda from the non-literary papyri show that when an author of a cheirograph called specific attention to their own handwriting, the entire document was customarily written in their own hand. The article then turns to the personal nature of Philemon and the abundance of second-person singular forms, arguing that there was a strong preference that personal letters like Philemon be handwritten in Paul's context. Taken together, these two arguments demonstrate that Paul's short letter to Philemon was more likely to be handwritten than dictated.
1 In 2 Thess 3.17 a relative clause is added: ‘which is a sign in every letter; I write this way’ (ὅ ἐστιν σημɛῖον ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ· οὕτως γράφω). All translations are my own unless otherwise noted.
2 As its etymology suggests, a holograph is a text written wholly in the hand of its named author. An allograph, in contrast, is a text physically inscribed by a person who is not the named author.
3 Lightfoot, J. B., Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London: Macmillan, 1879) 342Google Scholar.
4 Arzt-Grabner, Peter, Philemon (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003) 242Google Scholar.
5 F. F. Bruce writes, ‘At this point, handcuffed though he was, Paul took the pen from the amanuensis and wrote out this promissory note, signing it with his name’ (The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 220). Similar claims are made by McKnight, Scot, Dunn, James D. G., and Beale, G. K. (McKnight, The Letter to Philemon (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017) 210CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dunn, , The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 339Google Scholar; Beale, , Colossians and Philemon (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019) 426Google Scholar).
6 Bruce, Epistle to the Colossians, 220; Harris, Murray J., Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: Colossians and Philemon (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 237Google Scholar; McKnight, Letter to Philemon, 105; G. K. Beale, Colossians and Philemon, 426.
7 Uri Yiftach-Firanko, ‘The Cheirographon and the Privatization of Scribal Activity in Early Roman Oxyrhnchos’ in Symposion 2007. Vorträge zur griechischen und hellenistischen Rechtsgeschichte (ed. Edward Harris and Gerhard Thür; Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008) 325.
8 Yiftach-Firanko states that cheirographs use the greeting χαίρɛιν ‘as a rule’ (‘Cheirographon’, 325).
9 Throughout this article, I have chosen not to normalise the Greek of the documentary papyri. Thus, non-standardised spellings appear regularly. Unless otherwise noted, Greek texts are from the Duke Database of Documentary Papyri and accessed via https://papyri.info. Square brackets indicate what has been constructed from a lacuna, and parentheses indicate the full word or phrase of abbreviations. In most cases, there are not published English translations of the Greek text, and the translations are my own.
10 Accessed from https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.oxy;33;2677. As far as I know, there is no other complete English translation of the document, though Scott Bucking has re-presented the Greek text, translated the first two lines into English, and has offered a brief commentary on the orthography of the text in ‘On the Training of Documentary Scribes in Roman, Byzantine, and Early Islamic Egypt: A Contextualized Assessment of the Greek Evidence’, ZPE (2007) 234.
11 LSJ, s.v. χɛιρόγραφος, ον.
12 Yiftach-Firanko‚ ‘Cheirographon’, 326–7.
13 Yiftach-Firanko, ‘Cheirographon’, 326–7.
14 These include P. IFAO 1.14 (140 ce), P. Oslo. 2.43 (141 ce), P. Oxy. 14. 1719 (204 ce), P. Oxy. 17.2134r (170 ce), and P. Oxy. 62.4335 (128 ce); P. Oslo. 2.40b (150 ce); P. Hamb. 1.70 (145 ce); P. Oxy. 49.3493 (175 ce), P. Oxy. 14.1710 (148 ce).
15 Lines 18–20. Accessed from https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.mert;1;14.
16 Accessed from https://papyri.info/ddbdp/psi;12;1253.
17 Accessed from https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.hamb;1;70. For the text and another English translation, see Select Papyri, Volume I: Private Documents (trans. A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar; LCL 266; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932) 178–81.
18 Accessed from https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.dion;;35.
19 Accessed from https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.oxy;2;264.
20 Accessed from http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.oxy;14;1639.
21 On the role of custodians or guardians, see Youtie, ‘ὑπογραφɛύς’ 212–13.
22 Image courtesy of The Egypt Exploration Society and the Faculty of Classics, University of Oxford.
23 On slow writers and the most famous of them from antiquity, Petaus, see Herbert C. Youtie, ‘Βραδέως Γράφων: Between Literacy and Illiteracy’, GRBS 12 (1971) 239–61.
24 There are many occasions of this in various kinds of documents. See, for example, P. Oxy. 2.251 (44 ce); P. Oxy. 1.106 (135 ce); P. Oxy. 1.76 (179 ce); P. Mich. 5.280 (first century ce); P. Mich. 5.284 (first century ce); P. Mich 5.339 (46 ce); P. Mich. 5.350 (37 ce); P. Mich. 5.351 (44 ce).
