According to Porter, “The scribal hypothesis is a very attractive one to explain a number of the issues regarding Pauline authorship, but it cannot be used uncritically because of the lack of proof and the lack of means for verifying (pp. 153-154).” Discuss some of the possible ways in which Paul’s use of scribes may inform our understanding of the subject of authorship and account for some of the differences of language and style that may be observed between the various epistles within the Pauline corpus.

Authorship and the Use of Scribes

The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters

Ancient writers often used a scribe or secretary called an amanuensis. Regarding the subject of authorship, one might question the originality and authenticity of  Pauline authorship to the extent that an amanuensis played a significant role in the creation of his letters. Alternatively, the use of an amanuensis might assist in solidifying Paul as the author of certain disputed letters to the extent the utilization of a scribe might help explain the differences between the tone and style of Paul’s various works. Without question, the biblical evidence points to Paul using a scribe. For example, in the conclusion to Paul’s undisputed letter to the Romans, an amanuensis’s involvement is obvious: “I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord” (Rom 16:22, ESV). Accordingly, Stanley Porter identifies three potential roles of an amanuensis, which include taking word-for-word dictation, editing the original author’s work, or writing the letter after receiving basic or general instructions regarding the content.^[1]

The use of a scribe may result in differences between the scribe’s work and the work of the author had he or she written the document. E. R. Richards divides the differences into two types. The first type includes differences that occur with all forms of secretarial mediation, such as variations regarding length, language, style, organization, and general appearance.^[2] The second type includes differences related to the specific role of the secretary, such as whether the letter was author-controlled or secretary-controlled.^[3] The former often would match the style of the author but differ in various subtle ways; the latter could vary considerably in form and style but maintain the basic thematic initiatives and arguments.^[4]

A specific example of differences often cited is that of the Pastoral Epistles. Porter explains that the differences in style, content, and theology between the Pastoral Epistles and Paul’s other correspondence fuel the debate regarding Pauline authorship.^[5] However, the scribal hypothesis may assist in explaining the differences. It is possible that the style differences could be explained by the use of a different scribe. Furthermore, even the perceived differences between content and theology may be explained by a newly hired amanuensis utilizing unique terms to complementarily develop certain theological constructs. Unfortunately, as Porter explains, the scribal hypothesis cannot definitively explain the differences due to its lack of proof and verification.^[6] However, importantly, regarding Paul’s authorial involvement, Richards explains: “Irrespective of any secretarial influence, the author assumed complete responsibility for the content, including subtle nuances.”^[7]

_____________________________

[1] Stanley E. Porter, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2016), 153.

[2] E. Randolph Richards, Secretary in the Letters of Paul (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 111–18.

[3] Ibid., 119–27.

[4] Ibid., 127.

[5] Porter, The Apostle Paul, 413.

[6] Ibid., 153–54.

[7] Richards, Secretary in the Letters of Paul, 127.

Bibliography

• Porter, Stanley E. The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2016.
• Richards, E. Randolph. Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991.