Epistle to the Alexandrians — Large Print

Introduction

Somewhere between the first and second centuries of the Common Era, a letter disappeared. Not in the dramatic fashion of a manuscript thrown into flames or a scroll cast into the sea, but in the quieter, more insidious way that dangerous ideas tend to vanish — through deliberate neglect, through the slow consensus of powerful men who decided that certain words should not be read, certain questions should not be asked, and certain communities should not be validated by the authority of an apostolic voice. The letter was addressed to the Christians of Alexandria. And for reasons that this book will explore in painstaking detail, it was almost certainly real.

The city of Alexandria in the first century was unlike any other place in the ancient Mediterranean world. It was a crucible — intellectually, religiously, and politically. Home to the greatest library humanity had yet assembled, it was a place where Jewish Platonists like Philo could reinterpret the Torah through the lens of Greek philosophy, where Egyptian mystery traditions rubbed shoulders with nascent Christian communities, and where the question of what it meant to follow Jesus of Nazareth was answered in a dozen competing, contradictory, and utterly fascinating ways. Alexandria was not a city that produced simple orthodoxy. It produced Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, allegorical scripture interpretation, and some of the most sophisticated theological minds the ancient world ever generated. It was, in short, exactly the kind of place that the emerging institutional Church would eventually find deeply threatening.

When the canon of the New Testament began to solidify — a process far more contested, political, and prolonged than most modern readers appreciate — Alexandria's theological contributions were treated with profound ambivalence. On one hand, the great Alexandrian teachers like Clement and Origen were foundational to Christian intellectual tradition. On the other hand, the city's appetite for heterodox speculation, its embrace of multiple gospels and epistles that would later be branded apocryphal, and its resistance to the kind of hierarchical episcopal authority that Rome was busy consolidating made it a complicated partner in the project of building a unified Church. The question this book asks — and it is a question with genuinely radical implications — is whether that ambivalence extended to the suppression of a genuine Pauline correspondence directed specifically to the Alexandrian community.

The reference exists. That is where we must begin, and it is the hook upon which the entire argument of this investigation hangs. In the Epistle to the Colossians, chapter four, verse sixteen, the author instructs his readers to exchange letters with the church at Laodicea, and to read 'the letter from Laodicea.' Scholars have long puzzled over this reference. A letter to Laodicea that was once in circulation but later excluded from the canon is already a remarkable fact — and indeed, a text purporting to be that letter has survived, though most scholars regard it as a later forgery, a clumsy pastiche of Pauline phrases assembled to fill a canonical gap. But the reference to Laodicea is not the only such anomaly. Ancient sources, ranging from fragmentary church catalogues to the marginal notations of early scribes, contain tantalizing hints of a correspondence with Alexandria that was known, circulated, and then — with unusual thoroughness — made to disappear.

This book is the story of that disappearance. It is also the story of what the letter might have contained, why it would have been suppressed, who had the motive and the means to erase it from the record, and what its existence — even as a ghost, even as an absence — tells us about the violent, beautiful, and deeply human process by which the Bible as we know it came to be. These are not abstract historical questions. They cut to the heart of how religious authority is constructed, how sacred texts are chosen and rejected, and how the winners of theological battles shape the spiritual imagination of billions of people for millennia to come.

It is worth pausing here to acknowledge what this book is not. It is not an attempt to debunk Christianity, to diminish the spiritual power of the canonical New Testament, or to suggest that the texts we have are somehow fraudulent in a simple or cynical sense. The history of the biblical canon is far more interesting than any such reductive argument would allow. What this book is, rather, is an attempt to take seriously the complexity of early Christian history — to sit with the discomfort of recognizing that the process of canon formation was political as well as spiritual, exclusionary as well as revelatory, and that the texts which did not make it into the final collection were not always excluded because they were worthless or obviously false. Sometimes they were excluded because they were dangerous. Sometimes because they empowered the wrong people. Sometimes because they asked questions that power has never been comfortable answering.

The scholarly apparatus behind this investigation is substantial. Drawing on decades of work in papyrology, early church history, textual criticism, and the archaeology of the ancient Mediterranean, the argument presented here synthesizes findings from across disciplines that do not always speak to one another. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi library, the Oxyrhynchus papyri, the writings of the early church fathers, the debates of the Council of Nicaea and its aftermath — all of these bear, in one way or another, on the question of what was once known, once read, once considered sacred, and then carefully forgotten. The reader does not need to be a biblical scholar to follow the argument. What the reader needs is curiosity, a willingness to sit with uncertainty, and an appetite for one of the greatest detective stories in the history of human civilization.

