Wes Huff, Joe Rogan, P. Ryl. 3.457 (P52) and the Gospel of John

Joe Rogan Holding up a facsimile of P52 that Huff made and presented to Rogan.

Christian Apologist and New Testament Scholar Wes Huff of Apologetics Canada appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. The interview has gone viral within the New Testament Textual Criticism communities in the online sphere particularly because of Huff's statements around the John Ryland papyrus known as P52 (shelf number P.Ryl. III 457).

It seems that everyone has wanted to jump into the discussion surrounding this fragment, including Brent Nongbri, professor of History of Religions at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion, and Society in Oslo. Over on his excellent blog Variant Readings, he listed several points of critique concerning P52 that Huff discussed on the Joe Rogan Experience. Nongbri has published extensively on the uncertainties of assigning dates to manuscripts using other non-dated papyri, especially with regard to P52. Despite Nongbri's obvious expertise I was a bit surprised by some of his criticisms of Huff's comments.

First was Huff's statements about the Christian use of the Codex. I had to re-watch that portion of the interview to be certain of the wording. When I first watched the interview I was in complete agreement with what Huff said, that Christians used the Codex exclusively with regard to their scriptures, which is absolutely true.Yet Nongbri seems to think Huff was arguing that ONLY Christians used the codex.

"The codex is “almost exclusively a Christian convention”: False. We have many codices that contain non-Christian material."

I don't think that this was what Huff was trying to convey when he was recounting the story to Rogan. Following are Huff's words in their full context.

"C. H. Roberts is, you know, literally going through these piles of manuscripts in these drawers that are being, like, stashed away and he finds this guy [P52], and he sees that it's written on both sides, which is almost exclusively a Christian convention. Because in the ancient world, they used scrolls. And the Christians, for reasons we're not entirely clear on, they start to make codices, books. Mhmm. And so, they write on both sides and so he says, okay this is written on both sides it's probably a Christian manuscript." (This at the 01:57:31-01:57:54 mark of the YouTube interview)

Nongbri's criticism appears to be taking issue with something that Huff never meant to say. It is most certainly true that Christians exclusively used the codex for their sacred writings, and this is likely what Huff was referring to and not that Christians invented the codex or that secular writings never appeared in the codex format. This becomes clear when his statements are taken in full context. In my hearing, Huff was highlighting the importance given in the discovery and publication by Roberts of the fact that P52 was the earliest known copy of a New Testament writing and it was a codex. In the description of the P52 in the Catalogue of Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library Vol. III Theological and Literary Texts, it is in the preparation of this volume that Roberts "discovered" the Ryland's fragment, he notes that, 

"The fragment is part of a leaf of a papyrus codex and thus conforms to the almost universal rule that works of Christian literature were written in the codex form" ("Catalogue," pg. 1).

Along with this, in the editio princeps of P52, Roberts had this to say.

"The fact that it is part of a codex, not of a roll, need now cause no surprise; thanks to recent discoveries we are coming to regard the codex as the normal vehicle for Christian literature even in the second century." ("An unpublished fragment," pg. 12)

The fact that the fragment was so early (at least according to the dating conventions of the day) and that it was a codex played a part in the excitement surrounding it's discovery and publication and Huff was right to point this out.

In this info graphic Wes Huff gives details concerning the Christian use of the Codex. Note that Huff acknowledges that Christians did NOT invent the Codex and that Christian papyri only amounts to 20-40% of codices.

Second, Nongbri called attention to Huff's statement that the Ryland's fragment likely originated from Oxyryhnchus Egypt. Nongbri wrote.

"Most likely comes from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.” Misleading. We don’t really know where this piece came from because it was bought on the antiquities market and not scientifically excavated. It’s possible that it comes from Oxyrhynchus, but Grenfell was buying from dealers elsewhere in Egypt in addition to the area of Oxyrhynchus."

The pushback by Nogbri about Huff's statement concerning provenance is hardly warranted. Roberts stated this about the fragment.

