Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corruption: Part 3

I posted a link to one of my recent posts over on the New Testament Textual Criticism Facebook page and received a lengthy and engaging response that required more detail than a comment on Facebook would allow. I dealt with the first discussion in the previous post and more discussion followed in response to this post. I engaged with the first point concerning textual corruptions. In this post I hope to adequately address the issue of Eusebius and the canonicity of certain books of the New Testament and the "openness" of the Cesarean library.

“I would say that the reading of texts in the 2nd and 3rd centuries has little to do with the canon lists of the 4th century.”

I do not wish to delve too deeply into the thorny issue of the canonical process of New Testament writings. I do not disagree that there were other factors other than its historical use in the Church, for example a book's apostolic connections were considered as well. But Harry Gamble’s point (which I was quoting) was that even though there certainly were books that later formed the New Testament that did not have as wide a readership as other books (i.e. Revelations vs. Gospel of John), all of the New Testament writings that Eusebius listed in Hist. eccl. 3.25.1-7 were read in the church and had some kind of popularity, i.e. were copied, circulated and read in Christian communities.

There is simply no possible way that Eusebius could force a canon list onto a Christian community. Just as a book would only circulate if those within the social networks willingly desired to obtain a copy for themselves (see previous post). Eusebius could claim certain books were canonical all he wanted, but no one would read that work unless they wanted to obtain a copy of it. Of course, they could find his arguments persuasive, and then read these books simply taking him at his word. But what of those communities who read, as you say, the epistle of Barnabas and not 2 or 3 John? They would not agree to read these books if they did not want to, and there was nothing that Eusebius or anyone else could do about it.

One last thing to consider in regards to Eusebius foisting some type of canon on the larger Christian community. Many of those who were reading Eusebius’ Church History had just come out of the largest Empire wide persecution in history. One aspect of this persecution was the collecting and burning of Christian writings. There are many accounts of Christians who resisted these book-hunts and hid or guarded their sacred texts, at the cost of their lives. I seriously doubt these same Christians would simply allow Eusebius to push them around and accept certain books that they did not wish to read. No one had that power, not even Rome in all of its military might.

“Eusebius' predecessor Pamphilius was certainly exceptional, but Jerome doesn't say that he lent the books to "outsiders", but those who were interested in reading. These people aren't spoken of as being from all over, and so we just may have an account of the generosity of Pamphilius to the local Christian population. An encomium is unlikely to be historically accurate, I would say. At any rate, I don't think we have grounds to apply the example of Pamphilius as any sort of norm. He seems to be an exception to the rule.”

In regards to whether the library at Caesarea was open or not, I am not sure why we should regard this as exceptional. Jerome definitely had access to this library and likely acquired copies of Origen’s writings from this library (see Jerome, Ep. 33.4.1-20). We know from a colophon in Codex Sinaiticus that the library at Ceaserea had Origen’s Hexepla and a copy of this (or the original?) was used in the seventh century (the date of the marginal hand) to correct Esther (a similar one is also found at the end of Esdras). Colophons similar to the one found in Sinaiticus (indicating the manuscript had contact with Pamphilus) are found in several manuscripts (see the sources cited in Gamble’s, Books and Readers, 158 n.38 and n.40). This reveals that manuscripts which originated from the Pamphilian, and later, Eusebian library circulated widely long after Eusebius.

Not only did the manuscripts in the Caesarean library travel widely, but Pamphilus himself, and later Eusebius, had to acquire copies of ancient works and Biblical manuscripts through social networks. Both near, and far. Apparently there was a wide array of literature available in this library, both secular and Christian writings. This type of collecting work would require social networks, not one way, but two way networks.

