every text described as a letter is really a letter.
We may start with the following definition: a real
letter is the written communication of his thought
by one person to another, sometimes to more than just
one other person. For example a young person, when
staying abroad could regularly send letters to his/her
parents which are supposed to be sent on, in turn,
to his/her brothers and sisters, if they live elsewhere,
and perhaps still further to some good friends as
well. The simplest form of a letter, however, remains
the expression in writing of a person’s own thought
for transmission from A to B.
has been said that four conditions have to be met
to allow a written text to be designated as a letter:
the name of the sender and that of the addressee must
be known; the opening and signature have to secure
its completeness. There mustn’t be any doubt about
its being genuine .
sender need not have written it in his/her own hand;
he or she may have dictated it to a secretary or a
stenographer. Someone else may have copied it from
a draft. A third person may even have composed it
following the sender’s instructions. But the letter
remains a letter, only if the sender by signing it
or by some other mark of authenticity assumes responsibility
on his own account. I can agree to these conditions
for a genuine letter. Nevertheless, what I see as
the essential condition is that it be the communication
of a person’s thought by this person to another person.
every so-called letter is such a real letter. There
is no need for a thorough-going acquaintance with
literature to be aware of this. Aren’t there in our
own Dutch literature novels in the shape of letters?
 I am thinking of Wolff and Deken, of Bosboom-Toussaint’s
psychological novel of emancipation, Majoor Frans,
which consists of „letters”. Moreover, there are Busken
Huet’s Brieven over den Bijbel. Widely read among
the „letters” of foreign literature are Erdmann’s
Psychologische Briefe (1852), addressed to a highly
esteemed friend (to ask who this friend possibly could
have been would be a foolish thing to do) and Justus
von Liebig’s Chemische Briefe (3rd ed. 1851). Not
one of all these letters was ever sent to particular
persons, either by public or private means of transport.
Their dressing-up for literary ends is obvious and
so nobody thereby suspects forgery.
we have to distinguish between real and pseudo-letters.
This is true not only in our times but just as well
in antiquity. Discoveries of papyri in Egypt have
brought to light many letters which were written for
specific occasions . Classical examples of such
occasional letters were written by Cicero: private
letters showing profound intimacy, letters communicating
information, diplomatic letters, business letters,
letters of consolation, of recommendation. In such
real letters the author logically reveals his own
character and at the same time, he tries to show empathy
with the feelings of the addressee. Correspondence
of that kind always gives us a more or less clear
picture of both the author and his readers. In his
letters to Atticus, Cicero reveals himself as he actually
is. On the other hand, his letters ad familiares were
drafted for a greater number of readers, and because
of that they show traces of rhetoric.
letter of Art, as a special type of literature, is
derived occasionally from real letters. The great
Attic rhetorician Isocrates (436-338 BCE) used the
letter form for fiction to give his readers more vivid
impressions. In Rome the poet Horace (65-8 BCE) pictures
in his Letters scenes of human life in a satirical
way or teaches his readers how to understand poetry
. In the fictitious letters of literature, the
authors aim at beauty of form. Typical examples are
the collected letters of Pliny (62-114), which no
scholar accepts as real letters. In them there is
but seldom any connexion between the subject of the
letter and its addressee, whose name is only mentioned
to flatter him. „The addressee, in fact, is the contemporary
community of the educated.”
the end of the 1st century C. E., letter writing had
already become a special type of literature in the
Roman world. Thus in schools of rhetoric, letters
using names of historical persons were being written
about given events to improve one’s style. From there
they found their way into literature. Letters were
edited in the fields of law, medicine and didactics.
The letter genre was used by the Stoics above all
to popularize moral values (Panaetius and Poseidonius).
Especially Seneca’s letters are to be seen as edifying
reading material for the public at large. Though
they are addressed to the procurator of Sicily Lucilius
(62 CE) on the surface, they nevertheless clearly
show traces of not belonging to a real exchange of
letters, but rather of being destined from the very
beginning to the broader public.
is already made apparent by the inherent contradiction
when Seneca, 66-years old at the time, introduces
his friend as „a young man” (Ep. 26,7) from whom he
expects great things (2,1), but who, in point of fact,
still badly needs his advice and teachings. Elsewhere,
he declares the difference in age to be insignificant.
(35,2). Because of this, some scholars have assumed
that the collection consists of both real and fictional
letters. But there is no reason whatever  for doing
so: the entire collection is meant to be read by the
writing to Lucilius, Seneca gives his teachings the
character of a private exchange of ideas though it
is really just a pseudonym . In confidential letters,
one would expect to find allusions to contemporaneous
persons, but there aren’t any. What the letters aimed
at was to recommend philosophical studies as the most
important and most suitable occupation for a human
being. In these letters Seneca gradually lets go the
letter-form. Often he confines himself to just a remark
as e.g. „you want to know.” His text switches more
and more into dialogue form to the end of refuting
other people’s ideas.
diagnosis has since been confirmed by A. BOURGERY:
these letters were never sent. He points out that
already JUSTUS LIPSIUS (1547-1606) considered them
to be the fruit of Seneca’s everyday meditations.
There aren’t any individual traits in the portrait
of Lucilius. Though totally unable of taking any initiative
himself, he is unabasingly willing to let his friend
provide him with a moral education. He represents
the ideal pupil, but in fact, he is of no real importance;
he is a dummy that „asks” and „would like to”, „wants
to know” and „says” — everything just as an author
might make up as a fictional interrogator. It may
well be that Seneca got the idea of expressing his
thoughts in the form of letters from Epicurus’ famous
letters from which he likes so much to quote.
had a great impact on later authors, e.g. on Fathers
of the Church like Cyprian, Lactantius, Ambrose and
Hieronymus. Generally speaking, their letters were
conceived and written for public use, even though
they are directed at particular communities, circles
or private persons. Their intentions are education
and edification, admonition and consolation for the
greatest possible number of readers. The same can
be said about early Christian  letters. In those
times, pseudonymous writing was quite common. Works
attributed to Adam, Henoch, the Twelve Patriarchs,
Moses, Ezra are just a few examples among many. This
usage cannot be ignored by any NT scholar. Yet, as
soon as the canonical apostolic Epistles are at stake,
they seem to forget this fact.
today is not much interested in the problems of criticism
that were particularly prevalent in the last century
[i.e. nineteenth century]. Those seeking to cast a
positive sheen on matters speak with disdain regarding
such critics as if their predecessors liked nothing
better than declaring as many ancient texts as possible
spurious. But too much confidence regarding the traditions
of the Church without the necessary amount of criticism
leads to absurd conclusions regarding earliest Christianity.