"Unfortunately, the provenance of the papyrus cannot be exactly determined. It was one of a large number purchased for the Library by the late B. P. Grenfell in 1920; the group to which it belongs consists of some literary texts and documents of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, all of which are stated to have come either from the Fayum or from Oxyrhynchos." ("An unpublished fragment," pg. 24).

Not only does Roberts believe P52 originated in the Fayum or Oxyrhynchus, Nongbri himself stated that either of these locations were it's likely provenance. In his article, 'The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel," Nongbri wrote in response to Roberts statements quoted above,

"Even absent that statement of provenance, we would be on safe ground assuming one of those two locales simply given the relative numbers of papyri discovered at those locations." ("The Use and Abuse of P52," pg. 27 footnote 14)

Therefore, if both Roberts in the editio princeps and Nongbri himself confirms that P52 is likely from Oxyrhynchus or from the Fayum, then Huff's statement was not misleading, it was on point.

Thirdly, with regard to the dating of P52 and the composition of John's Gospel, Nongbri has long taken issue with arguments like the one mentioned by Huff. It is worth quoting both Huff's comments, and Nongbri's reply together.

""But the unanimous consensus is that it’s comfortably second century, potentially beginning of the second century, which means that, this is found in Egypt; John is probably writing his gospel in Ephesus. So it has to be written by John, spread around, find its way to Egypt, copied and then end up in this manuscript, which means at minimum, you’ve already pushed the Gospel of John back into the first century, comfortably.” Very much debatable. This is the same story that was being told pretty much from the time of the publication of P52 in 1935. In older versions, the date of the papyrus was usually given as “circa 125 AD,” but here the rhetoric is a bit more slippery: “comfortably second century, potentially beginning of the second century.” But for the logic to work, that “potentially beginning of the second century” has to become “definitely beginning of the second century.” But the dating of P52 is not at all certain; it is just based on handwriting analysis, and there are good parallels for the script of P52 in papyri from the late second century and even the third century (see my 2020 New Testament Studies piece)"

A few things that should be noted here, one is the date range given by Nongbri. It is certainly true that this type of hand used by the scribe of the Rylands fragment has comparable examples into the third century. No one is disputing this. It is also true that, as Nongbri notes himself, these date ranges do not mean that P52 definitely dates to the early third century either. I really do think that Nongbri overstates his case somewhat. The fact that so many copies of John have survived, even if they all do date to the early third century, does say something about when the Gospel of John was composed. It at least speaks to the popularity and frequent copying of the text which reflects positively on its reception. It is certainly possible that P52, or even P.Bodmer II were copied in the second century. All Huff would need to do is change a few words of his comments and Nongbri's criticism would completely miss the mark.

"But the unanimous consensus is that it’s comfortably second [to early third] century, potentially beginning of the second century, which means that, this is found in Egypt; John is probably writing his gospel in Ephesus. So it has to be written by John, spread around, find its way to Egypt, copied and then end up in this manuscript, which means at minimum, you’ve already pushed the Gospel of John back into the first century, comfortably. [If the fragment dates to the early second century.]”

If these few minor changes were made and stated, then nothing that Huff claimed would have fallen within the realm of Nongbri's technical criticism. Along with this, Huff's comments were made in the context of the fragment's discovery. And with regard to the initial impact of the publication of the editio princeps, it certainly did have this affect on the consensus surrounding the date of composition for the Gospel of John.

Joe Rogan Experience #2252. Click Image for Link to YouTube Video

_______________________________________

Brent Nongbri, "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel," Harvard Theological Review, 2005; Vol. 98, p. 23-52.

Brent Nongbri, “Palaeography, Precision and Publicity: Further Thoughts on P.Ryl.Iii.457 (P52),” New Testament Studies 66, no. 4 (2020): 471–99.

C. H. Roberts, Catalogue of Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library Vol. III Theological and Literary Texts (Nos. 457-551), Manchester: Sherratt and Hughes, 1938.

C.H. Roberts, "An unpublished fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 1936; Vol. 20 (1), p. 45-55.

