dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 293
the conflict prompting the letter’s composition.7 the adscriptio is similar
to gal 1:2 (ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας), in that there are no expansions
describing the recipients, but is strikingly distinct. Most importantly, the
recipients are called “brethren” (fratibus) in laodiceans whereas in gal-
atians the recipients are simply “the assemblies” (ταῖς ἐκκληίαις). With
the use of fictive kinship language, laodiceans establishes a positive rela-
tionship between the sender and recipients.8 In galatians, the familial
language is limited to Paul’s co-workers in the superscriptio, thereby high-
lighting Paul’s indignation with the galatian Christians and his consolida-
tion with the universal Christian church (“all the brethren with me”). this
confrontational tone is completely lacking in laodiceans.
the lack of expansions in describing the recipients reinforces Ps.-Paul’s
authority, while shifting the discursive positioning of the recipients to the
thanksgiving period (laod. 3).
the misbalance between superscriptio and adscriptio in laodiceans,
therefore, adds emphasis to Paul’s apostolic authority, and thus the
authority of the actual letter writer, while shifting the discursive position-
ing of the recipients to the thanksgiving period, which, unlike galatians’
condemnation (gal 1:6), is a positive positioning of the recipients (laod
3, see below). furthermore, the salutatio (laod 2), which deviates from
the apologetic tone in galatians, serves to offer a Christianized greeting
element, as a blessing, that reinforces the mutual ideological connection
of the writer and recipients.9 It is this shared foundation upon which the
thanksgiving period is subsequently offered.
7 I am not, however, suggesting that we can reconstruct the claims of the false teach-
ers in laodicea. such a move would be a clear instance of mirror reading, an interpretive
method that has been correctly called into question in Pauline studies (see, for example,
george lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding [sBlds 73; atlanta:
scholars, 1985] and Jerry l. sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method
in 2 Corinthians [Jsntsup 40; sheffield: sheffield academic Press, 1990]). rather, I am
focusing on the discursive texture of this letter, where rhetorical moves are made to posi-
tion “players” within the context of the rhetorical situation embodied within the letter.
Indeed, given the pseudonymity of laodiceans, any attempt at mirror reading would be
even more methodologically flawed than when applied to an undisputed letter.
8 on the importance of fictive kinship language in the Pauline traditions, see reider aas-
gaard, ‘My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!’ Christian Siblingship in Paul (early Christianity in
Context; london: Continuum, 2004), 306–307. see also the excellent discussion in Philip a.
harland, “familial dimensions of group Identity: ‘Brothers’ (ΑΔΕΛΦΟΙ) in associations of
the greek east,” JBL 124 (2005): 491–513.
9 Contra Magee, “exalted apostle,” 124–26, who merely asserts that laodiceans lifts
the prescript from galatians. Magee fails to recognize any redactional activity on the part
of Ps.-Paul (beyond a brief refutation of harnack’s Marcionite reading). Magee sees no
reason for the pseudepigraphic author to assert Paul’s authority, as is done in galatians