Review of Nicholas A. Elder's "Gospel Media"

I recently reviewed Nicholas Elder's new book "Gospel Media: Reading, Writing, and Circulating Jesus Traditions" (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2024). I reviewed the book for the Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics.

Scribal Memory and Textual Fluidity in Copying Christian Texts

Marble Relief of a Scribe from Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus (ca. 2nd cen. BCE)

Istvan Czachesz, "Rewriting and Textual Fluidity in Antiquity: Exploring the Sociocultural and Psychological Context of Earliest Christian Literacy" in Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity (Leiden: Brill, 2010); 425-441.

I was recently reading the article by Czachesz, referenced above, that engages with early Christian scribal practices from the perspective of modern studies on memory. I came across a lengthy quote that intersected with my own research interests.

"With no institution existing to safeguard the faithful reproduction of religious literature, the fate of books in the ‘religions of the book’ was not very different from the fate of ancient books in general. Not all texts were, however, equally fluid. A book with very large circulation and high authority was arguably more resistant to modifications. If a text was relatively accessible and well known among the educated, like Homer in Graeco-Roman culture, alterations to it were more easily spotted and less likely to be accepted as original than changes made to less well- known texts. In this case, a rewritten text could be identified as a new literary work, dependent on a well-known, authoritative text as its source. In contrast, the random distribution and small circulation of less well- known works, or of new works aſter their release, made them especially vulnerable to changes. In such cases, it was oſten impossible to know that the text at hand existed in multiple versions or to identify the authoritative version." (Czachesz, pg. 431)

I do generally agree with Czachesz's observations here, that in the first century "A book with very large circulation and high authority was arguably more resistant to modifications." I only disagree in that a work that had a narrower circulation would also be resistant to textual change for exactly the same reasons as a more popular work. The difference being that a smaller group that circulated a less popular text may have greater success in getting the collaboration of everyone involved in order to alter that text. It would still require the agreement of all those circulating and engaging with the text in question for significant alterations to a text to take effect. I discuss this and other issues in my article,

Timothy Mitchell, "Exposing Textual Corruption: Community as a Stabilizing Aspect in the Circulation of the New Testament Writings during the Greco-Roman Era" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43.2 (2020): 266-298.

How Can We Say the Bible is Inerrant in the Originals (autographs)?

A friend notified me of a recent episode of "The Breifing" by Albert Mohler where he addresses a question sent to him by a listener. You can hear the question and Mohler's response at the following link.

This isn't the exact wording of the question, but it went something like this.

"How can we say that the Bible we have is inerrant only in the originals? If our translations today could have small errors over time, can we really say that the Bible is perfect?"

The questioner indicated that this issue was causing him to doubt his faith. This really struck a cord with me because this is a very similar problem that drove me into studying New Testament textual criticism. Unfortunately I was a little disappointed by Mohler's response, which sounded more like a dodge to me. With that said, his answer was honest and transparent about the limitations of his own knowledge of the topic.

I wanted to briefly address this question, though a full throated response would necessitate a book.

There is a theological problem that is revealed by the way the question is worded. The concept of divine preservation is confused and lumped in with divine inspiration, and thus, inerrancy and these two theological ideas must be understood as two different events.

Divine Inspiration of Scripture:

Inspiration was a one time event that occured through the apostles and prophets as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21). Paul told Timothy that all scripture (γραφη) is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Because Peter mentions words that were spoken and Paul uses the term γραφη, inspiration must therefore be limited to certain people (apostles and prophets) at an appointed time (while speaking or when writing) and limited to specific words (being spoken and or written). These scriptural references also reveal that there was a divine confluence in this event, the Holy Spirit worked through men who spoke or wrote. 

Because God is the one who moved the men to write, then it must mean that there is no untruthfulness or mistakes in what was conveyed through these men (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18). However, because men of a certain age and culture were moved to speak and write, then actual human languages, couched within specific cultures and countries were employed (Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek).Once the inspiration event was over, the documents were released for copying, circulation, and dispatched to Churches (in the case of the epistles), then the inspiration event was over.

Preservation of Scripture through Fallible Human Agency:

Now ordinary men were given charge over copying and distributing God's word. In Deuteronomy 17:18, the King is charged with making a copy of God's Law, and the priests are charged with keeping master copies. Yet they failed in their tasks, the kings failed to follow God's commands and the priests lost track of the copies of the law (Hosea 4:6, 2 King's 22:8-10). In the New Testament, men are entrusted to spread the Gospel (Matthew 28:19-20), this involved copying out the scriptures to be distributed (Colossians 4:16). Yet, even then, the apostolic message was twisted, which is what happened in the case of Paul's letters (2 Peter 3:15-16). Already within one hundreds years of the time of the apostles errors had found their way into copies of the scriptures that were circulating. Irenaeus (180 CE), in his Against Heresies, 5.30.1., mentions that some copies of Revelation had the mark of the beast as 616 rather than 666.