Danish theologist, FREDERIK TORM identified pseudonymous
works in Greek, profane Roman and Jewish religious
literature, but denied that such Christian literature
also existed and had been recognized as such by contemporaries
within the Christian Church of the first centuries.
In the end, it was possible for him to ascribe the
fourth Gospel to John, the Epistle of James to James
and the Pastoral Letters to Paul. According to the
historian of Greek literature ULRICH VON WILAMOWITZ
– MOELLENDORF, by contrast, these latter documents
have nothing whatsoever to do with Paul. He labels
them „ Falsate” (forgeries), as opposed to the other
Pauline Epistles which he evaluated in the traditional
way. But he neither considered the genuine letters
to be private letters nor just literature, but rather
something in between, an inimitable but again and
again imitated form that reminds us of Epicures’ usage
of the letter mode to disseminate his doctrines.
sounds nasty. We have to differentiate  between
the work of a forger and that of an author who makes
use of „the literary form of fiction”. When in the
period of Hellenism in Alexandria and Pergamom great
libraries were being founded, the administrators paid
out good money in their attempt to complete their
stock of books as far as possible. Then it surely
happened that, seeking profit, booksellers added the
name of a famous author, as e.g. Isocrate or Galen,
to obscure texts to enhance their price. Thus works
that were anonymous or were written by unknown authors
and had not done well in bookshops found their way
to buyers. There were even special tricks to give
recently composed manuscripts the appearance of old
ones, e.g. by putting them in a granary on top of
heaps of fresh wheat! Lucian (adv. indoctum 1) mockingly
talks about the credulity of a public that doesn’t
see through such practices. This kind of fraud figures
prominently in the time of the Roman Emperors. In
agreement with THEODOR BIRT, we should speak here
of literary stealing.
can’t accuse the early Christian pseudepigraphers
of such a criminal act. We must stress this point,
for there is a lot of equivocation here. The opponents
of radical criticism very often seem to say that it
classifies the NT authors among the ignoble tamperers
mentioned above. Showing a certain amount of annoyance,
mainstream critique of both ‘believers’ and ‘liberals’
rejects the ignoble idea that Paul’s Epistles to the
Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians could have
been composed by forgers. As if the Dutch School of
Radical Criticism had ever said so! But with the killing
epitheton forger, a negative atmosphere is being aroused
against every form of „dangerous” radical critique.
It frightens orderly people that don’t want to have
anything to do with the forgery of texts or with hairsplitting
and quibbling. In point of fact, such  denigrating
terms are employed less to prove Paul’s Epistles genuine
than in order to articulate antipathetic feelings
toward independent criticism. Seeking peace of mind,
these terms are employed to overcome the danger of
in literature, let it be added at this juncture, in
no way necessarily implies a lack of quality in the
piece under examination.
letter, made accessible to the public — that is to
say, `edited’ -, could be read, found genuine and
recommended to others if its contents could be authenticated
as addressed to all believers”. VAN MANEN found
this thesis confirmed in Peter’s 2nd Epistle the author
of which pretends to be the same person as the one
of 1 Peter and to be writing to the same readers.
Cf. 2 Pe. 3:1; „This is now my second letter to you”.
author of 1st Peter had addressed himself to „God's
elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia” (1
Pe. 1:1). Our present author, by contrast, addresses
himself to „those who have received a faith as precious
as ours”, which is much wider geographically, not
confined to a restricted group of people. He mentions
„our dear brother Paul, who also wrote to you” (3:15),
as if Paul had addressed all of his letters (3:16)
to the readers of 2 Peter.
(Eph. 12:2) indeed considers all of Paul’s letters
to have been addressed to the Ephesians and his fellow
bishop, Polycarp, (Phil. 3:2) thinks the Philippians
received them as well! And indeed, they are right!
For they were intended from the beginning to be read
by as many groups of people as possible. In his Thesaurus,
SUICERUS (1624-1684) uses the word epistole in the
sense of mandate in ecclesiastical literature.
DEISSMANN has written a clarifying piece about the
epistle, contrasting the term from that of a genuine
letter. The latter is not a work of literature, no
more than a rent contract, a testament or a diary.
You could call it a conversation written down on paper
that involves nobody but the sender and the receiver.
It’s an object of intimacy, an open-minded meeting
of two persons that are separated by greater or lesser
distances. The epistle, on the contrary, is intended
for the public; everybody could and should read it
and the greater the number of people who read it,
the more its aims will be achieved.
DEISSMANN does not see the bulk of the pseudonymous
epistles of ancient times as products of fraud. It
is a widespread and in itself innocent custom. By
the way, DEISSMANN was not very consistent in using
his own letter-or-epistle distinction. For example
he designates James’s letter an epistle because it’s
addressed to the twelve tribes in the Diaspora; such
a letter, he says, could never have been delivered.
But he does not accept the identical counter-evidence
for 1 and 2 Corinthians and for Galatians.
the end of the nineteenth century, VAN MANEN argued
in his university course on Early Christian Literature,
that Paul’s letter to the Romans neither was a letter,
nor by Paul, nor to the Romans. The astonishment of
the juvenile students of theology was understandable.
They had never heard of such heretical opinions in
their religious education, no matter of what kind
it had been: evangelical, ethical-orthodox, reformated
or even modern. VAN MANEN’s strict argumentative method
could not help but make a deep impression on them
and in the end, the students either came to hate their
teacher as an apostle of disbelief, or they came to
honouring him as a champion of free scholarly-based
latter group of students learned to see how sincere
VAN MANEN’s motives were though they forced him to
work on a purely rational basis which, at first sight,
seemed totally negative. But only Seemingly negative,
not in fact! The reproach addressed to Dutch Radical
Criticism of only teaching how matters had not happened,
leaving people at a loss as to how things had actually
happened, has always been unfair.
critique,  after having wiped the slate clean
of untenable convictions, be reasonably expected to
immediately produce unquestionable, new perspectives?
Even if internal dates show that not a single one
of Paul’s Epistles is genuine in the usual meaning
of that term, we are, nevertheless freed from a deep-rooted
scholarly error. This is a positive result in itself,
not to be underestimated. Where in science does constructing
begin and dismantling end? Outsiders seem to be rasher
in deciding on such a point than the insider who knows
that he is already constructing while still engaged
in dismantling. If Paul’s Epistles are not documents
of the middle of 1st century C.E., but are to be dated
approximately one hundred years later, and if they
are to be regarded as an attempt by the Church to
cut the ground from under the dangerous Gnostics’
feet, even then we have a positive result which is
much more useful in explaining the century of silence
regarding these letters than the one usually employed:
those not quite „anspruchslose” (orig. German = unpretentious)
letters of the famous Apostle to the Gentiles received
no attention within the Christian public for something
like a hundred years.