Frontispiece to Codex Amiatinus

The wide influence of the Cesarean library is not necessarily exceptional. The library that Cassiodorus founded in the second quarter of the sixth century in southern Italy had wide influence as well. The Amiatinus Codex in England was copied from a manuscript that was linked to the library of Cassiodorus in southern Italy. Bede at the monastery at Yarrow in England mentions that the Amiatinus codex was copied from a manuscript that came from Rome. And this manuscript was connected to the library of Cassiodorus, either it originated from his library or was itself copied from one of his manuscripts (see the discussion of this manuscript in Gamble, Books and Readers, 200-202).
 I re-iterate again the point that Eusebius’s own Church History would only circulate, be published, once social contacts requested copies of this work. I find it very unconvincing to say that these same Christians (or non-Christians) had access to Eusebius’ Church History but no access to the Caesarean library especially considering the wide influence and circulation of manuscripts that had connections to Pamphilian library.
____

Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corruption (Part 1)

Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corription: Part 2

The above are in response to these previous posts

Asclepiodotus and Theodotus, the Banker: 'Corruptors' of Scripture 

A Riot in the North African Church! Augustine on Jerome's Translation of the Bible

Scholars Discover Early Astronomical Drawings

Very exciting news in regards to the Green Collection (here).

Undergraduate Students with Green Scholars Initiative Find 1,500-Year-Old Drawings of Constellations Hidden in Ancient Biblical Manuscript
OKLAHOMA CITY, Sept. 19, 2014—

Museum of the Bible announced today that undergraduate students with its Green Scholars Initiative have discovered what may be among the earliest-known classical drawings of celestial constellations hidden under a layer of Greek text in a 1,500-year-old biblical manuscript. Additionally, the student-scholars at Tyndale House, an institution associated with the University of Cambridge, found the earliest manuscript attributed to Eratosthenes in the same document. The Greek mathematician, geographer and astronomer was the first to calculate the Earth’s circumference, the tilt of its axis and the inventor of geography......

Read the rest of the article here.

Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corruption: Part 2

I posted a link to one of my recent posts over on the New Testament Textual Criticism Facebook page and received a lengthy and engaging response that required more detail than a comment on Facebook would allow. I dealt with the first discussion in the previous post and more discussion followed in response to this post. I now hope to engage with the first point concerning textual corruptions. In a following post I will address the issue of Eusebius and the canonicity of certain books of the New Testament and the nature of the Cesarean library.

It is a true that there is no way to verify that Eusebius was recounting the story of Asclepiodotus and Theodotus correctly, we have to take his word on this, just as we do with all of his other quotations. I do not see why we should doubt that Eusebius is not accurately quoting the source. For example, most scholars take his quotation (Hist. eccl. 3:39.1-3; 15-16) from Papias’ “The Sayings of the Lord” seriously and these fragments are given in critical editions of the Apostolic Fathers (i.e. Holmes). Even if this account is fictional, it is representative of real occurrences that are known from the second century, such as the allegations against Marcion, that theologically motivated textual changes were being made. Deliberate corruptions often occurred during the process of transmitting,

circulating, and publishing ancient works.

In the case of Asclepiodotus and Theodotus recounted by Eusebius, I am not sure why we should not expect that there would have been no way to check these readings. Asclepiodotus and Theodotus had to get their exemplars of scripture from somewhere, those who lent them their bookrolls (or more likely codices) of the New Testament writings would know that these individuals changed the text (majorly) from the exemplars they loaned them, perhaps even years after they were loaned as the following example will illustrate. 
William Johnson in his work Readers and Reading Culture, drew attention to a group of bookrolls of classical texts from Roman Oxyrhynchus that contained marginal notations attributing different readings to different scholars (p.185-190; see especially the appendix p.193-199 for a list of bookrolls). One example Johnson noted on page 189, a marginal note in POxy 24.2387;

"This [passage] is wrongly inserted in copies [also in the] fifth (book), and in that book it was bracketed [in] Aristonicus's copy, but was left unbracketed in Ptolemy's."

