Epistolary Literature of the New Testament

by Louis F. Gough

Besides the two official letters included in the Acts of the Apostles, genuine letters written true to the conventional letter-form of the period in which they were written, the greater part of the New Testament is made up of books called epistles. These epistles have been treated in various manners and categorized in numerous ways in certain literary studies.

In R. G. Moulton’s The Literary Study of the Bible and his smaller and later work, A Short Introduction to the Literature of the Bible the twenty-one books of the New Testament which are usually classified as epistles are categorized in the following way:

Moulton divides the epistles under four main headings: (1) Pastoral Epistle or Pastoral Intercourse; (2) Epistolary Treatise; (3) Epistolary Manifesto; and (4) Wisdom Epistle.

According to Moulton the common structure of the “pastoral epistle” over and above the formal greeting at the commencement and personal message at the close is of three distinct parts: (a) “Recognition of the mutual relations between the writer and the people addressed”; (b) “At the end is exhortation”; and (c) “Between the recognition and exhortation comes the doctrinal discussion.”[1] In this frame Moulton includes 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 2 John, 3 John.

The second group, “epistolary treatises,” Moulton characterizes by their not being addressed to a particular church on the one hand,[2] and on the other hand the doctrinal discussion is a formal and ordered exposition. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans and the Epistle to the Hebrews are according to Moulton “epistolary treatises.”

The next class of epistles are the “epistolary manifestos.” Moulton writes: “Distinct from the pastoral epistles, which are concerned with the government of the churches, the manifesto is rather an act of faith: not a discussion of details, but a reassertion of the Christian hope in all its fulness, coloured in its form by the particular circumstances which have called it forth.”[3] Moulton includes under this heading Ephesians (further described as a circular epistolary manifesto), Colossians, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, 1 John.

Moulton includes the remaining book, the Epistle of St. James, in his group of “wisdom literature” along with Matthew and the Fourth Gospel. According to him this branch of literature is characterized by its being a “miscellany of sayings, essays, and discourses… a collection of meditations on life…. It is Wisdom Christianized.”[4] In support of his argument Moulton writes: “In this work there is nothing of the epistle except the superscription. The regular order of thought which appears in Hebrews or Romans is lacking; nor is there a trace of that reference to affairs of a particular church which characterizes the pastoral epistles.”[5]

C. A. Briggs thinks of the “epistle” as a form of prose literature. He characterizes the Biblical epistle in this manner:

[The epistle] is the contribution of the Aramaic language to the Old Testament in the letters contained in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah…. In the New Testament. .. the epistle receives its magnificent development in the letters of St. James, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Jude, and St. John—some familiar, some dogmatic, some ecclesiastical, and some pastoral, some speculative and predictive, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews we have an elaborate essay.[6]

Recent discoveries of papyrus letters of all kinds—familiar letters, business letters, petitions, complaints, applications, and official letters ranging in their dating from the Roman conquest of Egypt to the tenth century A.D., particularly the letters of Oxyrynchus—have thrown great light on the literary study of the epistles of the New Testament. Studies have been made in these Greek papyri and certain conclusions as to the general characteristics have been drawn. In light of what seems to be the most consistent and trustworthy of the conclusions of these studies, I shall try to characterize and arrange the New Testament Epistles.

Adolf Deissmann in full cognizance of the abounding research which has been made in the growth of the New Testament and the origin of its several parts is also aware of the paucity of literary historical study which has been done in the New Testament in its relation to ancient literature. To such a need he addresses himself in Light from the Ancient East and in another of his works, Bible Studies.

Deissman makes a sharp distinction between literary and non-literary books of the New Testament in their original forms, that is before they became a canonical corpus. He calls attention to the non-literary character of leases, application, receipts, letters, and other writings, which he characterizes as products not of art but of life.[7] Particularly as touching the “letter” he writes: “A letter is something non-literary, a means of communication between persons who are separated from each other. Confidential and personal in its nature, it is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed, and not at all for the public or any kind of publicity.”[8]

The “epistle” is different; it is a work of art, which is merely cast in the form of the “letter.” Without these drapings most epistles are intelligible whereas the address, personal references, and subscription are essential to the intelligibility of the “letter.” In the “epistle” all that seems letter-like is mere ornament; if any of the ornament crumbles off the character of the whole thing is not essentially altered.”[9]

Whereas the “letter” is not intended for publication, the “epistle” is written with a general public in mind for its readers. The “letter” rises spontaneously out of a life situation, and its purpose is to communicate to a situation of a limited temporal duration. Not so with an “epistle.” “As an artistic literary form the epistle has no intention of being transitory. Being published from the first in a considerable number of copies it cannot so easily perish as a letter, of which there is only one or at most two copies made.”[10] The private character of the “letter” is a very distinctive characteristic.[11] Good examples of the ancient epistolography, which was written with the probability of publication in view, are the works in Greek of Dionysius and of Plutarch; and in Latin, the letters of Seneca and of the younger Pliny.