MANEN’s predecessors were ALLARD PIERSON and A.D.
LOMAN. Exposed to a flood of criticism for half a
century, quite a number of the collected letters that
tradition has passed on under Paul’s name were nevertheless
declared spurious, and this by scholars of no „frantic”
1835 the Tubingen scholar F. C. BAUR had proclaimed
Romans, 1 and 2, Corinthians and Galatians genuine
without a trace of doubt. Then, having labelled them
the principal letters, he set them up as a standard
of authenticity for the other ones. As late as 1855
he reassured all that in those four there had never
arisen any grounds for suspicion and added that they
showed the character of Pauline originality in such
an uncontroversial way that critical doubt would never
affect them . The celebrated Baur could only write
that way because he neglected the work of the greater
critic, BRUNO BAUER and his „Kritik der paulinischen
Briefe” (1850—1852). VAN MANEN, in the meantime,
had never accepted the arbitrary fashion of sifting
employed by the man from Tubingen. In his opinion
those principal letters themselves first had to be
investigated in respect of their genuineness.
well-known statement of ALBERT SCHWEITZER to the effect
that nothing of all that had ever been published about
Loman, Steek or Van Manen was in the slightest degree
equal to the importance of their works makes one think
twice. He continues by saying that these men had carried
on the work of the Tubingen School of Criticism and
had kept on asking questions where the other theologians
had given up such a task. One of these other theologians
was the widely influencial scholar, HARNACK, who,
writing about the genuineness of the Ignatius letters,
remarked with a sneer, „There are still some that
deny the authenticity of these letters, but then there
are still even those that reject the authenticity
of every single one of Paul’s Epistles” . Du haut
de sa grandeur. Harnack did not ever attempt to refute
radical criticism’s theses with arguments.
Schweitzer made that remark forty years ago, mainstream
scholarship has neither repelled the attacks of radical
criticism nor given positively proof that Paul’s Epistles
are genuine. These persons simply declare that the
authenticity of these documents „have been investigated
scrupulously time and again” during the 19th century.
Today the dispute has almost completely come to a
standstill. The greater part of the collection is
generally considered genuine, namely Philippians,
1 Thess., Philemon. KNOPF confirms this stand in his
well-known ‘Introduction’, but he has nevertheless
to concede that there are considerable passages within
the Epistles which, in terms of content  and style
are far removed from the characteristics of a letter,
viz. the admonitions, lay-sermons, lectures, prophecies,
essays, poems and controversial dialogues. All these
passages are immediately recognized as not arising
from the exigencies of the day, but constitute incorporated
traditions from long before.
to KNOPF, one is dealing here with a special problem
in literature which has seldom been analyzed: how
do genuine letters, though written on special occasions,
with a particular aim, and addressed to particular
narrowly confined groups of people, nevertheless go
beyond accidental and letter-like characteristics
with regard to both style and contents to such a degree
as to be ultimately transformed into elevated literature?
I for one would prefer to speak here of essays in
the guise of letters.
to WENDLAND, Paul’s relation to his readers is not
easy to understand. Paul produces something in between
a letter and an epistle, which, alone by its typically
liturgical presentation, is already on a higher level
than that of a private letter. Paul does not speak
as a private person but as a spiritual adviser and
head of the community. That’s why in the introduction
of his letters, he emphasizes his being an apostle.
This smack of authoritarianism in the Pauline letter
is certainly a matter to be taken into account.
yes, some say, but 1 Thess. 5:27 shows that those
letters were supposed to be read out to the congregation.
The quote is as follows, „I charge you before the
Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers”.
But the letter is addressed to the Church (1:1). Who
then are those „you” in 5:27? The heads of the Church,
is the answer! But at no place in the letters are
the heads of the Church specifically addressed. Ceremonious
and ponderous are the words, „I charge you before
the Lord” in a private piece of writing, but not so
if we are dealing with a kind of Sacred Scripture
which, divinely authorized, demands its reading out
in front of the congregation. What about this `reading
out’ when the letter has been addressed to the Churches
of the Galatians? Such a letter is undeliverable.
The pretext that it had to circulate does not help.
Even the modern system of having periodicals circulated
presupposes a list with the subscribers’ names and
the sequence of delivery. Nothing of the kind is to
be found in this letter.
peculiar light on this letter-writing is shed by Col.
4:15f., where the Church of the Colossians is asked
to see to the reading out of the text in the Church
of Laodicea as well, as if it were a letter to the
Laodicean Church. These letters, then, are to be read
out in local churches to keep their members obedient.
To this end they are written in the name of a person
of accepted authority. We are dealing with works intended
for publication. WENDLAND even compares them with
„Erlasse hellenistischer Konige und Beamten” (decrees
of Hellenistic Kings and government officials) seeing
as how these, too, were often shaped in letter-form.
This is indeed quite a different procedure from the
personal communication of thought by an important
person! Furthermore JOHANNES WEISS tells us that
what we have here in front of us is not the expression
of transitory feelings, but works deeply pondered
and certainly not just jotted down in the course of
a few hours’ time. Rather, they kept their author
fully occupied for several days or even weeks. Well
now, doesn’t this hint at a book more than a letter?
size of Paul’s letter to the Romans, some 27 to 30
sheets of papyrus, says the expert ROLLER, exceeds
by far the normal size of a letter. Indeed it is almost
the size of a book. 1 Corinthians should even be called
a tome. Private correspondence of such length is not
to be found among the Greeks. Even in antiquity the
extraordinary size of Plato’s and Thucydides’ letters
of questionable authenticity caused remarks to be
made to the effect that they were not letters, but
books with greeting formula tacked on as introductions.
Since the canonical Epistles to the Romans and 1 Corinthians
are even more voluminous, we can safely conjecture
that they belong to the literary form of the „open
The Pauline letters vary from the usual type of Greek
letters in antiquity in that they adorn the name of
the sender with attributes. In so doing, they expand
the length of the introduction on the average six
fold. In this respect the Pauline letters seem very
odd to ROLLER In the classical letter, as is well-known,
the addressee’s name is put in the Dative, followed
by ‚be saluted.’ The formula, then, is „A to B, greetings!“
This formula is found as well in Acts 23:25 and 15:23
and in James 1:1. Interestingly, texts supposed to
have been written in Jerusalem. In the Pauline letters,
however, the actual appellation stands grammatically
separated from the greetings, and this, not only because
of the attributes that are added to the sender’s name,
but additionally because of the hints about the contents
of the letter and the protest against those who disregard
deviation from the normal letter-type consists in
the formula „Paul and all the brothers that are with
me” (Gal. 1:1). A Greek author would write, „Paul
and all the brothers that are with him”. It’s
not the custom in private correspondence to mention
more than one author. This rather agrees with the
kinds of letters produced by public bodies such as
townships, corporations or other established groups.
