Publication | The Epistles for All Christians

David A.Smith, The Epistles for All Christians: Epistolary Literature, Circulation, and The Gospels for All Christians. BIS 186. Leiden: Brill, 2020.

Modern practices of circulation involve the identification of the target audience(s) in the proposal phase, advanced marketing, and in some cases, press tours. The book is sent to bookstores around the world and sold online in an attempt to circulate the book as widely as possible, to make as much money for the publisher as possible. Ancient circulation happened along very different lines. How did the Gospels circulate? Is there any way to determine how they might have or what the evangelists expected for their circulation? This was the question I sought to answer. During my Masters’ degree, I read J. Louis Martyn’s History and Theology of the Fourth Gospel and Richard Bauckham’s edited volume, The Gospels for All Christians (henceforth GAC). Although struck by Bauckham’s non-community reading of the Gospels, I couldn’t escape a nagging problem in my mind. As Richard Burridge observes, there is no external evidence for Gospel communities.[1] At first, framed as a problem, I questioned how 1–3 John fit within a non-community reading. The question expanded. How do letters more generally fit into the GAC theory? Letters are mentioned by both Bauckham and Burridge, but frequently written off because “Gospels are not epistles.” I was convinced letters had something more to contribute to the conversation than serving as a foil.

Debate concerning GAC often revolved around the interpretive benefits of (or lack thereof) of reading Gospels through the lens of a community. Rarely did anyone discuss the contention of GAC that the Gospels were meant to circulate around all the churches.[2] Even as texts, such as non-canonical gospels and Greco-Roman association bylaws were introduced to the discussion, epistolary literature was still not considered. Here, epistolary literature could fit into the discussion. Gospels do not reveal their intended audiences, or how widely they were expected to circulate. Letters do. We know, moreover, that both Gospels and letters circulated beyond their initial locales.

In my book, which is a revision of my PhD Dissertation, I argue that many early Christian authors expected their letters to circulate to multiple locales. Some expected them to circulate to all Christians. In light of these observations, if both Gospels and letters did circulate and if letter authors expected their texts to circulate to multiple locales, what did the gospel writers expect? Surely, they also expected their texts to circulate.

In the first chapter, I review the arguments of GAC and the responses to it. I also present my arguments for adding epistles. Included in that is the question that drove my dissertation. What about the Johannine letters? For Bauckham, letters are addressed to a limited group while the Gospels are addressed to anyone who can read them. This is a generic distinction given significant weight. However, no Johannine scholar prior to Bauckham (and none since) made such a hard and fast distinction. A small number of scholars from the early twentieth century even made similar observations about 1 Peter and Mark, suggesting they were circulated to similarly large audiences.[3] Thus, these scholars see letters as informing also the circulation of Gospels. These observations form the base of my case that there is some scholarly warrant for thinking that Gospels and letters might have similar expectations. In the course of examining the reactions to GAC, it also became clear that response to the volume often corresponded to how one viewed early Christian communities as connected – or disconnected. Many, most notably Philip Esler and David Sim, viewed early Christian communities as distinct and isolated from one another.[4] For example, Sim cites the “division within the ranks of early Christians,” as evidence as to why Paul should not be viewed analogously to the Evangelists.[5]

Using insights drawn from social network theory, I suggest that while there were distinct early Christian groups it would be a mistake to view them as isolated from one another. The conflicts that arose as groups encountered one another reveal connection; if they were not connected, conflict would be impossible. Further, social network theorists argue that to view everyone in a community as connected to that community equally does not account for how humans actually interact in community.[6] For example, some people might be more or less committed to the group. For example, Esler says, “It is difficult to see how such alterations by Matthew could not have some connection with his local community, whether he was attacking his community's practice of mixed table-fellowship, or seeking to confirm their opposition to it.”[7] Social network theory would question the monolithic outlook that Esler puts forward here about the community’s unified mixed-table fellowship or lack thereof. Social network theory is also interested in how things (ideas, news, etc.) flow. For my purposes, this is focused on texts. How do texts flow?

Social Network theorists suggest those placed in a similar position act similarly not because of shared attributes or skills but because of external constraints.[8] In the ancient world, the constraint on authors was the lack of control they had over their texts. For example, Pliny, a near contemporary, of New Testament authors, says to Octavius, “Suffer them [your poems], I entreat you, to come abroad, and to be admired . . . Some few poems of yours have already, contrary to your inclinations indeed, broke their prison and escaped to light” (Ep. 2.10). Some poems, as Pliny notes, are already circulating beyond what Octavius wanted. A host of ancient authors, including Christian authors, attest this lack of control. Before turning to the lack of control, I thought it was important to note what circulation early Christian authors did expect.