In the light of these judgments Deissman concludes that the study of the ancient papyrus letters along with certain ostraca and letters written on lead, newly discovered,

obliges us to maintain that in the New Testament there are both nonliterary letters and literary epistles… [And that] the letters of Paul are not literary; they are real letters, not epistles; they were written by Paul not for the public and posterity, but for the persons to whom they are addressed.[12]

Some letters, however, which were non-literary epistles at the time of their writing, their publication never entering the mind of the writer, have been raised to the literary level subsequent to their serving the direct purpose for which they were written.

The letters of Aristotle and of Cicero are examples of this literary process. So it was with the letters of Paul. Deissmann comes to the second conclusion that although the Pauline Epistles were not in their original form real “epistles,” yet they were later raised to the level of literary letters, stated in Light from the East, page 239:

St. Paul was not a writer of epistles but of letters; he was not a literary man. His letters were raised to the dignity of literature afterwards, when the piety of the churches collected them, multiplied them by copying and so made them accessible to the whole of Christendom. Later still they became sacred literature, when they were received among the books of the “New” Testament then in process of formation; and in this position their literary influence has been immeasurable.

Therefore in the light of these judgments, how does Deissmann categorize the books of the New Testament?

Deissman classifies the epistolary content of the New Testament as follows:

Letters: Philemon,[13] 1 and 2 Corinthians,[14] 1 and 2 Thessalonians,[15] 

Galatians, 2 and 3 John[16] (real letters), and Romans.[17] 

Literary epistles: Hebrews,[18] James,[19] 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude.[20]

Deissmann classifies the Apocalypse of John as an epistle:

The “Apocalypse of John,” however, is strictly speaking an epistle: it has in 1:4 an epistolary praescript with a religious wish, and 22:21 a conclusion suitable for an epistle. The epistle is again subdivided at the beginning into seven small portions addressed to the churches in Asia… They represent, however,… a more letter-like species of epistle than those we have been considering. The writer wishes to achieve certain ends with single churches, but at the same time to influence the whole body of Christians, or at any rate Asiatic Christians.[21]

He classifies James as a religious diatribe. Of 1 John he writes:

[1 John] has more of the specific characters of an epistle, and is, of course, even less like a letter. The little work has got along with the epistles, but it is best described as a religious diatribe, in which Christian meditations are loosely strung together for the benefit of the community of the faithful.[22]

Approximately fifty years ago Francis Xavier J. Exler made a study of Greek epistolography, in which he examined hundreds of Greek papyrus letters dating from the third century B.C. to the third century A.D.[23] He reached two conclusions: (1) The material at hand does not warrant any conclusions concerning the origin of the Greek epistolary form. In other words he found that the Greek letter-form used for six hundred years at the turn of the era is of ancient origin and development. (2) “There is a remarkable similarity in the letter-forms throughout the Ptolemaic and the Roman periods.”[24]

Exler was able at the end of his study to form certain generalizations as to the nature and form of the Greek letters which, he examined. He found a certain style of letter writing in which the writer consistently employed a certain set of formulae. Following is a list of ten of these formulae which will help us to make a literary categorization of the twenty-one epistolary books of the New Testament, which has been the object of this study:

1. The basic formula: A— to B—, charein (may you be happy) is used in all sorts of letters: private letters, business letters, communications between officials, as well as in letters from or to officials. [3rd century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.][25]
2. Throughout the Ptolemaic and Roman periods the formula A—to B—, charein is by far the most common.[26]
3. Familiar letters having the opening formula A— to B—, charein are followed by the closing formula erroso (may you fare well) or one of its modifications. Most official letters use the same final salutation…. [Some] have no special formula at all, but simply omit the final salutation.[27]
4. During the Roman period it was a common custom to add greetings at the end of letters. These aspasasthe (greet) phrases appear in various forms.[28]
5. The closing phrases are greatly varied by the addition of terms of familiarity.[29]
6. The apostrophic formula chairois … chaire,[30] were not necessarily employed by the uneducated … the writer was at liberty to use a less formal mode of address if he chose to do so.[31]
7. In other than familiar letters a declaration was attached regarding the identity of the scribe.[32]
8. Throughout the entire period … there is a remarkable similarity in the formulas employed. Their phraseology remains substantially the same. Yet so great is the variety in detail, that hardly any two forms are quite alike.[33]
9. Among the opening formula we meet the phrase charein kai dia pantos hugiainein (may you always be happy and in good health) as early as the latter half of the first century B. C. … The hugiainein wish makes its first appearance in the papyri in the beginning of the first century A.D.[34]
10. Very frequently the letters are without any date whatsoever … in private letters the date is missing almost as frequently as it is given; and in official letters the absence of the date is not rare.[35]

