44 Chris Keith Matera observes, “There is general agreement among commentators that the reference to Paul’s large letters does not refer to their misshapen appearance, as Chrysostom thought, but simply to their size” (26). Perhaps one should conclude that Paul’s “big letters” serve as emphasis without specifying the precise nature of the emphasis. One should not disregard entirely, however, that the paucity of extant Greek writing that actually comes from the hand of Paul could suggest that his was an unpracticed hand, whether his “big letters” are a result of that fact or not. Importantly, the following argument is not dependent on one interpretation of Paul’s “big letters” in Gal 6,11 over another, and will offer another explanation for why little of Paul’s own handwriting remains. The present study now turns from the significance of Paul’s “big letters” to the significance of Paul writing in the first place. 2. Previous Assessments of Paul Writing in His Epistles Scholars have accounted for the appearance of Paul’s own handwriting in a number of ways (which are not mutually exclusive). Some remark that Paul is adding a personal touch to the greeting of the epistle (27). Others see Paul as conforming to the epistolary norm of signing one’s name at the end of the epistle (28). Commenting on the addition of autographs to Greco-Roman friendship letters, Stowers combines these options: This practice was like adding a signature to a typed letter. The apostle Paul does the same at the close of some letters in order to provide a personal touch (29). Normally with reference to 2 Thess 3,17, some scholars suggest that Paul indeed signed his epistles as part of an epistolary norm, but (26) F.J. MATERA, Galatians (Sacra Pagina 9; Collegeville, PA 1992) 229. (27) M.M. THOMPSON, Colossians and Philemon (Two Horizons; Grand Rapids, MI 2005) 109. (28) R.F. COLLINS, “ ‘I Command That This Letter Be Read’: Writing as a Manner of Speaking”, in The Thessalonians Debate. Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis (eds. K.P. DONFRIED – J. BEUTLER) (Grand Rapids, MI 2000) 329; R.Y.K. FUNG, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI 1988) 301; GEORGE, Galatians, 430; LOHSE, Colossians and Philemon, 177. Cf. also A. ROBERTSON – A. PLUMMER, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh 1911) 400, who mentions this epistolary practice but also thinks the signature would have authenticated the epistle since “the apostle’s handwriting would be known at Corinth”. (29) S.K. STOWERS, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (LEC 5; Philadelphia, PA 1986) 61.