In this case, they sometimes mention in the letter’s
head one or more representative official or manager.
We then speak of decrees or edicts similar to the
pastoral or Lent– letters that bishops address to
all the believers in their diocese or that the Pope
addresses to believers all over the world.
of the short and concise, „Paul to the Corinthians,
greetings!” 1 Cor. begins with the words, „ Paul,
called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will
of God, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of
God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus
and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere
who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
their Lord and ours: Grace and peace to you from God
our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” There is a
taste here of the Christian sermon imbibed in the
devotional rhetoric of the East. The secular greeting
has been replaced by a religious one, in which grace
and peace are prayed for and the source is mentioned
out of which they flow.
emphatically mentioning his holy function, the author
seems to engage in polemics against those who accuse
him of having usurped apostolic dignity (cf. Rom.
1:1, „set apart for the gospel of God”). This seems
to imply confrontation with non-authorized apostles.
SICKENBERGER, a Roman Catholic commentator, rightly
says that, by using these words, Paul intends to give
his epistle the appearance of an official document.
This scholar furthermore rightly recognizes that Sosthenes’
cooperation cannot be seen as something merely external
- for example copying the letter - but indeed as co-authorship.
Remarkable though is the fact that after that opening,
Sosthenes immediately vanishes and Paul writes thereafter
exclusively in the singular. The purpose of mentioning
a co-author seems to be to give the letter a Catholic
is likewise the case with 2 Cor. 1:1 (Timothy), and
especially in Gal, 1:2 „all the brothers with me.”
The author seemingly wants to show that Paul as well
has his supporters. We can willingly believe that,
but that all those brethren cooperated in writing
the letter — no, that we can’t believe. Furthermore
the character of a real letter does not allow that
it be addressed to „all those everywhere who call
on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:2);
or – somewhat more limited, but still rather ambitious
- „together with all the saints throughout Achaia”
(2 Cor. 1:1), or „To the Churches in Galatia” (Gal.
1:1). LIETZMANN calls our attention to inscriptions
in synagogues that read, „peace to this place and
to all places in Israel”. But LIETZMANN’s remark is
actually beside the point and is  not comparable:
that which is convenient on the top of a temple or
a church is not automatically appropriate in the heading
of a letter. There where presumably „Paul” writes,
„This is the rule I lay down for all the Churches.”
(1 Cor. 7:17), it is the Church leadership itself
which is speaking in its full authority.
prerequisites were required from Romans before they
could understand the Pauline Epistle addressed to
them? Concretely put, they would have to have become
Paulinists well before Paul had ever seen the city
of Rome. At the time this letter was written, the
dogmatic concept of „grace” was already fully developed
and along with it the criticism raised against the
concept by legalistically-minded people. `Faith,’
`justice,’ `love,’ `justification through faith,’
`the working of the law,’ `being baptized into Christ’
and `being crucified together with Christ,’ `revelation,’
`spirit’ etc. Prior to the time in question, no Greek
would have been able to comprehend these concepts
Paul intended them to grasp when they heard these
words. Until then the meaning of these words would
have been unintelligible to them and that applies
equally to the Jews.
have a look at the Pastorals that are said to have
been written to Timothy and Titus by Paul. One might
think that the very personal relationship between
them and Paul implied in the letters ( a forgotten
coat, a book-scrolls Paul had left behind (2 Tim.
4:13) are mentioned as examples )would oblige analytical
theologians to label the Pastorals authentic. Even
more, the congruence of the thought they contain and
the theological formulas employed cause us to immediately
recall the „genuine” Pauline letters. The vividly
pictured events of Paul’s life likewise give an impression
of authenticity. But none of this stifles doubt; it
rather causes us to reject the Pastorals’ genuineness.
Even SCHLEIERMACHER labelled the situations of 1 Tim.
as fiction; the historical authenticity „floats in
air.” WEISS says that the artificiality of this piece
of fiction is apparent just by taking it up into your
hands, an assertion, according to him, which cannot
be raised about the characters in the genuine letters.
Furthermore the remark has been made that there was
no need for the pastoral enlightening of Timothy and
Titus, for Paul had presumably taken leave of them
but shortly before (1 Tim. 1:3; Tit. 1:5) and was
looking forward to seeing them again very soon. (Tit
3:12; 1 Tim. 4:9,25; 3:14). But does this not apply
just as well – I must ask – to the book-length Epistle
to the Romans? After all, Paul is looking forward
to seeing them soon.
elements of an intimate, private character are needed
to provide proof that a written document is really
a letter, then Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians has
to be designated as a pseudo-apostolic text. But then,
this is a conclusion which scholars nowadays gladly
try to avoid. WEISS especially declared 2 Cor.
to be a genuine private letter about tangible facts.
But at the same time he saw it as a compilation and
as containing elements from two different letters,
written under different circumstances and in different
states of mind. How can such a product be called a
normal letter? This problem especially emerges, when
a bit further on in WEISS’ book, one reads that the
two Epistles to the Corinthians are redactional compositions
fitted together out of at least four Pauline letters.
I shudder at the thought that I myself once considered
them to have been written, not compiled! A letter,
I think, is that genre of literature which is least
of all suitable for compilation. Those exegetes,
among them WEISS, are not far away from the standpoint
of the radical critics when they admit that we don’t
have Paul’s letters in their original form, but only
as they were altered by redactors.