Mike Licona, Bart Ehrman and Rethinking Biblical Inerrancy

Back in May of 2024, Mike Licona, of Risen Jesus blog, publicly posted his Fall ETS 2023 presentation "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Needs a Facelift." I only recently read Licona's article and have had some time to reflect on his proposal. It is very short at only twelve double spaced pages, and therefore is easy to digest. His main thesis is this, "it’s the message of Scripture with which God is concerned rather than each and every word" (Licona, pg. 6). He seems to be emphasizing the human authorship of scripture in contrast to the CSBI which, according to Licona, emphasizes the divine authorship of scripture (pg. 6). Licona explains further.

"Now, if the providence of God can guarantee the authority and message of Scripture throughout the preservation of its texts despite the copies having errors, the same could be true throughout the composition of those texts despite the autographs having errors." (Licona, pg. 7)

He gives a fuller explanation on the following pages.

"If Paul’s statement “Christ is speaking through me” [2 Cor 13:2-3] is an example of what it means to be theopneustos or “carried along by the Holy Spirit,” the message Paul preached derives from God and is approved by God. But to insist that every last word in Paul’s preaching was always inerrant in the CSBI sense, is something that I doubt most of us in this room would want to argue. Yet if minor errors of detail could be present in Paul’s preaching when Christ was speaking through him, why could they not also be present in Paul’s writing when Christ was speaking through him? This is not to say there were errors in the autographs. It is to say that we cannot know if there were and that the position that they could not have been is based on a dubious concept of inspiration." (Licona, pg. 8-9)

I find it refreshing that Licona is willing to discuss revisions of the CSBI and the general way Evangelicals view inspiration and inerrancy. I too have made my own attempts at addressing the shortfalls of this doctrinal statement in my blog and through some published papers (here, and here). Yet I can't help but find Licona's attempt somewhat flatfooted.

First is the fact that Licona seems to misunderstand what the CSBI is proposing. He emphasizes one particular phrase in the CSBI: "although the human writers’ personalities were expressed in what they wrote, the words were divinely constituted" (emphasis by Licona, pg. 4-5). According to Licona, this goes beyond the scriptural support found in verses like 2 Timothy 3:16 or 2 Peter 1:20-21 and emphasizes the divine origin of the scriptures at the expense of their human authorship. Licona introduces William Lane Craig's proposal of the confluence of scripture and its dual authorship as a new addition to the discussion (Licona, 6). Yet the CSBI does emphasize the human authorship of scripture, noting that the language and styles of the authors would not have been overridden by God.

"Article VIII. We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities."

Craig's view of the dual authorship of scripture is essentially no different than Article VIII of the CSBI.

Licona also briefly discusses the problems of the New Testament authors quoting from the Greek version of the Old Testament (LXX) as though this is something not encompassed by the CSBI (Licona, 8-9). Along the same lines, the synoptic problem and Matthew's alleged "correcting" of Mark's grammar are also presented as problems that are outside the narrow scope of the CSBI's view of inspiration and inerrancy (Licona, 4-5). Again, the inerrancy envisioned by the CSBI is loose enough to account for these kinds of "problems" in Article XIII.

"We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations."

Finally, Licona's thesis that God is concerned only with the message of scripture seems to mis the mark altogether. Licona fails to understand the context of 2 Timothy 3:16 because earlier Paul directs Timothy,

"Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you."
‛Yποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὧν παρ’ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ· τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν. (2 Tim. 1:13-14)

Paul really seems to be emphasizing that the very arrangement of his divinely inspired words are being entrusted to Timothy and are to be guarded by him. This goes against Licona's interpretation of θεόπνευστος (God breathed) in 2 Timothy 3:16. Licona seems to be making the same error of misunderstanding that Bart Ehrman has done, confusing the preservation of scripture with inspiration. I think it is important to quote Ehrman's comments in full here.