The Forger's Art and the Canon's Shadow

To understand why a letter to Alexandria might have been suppressed, one must first understand the remarkable and deeply uncomfortable fact that forgery was not an aberration in early Christian literary culture — it was, in a very real sense, one of its foundational practices. This is not a polemical claim designed to shock. It is the considered conclusion of the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars, who have spent generations carefully analyzing the linguistic patterns, theological concerns, historical anachronisms, and stylistic signatures of the texts that make up the Pauline corpus. The consensus that has emerged from this work is striking: of the thirteen letters in the New Testament attributed to Paul, perhaps seven can be defended as authentically his. The remaining six — including Ephesians, Colossians, and the three Pastoral Epistles — are, in the judgment of most critical scholars, pseudonymous compositions written in Paul's name by later authors seeking to claim his authority for their own theological agendas.

This is not a scandal, or at least it was not experienced as one in the ancient world. Pseudonymous writing was a recognized and widely practiced literary convention in antiquity. Students wrote in the voices of their teachers. Disciples extended the arguments of their masters into new contexts. Communities produced texts in the name of their founding figures as a way of asking what that figure would have said about problems he never lived to address. The practice was so common that the early church fathers themselves debated it, sometimes accepting pseudonymous texts and sometimes rejecting them — though their criteria for doing so were rarely the ones a modern historian would apply. What mattered to figures like Eusebius of Caesarea, who produced the first systematic account of the Christian canon in the fourth century, was not always historical authenticity in the modern sense. What mattered was whether a text agreed with the rule of faith as the emerging orthodox party defined it, whether it had been used in reputable churches, and whether it could be traced — however loosely — to apostolic origins.

The implications of this for our investigation are profound. If letters were being written in Paul's name throughout the late first and second centuries — and they demonstrably were — then the question of whether a letter to the Alexandrians was genuine or pseudonymous becomes almost secondary to the question of why it was excluded. A pseudonymous letter that supported the theological positions of the emerging orthodox consensus stood an excellent chance of being accepted, as the Pastoral Epistles demonstrate. A letter — whether genuinely Pauline or written in his name — that validated the theological experiments of Alexandria, that addressed the community's particular questions about the nature of Christ, the role of knowledge in salvation, the status of women in the church, or the relationship between Christian faith and Jewish law in ways that differed from the emerging Roman consensus, would have been a very different matter indeed.

The battle for the Pauline legacy was one of the defining conflicts of early Christianity. Paul was, paradoxically, both the great architect of what would become orthodox Christianity and the favorite apostle of many of its most radical opponents. Marcion, the second-century teacher whom the orthodox party branded a heretic, revered Paul above all other apostles and constructed a canon consisting almost entirely of edited Pauline letters and a truncated version of the Gospel of Luke. The Gnostic communities of Alexandria — those extraordinary, strange, and intellectually audacious groups who produced texts like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Apocryphon of John — also claimed Paul as a spiritual ancestor, reading his letters as coded transmissions of esoteric wisdom. When orthodox teachers like Irenaeus of Lyon and Tertullian of Carthage fought back against these interpretations, they did so in part by producing their own readings of Paul, their own versions of what the apostle really meant. The canon, in this context, was not a neutral archive. It was a weapon in an ongoing theological war.

Alexandria sat at the center of this war in ways that have not always been fully appreciated. The city's Christian community in the second century was extraordinarily diverse. We know from the writings of Clement of Alexandria, who taught there in the late second century, that the city harbored communities following teachers with names like Basilides, Valentinus, and Carpocrates — names that would later become synonymous with heresy in the orthodox catalogue, but who were, in their own time and place, serious and sophisticated interpreters of the Christian message. Valentinus, who may have been Egyptian by birth, actually spent time in Rome and came remarkably close to being elected bishop there. His theological system, with its elaborate account of divine emanations, its sophisticated Christology, and its insistence that salvation was a matter of knowledge rather than simply faith, was not some marginal curiosity. It was a major intellectual movement that commanded the allegiance of educated Christians across the Mediterranean world.

What would a letter addressed to this community have said? What questions would it have answered, what controversies would it have addressed, what aspects of Paul's thought would it have emphasized or de-emphasized? These are the questions that drive the investigative heart of this book. And while we cannot simply reconstruct the letter from nothing — the honest scholar must always resist the temptation to fill gaps with wishful thinking — we can triangulate. We can examine what we know of the Alexandrian community's concerns, what questions they were asking, what the letters we do have say and conspicuously do not say, and what the pattern of exclusion and inclusion in the emerging canon suggests about what was being suppressed and why. The picture that emerges is not comfortable. But it is, this author believes, closer to the truth than the sanitized account of canon formation that has been handed down through centuries of institutional Christianity.

