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.