In the light of these conclusions and those of Deissmann and Moulton, we shall examine the epistolary literature of the New Testament, Pauline first and the remaining epistles second, as to their usage of the Greek letter-form and place in epistolary literature.

The first striking thing about the Pauline letters is the consistency with which Paul used the conventional opening formula of the Greek letter form, of course with certain modifications, which we should expect in view of his Christian concept of providence, of peace, and joy. In every one of his thirteen letters Paul utilizes the A— to B— charein formula. Paul in nominative (together with other co-writers in the case of Galatians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon) identifies himself as the apostle, or servant, or prisoner of Jesus Christ and the Father. In the case of the Thessalonian correspondence the identification is left out. Here, however, Paul identifies himself with Silvanus and Timothy who are brothers and co-laborers in Christ. In every case following the name of the writer with certain identification and comment appears the name of the addressee in the dative case.

The next member of the opening formula, charein (be happy) is consistently rendered charis (grace) by Paul because of his understanding of the source of the Christian’s joy and victory. To this charis Paul adds eirene (peace) and in the case in 1 and 2 Timothy is added eleos (mercy). The phrase “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” stands also intact with only slight variation in every letter except in the Timothy correspondence and in 1 Thessalonians, where it is merely abbreviated.

The convention of a salutation at the end of the letter erroso, errosthe, eutuchei (lucky) is consistently observed by Paul. Here the Christianized concept is almost invariably used He charis tou kuriou humon Iesou Christou meth’ humon in Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus a shortened form is used.

The common custom of greeting at the end of the letter the aspasasthe (greet) with occasional addition of terms of familiarity is also very noticeable in Paul’s letters; viz., Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthans, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.

With this cursury examination of the literary forms for writing used by Paul it is readily seen that the Apostle consistently wrote his letters within the bounds of the conventional letter writing of his time. To be sure, he exercised certain liberties in the usages of these habits of writing, yet not without great regard for the prevalent conventions. These modifications are due to Paul’s Christian ingeniousness and secondly, it was not at all uncommon for all letter writers of the first century A.D. to take varied liberties. Hence the great variety of details among the Greek papyrus letters.[36] Therefore it is safe to conclude that Paul’s writings, whether they be considered “epistles” or “letters,” were written in genuine Greek letter-form conventional in the Ptolemaic and Roman period. We must now consider the two questions: Were they real letters or epistles, all thirteen or a part of them, and what type of letters or epistles are they?

Did Paul write any of his letters with the publication of them in view? It is quite generally accepted that he did not. Their spontaneity and direction to the addressee are of all things most recognizable. It is quite evident from the letters themselves that the writer did not expect any but the persons to whom the letters were addressed would read them, except in the case of the Colossian correspondence (Col. 4:16) and possibly Ephesians. And even here the expanded group of readers still comprises a limited number of people. In all of the letters Paul addresses them to either a church in a particular district or to an individual. In the case of the Roman letter, the addressees are “all the called saints, beloved of God in Rome,” which essentially means that Paul addresses his letter to the Church in Rome. And in the case of the Ephesian letter: Even though there is strong manuscript evidence of its being a circular letter, still that circle is a restricted one, and in that case the letter could have been directed to a certain district comprising several churches as in the case of the Galatian correspondence.

Not only are the readers of the Pauline letters restricted, but also the things which Paul writes are directed against definite and specific problems or aspects of life in the several churches. Even in the Roman letter, which has been characterized as a mere theological treatise or compendium of Paul’s theology dressed in the garb of a letter, there are strong marks which point to its being a pure pastoral letter addressed to particular needs of the Church in Rome. Paul establishes for the Church in Rome, which was made up of both Jewish and Gentile Christians, the universality of the judgment of God and of his gospel. He points out the wickedness and state of separation from God on the part of both groups, and their need of the Savior of the Gospel. Paul also deals with the dispensation of the Jews and the Gentiles, all in direct contingency with the situation in Rome.