Epistle to the Galatians clearly reveals how the private
details one expects in a letter clash with the contents
of this text. This supposedly extempore letter was
sent off by the apostle when circumstances forced
him to address a group of Galatians who, shortly after
he had won them over to his faith, apostatized. The
letter opens with Paul stating that he had received
his apostleship directly from God and Christ without
any human mediation. How was it possible that this
community — according to the letter itself, well acquainted
with Pauline theorems— could forget in so short a
time Paul’s unique authority which ipso facto demanded
unconditional obedience? That should have been
impossible, but nevertheless it had happened, for
they had allowed „some people”  of law-abiding
thought and practice to persuade them. „But even if
we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel
other than the one we preached to you, let him be
eternally condemned!” (Gal 1:8). He includes the possibility
that he himself or even an angel from heaven – the
two here seem to be considered of equal authority
–. would have to be condemned. How strange all of
this, especially when it is followed up by, „As we
have already said, so now I say again: If anybody
is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted
from me, let him be eternally condemned!” (1:9 f.).
astonishing repetition, using different words, of
what appeared in the preceding verse and even more
astonishing, his reference back to a menace of condemnation
while condemning. VALENTIN WEBER’s attempt to
saving his apostle made the situation even worse than
it already was. Paul, this scholar says, in verse
8 included himself in a possible condemnation. After
jotting down the words, passion forced him to stop
writing or dictating for a while and he thought the
matter over and discussed it with his fellow brothers.
In their opinion his statement was excessively harsh.
But Paul then confirms that he, for one, will stick
to what he has written. That’s why he now uses 1st
this harmonizing blow up the second condemnation to
monstrous size? The first one could perhaps be explained
by the fits of temper from which he, the apostle,
suffered from time to time – as he himself confesses
to us. But the second condemnation - after pausing
and deliberating with his fellow brothers who disagreed
with his harsh determination reveals him to be pig-headed
and spiteful to a degree seldom found anywhere else.
one, like myself, considers the epistle spurious,
then the rhetoric affectation becomes understandable
and we were in a position to answer the question:
where and when had Paul previously said such a thing?
Obviously in 2 Cor. 11:4. There, after giving voice
to his fear that his readers might be  led astray
from their sincere and pure devotion to Christ by
some bad influence, he continues, „For if someone
comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus
we preached, or if you receive a different spirit
from the one you received from me, or a different
gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with
it easily enough.”
here, too, a warning against someone preaching another
gospel, while in another place (16:22) he seems to
have the power of condemning deserters. In point of
fact, it is the Church hierarchy, hiding its face
behind the Mask of Paul, which is delivering a sentence
of eternal condemnation. PIERSON’s remark retains
its validity, namely that a claim of being sent by
heaven loses quite a bit of its strength, when at
the same time one denies this heaven the right to
reveal new truths, even ones that contradict its former
of the best arguments of the radical thesis is the
fact, confirmed again and again, that each of the
later letters of the Pauline collection presuppose
the reading of an earlier one beforehand. So for example
the Galatians are supposed to have read Paul’s extempore
letters to the Romans and to the Corinthians. I have
already given a few examples and will now add some
striking, additional ones. Gal. 4:19 reads, „My dear
children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth
until Christ is formed in you.” Even though LIETZMANN
call this a cry from out of the deepest part of the
soul and OEPKE consider it „almost drastic”, I, for
one, agree with LOMAN, who called it a monstrous metaphor:
to be in the pains of childbirth for a person who
had already been born, and, on top of it, speaking
as a male!
becomes more understandable, if we think of 1 Cor.
4:14f.: „in Christ Jesus I became your father through
the Gospel”. So here he was the father of the community,
giving them spiritual life. His presentation of himself
in Gal. as the mother is obviously a re-hash that
didn’t come off well. But this citation is of even
greater importance. In it, namely, it is said that
up to that moment, the Galatians did not belong among
those in whom „Christ is formed,”  in other words,
that they now had to be won over to Pauline Christianity
for the first time. How else, if once Christ had been
formed in them, could they have deserted? They then
would, like Paul himself, have been crucified with
Christ, and would no longer have lived for themselves,
but with Christ in them (Gal. 2:20)
Gal. 1 and 2 Paul proclaims quite a lot of surprising
things to the Galatians that make us ask the question:
but didn’t they already know all this? Had they then
never heard anything about that Pauline Gospel? Here
indeed we find much ado about nothing. And again it’s
a preceding letter that puts matters in perspective:
in 1 Cor. 15:1 the identical, „I want to remind you”
fits in nicely. One is dealing here with the disclosure
of the Lord’s last Revelations.
reading in Gal. 4:13-15 about Paul’s meeting the „uncivilized”
people of the mountains for the first time — he doesn’t
know their language, nor are they able to understand
him — we ask: how conceivably could these people accept
his pneumatic Gospel? And how could they have submitted
to him or to his Christ Jesus, an angel of the Lord?
Did Paul himself attempt to spread such ideas among
them? And while we are at it, what possibly could
they have known about Christ Jesus? Hasn’t he protested
against such a glorification of his person? He then
goes on to assert that, if it were demanded from them
[`if they were forced into it’ fits in better here],
they would have torn out their eyes and given them
to him. Such a statement could perhaps be said about
a small group of intimate friends, but not about all
the Churches in Galatia.
the rhetorical and the fictional characters of this
pseudo-letter show up clearly and LOMAN rightly
points to the absence of a real life situation and
further to the absence of factual information on the
customs and the way of the Galatians thought in the
midst of the first century. The sentimental way in
which the love relation between Paul and the Galatians
is described, is unbearable, if indeed we are dealing
with a larger community rather than an isolated person.
That’s rhetorical exaggeration , acceptable, perhaps,
in an open letter or an essay, but not in a genuine
to 2 Thess. 3:17, a greeting, written in his own hand,
is the mark, the sign of authenticity in each of the
Epistles (cf. Col. 4:18 as well). So it becomes clear
why the author, pretending to be Paul, writes to the
Galatians, „See what large letters I use as I write
to you with my own hand” (Gal. 6:11). But Paul also
wrote letters, not in his own hand, as 1Cor. 16:21
tells us: I add „this greeting in my own hand”. Such
a flourish appeared in Gal. 6:11 as well. There is
no understandable motive for saying that here. The
writer imitates Paul’s supposed custom of giving his
letter a mark of authenticity. In both spots the greeting
`in his own hand’ is followed by harsh words.
Here fiction becomes obvious: if the readers knew
Paul’s handwriting, the recourse to it was not needed,
if they didn’t, then its use was utterly nonsensical.
If the letter was delivered by well known people,
why the affirmation that it really had been written
by Paul? And how possibly would such a letter, estimated
to be of the greatest importance and undeliverable
by a third party, be entrusted to somebody unknown?
So LOMAN, and he rightly asked it.
letter in the period of Early Christianitiy used a
special vocabulary and it belonged to the literary
genre, rhetoric. One of the peculiarities of the Pauline
collection is that praise and blame alternately are
bestowed on the readers. The Romans’ faith is said
to be known all over the world (Rom. 1:8). The same
kind of praise is poured out in the letters addressed
to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 2:14) and the Thessalonians
(1 Thess. 1:8). Words of reproach to the readers are
always preceded by words of praise. The hardly flattering
passage, Rom. 1:18 – 2:1, strikes one as strange,
coming as it does immediately after the praise of
the Romans’ faith throughout the world. But the reproach
is followed up by words of  praise once again
as if a bandage were being applied to an open sore.