This bears witness to a book-culture in which differing readings were attributed to different schools/scholars. I find it interesting that differing readings were marked by various notations, the "chi" being one of them. I am not suggesting that Christians necessarily treated their manuscripts in the same "scholarly" fashion, Christians had a different social view of reading than the Greco-Roman culture, and because of this Christian manuscripts were much more "serviceable" with a view to "practicality." However, there were some early Christians that did show a concern and care for their texts (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc). P66 shows some "diplai" in the text which may have been used to indicate differing readings (see Brice Jones' blog article). It is not unusual then to assume that the changes made by Asclepiodotus and Theodotus would have gone unnoticed/unchecked by the larger Christian community.
Antiquity and early Christianity are replete with references to situations where corruptions in the texts of works occurred and were noticed. These were corrected by either the author (re)producing an authorial copy, or reproducing/rewriting the text and re-circulating it (see Gamble, Books and Readers, 118-119).
Quintilian in the preface to his Institutes of Oratory wrote;

"I have been all the more desirous of so doing [writing this work on oratory] because two books on the art of rhetoric are at present circulating under my name, although never published by me or composed for such a purpose. One is a two days' lecture which was taken down by the boys who were my audience. The other consists of such notes as my good pupils succeeded in taking down from a course of lectures on a somewhat more extensive scale. I appreciate their kindness, but they showed an excess of enthusiasm and a certain lack of discretion in doing my utterances the honour of publication. Consequently in the present work although some passages remain the same, you will find many alterations and still more additions, while the whole theme will be treated with greater system and with as great perfection as lies within my power." (Inst. Or. 1. pr. 7-8)

Quintilian knew of these inferior texts because they were circulating within a community, his community. This problem of inferior texts circulating also plagued Christian writers as well. Tertullian wrote in his Adversus Marcionem,

"I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment. This also, before enough copies had been made, was stolen from me by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly, and shewed them to group of people. Hence the need for correction. The opportunity provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or another he comes across varying forms of it." (Adv. Marc. 1.1)

 There was very little that could be done in the case of corrupted texts. When writing to his brother Quintus, Cicero wrote 

“As to the Latin books, I don't know which way to turn—they are copied and exposed for sale with such a quantity of errors!” (Cic. Quint. 3.6). 

The only recourse an ancient author had was to re-publish the text and notify those within the social networks that a newer/better text was being released for circulation in hopes that this new edition would supplant the inferior copies that were circulating. And this could only be done if those within the social-circle willingly desired to obtain a copy of this new work. In other words, it was through sheer popularity and demand that the new edition would out-do, so to speak, older or corrupted editions. I will come back to this fact of ancient publication practices in the next post, when addressing the issue of Eusebius and the canonicity of certain books. The important thing to note here is that (major) changes in a text were noticed. 
Early Christian writings were produced and circulated within social networks and the work of authors only gained popularity through word of mouth. Early Christianity evidences lively interaction even as early as the first century. We see Paul (or at least the first century Pauline school) alluding to this in Col 4:16 (see earlier post) and even expecting it. Clement of Rome wrote to Corinth because he had heard of their circumstances (all the way across the Adriatic) which required his interaction and communication thus occasioning the letter (see 1 Clem. 63:3-4, 65:1). Ignatius wrote to churches along his route to Rome and these in-turn interacted with each other (Phil. 11.2, Smyr. 12.1). Polycarp wrote to Philippi in answer to their request and appended copies of Ignatius’ letters within a short amount of time after Ignatius passed through the area (Poly. Phil. 13:1-2). At the end of the martyrdom of Polycarp we see a series of colophons attesting to sources from which copies of the martyrology were obtained which reveal a community of Christians circulating and interchanging literature (see Kim Haines-Eitzen discussing this in Guardians of Letters, 80-81). When the Shepherd of Hermas was written in the mid second century it was already being quoted by Irenaeus in 180, Clement ca. 200 and copies of it are located all the way across the Mediterranean in Egypt by the end of the second century (Kim Haines-Eitzen Guardians of Letters, 77). This reveals a rapid interchange within the earliest segments of Christianity. These same channels would facilitate the ability to retrieve copies of early Christian literature, ideas, doctrine, theology, and make MAJOR changes in the text of manuscripts known. It is because there was such an interchange of Christians in the first two centuries of the Christan era that Michael Holmes can write of a "macrolevel stability" with a "microlevel fluidity" of the New Testament text (Holmes, From Original Text to Initial Text, 674).

