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

How Marginal Comments Can Corrupt a Text in Transmission

A leaf from P.Mich.inv. 6238 (P46) showing the

end of Romans and the beginning and title of Hebrews

P.Mich.inv. 6238 / Recto | Advanced Papyrological Information System (APIS UM) | University of Michigan Library Digital Collections (umich.edu)

A number of years ago Michael W. Holmes wrote a book chapter in which he argued that several variations in the text of Romans in P46 were evidence of marginal comments entering into the body of text. This occurred, Holmes argued, when a copyist confused a marginal comment for a correction to be entered into the body of text (Holmes pg. 202-205).

"What now appear only as variant readings in the text originally were, I suggest, comments in the margins about the text—the earliest “commentary” (in the sense of activity, rather than genre) on the text of Romans." (Holmes pg. 205)

Though Holmes gave no examples from antiquity, there are two instances in which an ancient author mentions this phenomenon occurring during the copying of a text. 

The second century physician Galen in his commentary on Hippocrates "Epidemics" gives two explanations for a corruption in the text of Hippocrates. The first explanation Galen gives is that Hippocrates gave a parenthetical statement in order to point out the difference between two types of patients currently being discussed in the work. Galen makes the following comment for the second.

“The other explanation is something you often observe in many books: we sometimes write two expressions for the same thing, putting it in two different ways, and place one of them in the text body and the other in the margin of the book so as to pick the better of the two at leisure when we want to edit the book. It seems that Hippocrates did the same in this place. The first editor of this book then copied both expressions together into the book’s text. We then did not look at and consider it again, pause and fix this error. Many people passed on the copy of the book, and it remained uncorrected.” (In Hipp. epid. comm. I, 1.36) (Vagelpohl pg. 167)

Here Galen describes a practice in which the author of a work gives an explanatory note in the margin of their "autograph." When the text is initially edited and copied, the scribe would think that the marginal note was meant to be entered into the text as a correction. The result is that the book was then widely copied and circulated with the error uncorrected.

Another instance of this phenomenon is mentioned by Jerome. In about 403 CE Jerome received a letter from two men asking for an explanation as to why there were so many differences between the Septuagint LXX these men were using, and the Latin Psalter Jerome had produced many years before in about 383 CE. Along with this letter, these men sent a long list of passages where there were differences in the text between the LXX and the Latin Psalter. For one of the variations in the text, Jerome gave the following explanation.

"I wonder why some rash fellow has thought that the note: “the correct form is not καταπαύσωμεν, as some think, but κατακαύσωμεν, that is, incendamus,” which was placed by me for the guidance of the reader into the margin, should be put into the body of the text." (Ep. 106.46)

Apparently, in the first edition of Jerome's Psalter he had placed an explanatory comment in the margin. A later copyist confused this entry as a correction to be entered into the body of text. Thus, all subsequent copies of his Psalter had this variation transmitted in the text.

______________________________

Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 5.10.1. English translation taken from, Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Epidemics Book I: Parts I-III (Translated by Uwe Vagelpohl. Corpus Medicrum Graecorum Supplementum Orientale V1. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2014).

Holmes, Michael W. “The Text of P46: Evidence of the Earliest ‘Commentary’ on Romans?” In New Testament Manuscripts: Their Text and Their World (ed. by Tobias Nicklas; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 189-206.

Translation of Jerome's Epistle 106 by Michael Metlen, The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Oct., 1937), pp. 515-542.

Book Review: The Pauline Corpus in Early Christianity by Benjamin Laird

The Pauline Corpus in Early Christianity: Its Formation, Publication, and Circulation. By Benjamin P. Laird. Peabody: Hendrickson Academic, 2022, xx + 371 pp., $59.99 hardback.

Investigations into the theology of the Pauline corpus abound, yet few studies have examined the historical circumstances that gave rise to the Pauline corpus as a letter collection. The Pauline Corpus in Early Christianity is a fresh in-depth analysis of the historical evidence, both physical and literary, into the development of the Pauline letter collection. Benjamin P. Laird (PhD University of Aberdeen) is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

This book is an expanded and revised version of Laird's doctoral thesis. It is composed of an introduction, six chapters, and three appendices.

The introduction begins by highlighting the fact that Paul preferred personal interaction to letter writing, yet Paul is known today through his extant letters (pp. 1-3). Paul's epistles were likely the earliest Christian writings to be valued, circulated and collected (p. 3). After a summary of the contents (pp. 4-9), Laird concludes by discussing the challenges to this study (pp. 10-11) and the wider implications that this volume might have on Pauline scholarship (pp. 11-15).

Chapter 1 examines first century letter writing practices in the Greco-Roman world (pp. 19-31). This chapter advances the notion put forward by several recent studies that Paul worked with secretaries in the writing of his letters (pp. 31-34). Along with this, these secretaries made duplicate copies for Paul's personal collection or those of his associates (pp. 34-39). It is likely that these personal collections were the source from which an early edition of the Pauline corpus was produced.

Chapter 2 looks into the extant Greek textual witnesses (pp. 40-64) and ancient translations relating to the earliest state of the Pauline collection (pp. 89-101). As a corollary to the discussion, the advent of the codex book form and its rapid adoption within Christian communities (pp. 64-73), and the origin and use of the letter titles are examined (pp. 73-89). Along with this, early testimony from historical figures such as Marcion, Origen, Eusebius, Athenasius, the Muratorion Fragment, and Church councils are taken into account (pp. 101-112).