"Then I began to see that not just the scribal text but the original text itself was a very human book. This stood very much at odds with how I had regarded the text in my late teens as a newly minted "born-again" Christian, convinced that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God and that the biblical words themselves had come to us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As I realized already in graduate school, even if God had inspired the original words, we don't have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reputedly inspired had been changed and, in some cases, lost. Moreover, I came to think that my earlier views of inspiration were not only irrelevant, they were probably wrong. For the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn't preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn't gone to the trouble of inspiring them." (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 211)

Now compare this with Mike Licona's conclusions in his paper quoted above. Though Licona points to the doctrine of inspiration that needs tweaking, it seems like he is really looking at the manner in which the text has been preserved (very humanly with variations and errors in the manuscripts), and the lack of the preservation of the autographs and questioning whether the text was inerrant in the first place. Obviously Licona believes that the scriptures are the inspired word of God, unlike Ehrman, yet the similarity of their conclusions are striking.

Overall, Licona seems to be missing the point, that inerrancy really has to do with God and his character and little to do with the mechanics of inspiration God employed. It is irrelevant whether one looks at the hand of God writing on tablets of stone, or Isaiah orally giving prophecies from God, or Paul writing letters to Churches, the scriptures are inerrant because God doesn't lie. If the scriptures are divinely inspired, then they are truthful in everything that they claim. If they are not then God must be called a liar and cannot be trusted. We may not have full access to inerrancy because we do not have access to the physical autographs (see my paper here for a full definition), but we do have access to the "text" of the autographs, even if imperfectly (see the final paragraphs of my paper here). I am fully in agreement with Licona's conclusions that what we have preserved today is certainly enough for the Holy Spirit to work!

I am also completely onboard with Licona's desire to re-address the CSBI, I too believe that Evangelicals should be discussing the doctrine of scripture and better articulating our understanding of inerrancy beyond the CSBI. I hope that this blog post is a step in that direction.
__________________________________________
Quotations from the CSBI are taken from "Defending Inerrancy" (https://defendinginerrancy.com/chicago-statements/)

Timothy Mitchell, "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.

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

The Christian Codex And The Pocket Sized Bookroll

Scholars often attribute the compactness and portability of a codex as the impetus for Christians to have adopted this format for their scriptures at an early date. For example, the itinerate preaching of the early apostles and evangelists could have necessitated the compactness and portability of the codex over the roll (Epp, "The Codex," 20-22). As is often counter argued, these types of modern attitudes towards the codex are likely influenced by anachronistic ideas about the book (Larsen and Letteney, "Christians and the Codex," 390-391). With this in mind I came across a few references in Aulus Gellius's Attic Nights (2nd cen. CE) that shed light on the alleged portability of the codex verses the roll.

In Gellius's account, Scipio Africanus was being accused in front of the senate of taking a bribe from King Antiochus. In response to this Gellius recounts,

"Thereupon Scipio arose, and taking a roll from the fold of his toga, said that it contained an account of all the money and all the booty; that he had brought it to be publicly read and deposited in the treasury. "But that," said he, "I shall not do now, nor will I so degrade myself." And at once, before them all, he tore the roll across with his own hands and rent it into bits, indignant that an account of money taken in war should be required of him, to whose account the salvation of the Roman State and its power ought to be credited." (Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 4.18.9-12)

In this account, Scipio wasn't carrying a proper bookroll containing a lengthy literary work. It appeared to be some sort of leger of smaller size because Scipio was able to tear it into shreds fairly easily. This would have been much more difficult for a normal full-sized literary roll.

Later in the work, Gellius recounts a personal story in which he was in a book shop and a "foolish man" was boasting that he was the only person who could truly understand Marcus Varro's Satires.

"At the time I chanced to have with me a book of those Satires, entitled Ὑδροκύων, or The Water Dog. I therefore went up to him and said: "Master, of course you know that old Greek saying, that music, if it be hidden, is of no account.​ I beg you therefore to read these few lines and tell me the meaning of the proverb contained in them." (Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 13.31.2-3)

This account is a fascinating retelling of a duel of minds, with Gellius exposing the "foolish man's" ignorance of the text. In this instance, the bookroll carried by Gellius was a proper roll containing literature. Thus, in the same manner as Scipio, Gellius was able to carry this roll on his person and produce it quickly and rapidly find the relevant passage with ease.