Coupled with this, there is evidence, though scant, of some churches, even smaller provincial congregations, having a collection of writings at their disposal (see Gamble, Books and Readers, 198-202). It appears that this account concerning Asclepiodotus and Theodotus occurred in Rome ca. 198-217 (Haines-Eitzen, Gaurdians of Letters, 37). Origen wrote that Celsus, the second century philosopher who was an ardent critic of Christianity, obtained copies of at least Matthew and very likely the other gospels as well (Origen Contra Celsum 2.34; C. E. Hill, Who Chose the Gospels?, 155-157). And from the perspective of Celsus, these gospels were being read by a large majority of Christians in Rome, he called them the "Great Church" (Origen Contra Celsum, 5.59).
 I will end with this caveat. When I say "major changes" to the text, I am using as a definition the description Michael Holmes gave after summarizing the textual evidence of the four gospels and Acts,

"In short, a very high percentage of the variation evident in the text of the Four gospels and Acts affects a verse or less of the text. On this level, the fluidity of wording within a verse, sentence, or paragraph is sometimes remarkable. At the same time, however, in terms of overall structure, arrangement, and content, these five documents are remarkably stable. They display simultaneously, in other words, what one may term microlevel fluidity and macrolevel stability."
(Holmes, From Original Text to Initial Text, 674).

Because of the "serviceability" of  early Christian manuscripts, it is understandable that "microlevel" variation would occur, but any "macrolevel" alterations to the text, "in terms of overall structure," these levels of changes would have more than likely been noticed. But Christians would have been powerless to control these corruptions. The only way would be through that of consensus, in which the larger social network of Christians would only wish to copy the "best" manuscripts, or at the very least, those with not "macrolevel" (i.e. major) alterations.
There is very little else I can say, except for expounding on what I have already said, to make the case that larger corruptions would have been noticed in the text. Therefore I will not respond to further queries in this regard. I hope to address the issues of Eusebius and the canonicity of some books in the near future.
____
Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corruption (Part 1)

Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corription: Part 3

The above are in response to these previous posts

Asclepiodotus and Theodotus, the Banker: 'Corruptors' of Scripture 

A Riot in the North African Church! Augustine on Jerome's Translation of the Bible

__________________
Bibliography

Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Haines-Eitzen, Kim. Guardians of Letters Literacy, Power and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Hill, C. E. Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy. New York City: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Holmes, Michael W. “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion.” Pages 637-681 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Second Edition. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. New Testament, Tools, Studies and Documents 42. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Johnson, William A. Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities. Edited by Joseph Farrell and Robin Osborne. Classic Culture and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corruption

I posted a link to one of my recent posts over on the New Testament Textual Criticism Facebook page and received a lengthy and engaging response that required more detail than a comment on Facebook would allow. I quoted the relevant portions of the question within the body of this blog post as I attempted to engage them critically. I hope that in my cutting and pasting I am not misrepresenting in any way.

“If we grant that copyists changed the texts, on what basis can we say that such changes would be noticed?”

We can say that the changes would very likely be noticed (eventually) because of what we do know (which is scant for sure) about ancient publishing practices. As Kim Haines-Eitzen noted in Guardians of Letters, “Classical and Christian literature alike appear to have circulated by the agency of social networks” (p. 78). Asclepiodotus and Theodotus would have received a copy of the particular New Testament writing that they were “altering” from other Christians (scribes) who themselves owned copies. This process would have occurred through a social network. Once a copy was made by either Asclepiodotus or Theodotus and these copies were then used to teach from and read from in their churches. The Christian circle from which the exemplar was obtained would still have contacts with Asclepiodotus and Theodotus’s circle. This interchange between these Christian groups would allow Christians who moved between them to “hear” or “read” the differences between the texts of the two communities.