In Rom. 6:12-16 again we have first an extensive and
forceful warning against sin, followed up in v.17
with renewed attestations of honour. In a genuine
letter, this would have made the admonition obsolete.
Thus,“Thanks be to God that, though you used to be
slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form
of teaching (typos tes didaches) which were entrusted
the skipping back and forth continues. Rom. 8:8 declairs,
„Those controlled by sinful nature cannot please God.”
(Rom. 8:8); This is followed immediately by the reassuring
words, „You, however, are controlled not by sinful
nature but by the Spirit.” Still the references to
the „nature of the flesh” continue. It does not seem
to disappear all together, not even after a radical
conversion, „once the Spirit of God lives in you.
And anyone who does not have this Spirit of Christ
does not belong to Christ.” (Rom. 8:9). And so the
chapter continues, alternating between praise and
blame. The author sticks to the conviction of the
Romans being full of goodness and higher knowledge
(15:14), but they nevertheless must still be taught
hard lessons by their pastor who has to treat them
same applies to the Corinthians. They evoke feelings
of gratitude in Paul, for they have been enriched
in Christ Jesus in every way, in all their speaking
and in all their knowledge (1 Cor. 1:5). Nevertheless
they are reprimanded as „not spiritual but worldly”
and they need teaching because of their lack of knowledge
(3:1–3; 10:1; 12:1; 15:51). Indeed, just a few verses
after they were praised Paul has to appeal to them:
there may be no divisions among them and they must
be perfectly united in mind and thought (1:10). Still
we learn that there are quarrels among them (1:11
ff.). In the community of these beloved children of
the Apostle jealousy and quarreling occur (3:3), even
sexual immorality (5:1), idolatry and drunkenness
(5:11) These people impose themselves upon one another
(4:6). They cheat and do wrong, and they do this to
their brothers (6:8).They needs must be warned against
all sorts of evil sins, listed by names (6:9-10).
Nevertheless they have been washed (by baptism), they
have been sanctified, they have been justified 
(6:11). But all this does not make warnings against
sexual immorality (6:13, 18; 10:8) and idolatry (10:7,
14) superfluous. They are praised for remembering
Paul in everything and for holding to the teachings
which he has just passed on to them (11:2). But there
are divisions among them and the Lord’s Supper is
not held in a Christian way (11:18f., 20). So the
final conclusion reads, „Shall I praise you for this?
Certainly not!” (11:22). They have taken their stand
on the Gospel (15:1), but nevertheless some of them
say that there is no resurrection of the dead (15:12).
The faith of these is useless (15:14). The spiritual
Corinthians are warned not to be misled but to return
to their senses and stop sinning; Paul says all this
to their shame and adds, „There are some who are ignorant
of God” (15:33f.).
the second Epistle to the Corinthians we see precisely
the same pattern. The Church’s members stand firm
by their faith (2 Cor. 1:24). In their mortal flesh
the life of Jesus is at work (4:12). Nevertheless
they still have to be reconciled to God (5:20) and
must take care not to receive God's grace in vain
(6:1). They must not yoke themselves together with
unbelievers (6:14ff.). They still have the task of
purifying themselves from everything that contaminates
body and spirit (7:1). Yet Paul does not condemn them;
on the contrary, he has reason to boast about them
(7:3f.; 9:1ff.). They are innocent (7:11); and as
all of them are obedient, he has nothing to worry
about (7:15). Don’t they, after all, excel in faith,
in speech, in knowledge and in the complete earnestness
and in their love (8:7)? But the sincerity of their
love apparently has still to be tested (8:8) and they
will have to show the proof (8:24). Alas, their obedience
is not yet complete and they are still looking at
the surface of things (10:6f.).
is consequently afraid their minds may somehow be
led astray from their „sincere and pure devotion to
Christ” and desert him in favor of the preacher of
a Jesus other than the Jesus he preached (11:3f.).
He fears that when he comes there may be quarreling,
jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip,
 arrogance and disorder (12:20). There are those
who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the
impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they
once indulged (12:21) so he will not spare them (13:2).
find the same contradictory ideas about the communities
in the Epistle to the Galatians. Before their very
eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed by Paul as
crucified (Gal. 3:1) and Paul called them by the grace
of Christ (1:6). They received the Spirit by believing
his pneumatic Gospel (Gal. 3:2). Therefore they are
all honoured with the title „sons of God through faith
in Christ Jesus” (3:26; 4:6f.). And this although
after their recent conversion they have so quickly
deserted Paul’s Gospel and have turned to a different
one, being foolish to such a degree that they allowed
themselves to be bewitched. So, after beginning with
the Spirit, they are now trying to attain their goal
by human effort (3:3) as they are turning back to
weak and miserable principles to be enslaved by them
all over again (4:9). No wonder that the Apostle fears
that somehow he has wasted his efforts on them (4:11).
How, under such circumstances, can Paul, cast into
a bitter mood due to their desertion, write the words:
„You have done me no wrong” (4:12)? And this although
he has now become their ‘enemy’ by telling them the
truth (4:16). Only when he is with them are they zealous
(4:18). Consequently he is perplexed with them (4:20).
If they let themselves be circumcised, - just think
of it: the members of all those Churches in Galatia
en bloc ! - then Christ will be of no value to them
at all (5:2) They ceased obeying the truth (5:7).
all this complaining, one does not understand how
Paul can be confident in the Lord and believe that
they will take no other view but his (5:10). This
can’t be rhymed with the presupposition that they
keep on biting and devouring each other (5:15) while
gratifying the desires of their sinful nature (5:16).
The list of sinful acts is long and of so serious
a type that those who live in this fashion can’t possibly
inherit the kingdom of God (5:19-21; 25). They need
counselling not to take pride in themselves (6:4)
nor to sow to please their sinful nature (6:8), yet
they are called „spiritual” people, able to restore
gently those of their brothers caught in sin 
(6:1f.). All this explains the harsh words just before
the prayer for grace at the end of this „letter,”
ending with „Finally, let no one cause me trouble”
this shows that we have to see these „letters” as
treatises, as books to be read out in Christian congregations.
Texts already in existence were utilized to produce
them. What has been explained in extenso to the Romans
–and is understandable in that context – is repeated
in the treatise to the Galatians in a kind of shorthand-style.
