Review of Steve Reece, Paul’s Large Letters: Paul’s Autobiographic Subscriptions in the Light of Ancient Epistolary Conventions (LNTS 561; London and New York: Bloomsbury, 2017).

Steve Reece’s recent book discusses the often commented upon verse of Galatians: “See how large letters I am writing to you in my own hand” (6:11). This verse has been historically interpreted in a variety of ways. The most common are either that Paul uses large letters because he has poor eyesight (which is usually tied to his comments about the “thorn in his flesh” and an overly literal reading of Gal 4:15 that if it were possible they would have plucked out their eye and given it to Paul, suggesting that Paul must have had bad eyesight which must have been the “thorn in the flesh” he can discuss. The large letters are merely there to simply narrate what is required – Paul has bad vision so he writes in large letters. The second common interpretation is that Paul was not very literate and he uses these large letters simply because that is the only way he can write at all. Others have suggested that the large letters were a comment about emphasis. Much like bold face type today, it is argued, large letters drew the reader’s attention. Further interpretation suggests that Paul wrote these letters in large font to be an illustrative piece, so that the lector reading it would actually lift up this portion and show the audience how large the letters were and because they were large, they could be seen.

Reece does a very good job showing that contemporary letters from the Greco-Roman world can provide real insight and put into question basically all of the above interpretations. He shows that an author writing a brief postscript at the end of a letter was very common. Most authors were not professional scribes – they were literate and could write, but their handwriting was not beautiful. Instead, much like today, many highly educated people’s handwriting did not reflect their intelligence. They would therefore hire a professional scribe to actually do the writing out of the material. After much of the letter was written, then the actual author would frequently (but by no means always) make a brief comment in a second hand. The second hand is always less professional and seems to indicate the actual author rather than a professional. What is so helpful here is that Reece makes this argument based upon very good papyrological resources that we have. We unfortunately do not have any of Paul’s original manuscripts and as such, our copies of copies of his letters do not indicate what it looked like after Gal 6:11. However, Reece shows a tremendous number of examples (which he illustrates well with photographs of 62 different manuscripts) that do this practice. We can see then, what a letter like this would look like. What is interesting is that not all of them have the second hand (the actual author’s rather than the professional scribe’s) particularly large letters. In fact, only 15% of the time are the letters larger. 55% of the time, the letters are smaller, and 30% of the time the letters are the same size (149-184).

Reece’s point, however, is that we should not read too much into Paul’s doing this. It was a very common practice in antiquity which had a variety of reasons that people would provide a brief comment in their own hand. The two most compelling reasons that would transfer to Paul’s letters were 1. Authenticity and 2. The letter being a substitute for personal presence. The first is to present that the actual author actually dictated this letter. There is clear evidence that there was some circulation (at least) of letters claiming to be by Paul but not actually written by Paul himself as suggested by 2 Thess. 2:2. There are many who challenge whether several of Paul’s letters were actually written by Paul (including 2 Thess. Itself). The comment at the end with one’s own writing rather than that of a scribe, it is argued, shows that it is really the person who it is purported to be – essentially making this practice of a postscript an ancient view of a “signature.” While Reece allows this as a possibility, we should be cautious here. Was an ancient audience as concerned as the modern one with one’s “signature?” I agree that it adds authenticity to the letter, but as Reece shows, this was done most often at the end of contractual pieces wherein the author makes a legal note wherein he summarizes the conditions of the contract in his own hand before making a farewell message. It is not so much to prove he really was the one writing the letter in contrast to someone else writing in his name, but rather, far more about his showing his personal understanding of the conditions of the legal contract. Many have argued this is precisely what Philemon is and that the entire letter circulates around Paul’s promise to pay back whatever Onesimus has charged. As such, the entire letter is a memorandum of debt and is a legal contract. As such, Reece (along with many others) suggest Paul has written this entire letter himself to show that he agrees to this contract. Reece further suggests that there might be something to the connection with legal contracts that is convincing for Galatians. Galatians does include many legal discussions (descent, adoption, wills, inheritance) and Paul might have been playing upon that expectation. Galatians is not a legal contract, but it uses so much legal language, Reece wonders if there isn’t some kind of connection there.

The second reason that authors frequently made their own postscript to the letter was the way in which letters acted as replacements for personal presence. This is something that Paul clearly wants to be present. He frequently introduces a letter to be present within the community. This idea would only be heightened if he actually wrote something with his own hand rather than that of a professional scribe’s.

Insofar as Reece’s argument goes, these arguments are quite convincing. He is careful, thorough, and willing to make an argument that is not necessarily “exciting” or that “solves everything.” Instead, he has made the conversation about 6:11 to be depending upon real data and less wild conjecture. However, Reece points out that there is one very unique element to Paul’s comment. While it was not infrequent to write in a different handwriting than the scribe (with either larger or smaller letters), it is unique (in that he finds no one else who makes mention of it) to point out that one’s own handwriting is in large letters. Several examples exist where the author has pointed out that this portion is with his own hand, but no one comments on the actual look of the letters. So why does Paul do this? Because Reece’s analysis is rather comparative, and there are no other examples to directly compare with, he is very cautious about asserting a clear answer. I would like to suggest something that is not precisely unique with Paul’s letters, but it was uncommon. Paul wrote letters that he knew were going to be copied many times. Recent Pauline studies have been looking at how early Pauline collections were being put together and there is some evidence to think that they were already starting to be collected in Paul’s own lifetime. Further, it seems clear that his letters were being circulated after he wrote them. In fact, Ephesians is written, seemingly, as a circular letter (though some argue this was not actually written by Paul, but one of his disciples instead. I will not be addressing that question here, but I do think that at the very least, Ephesians does depict Paul’s practice and holds a continuity of thought with his, even if it is not written by him). What’s more, at the end of 1 Cor (16:1), he instructs them to follow the instructions he provided the Galatians. How would they know what Paul said to Galatia? Further, many have even argued that our copy of Romans is actually a second copy that Paul sent to another place (which explains the oddities in chapter 16). What is important to recognize is how a letter “circulated” in antiquity. As Raymond Starr has shown, book production and circulation did not occur primarily as one manuscript being passed around. Rather, a book was copied and then the copy was sent. The actual book itself was retained by the community who first had it.

Therefore, now if we think of Paul’s comment about his large letters, it has two functions. First, when Galatians was copied by someone else, the discrepancy between the professional scribe and the final note from Paul’s own hand would have been lost. Therefore, for Paul to show his personal connection to the letter, he has to deliberately make a comment within the text because he knows that his original manuscript is not going to be preserved in all places. Second, this is also a way of Paul’s showing the original audience in Galatia that they have the original. This is not one of the copies of Paul’s works which were indirectly relevant to their community, this was a direct letter from Paul to the Galatians. They knew this because they had the autograph. When those in Corinth got their copy of the letter, they would recognize it as a copy and would understand much would be directed and related to them, but not everything.

Reece in his book did not explore this last suggestion which I have presented, but that is largely because, to my knowledge, no one has used this verse to indicate issues of copying and distribution – a topic I might return to in later work. However, I want to commend Reece’s work as incredibly helpful. He has taken a verse which is either read far too quickly as if it has no significance, or it is taken to wild conclusions based upon basically no data. Reece has helped find real data to provide a platform for discussion.