Therefore in light of the facts it does not appear that Paul wrote his letters for publication. They were private letters directed to a limited group of readers—not for the general public. The Apostle directed his writings to specific problems, which were for him only to be dealt with in a temporal situation. The truths that he wrote were eternal truths; yet the application of these truths was only seen by Paul in the temporal situation. We can safely conclude with Adolf Deissmann that the Pauline writings are genuine “letters,” though later raised to literary letters to be published and read by men everywhere and in all ages because of their eternal worth.[37]

Romans, the Corinthian correspondence, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians were addressed to particular churches, and were written in reference to specific situations peculiar to those particular churches. Therefore these letters were pastoral letters as Paul wrote them.

1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon were addressed to individuals. The Epistle of Paul to Philemon is obviously a “familiar letter” that is generally accepted. The Apostle writes real letters to Timothy and to Titus. Even in these the writer speaks of the requisites for the office of a bishop, of certain warnings which the young ministers should relay on to the churches under their care, of pastoral directions, of keeping alive in them the gift of their ministry, of guarding against unprofitable discussion, of disciplining disorderly teachers, and other pastoral directions. These letters are definitely “familiar letters” written from the elder to the younger ministers. However, even here the pastoral content is strong. This is to be noted in Paul’s writing to Philemon about his relation in the Church to his converted slave Onesimus. The Great Missionary wrote familiar letters, and his care for the Church was so great that the heart of the pastor as well as of the missionary is seen in all that he wrote.

And now let us consider the remaining pieces of the epistolary literature. The Epistle to the Hebrews has nothing of the opening formula of a Greek letter. It is possible that at a very early date prior to the witness of any other parts, the opening formula could have been lost due to deterioration or some other cause. This supposition, however, because of the lack of any manuscript evidence is disputable. There are some personal references, greetings, and a salutation, all in the last chapter which fit perfectly into the letter-forms studied thus far. The epistle is the longest book of the epistolary literature of the New Testament. And it is quite evidently written in the most polished style of all. These characteristics, however, though inclined away from the “real” letter-form, do not bar entirely a piece of writing from the category of the “real” letter.[38]

The Epistle has, except for the ending, the characteristic of an “elaborate essay” as C. A. Briggs has said. Here is the “elaborate and symmetrical argument written in brilliant style” as observed by R. G. Moulton. The author of Hebrews has a coherent plan which he executes in deliberate and beautiful style. The Epistle seems to have been written to a particular group of Jewish Christians. R. G. Moulton is probably most nearly right in classifying the Epistle to the Hebrews as an “epistolary treatise.”

The Epistle of James at the beginning has the appearance of a letter. The three parts of the conventional opening formula are distinctly present: James in the nominative case; to the twelve tribes which are of the dispersion in the dative case; and charein. The body of the epistle is definitely literature of a general order. It is made up of a number of short essays or sentences of ethical teaching, having the nature of wisdom literature. The ending has nothing of the nature of a letter. Since, therefore, the addressee is of a general character, and since the body of the Epistle is like a treatise, and since it lacks the ending of a letter with personal references; the Epistle of James should be classed as an epistolary treatise.

The First Epistle of Peter is definitely a pastoral letter. Its form is true to the conventional Greek letter form with personal references. It is directed to a definite group of the Church, those of the elect who are of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadoncia, Asia, and Bithynia. Peter wrote to meet a definite situation among these Christians. As a pastor he comforted and exhorted them to steadfastness in persecution.

The Second Epistle of Peter is an epistolary treatise. It has the form of a letter in the beginning. It is addressed to a general group of readers, “to those who have obtained equal precious faith.” The lack of personal references is noticeable. If its authenticity can be accepted, Peter in this epistle writes a last testimony before his departure. “Yea, I will give diligence that at every time ye may be able after my decease to call these things to remembrance” (1:15). He reminds his readers of the sure witness that he had given of “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:16). Then he warns about the entrance of false teachers and of the suddeness of the coming of the Lord. Finally, Peter exhorts to steadfastness and closes with a doxology. The epistle is like the final blessing of a patriarch of Israel, calling witness to the faithfulness of God and his own steadfastness in covenant with God, and his exhortation to steadfastness in keeping covenant with God on the part of the children of God.