Later in his work, Gellius recounts a story in which a bright young man was having a conversation in a public space about an historical fact concerning a passage in Homer's Illiad. Some "half educated fellows" were present and ignorantly interjected themselves into the conversation.

"One or two half-educated fellows who were present there, of the class that the Greeks call ἀγοραῖοι, or “haunters of the market-place,” laughed in derision of this statement, and declared that the man who had made it had read a copy of Homer which happened to lack the following verse: "And rotted the ship's timbers, loosed the ropes (σπάρτα)." Then the youth, in great vexation, replied: “It was not my book that lacked that line, but you who badly lacked a teacher, if you believe that σπάρτα in that verse means what we call spartum, or 'a rope of Spanish broom'.” They only laughed the louder, and would have continued to do so, had he not produced the twenty-fifth book of Varro's Human Antiquities, in which Varro writes as follows of that Homeric word: “I believe that σπάρτα in Homer does not mean sparta, or 'Spanish broom,' but rather σπάρτοι, a kind of broom which is said to grow in the Theban territory. " (Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 17.3)

In this account, it is not exactly clear where the story takes place. Judging by the description of the "half-educated fellows" it likely occurred in a public marketplace of some kind. The bright young man happened to be carrying a roll that contained a copy of the twenty-fifth book of Marcus Varro's Human Antiquities. This was a literary work written in a bookroll and the youth had no problem finding the relevant passage quickly and producing it for the other "foolish-men" to read for themselves.

In each of these cases recounted by Gellius, a bookroll was easily carried by the hero of the story. The relevant passage was quickly located and produced for the protagonist to read for themselves. Though limited in scope, this evidence reveals the anachronistic tendencies of modern arguments for the Christian preference for the codex. It seems that an educated itinerant preacher would have had no problem carrying a gospel in a roll format, producing it during an evangelism event, and finding a relevant gospel passage from which to engage with the listeners.

EDIT: A reader of the blog, Viktor Johansson, responded with some excellent observations through private message. Some important objections to my quick take on Gellius, especially concerning the account at 17.3, are these: 

First, I can't assume that the discussion with the educated young man takes place in a marketplace outdoors. This account could have just as easily occurred in a personal library or outside of a public library where texts like Varro's would have been readily available.

Second, and most importantly of all, because the heroes of these stories are educated well-to-do men, they most likely had a retinue of slaves at hand with them. These would have been invisible in the story. Any one of these attendants could have gone and fetched the book for the protagonist either from the location at hand (in a public or private library) or had been carrying it upon their persons.

All in all, this excellent response reveals my own anachronistic assumptions that I bring to the text of Gellius. At best these accounts from Gellius reveal that educated men in the high Roman empire were adept at handling a bookroll and could easily find the relevant passage a roll.

EDIT#2: Johansson responded again with some more excellent observations on these passages in Attic Nights. Gellius, speaking in the first person, recounts a scene where he visits Fronto who was sick and sitting on a couch "surrounded by men famous for learning, birth, or fortune." In the middle of this scene, Fronto is being shown plans for a bath "drawn on little pieces of parchment." A dispute suddenly arises over the meaning of a word that Fronto uses. To settle the matter, a famous grammarian sitting nearby is pointed out. The grammarian argues that the word is "better known in the talk of mechanics than in that of cultivated men." Fronto replied in the following manner.

"But Fronto, raising his voice and with a more earnest expression, said: “Sir, does this word seem to you so degraded and utterly faulty, when Marcus Cato and Marcus Varro, and the early writers in general, have used it as necessary and as good Latin?” And thereupon Julius Celsinus reminded him that also in the tragedy of Ennius entitled Iphigeina the very word about which we were inquiring was found, and that it was more frequently corrupted by the grammarians than explained. Consequently, he at once asked that the Iphigenia of Quintus Ennius be brought and in a chorus of that tragedy we read these lines: . . .When this had been read there, then Fronto said to the grammarian, who was already wavering . . . ." (Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 19.10)

This account is fascinating and should be read in its entirety. I only wanted to quote the relevant few lines here because they paint a vivid picture of the scene. Fronto is ill, surrounded by many educated men in his private home. A dispute arises with a grammarian and Fronto asks his attendants (not mentioned up to this point) to fetch a specific book of literature. Gellius doesn't specify who reads the text, whether Fronto himself or an attendant, or perhaps the grammarian himself. Either way it appears that the text was read out loud to everyone present. This account sheds light on the other reading events quoted above, especially at 17.3. It is possible that these events took place in a similar situation as 19.10 with attendants present and in a location with books readily available.