Finally, another problem with the way the original question was worded was that it confused the wording of the inspired autographs or "originals" with a physical object. It must be understood that it is the wording, the text that was inspired not a physical document (such as papyrus, or parchment). As long as the wording is faithfully transcribed, then the copy is also inspired. Because fallible men have been entrusted with transcribing and transmitting the scriptures, however, there are imperfections in the extant copies. This means that our access through our imperfect manuscripts to inerrant inspiration has some limitations. These textual variations in the manuscripts are human errors of transcription, not errors of inspiration. Though our access to God's inerrant word has some limitation, our access is sufficient for knowing and understanding the message of salvation.

_________________________

For a transcript of "The Breifing" go to the following link, under "Part II".

For a fuller treatment of these topics, see my two articles below.

"What are the NT Autographs? An Examination of the Doctrine of Inspiration and Inerrancy in Light of Greco-Roman Publication." JETS 59/2 (June 2016): 287-308.

Where Inspiration is Found: Putting the New Testament Autographs in Context,” in Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 24.3 (Fall 2020): 83-101.

[EDIT: I want to also recommend this excellent volume that addresses a lot of the issues that the questioner is facing.

https://www.amazon.com/Enduring-Authority-Christian-Scriptures/dp/0802865763]

Some Observations on Orthography and the Π Group

A Shelf in the Old Library at Magdalen College, Oxford

After having completed my dissertation for some months, and with it now recently being made available online, I have had time to reflect back on some of the conclusions of the years of study. After transcribing all of the witnesses to be included in the examinations, I had to regularize those readings that were not genealogically significant, which means tagging these readings to be ignored by the collation software. Chapter 3 of the dissertation covers in detail the entire process (Mitchell, Family Π in the Gospel of Mark, pp. 71-102). I noticed that many of the regularizations were spelling differences involving the substitution of similarly sounding vowels or the omission of the same letter in a word containing a double consonant (i.e. λλ). Tables 3.1 through 3.6 in Chapter 3 list out the number of orthographic variations (pp. 91-98). It seems to me that those who used these manuscripts were comfortable with variations in spelling as long as the words sounded the same when pronounced while being read out. Because so many of these manuscripts were prepared and used for lectionary readings, this may be a byproduct of this type of environment. I conclude that

"[this] may reflect a more utilitarian attitude of the scribe who may have cared more for function rather than perfection. That is, as long as orthography did not impede the transmission of meaning, then it did not impede its usefulness." (Mitchell, Family Π in the Gospel of Mark, p. 102)

Most of these manuscripts reflect late antique or medieval attitudes towards the copying of texts, so it may not be applicable to earlier centuries. With that said, I wonder how much of the modern textual critic's approach to errors in the text related to spelling are actually anachronistic to some degree. It makes me wonder how many more variations, especially those that hardly affect meaning, such as transpositions or word substitutions with a synonym that have a large semantic overlap, would have been considered an acceptable byproduct of hand copying. For those who created and used these manuscripts, the vast majority of these types of variations would likely not have been considered "errors" as we see them today, which can be the cause of many modern day apologetic, epistemological, and theological crises.

Timothy N. Mitchell, "Family Π in the Gospel of Mark" Now Availabile

I was just informed that the PDF version of my PhD dissertation and it's accompanying data are now available freely on the University of Birmingham's Ethesis Repository. The PDF of the dissertation is available at the following link.

https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/13692/

I won't re-post the abstract as it can be read at the above link. The summary of my findings are these;

1) The so-called Family Π is actually a group because the manuscripts do not originate from a lost archetype.

2) The origin of the Π Group readings are that they arose as a result of copying from commentary manuscripts (catenae). The scholia acting on the text reintroduced Π Group readings into the text throughout the centuries.

3) As Π Group manuscripts were copied, the text was standardized through a process of the copyists conforming the text to the readings they were used to hearing during their lectional readings.

If you do not want to read the entire thesis, I recommend reading Chapter 1 as it will give a really good backdrop to the study. Then read the concluding summaries of Chapters 2 and 3. Read all of Chapter 4 as this chapter  contains the core arguments of the thesis. Skip Chapter 5 as it contains a long list of group readings obtained from the collation. Finally, read all of Chapter 6 as it discusses the arguments surrounding the origin of the Π Group.

The accompanying data can be found at the following links.

Accompanying data for "A Collation of Family Π in Mark" https://doi.org/10.25500/edata.bham.00000983

A Collation of Family Π in Mark [Online Edition] https://purl.org/itsee/mitchell

A positive apparatus of Family Π in Mark https://epapers.bham.ac.uk/4289

Transcriptions of 27 Manuscripts of the Gospel according to Mark https://epapers.bham.ac.uk/4290

[EDIT: I began the research for this dissertation way back in 2017. See the earlier post here where I first mentioned my dissertation topic.]