The first Epistle of John has nothing of the form of the Greek letter used so profusely by St. Paul. References to writing to particular persons occur frequently in the epistle. “My little children, these things I write unto you” (2:1). “I write unto you, my little children…. I write unto you, fathers… I write unto you, young men” (2:12, 13). “Little Children, it is last the hour” (2:18). “Marvel not, brethren, if the world hate you” (3:13). Here we see John’s readers are addressed in the vocative case. And he closes with “Little children, guard yourselves from idols.” In the light of these references it is evident that the Epistle is written in epistolary form. It is addressed to the general reading public. It is a treatise in which John urges the children of God to walk with God as those delivered from sin by the manifestation of the Son of God. He denounces the love of the world and pleads for the children of God to love God and their brethren. The Epistle is an epistolary treatise.

The second Epistle of John is either a private letter or a pastoral letter, depending on the interpretation of the addressee, eklektei kurai kai toffs teknois antes (to the chosen lady and her children). The more correct interpretation is in all probability the spiritual one which is in connection with the exhortation of verse 5: “I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote to thee a new commandment, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.” The salutation at the end of the “children of thine elect sister” would be members of a sister church. The little epistle conforms fully to the conventional letter form of the Hellenistic period. The letter was written to meet a specific need. The addressee was in danger of receiving false teachers. The exhortation was not to receive them into her house (church). She also needed to be exhorted to love.

The third Epistle of John is a “familiar letter” pure and simple. It is true to the form of the Hellenistic letter. It is interesting to note the unique salutation of the opening formula and its closeness to the type mentioned by Exler quoted in conclusion number 9 above. The presbyter writes to Gaius whom he loves commending him for his living a true Christian life and aiding journeying brethren and strangers. Reference is made to an unruly acquaintance of the writer and his correspondent. Other personal reference is made, and a future personal visit is mentioned.

The Epistle of Jude at the beginning has the form of a letter. “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ, being called: Mercy unto you and peace and love be multiplied.” Jude warns his readers against ungodly men “who have crept in privily”—evidently a heresy. And he exhorts to earnest faith. He is concerned about the danger of his readers’ falling away. Absence of personal reference is noticeable. Even though the addressee is of a general nature; yet because the problem dealt with seems to be a specific situation, it appears that this little letter should be considered a pastoral letter directed to a specific group though hardly discernable in the term of the addressee.

The Revelation of John is treated by Deissmann as an epistle. To be sure the book is cast in a epistolary form; yet because of its stronger relation to another form of Biblical literature, it is more proper to place it in a separate category from the epistolary literature as such in the New Testament.

In the light of this study, therefore, the epistolary literature of the New Testament could be classified in the following manner:

Pastoral Letters

Romans 

1 Corinthians 

2 Corinthians 

Galatians 

Ephesians 

Philippians 

Colossians 

1 Thessalonians 

2 Thessalonians 

1 Peter 

2 John 

Jude

Epistolary Treatises

Hebrews 

James 

2 Peter 

1 John

Familiar Letters

1 Timothy 

2 Timothy 

Titus 

Philemon 

3 John

Notes

1. R. G. Moulton, A Short Introduction to the Literature of the Bible (Boston, 1901), p. 105.
2. Ibid., 111: “It is not addressed to any church; it is intended for general circulation among ‘all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints… “ This might hold good also for Ephesians in light of evidence.
3. Ibid., p. 113.
4. Ibid., pp. 187, 188.
5. Ibid., p. 187.
6. Briggs, C. A., General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, New York, 1899), p. 340.
7. Otto Roller failed to make a distinction between official documents and private letters. (Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe, Stuttgart, 1933, p. 29). This caused him to require a degree of definiteness of form not genuine, and too constrictive for the Pauline letters. There were definite forms for letter writing commonly used in Paul’s time. Paul did not ignore them but used them: “deren Anwendung konventionell erfolgte.” Yet he exercised some freedom within these bounds for his own personal creation. Moreover, most letter writers took quite a little freedom in their usage of these forms and did not conform themselves as consistently to the norm as Roller would have us think. Ibid. p. 30: “Diese vier Stucke, … namlich die Erkennbarkeit vom Absender, vom Adressaten, von der Vollstandigkeit, die hier durch Anrede und Unterschrift sichergestellt ist and der Authentizitat, sind also fur den Brief wesentlich, obwohl sie mit dem Inhalte an sich nichts su tun haben. Auch das Datum rechnet man heute zu einem vollstandigen Briefe, doch kann es im Altertum wie heute, namentlich in Privatbriefen, leicht fehlen, ohne den Briefcharakter in Frage zu stellen. Die vier erstgenannten Stucke aber waren und sind stets notwendige Teile des Briefes gewesen und zu alien Zeiten in bestimmte Formen gekleidet warden.”
8. A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, trans. by L.M.R. Atrachan (2nd edition; New York, 1911), pp. 146, 147.
9. Ibid., p. 236.
10. Ibid., p. 223.
11. The private character and spontaneity of Paul’s letters are germane to the reliability of their positively documentary value for the history of the apostolic period. Deissmann’s poetic description of the milieu out of which the letters of Paul sprung bears quoting. “If the artisan-missionary at Ephesus wishes to talk to the foolish Galatians or the poor brethren at Corinth, then in the midst of the hurry and worry of pressing daily duties he dictates a letter, adding at the end a few lines roughly written with his own hand and weary weaver’s hand. These were no books or pamphlets for the world or even for Christendom; they were confidential pronouncements, of whose existence and contents the missionary’s nearest companions often knew nothing: Luke even writes his Acts of the Apostles without knowledge of the letters of St. Paul (which were written but not yet published).”
12. Deissmann, op. cit., p. 225.
13. Deissmann, op. cit.: “Paul’s letter to Philemon is no doubt the one most clearly seen to be a letter” (p. 226).
14. Ibid.: “The first Epistle to the Corinthians … is no pamphlet addressed to the Christian public, but a real letter to Corinth in part an answer to a letter from the church there” (p. 228, f.).
15. Ibid.: “The two Epistles to the Thessalonians are also genuine letters, the first even more so than the second. They represent, so to say, the average type of Paul’s letters” (p. 229).
16. Ibid.: “Third John was entirely a private note … it must have been preserved among the papers of Gaius as a relic of the great presbyter” (p. 234).
17. Ibid.: “Paul’s letter to the Romans … is least like a letter…. Romans is a long letter … it is not an epistle addressed to all the world or even to Christendom, containing … a compendium of St. Paul’s dogmatic and ethical teaching” (p. 231).
18. Ibid.: “The longest ‘epistle’ in the New Testament, the so-called Epistle to the Hebrews, is altogether anonymous, as it has come down to us. Even the ‘address’ has vanished. Were it not for some details in 13:2224 that sound letter-like, one would never suppose that the work was meant to be an epistle, not to mention a letter” (p. 236).
19. Ibid.: “The Epistle of James is from the beginning a little work of literature, a pamphlet addressed to the whole of Christendom, a vertible epistle. The whole of its contents agrees therewith. There is none of the unique detail peculiar to the situation, such as we have in the letters of St. Paul, but simply general questions, most of them still conceivable under the present conditions of our church life” (p. 236).
20. Ibid.: “The Epistles of Peter and of Jude … quite unreal addresses; the letter-like touches are purely decorative” (p. 235).
21. Ibid., pp. 237, f.
22. Ibid., p. 237.
23. This study, a doctrinal dissertation, was published in 1923: Francis Xaxier J. Exler, -The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter; A Study in Greek Epistolography (Washington: Cath. Univ. of Amer.).
24. Ibid., p. 12.
25. Ibid., p. 62.
26. Ibid., p. 136.
27. Ibid., pp. 60, 61.
28. Ibid., pp. 134, 69.
29. Ibid., p. 135.
30. Henry A. Steen (“Les Cliches Epistolaires dan les Lettres sur Papyrus Grecques,” Classica et Mediaevalia, I, 1938, p. 124) believes that reluctance of the usage of imperatives was due to a certain sense of courtesy.
31. Exler, op. cit., p. 134.
32. Ibid., pp. 136, 137.
33. Ibid., p. 133.
34. Ibid., p. 110.
35. Ibid., p. 98.
36. Vide supra No. 8, page 9.
37. In connection with this the comment of two other scholars: George Milligan: “Pauline writings … are popular rather than literary in their origin, and were, intended, in the first instance, not for publication, or for after-ages, but to meet the immediate practical needs of the Churches and individuals to whom they were in the first instance addressed” (Here & There Among the Papyri, London, 1922, p. 32). Wm. Ramsay: “In the individual case they [the letters] discover the universal principle, and state it in such a way as to reach the heart of every man similarly situated, and yet they state this, not in the way of formal exposition, but in the way of direct personal converse, written in place of spoken” (The Letters of the Seven Churches of Asia, London, 1904, page 25).
38. Exler, op. cit.: “Though length as such does not affect the nature of a letter, too great length would establish a presumption against any work being properly classified under epistolography” (page 17). “A real letter may be polished or unpolished” (page 17).