25 LSJ, s.v. ἐπιγράφω.
26 See also the following four instances in which the custodian endorses the document but does not also write in their own hand: SB 10.10222 (20 ce); P. Ryl. 178 (26 ce); P. Fouad. 33 (first century ce); P. Oxy. 12.1463 (215 ce).
27 There are other references to multiple hands serving as validation in the cheirographs. For example, P. NYU. 2.26 (103 ce) is a copy of a cheirograph that confirms three persons received repayment, and the loan they gave had thus been satisfied. The text states, ‘The autographed hand of each one of us is validation’ (κυρία ἡ ἰδιόγραφος ἑκάστου ἑνὸς ἡμῶν χɛίρ).
28 Accessed from http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.mich;5;276.
29 Herbert C. Youtie, ‘ὑπογραφɛύς. The Social Impact of Illiteracy in Graeco-Roman Egypt’, ZPE 17 (1975) 215.
30 Moreover, as Youtie demonstrates from papyrological examples, illiteracy could put a businessperson at risk of various forms of exploitation (‘ὑπογραφɛύς’, 205–8.)
31 As commentators sometimes suggest: Dunn, Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 340; Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, The Letter to Philemon (Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 482–3; Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Paul the Ancient Letter Writer: An Introduction to Epistolary Analysis (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016) 228. Notably, in ad Familiares 5.8.5, Cicero asks M. Licinius Crassus to consider the present missive to have the force of a contract and not merely a letter, implying that letters themselves were not legally binding.
32 ἀποτίσω or ἀποτɛίσω is used to guarantee the repayment of interest in P. David 4 (second century bce); P. Adler 4 (109 bce); P. Grenf. 2.17 (136 bce); P. Tebt. 3.1.821 (209 bce); P. Adl. 10 (101 bce); P. Amh. 2 32 V (114 bce); P. Cair. Zen 3 59323 (249 bce); P.Col. 4 76 (247 bce); P. Dion. 32 (107 bce); P. Erasm. 1 12 (152 bce); P. Erasm. 1 13 (152 bce); P. Erasm. 1 14 (2nd cent. bce); P. Gurob 7 (212 bce); P. Hamb. 2 183 (251 bce); P. Hamb. 2 187 (246 bce); P. Hib. 1 86 (248 bce); P. Köln 5 220 (second century bce); P. Köln 13 519 (158 bce); P. Köln 16 644 (256 bce); P. Petr. 1 16 (231 bce); P. Tebt. 3.1.813 (186 bce). ἀποτίσω or ἀποτɛίσω is used to guarantee the repayment of the initial sum in P. Cair. Zen. 3 59477 (third century bce); P. Dion. 32 (107 bce); P. Diog. 25 (132 ce).
33 Image: https://library.duke.edu/papyrus/records/7.html (public domain). Other financial agreements that have been repaid or cancelled, as indicated by their contents being crossed out include Psi.8.961a (176 ce); P. Fouad 1 45 (153 ce); P. Duk.inv. 7 (6 ce); P. Fouad 1 49 (100 ce); P. Oxy. 1 144 (580); P. Wisc. 2 54 (116 ce); P. CtYBR inv. 543 (6–5 bce); P. CtYBR inv. 4052 (second century ce); P. CtYBR inv. 4053 (first century bce–third century ce); P. CtYBR inv. 4055(A) (first century bce–third century ce).
34 LSJ, s.v. ἐξαλɛίφω.
35 This is similar to the intertextual criterion that Richard B. Hays calls ‘recurrence’ (Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989)) 30.
36 Reece, Steve, Paul's Large Letters: Paul's Autographic Subscriptions in the Light of Ancient Epistolary Conventions (LNTS; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016) 174Google Scholar.
37 If Paul begins writing Philemon at v. 19, then he writes 84 words, and the scribe writes 250 words. For comparison, Galatians 6.11–18, which is the portion of the letter that Paul likely writes in his own hand, is 121 words.
38 Contra Paul J. Achtemeier, who writes, ‘The normal mode of any composition was to dictate it to a scribe’ (‘Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment of Late Western Antiquity’, JBL 109 (1990) 12).
39 Porphyry, Vit. Plot. 8.1–13.
40 Horace, Sat. 1.10.72; text and modified trans. (Fairclough, LCL).
41 Marcus Aurelius, Ad M. Caes. 2.4 (trans. Haines, LCL).
42 Plutarch, Cat. Maj. 20.4–5; text and trans. (Perrin, LCL).
43 Marcus Aurelius, Ad M. Caes. 2.10; text and trans. (Haines, LCL).
44 Pliny the Younger, Ep. 1.6; text and trans. (Radice, LCL).
45 Myles McDonnell, ‘Writing, Copying, and Autograph Manuscripts in Ancient Rome’, CQ 46 (1996) 473. Pliny the Elder mentions Gaius Gracchus, Tiberius, Cicero, Vergil, and Augustus (Nat. 13.83). Quintilian likewise notes that he has seen the handwriting of Cicero, Vergil and Augustus (Inst. 1.7.20–22). Suetonius saw documents in Augustus' and Nero's hand (Aug. 80.3; 87.1.3; 88; Nero 52.3).