There is also the matter of the church fathers' own testimony, which is more revealing than it is usually given credit for being. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, provides a catalogue of texts that were disputed, rejected, or of uncertain status — and his categories are themselves telling. He distinguishes between texts that were universally acknowledged, texts that were disputed but used by many, and texts that were spurious or heretical. What is striking about this catalogue is not just what it includes but what it omits. There are references, scattered across the patristic literature, to Pauline correspondence that does not fit neatly into any of these categories — texts that are mentioned once or twice and then never again, that appear in one manuscript tradition and not in others, that are cited by writers in Alexandria and Egypt but ignored or actively dismissed by writers in Rome and Antioch. The letter addressed to the Alexandrians, or something very much like it, appears in this peripheral zone of the historical record with just enough frequency to be tantalizing and just enough obscurity to have been almost entirely overlooked.

Reading What Was Never Meant to Be Read

There is a particular kind of historical vertigo that sets in when you begin to take seriously the possibility that something important has been deliberately removed from the record. It is different from the ordinary uncertainty of working with incomplete ancient sources, where texts have simply been lost to time, to fire, to the ordinary entropy of material culture. Deliberate suppression leaves different traces. It leaves the traces of itself — the overly emphatic denials, the suspicious silences, the references that are cut off mid-thought, the catalogues that list a text only to immediately dismiss it, the church councils that spend considerable energy condemning books that, if they were truly without influence or readership, would not have required condemnation at all. Learning to read these negative spaces is one of the central methodological challenges of this investigation, and it is a challenge that requires both rigorous historical discipline and a certain willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even into uncomfortable territory.

The Nag Hammadi discovery of 1945 transformed our understanding of early Christian diversity in ways that are still being fully absorbed. When an Egyptian farmer named Mohammed Ali al-Samman unearthed a sealed jar near the cliff face of Jabal al-Tarif, he found thirteen leather-bound codices containing fifty-two texts — texts that had been buried, almost certainly, to protect them from destruction during one of the periodic purges of heterodox literature that characterized the consolidation of orthodox Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries. These were not marginal documents. They were carefully produced, deliberately preserved, and clearly precious to the community that hid them. Among them were gospels, apocalypses, theological treatises, and letters — a library that demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Christianity of Egypt in the early centuries was vastly more varied, more experimental, and more intellectually adventurous than the orthodox tradition had ever acknowledged.

What the Nag Hammadi library did not contain, but what its existence makes more plausible, is a Pauline letter addressed specifically to Alexandria. The logic runs as follows: if the Egyptian Christian communities were preserving texts that the orthodox party had condemned, texts that they clearly considered authoritative and sacred, then it is entirely reasonable to suppose that they were also preserving — or had once preserved — correspondence that they believed connected them directly to the apostolic tradition. A letter from Paul to Alexandria would have been, for these communities, an extraordinarily precious document. It would have validated their existence, their theology, their particular way of being Christian. The fact that no such letter survived in the Nag Hammadi collection, or in any other cache of Egyptian Christian documents, is not conclusive evidence that it never existed. It may simply mean that the suppression was more thorough in this particular case — or that the cache containing it has not yet been found.

The papyrological evidence from Egypt is, in this regard, both encouraging and frustrating in equal measure. Egypt's dry climate has preserved an extraordinary wealth of ancient documents — personal letters, legal contracts, literary texts, and yes, early Christian manuscripts — that would have perished in virtually any other environment. The Oxyrhynchus papyri alone, discovered at the end of the nineteenth century at a site south of Cairo, have yielded fragments of texts that were previously unknown, including portions of gospels and epistles that do not appear in the canonical New Testament. The ongoing work of cataloguing, conserving, and interpreting these fragments continues to produce surprises. It is not a fantasy to suggest that among the tens of thousands of papyrus fragments that have yet to be fully analyzed, there may be pieces of a correspondence that was once considered too dangerous to preserve openly and too precious to destroy entirely.

Beyond the physical evidence, there is the question of what the letter's contents would have meant for the communities that read it — and what they would have meant for the communities that suppressed it. Alexandria was not just a geographical location. It was a theological idea. It represented a way of doing Christianity that was more philosophical, more mystical, more comfortable with ambiguity and paradox, more willing to engage with the intellectual traditions of the surrounding culture, and — critically — more inclined to distribute spiritual authority broadly rather than concentrating it in a hierarchical structure of bishops and presbyters. A Pauline letter that validated this approach, that spoke to the specific theological questions that Alexandrian Christians were wrestling with, would have been a powerful counter-argument to the increasingly monarchical model of church governance that was being promoted by Rome and its allies.