Interview With Paul Larson on Credible Faith Podcast

A couple of years ago I was interviewed by Paul Larson of Credible Faith ministries. I just learned that Paul, after some delays, had uploaded the interview a few days ago.

The discussion centers around my work on ancient writing practices and the composition of the New Testament writings. We covered issues of textual stability, the relationship of autographs to inspiration, and composition practices.

The YouTube version can be found here.

Larson's website with the audio version of the interview can be found at this link.

Book Review: Creating the Canon By Benjamin Laird

Creating the Canon: Composition, Controversy, and the Authority of the New Testament. By Benjamin P. Laird. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2023, xiv, + 258 pp., $30.00 paperback.

The historical circumstances surrounding the writing, distribution, selection and gathering together of the New Testament documents continues to garner much scholarly attention. Yet, there are few books that attempt to condense the nuanced historical details into an easily digestible introduction. Creating the Canon is the latest in a steady stream of new books by Benjamin P. Laird and was written in order to fulfill this need. Laird earned his PhD at the University of Aberdeen and is an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
The book is segmented into three segments. Part one consists of three chapters and covers "Questions Relating to the Production of the New Testament Writings" (pp. 11-84). 
Chapter 1, "The Composition of the New Testament Writings," advances the notion that many of the writings of the New Testament were composed through the collaborative efforts of a team of secretaries, letter carriers, and others who took part in distributing the canonical writings.
Chapter 2, "The Original Autographs of the New Testament Writings," proposes that many of the New Testament writings had multiple autographs. It is argued that it is better to think of an "original edition" rather than an "original autograph" (p. 64).
Chapter 3, "The Original Readers of the New Testament Writings," articulates the idea that the canonical authors wrote with multiple communities in view rather than a single audience. This concept would mean that the New Testament writings were composed with a more universal message in mind.
Part two is the largest segment of the work and consists of three chapters, addressing "Questions Relating to the Formation of the New Testament Canon" (pp. 87-174).
Chapter 4, "Theological Controversies and the Formation of the New Testament Canon," engages with popular assumptions that are postulated as causing the formation of the New Testament Canon. The controversies surrounding Marcion, and the notion that early Church councils in the fourth century decided the canon, are discussed.
Chapter 5, "The Primary Witnesses to the Early State of the New Testament Canon," surveys the early patristic canonical lists and references to the canonical writings. The chapter also introduces the reader to some of the most important and early copies of the New Testament writings.
Chapter 6, "The Canonical Subcollections and the Formation of the New Testament Canon," highlights the influence that canonical "subcollections" had on the acceptance of the twenty seven books of the New Testament.
Part three is the shortest section of the book with only two chapters and engages with "Questions Relating to the Authority of the New Testament Canon" (p. 177-236).
Chapter 7, "Apostolicity and the Formation of the New Testament Canon," discusses the relationship of apostolic teaching and authority with the reception of many of the New Testament writings.
Chapter 8, "Apostolic Authorship and the Authority of the New Testament Canon," evaluates several modern scholarly perspectives on the foundations for the continuing authority of the New Testament writings.
Though the book functions as an introduction to the topic, it attempts to cover too many competing scholarly perspectives. Readers may find it difficult to find the common thread of thought through the various chapters. Related to this, many may have difficulty finding a clear thesis or main argument in the book.
Because the work attempts to engage with too many scholarly perspectives, often inadequate space is given when Laird supports a particular scholarly position. For example, because of the various textual problems surrounding the last chapters of Romans, Laird proposes that three copies of the "longer recension" of Romans were made, "one for the Romans, one for those in Corinth, and one for Paul and/or his associates" (pp. 61-62). Laird proposes that the secretaries or scribes of Paul (i.e. Tertius), in preparing a copy of Romans to be sent to the Corinthians, removed the irrelevant material at the end of Romans (p. 62). This would "explain both the origin of the shorter and longer recensions as well as the alternative locations of the doxology" (p. 62). Unfortunately, Laird does not expound on the reasons why a scribe such as Tertius would go to the trouble of removing irrelevant material at the end of Romans, but would retain the most irrelevant textual address, "to all those in Rome" (Rom. 1:7, 1:15), at the beginning of the letter. The fact that there are almost no Greek manuscripts that lack this address seems to be a significant hurdle to this explanation of the textual variation at the end of Romans.
Despite these criticisms, Creating the Canon would work well as a starting point for forays into the study of New Testament canon formation. Readers will be introduced to first century composition practices, the role of letter carriers, and the early process of gathering of these writings into subcollections. Chapter two, which discussed the issues surrounding the "autographs," and chapters seven and eight, concerning the issue of apostolic authority and canon formation, engaged with topics rarely seen in books on the New Testament canon. This work might prove useful as a textbook for a college or seminary class on the New Testament Canon.

Timothy N. Mitchell

PhD, University of Birmingham, UK