46 Quintilian, Inst. 10.3.19–27; Inst. 1.1.27–29.
47 Cicero, Att. 43; text and trans. (Bailey, LCL).
48 Cicero dictates Att. 40 and 212 for confidentiality. He dictates Att. 89 because he is busy. He dictates Att. 107 because he is in the middle of a move; Att. 110 because he is travelling. Att. 137 and 162 are dictated on account of eye trouble.
49 (Trans. Haines, LCL).
50 Both letters are in Ad M. Caes iv 9; (trans. Haines, LCL).
51 Illness: Fronto, Ad M. Caes. iv 9; Parth; Ant. i 2; travel: Cicero, Att. 107; Att. 110; busyness: Cicero, Att. 43; Att. 89; Quint. fratr. 23; Marcus Aurelius, Ad M. Caes. 5.47; confidentiality: Cicero, Att. 40; bathing: Marcus Aurelius, De nepote amisso 1.2; laziness: Cicero, Att. 426.
52 Annelise Freisenbruch, ‘Back to Fronto: Doctor and Patient in His Correspondence with an Emperor’ in Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography (ed. Ruth Morello and A. D. Morrison; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 253.
53 Seneca's statement reflects a sentiment similar to that in Palladas’ epigram, written in the fourth century: ‘Nature, loving the duties of friendship, invented instruments by which absent friends can converse: pens, paper, ink, handwriting (τὰ χαράγματα χɛιρός), tokens of the heart that mourns afar off’ (Greek Anthology 9.41; text and trans. (Paton, LCL)).
54 Seneca, ad Lucilium 40; texts and trans. (Gummere, LCL).
55 While the novels, of course, do not feature real letters, they offer insight into the literary imaginations of their authors. In these cases, the novels reveal how their authors understood the practice and import of writing personal letters by hand.
56 Callirhoe 8.4.6; text (Goold, LCL).
57 Callirhoe 8.5.13; text (Goold, LCL).
58 In Callirhoe 8.5.13, Callirhoe's now ex-husband kisses and hugs the letter ‘as if [Callirhoe] were there’ (ὡς ἐκɛίνην παροῦσαν). In Leucippe and Cleitophon 5.19, Cleitophon imagines seeing and recognising Leucippe through her letters (καὶ ἅμα αὖθις ἐντυγχάνων τοῖς γράμμασιν, ὡς ἐκɛίνην δι᾽ αὐτῶν βλέπων καὶ ἀναγινώσκων) and tells her as much in his handwritten letter of response in 5.20: ‘I find you present in your letter and yet still absent from me’ (ὅτι σὲ παρὼν παροῦσαν ὡς ἀποδημοῦσαν ὁρῶ διὰ γραμμάτων). Text and trans. for Leucippe and Cleitophon (Gaselee, LCL).
59 Accessed from https://papyri.info/ddbdp/sb;14;11584.
60 Translation my own. It is likely that Apion wrote this letter himself, as there is another letter sent by him, BGU II 632, written years later that appears to be in the same hand.
61 Text and trans. (Shackleton Bailey, LCL).
62 Marcus Aurelius, Ad M. Caes. 4.8.
63 If Colossians is authentic and Philemon was delivered with it, then Cicero's letters from Pompey are quite similar to Paul's letters to Colossae: one is mass-produced and one is personal.
64 Winter, Sara, ‘Paul's Letter to Philemon’, NTS 33 (1987) 1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frilingos, Chris, ‘“For My Child, Onesimus”: Paul and Domestic Power in Philemon’, JBL 119 (2000) 99–100Google Scholar.
65 Frilingos, ‘For my Child, Onesimus’, 99. Similarly, Dunn notes that the letter is addressed primarily to a single individual, Philemon, but then writes, ‘Paul should expect the letter to be read to the church as a whole (note the plurals in vv. 3, 22, 25), a factor which influences the character of the whole appeal’ (Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 301).
66 McKnight, The Letter to Philemon, 85.
67 It takes me approximately three minutes to read the letter aloud in Greek.
68 In addition, see O. Krok. 2.288 (first–second century ce) and P. Oxy. 14.1668 (second century ce).
69 Accessed from http://papyri.info/ddbdp/bgu;16;2618.
70 Romans contains the second-highest proportion of second-person singular forms because Paul has constructed a rhetorical interlocutor with whom he engages at various points in the letter (Stowers, Stanley K., A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; The So-Called Jew in Paul's Letter to the Romans (ed. Rafael Rodriguez and Matthew Thiessen; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016)).
71 Accessed from http://papyri.info/ddbdp/bgu;16;2618.
72 Accessed from http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.oxy;4;744.
73 In addition, see O. Claud. 2.240 (2nd cent. CE) and O. Claud. 2.260 (2nd cent. CE).