Chris Keith, «'In My Own Hand': Grapho-Literacy and the Apostle Paul», Vol. 89 (2008) 39-58
Recent research in the school papyri of Egypt, especially Oxyrhychus, has illuminated our understanding of the pedagogical process in the Greco-Roman world. Particularly interesting in this respect is the acquisition and social function of grapho-literacy (i.e., the ability to compose writing). Since few were literate, and of those few, fewer could read than could write, understanding how one gained grapho-literacy, who gained grapho-literacy, and how that literacy was employed in day to day life shines new light on passages such as 1 Cor 16,21, Gal 6,11, Col 4,18, 2 Thess 3,17, and Phlm 19. In these passages, Paul draws attention
to the fact that he has personally written in the text. This paper will argue that these passages are not merely interesting asides, but rather significantly heighten the
rhetorical force of the text. They draw attention not only to Paul’s grapho-literacy, but also to his ability to avoid using it.
“In My Own Handâ€: Grapho-Literacy and the Apostle Paul 57
apropos here in light of the previous discussion of Paul’s Greek
abilities:
Josephus should probably be seen as an example of those upper-class
Jews who had achieved a relatively high level of Greek education,
being able to read and discuss Greek literature, although not able to
write a faultless and stylistically sophisticated Greek without outside
help (81).
The primary focus of this study has not been Paul’s dependence
upon an amanuensis, however, but rather has concerned his motives for
breaking into the work of the amanuensis in order to demonstrate his
own writing abilities. When Paul signs his own name and writes the
formulaic statement “the greeting is in my hand†or an oath (“I will
repayâ€), he demonstrates both his identity as an educated individual
who “knows letters†(and Greek ones at that) and that he is a person of
true prestige — able to write, but able to avoid it as well and have an
amanuensis write the bulk of the epistle.
In terms of material evidence for his writing ability in Greek, the
apostle has left us an admittedly meagre corpus of “actual†Pauline
writing (as opposed to “Pauline†writing produced by the hand of an
amanuensis). However, while keeping in mind that lack of
demonstration was not necessarily indicative of lack of ability (though
at times it was), one may hazard a comment on Paul’s training in Greek
based on the evidence we have. If Paul’s use of an amanuensis is due to
the fact that he can write nothing more than short greetings and his
name, this would suggest that his education in Greek was, in the least,
adequate but not protracted. Since he penned greetings (i.e., not only
formulae) and therefore was capable of at least a limited degree of
compositional writing, Paul was more proficient than a “slow-writerâ€
in Greek and certainly more advanced than Petaus, who had to copy
line by line and was thus incapable of even a small degree of
compositional writing. If Paul wrote all of Philemon, this would set
him even further apart from a slow-writer. Nonetheless, there is likely
truth in the estimation of Deissmann that “Paul preferred to dictate his
letters; writing [at least in Greek] was not particularly easy for himâ€(82).
Composing a greeting, or even Philemon, was not the same as
composing the entirety of Romans or the Corinthian Correspondence,
and Paul sought the help of a professional for lengthier tasks in the
lingua franca, much the same as Josephus.
(81) HEZSER, Jewish Literacy, 91.
(82) DEISSMANN, Paul, 49. See also his Light, 166, n. 7, 174, 246.