Paul’s Envoys and Letter Carriers – Part 1

As one who is interested in placing Paul in his historical context, I am especially interested in letter writing. One important aspect of letter writing that is often overlooked is the role of the individuals who delivered Paul’s letters. This series of posts will examine these individuals and the role they played in Paul’s communication.

In this post I will examine an important article by Margaret Mitchell, “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus.” In this work Mitchell examines the role of Timothy and Titus as envoys who would have carried with them the authority of Paul. She is especially interested in refuting Funk’s claim that Paul considered letters and envoys poor substitutes for his own physical presence. Mitchell rightfully claims that in Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians, Paul is aware that at certain points a letter (2 Cor 2:4) or envoy (2 Cor 7:5-16) would be more effective than his personal presence. Thus, Mitchell seemingly refutes Funk’s claim that Paul thought his presence was always the best solution and that a letter or envoy were only used when he was not able to personally visit a community.

Mitchell continues by examining the role of envoys in the ancient world and applying this information to Paul’s co-workers, Timothy and Titus. Mitchell provides extensive evidence which demonstrates that an envoy served a dual purpose of both transmitting information from sender to receiver and then carrying information from the receiver back to the sender. There are many passages in which Paul states that he either sent or will be sending Timothy or Titus to a community. However, there are also two noteworthy passages which state that Timothy (1 Thess 3:6-10) and Titus (2 Cor 7:5-16) have returned to Paul with information from the community. In addition to bringing Paul messages from communities, his envoys would also bring back information which they gleaned from their own experiences with the community. Mitchell highlights the importance of this role with a thought provoking statement, “… Timothy and Titus … decided just what to tell Paul upon their return with messages from the church!” (654) This is certainly an intriguing and correct statement, Paul’s knowledge about many of his communities was filtered through his envoys.

In addition to simply bringing messages, Mitchell demonstrates that it was expected that envoys would represent the one who sent them and be treated as such. As a representative of the sender it would also be expected that the envoy would transmit information not contained in the letter. This concept is especially interesting and important for my work. The implication seems to be that as Paul’s envoys, they could answer any follow up questions a community might have concerning the letter they received from Paul. Additionally, the envoys would have probably brought extra information not contained in the letters. I will address in my next posting what some of this information might have been. Mitchell’s work certainly opens many interesting avenues for studying Paul’s letters.

My next post will focus on letter carriers and additional roles they may have had in Paul’s communication process.

Mitchell, Margaret M. “New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus.” JBL 111 (1992): 641-662.

Advertisements

Patrick George McCullough Says:

May 8, 2009 at 8:41 pm

Thanks, Kevin. That’s some sweet stuff. Now you’re getting into the meat and potatoes of your interests. I look forward to reading more!

Richard Fellows Says:

May 8, 2009 at 9:59 pm

Kevin, three things:

Take a look at Peter Head’s recent JSNT article if you have not already done so.

In 2 Corinthians Paul says that Titus had said good things about the Corinthians. He then puts most of his severe material in the last four chapters. I wonder if this is to preserve the reputation of Titus as a faithful envoy of the Corinthians to Paul. Does Paul put his severe material in chapters 10-13 so as not to make it obvious that Titus was the source of the unflattering information upon which it is based? Titus was being sent back to Corinth so it was important that Titus stay on good terms with the Corinthians. Paul would not want to give the impression that Titus had maligned them. Just an idea. Perhaps it has been made before.

I discuss Titus-Timothy extensively here: http://members.shaw.ca/rfellows/Site/index.html

It will re-read Mitchell and follow your discussion.

kevinscull Says:

May 10, 2009 at 12:49 am

Richard,

Thank you for the heads up concerning Peter Head’s article I will definitely read it.

As far as your theory on Titus is concerned, it is definitely an interesting thought. Titus and Timothy certainly played important roles for Paul. However, I am not sure your theory is enough to overwhelm the other concerns over 10-13, most notably the reaction the Corinthians might have had at Paul’s sudden change in tone. Especially coming immediately after Paul’s request that they donate money to his collection.

May 10, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Kevin,

doesn’t the collection actually support my suggestion. Titus, not Paul, was the collection organizer in Corinth. He had begun the collection there (2 Cor 8:6) and was to bring it to completion. The collection, I believe, was a repeat of another collection that had taken place 7 years earlier after the Jerusalem church leaders asked Titus, Barnabas, and Paul to “remember the poor” (Gal 2:1-10). Furthermore, if, as I believe, Timothy was Titus renamed, then Titus would deliver the collection to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4). So, for the sake of the collection, Paul will have wanted Titus to remain on good terms with the Corinthians. This could explain why Paul’s harsh words are segregated to chapters 10-13, which occur after Paul has dealt with the information that had clearly come from Titus. In 1 Corinthians Paul deals with information from Corinth in the order that he received it. It would also explain why chapters 10-13 use exclusively the first person singular: Paul wishes to distance Titus from his harsh words. This argument works particularly well if Titus was Timothy. Timothy is a co-sender and is therefore associated with much of chapters 1-9, so the segregation of the severe material to chapters 10-13 and the switch to the first person singular was necessary to avoid jeopardizing the collection. It seems to me that Paul and Titus-Timothy are playing good cop bad cop in 2 Corinthians. Paul says the harsh words, while Titus takes their money. No?

May 12, 2009 at 9:41 pm

It occurs to me that Paul opens his severe section of the letter (chapters 10-13) with the words, “I myself, Paul”. Surely he is here making it clear that he is writing alone. Titus (who was also known as “Timothy”) was a co-sender of the letter. Therefore it was necessary for Paul to indicate that his severe words were his alone, for he wanted to spare Titus from any backlash because Titus was being sent to collect money from them.