Within Biblical scholarship, there have been a limited number of studies which examine ancient literacy and education in relation to the production of the Deutero-Pauline letters. When such topics are addressed together, the discussions rarely go beyond some generalities, and this article seeks to partly address that gap. Literacy rates in the Greco-Roman world, of which the earliest Christians were a part, are universally agreed to be significantly lower than modern literacy rates, with most estimates being between 5 and 15%. This fact, coupled with the limited number of Christians by the end of the first and the beginning of the second century CE, should be taken more seriously when considering how the Deutero-Pauline literature came to be produced and, eventually, circulate with other authentic Pauline letters. In short, this article will argue that when the realities of the educational landscape of the New Testament world are taken in conjunction with what we know about textual production, early Christian communities and leadership structures, there is a plausible argument to be made that those who were responsible for at least some of the Deutero-Pauline letters may be hiding in plain sight.

In modern scholarship, Paul’s letter to Philemon, which is considered to be one of the letters that virtually all scholars agree was written by Paul, has not been subjected to the same standards of historical inquiry compared to the ‘disputed’ letters of Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians and the Pastoral Epistles). This has led to double standards in how scholars treat the historical provenance of Philemon, as well as the question of Philemon’s authorship. The following article will serve to raise some important questions regarding the historical backdrop of the epistle that many scholars have been content to theorize about without much scrutiny, mainly because of the unquestioned assumption of Pauline authorship. In doing so, the hope is that this article can surface some double standards in how scholars treat Philemon compared to the other Pauline epistles and provide a fresh viewpoint in critical discussion of Philemon’s provenance and place in the Christian canon.