The question of women's roles in the early church is particularly relevant here, and it is one of the threads that this investigation follows with particular care. The canonical Pauline letters contain a remarkable contradiction on this subject. In Galatians, Paul declares that in Christ there is neither male nor female. In his genuine letters, he greets women as co-workers, apostles, and leaders of house churches. But in the letters that scholars now widely regard as pseudonymous — particularly the Pastoral Epistles — women are told to be silent, to learn in submission, to exercise no authority over men. This contradiction is not accidental. It reflects the theological politics of the late first and second centuries, when the question of women's leadership in the church was actively contested, and when the pseudonymous letters in Paul's name were being used to settle that contest in favor of the more restrictive position. An authentic Pauline letter to Alexandria — or even a pseudonymous one that reflected Alexandrian values — might well have taken a very different position, one more consistent with the egalitarian impulses visible in Paul's genuine correspondence.

This is, of course, speculative. All reconstruction of lost texts is, to some degree, speculative. The discipline lies in keeping speculation tethered to evidence, in being transparent about what is known, what is inferred, and what is imagined, and in following the logic of the argument wherever it leads without forcing it to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. The pages that follow attempt to honor that discipline at every turn. Where the evidence is strong, the argument is stated with confidence. Where it is suggestive but not conclusive, that is acknowledged. Where we are in the realm of informed speculation, the reader is told so explicitly. The goal is not to construct a false certainty but to map the genuine uncertainty with as much precision as the available evidence allows.

What makes this investigation ultimately more than an academic exercise — what gives it the urgency and the human weight that the author hopes the reader will feel on every page — is the recognition that the stakes were not merely theological. They were existential, in the most literal sense. The communities whose texts were suppressed, whose leaders were condemned, whose ways of being Christian were branded as heretical and dangerous, did not simply lose a debate. They were persecuted. Their books were burned. Their teachers were driven into exile or executed. Their communities were scattered and ultimately destroyed. The letter to the Alexandrians, if it existed, was not suppressed because someone found it boring or irrelevant. It was suppressed because it mattered — because it gave voice and validation to a community that the emerging orthodox consensus had decided must be silenced. Understanding why that community was silenced, and what it believed, and what it might have read in a letter that was meant for its eyes alone, is not just an exercise in historical curiosity. It is an act of recovery. It is an attempt to hear, across seventeen centuries of deliberate silence, a voice that was never supposed to reach us.

Chapter 1

Letter to the Alexandrians

A Modern Version Updated for Today's Reader

Copyright © 2025

All rights are reserved.

Letter to the Alexandrians

Constantine Augustus, to the universal church in Alexandria.

Hello, my dear brothers! We have received a wonderful blessing from God: we have been freed from all mistakes and brought together to share the one true faith. The devil will no longer have any power against us, because all the evil plans he made to destroy us have been completely ruined. By God's command, the power of truth has gotten rid of everything that was poisoning our unity, like arguments, divisions, and conflicts. We all now worship the one true God, and we all believe he is the only God.

To make all this happen, God called me to gather many bishops in the city of Nicaea, and I joined them to search for the truth, even though I am just one of you and am very happy to be your fellow servant. We discussed and carefully examined any issues that were unclear or could cause arguments. May God forgive the many terrible things that some people were shamelessly saying against our powerful Savior, our life and hope, when they declared and believed things that go against the holy Scriptures.

More than 300 bishops, who were known for being calm and smart, all agreed on one single faith that matches the truths of God's Law. Only Arius was tricked by the devil, and he was the only one who wanted to spread this evil trouble, first to you, and then to other people too.

So, let's accept the teaching that God has given us. Let's go back to our dear brothers, who we were separated from by a disrespectful servant of the devil. Let's be excited to reunite as one group with our fellow members. With your wisdom, faith, and holiness, it is right for you to return to God's good graces, because it's clear that this mistake was caused by a man who is an enemy of the truth.

This ruling, agreed upon by 300 bishops, must be the teaching of God, especially since the Holy Spirit has revealed God's will to the minds of so many honorable people. So, no one should hesitate or wait, but everyone should quickly get back on the right path, so that when I come to you (which will be very soon), we can thank God together, who sees everything, for showing us the true faith and for giving you back the love you prayed for. May God protect you, dear brothers.