I must confess that I “cherry-picked” the quote from Eusebius without fully grasping the surrounding context. It appears that Eusebius was actually quoting from a writer that was roughly contemporaneous with the events described and that the event in Hist. Eccl. 5.28.13-18 is a lengthy quotation from this writer. In Hist. Eccl. 5.27 he mentions the works of several theologians and apologists that were contemporaneous with the events in question and some of them he does not know the names of. Because Eusebius does not mention the name of the source he is quoting from, it is very likely that he did not know who actually wrote it. This in itself brings into question the trustworthiness of the account. Yet, there seems to be no reason to not take it at face value and trust it as a real contemporary account, or at the very least reflect circumstances that would have realistically happened and probably did happen.
Now to answer one of your other questions;

“For example, in the case of the adoptionists, they changed the texts (I'm not sure to what degree) and were found out by Eusebius. But perhaps Eusebius only noticed because they were adamant adoptionists, which automatically raises suspicions about their texts (assuming they grounded their adoptionism in scriptural witnesses). In other words, were the changes noticed because texts were read by many, or were they noticed because of the unique qualifications of Eusebius?”

As I noted above, apparently it was not Eusebius who noticed these difference but a contemporary writer. It is difficult to know if this writer knew of their adoptionist tendencies and then went looking for other issues or not, it is impossible to tell from the scarcity of the information. But whether they found out about the changes first, or they went looking for their scribal alterations after hearing of their “heresy” makes no difference in my mind. In either way they would have learned about the changes through the same social networks that Asclepiodotus and Theodotus obtained an exemplar of the New Testament book(s) they copied from and subsequently “altered.”

“If we had a scribe/copyist who felt a passage was wrong and they correct it, would that be caught by a congregation/theologian? In the case of the OT readings, there could be a local comparison, but in case of the NT readings, perhaps there would not be.

Eusebius' recounting of the controversy points out that Christians in some situations could be adamantly opposed to a perceived corruption in the text and yet have no recourse to other copies of the text, pushing them to ask Jewish advice. What would happen if the text was in the NT?”

(I think you ment the say "Augustine's recounting.") Again, because early Christian writings were circulated within social constructs, it is difficult to imagine that there would be no other copies of the New Testament from which to compare. But I suppose it could be possible.

“So for example, Eusebius could claim that Jesus said he would be three days in the earth, not three days and nights. He could claim that there are texts circulating that are corrupt, and i don't know who could really oppose him on this, given that he had the means to actually produce these texts. Since the change in meaning would be negligible for most people, it could be accepted and even become the dominant reading in the future.”

Eusebius’ work of Church History would itself have been published and circulated within a community of Christians and non-Christians, as apparently Celsus and Justin Martyr’s Jewish friend Trypho could obtain copies of the gospels and study them. These social circles would have copies of their own, again, to compare and examine Eusebius’ claims. It is hard to imagine the Christians who requested copies of Eusebius’ Church History in order to make a copy for themselves did not have access to the Library at Ceaserea. Especially considering Eusebius’ successor Pamphilus was famous for lending out copies and even giving away copies of texts to outsiders (see Jerome Apology against Rufinus 1.9).

“In the example from the blog the mistake was made because the phrase in question was used liturgically. But for the majority of the Bible, this does not apply.”

I can only answer this question by quoting Harry Gamble,

 “Although from time to time the Church appealed to various criteria of canonicity (e.r. authorship, derivation from the apostolic period, orthodoxy, etc.), the ultimate criterion for the canonical, authoritative status of a book was its reception by the Church, and there could be no more certain or compelling indication of reception by the church than that such a book had over long years been publicly read in the service of worship” (Literacy, Liturgy, and the Shaping of the New Testament Canon, 37).