In the second chapter, I begin to investigate the expected audiences in early Christian literature, arguing that many early Christian authors expected their texts to circulate to multiple locales. I argue that Paul expected Galatians and 2 Corinthians to circulate around the provinces of Galatia (Gal. 1:2) and Achaia (2 Cor. 1:1), and that Paul or one of his followers expected Colossians to be read in Laodicea and Corinth (Col. 1:2; 4:16). The author of 1 Peter expected that letter to be read in various communities in the provinces listed in 1 Pet. 1:1. Against the counterpoint that such evidence reveals that these authors might intend circulation to multiple locales nevertheless within their “communities,” I argue that the letters of Paul do not suggest communities of solely Pauline Christians (i.e. holding to only Paul’s proclamation of the Gospel), but communities of people proclaiming various articulations of the gospel (e.g. Gal. 1:6). Other letters also suggest multiple Christian groups in the same locales (1 Jn. 2:18–19; 2 Jn. 7, 9–10; Jude 4, 12). Thus, we should not think that only “Pauline” Christians or “Petrine” Christians read these letters. Similar evidence for multiple addressed communities occurs in the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:23-29, the seven letters of Revelation 2-3, and in the non-epistolary Shepherd of Hermas. In the period before, during, and after the writing of the Gospels, therefore, many early Christian authors expected their texts to circulate to multiple locales. It is likely the gospel writers expected this as well.

The third chapter explores how early Christian texts circulated in the ancient world, examining material and textual evidence of collection and editing. In practice, therefore, it seems that Christians did not view gospels and letters as calling for different circulation. Moreover, in several instances, anticipated circulation and actual circulation matched. This can be seen in the Martyrdom of Polycarp in the final colophons (Mart. Pol. 22.2), as well as the Shepherd of Hermas in the manuscript remains in Egypt (e.g. P.Oxy. 404; P.Oxy. 1828). The evidence that many early Christian authors expected circulation to multiple locales combined with evidence that early Christians in practice circulated texts beyond their initial audiences suggest that it was likely the gospel writers expected similarly wide circulation. How might that have happened?

The fourth chapter attempts answer that question. In it, I discuss the social networks of various early Christian groups, since ancient circulation of text occurred primarily through social networks. Paul’s social network is easiest to model, since he discusses individuals with whom he interacts in his letters, and since canonical Acts offers still more evidence. I also discuss the potential for a wide Jewish Christian network in light of the Jewish network available as a result of diaspora Judaism, and the network available in provincial Asia Minor from Paul to Polycarp.[9]

Diaspora Jews were connected to Jerusalem through a variety of means, but chief among them were festivals, the temple tax, an extensive communication network.[10] Josephus, for example, claims that three million (J.W. 2.14.3) 2.7 million (J.W. 6.9.3) people were in Jerusalem for two Passovers. While these numbers are undoubtedly exaggerated, they confirm a general image from Acts and Philo that people from every corner of the Roman Empire and beyond came to Jerusalem for festivals.[11] The temple tax also regularly brought Diasporan Jews to Jerusalem. Josephus and Philo both refer to those who carried the tax to the temple.[12] A number of letters reflect the ability (real or imagined) of connections between Jerusalem and Diasporan communities.[13] It is likely that the earliest Christians made use of these connections to circulate literature. The connections in Asia also show a similarly high degree of connectivity, as evidenced by the letters of Paul, Colossians, the seven letters of Revelation 2-3, and the short recensions of the correspondence of Ignatius of Antioch. Thus, there were a host of connections that could have facilitated the circulation of both gospels and letters in early Christianity to multiple Christian groups

This thesis has several implications going forward. First, anyone wishing to argue that a gospel was composed for a specific community would have to make a case for such a scenario. Our evidence about circulated texts suggests that writing a gospel only for a specific community or that it would only reach like minded Christians would be out of place. Second, rarely Christian groups should not be viewed as isolated or theologically distinct. Various groups turn up in the same locales over and over in early Christian literature. Third, the idea that early Christians were singularly and equally committed to their group needs to be seriously rethought in light of the observations made by social network theorists.

[1] Richard A. Burridge, “About People, by People, for People,” in Gospels, ed. Richard Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 133.

[2] The closest discussion is in Philip F. Esler, “Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Gospels for All Christians,” Scottish Journal of Theology 51/2 (1998): 242–3, where he says that the Matthew and Mark were composed with their respective communities in view, but hoped they would circulate more widely and supplant others. But this is only approximately a page of text. It is not an extended discussion.

[3] Benjamin Wisner Bacon, The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate (New York: Moffat, Yard & Co., 1910), 185; Johannes Schattenmann, “The Little Apocalypse of the Synoptics and the First Epistle of Peter,” Theology Today 11/2 (1954): 196.

[4] Esler, “Community and Gospel,” 235–248; David C. Sim, “The Gospels for All Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 84 (2001): 3–27.

[5] Sim, “The Gospels for All Christians,” 11.

[6] See, for example, Sim, “The Gospel for All Christians?” 10.

[7] Esler, “Community and Gospel in Early Christianity,” 243.

[8] Alexandra Marin and Barry Wellman’s “An Introduction” in The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis offers a helpful, brief introduction to social network theory.

[9] John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 399–442.

[10] Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 415, 417, 419, 423.

[11] Acts 2:5, 8–11; Spec. 1.69, respectively.

[12] Philo, Legat. 156; Spec. 1.78; Josephus, Ant. 18.91.1

[13] Jer. 29:1–28, 31–32; 4 Bar. 6:19–25; 7:24–34; 2 Bar. 78–86; 4Q550 frg. 1; 4QMMT; 2 Macc. 1:1–10a, 10b–2:18; Esther 9:20; Acts 9:2; y. Hag. 2:2, 77D

David A. Smith is Lecturer in Bible and Theology at Johnson University.