292 philip l. tite
purposeful structure and articulates a clear rhetorical situation, albeit a
fictional one.5 laodiceans deserves to be situated in the stream of Pau-
line tradition, a work that was impactful upon second-century Christian-
ity. My study will walk through the epistolary units comprising the letter,
elucidating discursive aspects of the letter as these units build upon
each other.
Prescript
the prescript opens with the standard “a to B, greeting” formula (laod
1–2), with the superscriptio likely drawn from galatians (1:1–2).6 as I have
argued in my work on the Pauline prescript, these formulaic elements are
modified through expansions in order to discursively establish the rela-
tional tone between letter writer and recipient. In laodiceans, we find
such discursive moves, specifically in stressing Ps.-Paul’s apostleship, yet
dropping the general reference to co-workers in galatians. this prescript
establishes the implied author’s credentials, while distinguishing his true
apostleship from other teachers; thus the prescript effectively underscores
5 to my knowledge, the only other scholar to articulate an interest in laodiceans
without dismissing it or only finding derivative value in it is richard I. Pervo, The Mak-
ing of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (Minneapolis: fortress, 2010),
105–109. Cf. lewis r. donelson, Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epis-
tles (tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul siebeck], 1986), 42–43. Pervo has a very similar reading
of laodiceans to mine, though our research projects are independent of each other. While
he recognizes the epistolary logic of the letter and highlights the hortatory qualities of the
letter, Pervo’s treatment is very brief, couched within a larger introductory analysis of the
Pauline tradition. that fact that two scholars have respectively arrived at similar findings
on this neglected letter helps to reinforce our work and hopefully bodes well for future
scholarship on laodiceans.
6 for a thorough analysis of ancient letter prescripts within the Pauline collection,
including their discursive function, see Philip l. tite, “how to Begin, and Why? diverse
functions of the Pauline Prescript within a greco-roman Context,” in stanley e. Porter
and sean a. adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form (Past 6; leiden: Brill, 2010),
57–99. I will be drawing upon my previous work on the Pauline prescript here. see also
tite, “the Compositional function of the Petrine Prescript: a look at 1 Pet 1:1–3,” JETS 39
(1996): 47–56; tite, Compositional Transitions in 1 Peter: An Analysis of the Letter-Opening
(san francisco: International scholars Publications, 1997); sean a. adams, “Paul’s letter
opening and greek epistolography: a Matter of relationship,” in Porter and adams (eds.),
Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, 33–55; and francis Xavier J. exler, A Study in Greek Epis-
tolography: The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter (Washington, d.C.: Catholic university of
america, 1923), 23. see also the discussion of the ancient letter in John l. White, “new tes-
tament epistolary literature in the framework of ancient epistolography,” ANRW 2.25.2
(1984): 1730–56, especially 1733–38 on opening and closing formulas; White, The Form and
Function of the Greek Letter (sBlds 2; Missoula, Mt: scholars, 1972).