Even LIETZMANN, a non-radical commentator, has to
admit this fact, though he does not see what follows
from it. Regarding Gal. 3:15-1 he makes the quite
laconic remark, „One has to know Paul to be capable
of understanding him” and to explain what he means
by this statement he quotes Rom. 4:13. Even more grossly,
writing about Gal. 3:13, the same scholar declares,
„There the audience is supposed to be acquainted with
the complete structure of the ideas developed in 2
Cor. 5:21 otherwise this text is not understandable”.
The poor Galatians (!) Back in their own time, they
had to do without both LIETZMANN’s Handbuch and without
an Epistle, which was in the hands of the Corinthians?…
the authors of these Epistles take ideas and whole
phrases out of other Epistles in the same way as they
quote from the O.T. texts without mentioning their
sources - just as nowadays some preachers repeatedly
do while quoting from the O.T. or the N.T.
for the supposed addressees mentioned here and in
other Epistles as well, it would carry us off too
far to specify the inconsistencies which occur. But
there is one characteristic example in the first Epistle
to the Thessalonians that I can’t omit. This community
provides Paul with good reasons to be grateful to
God for their work produced by faith, their labor
prompted by love, and their endurance inspired by
hope (1 Thess. 1:3). The members of the congregation
have been chosen by God (1:4) and obey the Apostle.
In spite of their severe suffering, they welcomed
the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit.
They became a model to be followed by many believers
(1:6-7). They are Paul’s hope and joy, the crown in
which he will glory. They are indeed his glory and
joy (2: 19f.)
they needs must be admonished to an ethical way of
life (4:1ff.); Paul has to instruct them on how to
live in order to please God, adding on, as if correcting
himself, „as in fact you are living” (4:1). The only
point being that they should do this more and more
(4:2). They namely should avoid sexual immorality
(4:3) and should not wrong their brothers or take
advantage of them (4:6). About brotherly love, however,
Paul need not write a single word, for they themselves
have been taught by God to love each other. And in
fact, they do love all their brothers. Yet they should
do so more and more (4:9-11). They still need to be
urged to live in such a fashion that their daily lives
win the respect of outsiders (4:12). These sons of
the light (5:5) must encourage one another and build
each other up, just as „in fact you are doing” (5:11),
for there are still idle ones and timid ones among
them who need to be warned (5:14) and there are those
that pay back wrong with wrong (5:15)
examples given may suffice. Considering that the addressees
don’t in the least give reason for this exaggerated
amount of admonition, we are obliged to take cognisance
of the fact that we are confronted here with formal,
Great-Church, official, episcopal verbiage that stresses
dual messages, i.e. a totally perfect body which nevertheless
has never been free of stains and wrinkles. The diplomatic
letter-writer, enmeshed in the Church’s hierarchy,
suffers under the burden of having to care for all
of the communities (2 Cor. 11:28) and consequently
directs his writing to the entire church. In a remarkable
way we find this confirmed by the so called fragmentum
Muratori, the most ancient list of canonical texts
we possess. All of the pauline letters are seen
there as written for the entire Catholic Church and
the number, seven, which occurs in the book of Revelation
(cf. 2–3) provides the framework for ordering Paul’s
correspondence. There needs must be seven local Churches.
`Seven’ means fullness, perfection, completeness .
The number stands for the entire Church.
should further focus on the fact that in his letters
Paul regularly switches from humiliating to elevating
himself, which is something that fits well in the
mouth of a Prince of the Church. The second Epistle
to the Corinthians provides an example. The Apostle
of Christ Jesus by the will of God (1:1), who suffers
together with the suffering Christ (1:5) and whose
conscience testifies to the fact that he himself dwells
in the world in the holiness and sincerity that are
from God (1:12), so that the community may be proud
of him (1:14), still might conceivably be outwitted
by Satan (2:11). But God nevertheless always leads
him on in Christ’s triumphal procession, through whom,
He spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge
of Himself (2:14-17). This is not to be understood
as boasting, for his competence comes from God (3:5).
If he renounces secret and shameful ways and does
not use deception, nor distorts the word of God, but
rather, by setting forth the truth plainly commends
himself to every man's conscience in the sight of
God (4:2), then it must likewise be understood that
he is not promoting himself, but rather Jesus Christ
as Lord. He himself is the Corinthians’ servant for
Jesus' sake (4:5). And everything he does and says
is from God (4:7; 5:18).
he says that he does not recommend himself to the
readers (3:1; 5:12), in point of fact, he is doing
just that time and again (6:4ff.) by summing up what
he achieved during his mission (6:5–10; 11:22,33;
12:10) and by widely advertising his own virtues (6:2;
10:3–6). He is taking pains to do what is right, not
only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes
of men (8:21). Even had he boasted excessively about
his authority, he would not be ashamed of it (10:8).
He does not think he is in the least inferior to the
other Apostles, and he does have knowledge (11:5f.).
On behalf of the Corinthians, he lowered himself (11:7),
confessing: „I am nothing” (12:11). Are we not confronted
with a diplomat – a Prince of the Church – who alternately
engages in self-glorification and pious humility and
in so doing reminds us of a „servant of the servants
of God”? Indeed, these are not the words of a real
person, but of the Great Church displaying its official
TORM opined that in Tertullian’s time [155 or
160 to after 220 C.E.], writing in the name of an
Apostle was by no means considered unobjectionable.
In his work on Baptism (c. 17), he shows that the
„Acts of Paul” were indeed recognized by the latter’s
contemporaries as a forgery, but the scholarly consensus
is that not critical analytical examination served
as a base for rejection. It was rather dogmatic objections
which lead to this verdict. TORM’s own proposition
was that these Acts were not heretic. He shows himself,
then, to be a less severe censor than the Decretum
Gelasianum of the 5th century which classified these
`Acts’ as belonging among the writings of heretics
and schismatics which were to be repudiated by the
Church. What were Tertullian’s objections to these
Acts? In them a female, Thecla, is told to baptize
and teach! A text containing such impiety, he argued,
could not possibly be of Paul’s hand.
presbyter who confessed to having produced the text,
and who, for that reason was dismissed from the church,
declared that he had acted out of love for Paul. So
did others as well argue. Around the year 440 someone
released a text in four volumes against the meanness
of the times with an appeal to the Church to give
up her riches and wealth. The opening was in the apostolic
style: „Timothy, the least of God’s servants, to the
Catholic Church all over the earth. Grace and peace
to you in the name of God our Father and Jesus Christ
our Lord and of the Holy Spirit”.
as to the identity of the real author in the affair
about the Acts of Paul were missing. When bishop Salonius
got hold of the work, he soon had an idea about the
author’s identity and whereabouts. Out of fear that
the text mistakenly could be accepted as written by
the apostle Timothy, he sent a protesting letter to
the presbyter of Marseille, asking why such a pseudonymous
letter had been released. The presbyter’s answer to
the bishop read: the text is not to be regarded
as apostolic apocrypha, for it does not really present
itself as having been written by the apostle Timothy.