I would say that for the majority of the New Testament, it had been read in the Church in the early periods of the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries, otherwise they would not have been considered in official lists of canonical books in the later Church councils.
I am not trying to say that manuscripts could never be corrupted or that Christians in the congregation would riot at the slightest changes in the text. It has been well documented scholarly sources that New Testament texts were "servicable" (see especailly Harry Gamble and Larry Hurtado) and slight differences in the text would be expected. But I find it hard to believe that major or significant alterations could have taken place at the earliest stages of a work being circulated without the author eventually learning about it. But it did happen, again, as the ancient authors lamented over this fact.
Thank you again for your excellent and engaging questions!
 _____

Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corription: Part 2

Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corruption: Part 3

The above are in response to these previous posts

Asclepiodotus and Theodotus, the Banker: 'Corruptors' of Scripture 

A Riot in the North African Church! Augustine on Jerome's Translation of the Bible

A Riot in the North African Church! Augustine on Jerome's Translation of the Bible

While reading Harry Gamble's excellent article “Literacy, Liturgy, and the Shaping of the New Testament Canon,”[1] I came across a quote from one of Augustine's letters to Jerome. In this letter Augustine appears to be taking Jerome to task for an erroneous translation from the Hebrew into Latin for his new translation of the Old and New Testaments, now referred to as the Latin Vulgate. Apparently the Church in North Africa had been used to hearing a certain Latin word read at a point in Jonah 4:6. It is interesting that the Greeks in particular took issue with a Latin Translation. Perhaps because they were (obviously) bi-lingual and had been accustomed to hearing a certain word here at this point being read from the Greek LXX and understood that the Latin word Jerome had used was not a good representation of the LXX either.

"A certain bishop, one of our brethren, having introduced in the church over which he presides the reading of your version, came upon a word in the book of the prophet Jonah, of which you have given a very different rendering from that which had been of old familiar to the senses and memory of all the worshippers, and had been chanted for so many generations in the church. Thereupon arose such a tumult in the congregation, especially among the Greeks, correcting what had been read, and denouncing the translation as false, that the bishop was compelled to ask the testimony of the Jewish residents (it was in the town of Oea). These, whether from ignorance or from spite, answered that the words in the Hebrew manuscripts were correctly rendered in the Greek version, and in the Latin one taken from it. What further need I say? The man was compelled to correct your version in that passage as if it had been falsely translated, as he desired not to be left without a congregation—a calamity which he narrowly escaped. From this case we also are led to think that you may be occasionally mistaken. You will also observe how great must have been the difficulty if this had occurred in those writings which cannot be explained by comparing the testimony of languages now in use." (Ep. 71A, 3.5)

 Gamble was highlighting this event as an example of how certain early Christian writings were read in the worship of the church and how the regular public reading of a work helped to ensure its canonization in the Church councils of later centuries. I find it interesting that the congregation took issue over the change of a single word from that which they were accustomed to hearing. Though this incident occurred in the 5th century, it is highly likely that we could postulate this same result if a word were changed in a book that was being read to a 2nd century Christian congregation. This event underlines the stabilizing nature that the regular public reading of a New Testament work would have had on the text of that work. In an earlier post Eusebius (writing in the early 4th cen.) wrote about an event that took place ca. 200 CE where some adoptionists were altering the text of the New Testament to better support their views. Perhaps the wider members of the Christian community learned of these changes when these altered manuscripts were publicly read in worship gatherings.
_______________________

[1] “Literacy, Liturgy, and the Shaping of the New Testament Canon.” Pages 27-39 in The Earliest Gospels: The Origins and Transmission of the Earliest Christian Gospels - The Contribution of the Chester Beatty Gospel Codex P45. Edited by Charles Horton. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 258. Edited by Mark Goodacre. NewYork: T & T Clark, 2004.--see pages 37-38.