________________________________

Eldon J. Epp, "The Codex and Literacy in Early Christianity and at Oxyrhynchus: Issues Raised by Harry Y. Gamble’s Books and Readers in the Early Church" in Critical Review of Books in Religion 11 (1988): 15-37.

Matthew D. C. Larsen, Mark Letteney, "Christians and the Codex: Generic Materiality and Early Gospel Traditions" in Journal of Early Christian Studies 27.3 (2019): 383-415.

William A. Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 129 footnote 54.

The Scarcity of Scribes in the Late Roman Empire

 

Roman Sarcophagus Relief 2nd CE

(William Rockhill Nelson Trust)

 

While reading through an article by Raffaella Cribiore I came across a reference to the scarcity of scribes in the late Roman Empire. 

"Texts copied in book hands were produced at a slower pace and a higher cost. Such specialized scribes were not always available and may have been in high demand. We know that some writers, such as Cassius Longinus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil of Caesarea, deplored their scarcity." (Cribiore, 258)

In a cover letter that accompanied his Contra Eunomium I, Gregory of Nyssa wrote to two students of Libanius, John and Maximian apologizing for the long delay of his work.

"We Cappadocians are poor in almost all the things that make those who possess them happy—and poor especially in those able to write. This indeed is the reason for the long delay of my treatise, for though my refutation of the heresy has been finished for some considerable time, there was no one to transcribe it. It was this lack of copyists that in all likelihood brought on us the suspicion of slackness or of inadequacy for the task" (Ep.15, trans., Anna M. Silvas)

In a letter to the Presbyter Paeonius Basil of Caesarea wrote 

"I have had no writer with me, neither calligraphist, nor short-hand. Of all those whom I happen to employ, some have returned to their former mode of life, and others are unfit for work from long sickness" (Ep. 134)

It was so bad for Basil that he took to training his own scribes for the task. Note his instructional letter to a scribe in training.

"Write straight and make the lines straight. Do not let your hand go too high or too low. Avoid forcing the pen to travel slantwise, like Aesop's crab. Advance straight on, as if following the line of the carpenter's rule, which always preserves exactitude and prevents any irregularity. The oblique is ungraceful. It is the straight which pleases the eye and does not allow the reader's eyes to go nodding up and down like a swing-beam. This has been my fate in reading your writing. As the lines lie ladderwise, I was obliged, when I had to go from one to another, to mount up to the end of the last: then, when no connection was to be found, I had to go back, and seek for the right order again, retreating and following the furrow, like Theseus in the story following Ariadne's thread. Write straight, and do not confuse our mind by your slanting and irregular writing." (Ep. 334)

Similarly, in his reply to Porphyry, Longinus of Athens complains that there are few scribes available to make copies of books.

"Whatever else you may be expecting, do not hope for anything new of my own, or even for the earlier works which you tell me you have lost; for there is a sad dearth of copyists here. I assure you it has taken me all this time to complete my set of Plotinus, and it was done only by calling off my scribe from all his routine work and keeping him steadily to this one task." (Porphyry, Vita Plotini, 19)

The anecdotal evidence from these 3rd and 4th century figures indicates that there was a scarcity of high-quality scribes. Even for those who were well educated and connected to others across the empire, finding a good copyist could be a difficult task.

_____________

Raffaella Cribiore, "The Dissemination of Texts in the High Empire." American Journal of Philology 140, no. 2 (2019): 255-290

Anna M. Silvas, Gregory of Nyssa: The Letters, Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2007)

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]