Put another way, he was saying that that designation
had not been used to fool the public.
author –so the presbyter continues– has left out his
own name for  a number of reasons, the most important
being God’s command never to strive for vain worldly
glory. Just like we give alms in secrecy, so do we
behave with the fruit of our labouring. May your left
hand ignore what your right hand is doing. It’s to
God’s honour that the author acted as he did; to God,
human work is the more agreeable the less public appreciation
is sought for. The author is humble, effaces himself
and hasn’t any dishonest intentions. He doesn’t want
to diminish the impact of his precious text by the
obscurity of his own personality. Nowadays the public
is trivial to the point of giving more weight to the
name of the author than to the contents of his text.
Out of respect and humility the author has consequently
used Timothy’s name. In this sense, he has followed
the example of St. Luke, the Evangelist, who, for
the sake of God’s love, pretended to write for Theophilus.
The book has been written „to honour God,” or, to
put the matter in other words, it’s veritably God’s
honour itself that has brought these words to light,
for He, who caused it to be written, may justly be
said to be its author. With HAEFNER one could
see here a transition from pseudepigraphy to pseudonymity
in the modern sense of the word, if the two in this
context were not one and the same thing, for in both
cases the name of a person of great reputation is
single fact that the Canon of Sacred Scriptures had
already been fixed necessarily provoked a bishop’s
protest when, in the 5th century, an author, hiding
himself under a biblical name, wrote the opening lines
of his book in apostolic style. Bishop Salonius may
have felt additionally that a minor cleric in the
hierarchy should not be allowed to imitate the fashion
of an apostolic author by addressing the entire Church
with a pauline opening. All this is proof enough that
the biblical letters were seen as written for all
of Christianity and that it was not pride  but,
quite the contrary. Christian humility that stood
behind the attribution to them of apostolic pseudonyms
to the end of securing their contents,.
assertion (adv. Marcionem V 17) may likewise be admitted
as king’s evidence in this context. Marcion had known
the Epistle to the Ephesians as the Epistle to the
Laodiceans. To this his opponent, Tertullian, says,
„Marcion did his best to give this title to the text,
as if he were a zealous investigator in this field
as well. But we aren’t interested in the least in
titles (here synonym for addresses), for the Apostle,
when writing to some people, has written to all”.
Here we have confirmation of the fact that every single
letter was addressed to all of Christianity and not
to one or the other distinctive circle. Tertullian
then, was not acquainted with all the particularistic,
the local, the personal factors that fence in modern
criticism, nor with the close relationship between
the author and his readers.
my opinion, anyone who would investigate Paulinism
exegetically must give earnest attention to this pallet
So Otto Roller, “Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe.
Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom antiken Briefe”. Stuttgart,
 Roller, p.3
 cfr. St. Witkowski, “Epistulae privatae graecae”.
 “Geschichte der romischen Literatur” by Martin
Schanz, 2. Teil, 4. ed., revised by Carl Hosius, p.847,
 Cfr. Hermann Peter, “Der Brief in der romischen
Literatur. Literaturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen
und Zusammenfassungen” (Tome XX of the “Abhandlungen
der philologisch historischen Classe der kgl. Sachsischen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften”. No. III, Leipzig,
1901, p.216ff., 204ff.
 l.c., p.229
 l.c., p.233ff.
 In “Revue de Philologie de Literature et d’Histoire
anciennes”. XXXV. Paris 1911, p.40–55. Cfr. p.31,
 Peter, p.239ff.
 “Die Psychologie der Psseudonymitat im Hinblick
auf die Literatur des Urchristentums. Gutersloh, 1932”
 “Kritik und Hermeneutik”, p.12
 “Paulus III”. Leiden, 1986, p.315
 In his “Bijbelstudien”. 1895, p.157–252; compare
his article “Epistolary Literature” in “Encyclopaedia
Britannica” II, 1323–1329
For Edward Evanson’s critique cfr. my article in “Nieuw
Theologisch Tijdschrift” 1913, p.149ff.
F. C. Baur, “Paulus”. 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1866, p,275
“Paulus II”. Leiden 1891, p.9f.; compare “Tijdspiegel”,
“Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung”. Tubingen,
1911, p.105; 108
“Die Briefsammlung des Apostels Paulus und der anderen
vorkonstantinischen christlichen Briefsammlungen.
Sechs Vorlesungen aus der altkirchlichen Literaturgeschichte”.
Leipzig, 1926, p.77 footnote
“Einfuhrung in das Neue Testament”. 4th ed., Giessen,
P.Wendland, “Die hellenistisch–romische Kultur; Anhang:
Die urchristlichen Literaturformen”. 2nd and 3rd ed.,
Tubingen, 1912, p.344
l.c., p.346, footnote 3
“Gegenwartsbibel II”. 3rd ed., p.223ff.
l.c., p.57, 349
l.c., p.59; 436ff.; 349
A.D. Loman, “Nalatenschap”. Groningen, 1899, p.26
In “Tillmann’s Heilige Schrift des N.T. VI”. Bonn,
Cfr. 1 Cor. 16:21. Not correct Lietzmann in his “commentaar”.
3rd ed., p.4
“Gegenwartsbibel II”. 3rd ed.. p.534ff.
Heinrici, “Der literarische Character der neutestamentlichen
Cfr. Dr. A. Pierson, “De Bergrede en andere synoptische
Fragmenten”. Amsterdam, 1878, p.100f.
Bruno Bauer, “Kritik der paulinischen Briefe”. Berlin,
R.Steek, “Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht”.
Berlin, 1888, p.142
“Kleine Texte”. edited by Lietzmann, nr.1, 2nd ed.,
Bonn, 1908, p.7
Salvanius’s 9th letter in the “Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum
Lat.”. Vol. III
Alfred Haefner in “Anglican Theological Revieuw”.
Only while correcting the proofs I come to see an
essay by Dr. A.D. Leeman in “Mnemosyne”, quarta series,
vol. quartum, fasc. II, Leiden, 1951, p.175–181, titled
“The epistolary form of Sen. Ep. 102”. Leeman’s conclusion
confirms Bourgery’s impression mentioned above (p.6
and footnote ).