Chapter 3 delves into a diversity of writings written from the late-first through to the early-fifth centuries. The familiarity these authors had with the various Pauline epistles is ascertained and weighed (pp. 123-189). References from 1 Thess 5:27, Col 4:16, and 2 Peter 3:15-16 are analyzed for the light they might shed on the development of the Pauline canon (pp. 113-123). Most of the chapter is given up to culling through Patristic references to the Pauline writings (pp. 123-189).

Chapter 4 investigates the external evidence for the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews. Laird wrestles with the various scholarly challenges to the authenticity of Hebrews (pp. 202-232) and the Pastorals (p. 190-202) and their canonical relationship to the undisputed letters. According to Laird, the Pastorals and Hebrews have a more tumultuous reception history when compared with the rest of the Pauline corpus. Larid proposes that "the text of Hebrews was a Pauline speech that was later produced as a literary document" (p. 233).

Chapter 5 surveys and evaluates the many influential scholarly theories that attempt to account for the initial development and acceptance of the Pauline canon. These theories are separated into four categories, The first includes those theories that propose a formation of the collection after long years of neglect or limited circulation (pp. 236-241). The second category includes theories that generally postulate that the collection developed gradually as new writings were produced and the writings became more well known (pp. 241-261). The third category contains theories that hold to a gradual development by a Pauline school that may have had a hand in writing pseudepigraphal letters in Paul's name (pp. 261-268). The fourth and final category includes theories that hold to an early development, circulation and collection of Paul's letters (268-278). This collection was initially organized by Paul himself shortly before his death or immediately after his death by his close associates.

Chapter 6 provides an overview of the formation, publication, and circulation of the Pauline letter collection. The chapter identifies the earliest editions of the corpus that circulated and standardized the letter titles and the orientation of the writings with reference to each other within the collection (pp. 280-317). The theory proposed in this chapter takes into account both the external and internal evidence laid out in the previous chapters. The main proposal is this,

"[A]t least three major archetypal editions of the corpus began to circulate as early as the first century or soon thereafter, each of which circulated for several decades until a fourteen-volume edition became widely recognized by the fourth century." (p. 9).

There are a few places where the discussion and evidence do not seem to support some of the conclusions. First is the idea that the letters must have by necessity been bound together in a type of edition for the Pauline epistles to have been recognized and the titles of the epistles to have been standardized. This does not actually accord with the manner in which books were conceptualized in antiquity. In the Greco-Roman world a written piece was often composed of separate and unbound rolls. It was not uncommon for a reader to possess only some of the bookrolls. Nevertheless, these other bookrolls were still conceptually linked in the mind of the reader as a complete work. This can be illustrated with P. Oxy 2192. In this papyrus fragment in a postscript the sender of the letter makes a request. 

"Have a copy made of books six and seven of Hypsicrates’ Men Who Appear in Commedies and send it to me. Harpocration says that Pollio has them among his books, and probably others may have them too. And he also has prose epitomes of Thersagorus’s Myths of Tragedy.” 

Here the writer of the postscript conceptually links all the books (i.e. separate bookrolls) of Hypsicrates’ Men Who Appear in Commedies even though they are not physically bound together with his own copies of books one through five (assuming he possessed them already). Another example are the titles to the canonical gospels. P.Bodmer II (P66) is a codex that only contains the Gospel of John and has ευαγγελιον κατα ιωαννην written at the top. This title conceptually links this gospel with the other three even though it is not physically bound together with the other three in a single codex. 

Further still, the titles themselves could have been standardized by use and convention organically through circulation without having to have been derived from a single official edition with the letters physically bound together. The titles could have been derived from the addressees written on the backs of the letters (see previous post). The titles might have derived from the letter carrier as directed by Paul himself, perhaps when it was read out before the congregation. In either case, none of this necessitates that the letters be physically bound within a single codex or edition for them to be conceptually linked by the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Just as the writer of the postscript in P.Oxy 2192 conceptually links all the separate bookrolls of Hypsicrate's woks, Peter could have conceptually linked all of the extant letters of Paul that were not physically bound together. These factors seem to nullify the need for postulating various bound editions with seven, ten, thirteen, or fourteen letters contained in a single codex. Despite this, Laird is careful to note that an officially published edition of Paul's epistle do not negate the fact that the letters also circulated amongst the various Christian communities for a time (p. 316).

Despite the criticisms noted above, Laird provides an exhaustive look into all the physical and literary evidence for the Pauline letter collection. Though there is disagreement with the necessity for an official edition of the Pauline epistles, it is likely that such an edition did arise. The most compelling argument made in the book is the notion that Hebrews was likely an oral speech by Paul that was taken down and prepared for publication by Luke or another of Paul's associates (pp. 225-234). This appears to take into account all of the available evidence and best explains the early acceptance of Hebrews and its close connection with Paul from an early period. Despite some minor criticisms mentioned above, Laird's monograph is an excellent resource that contains all of the evidence for the circulation of the Pauline canon in a ready handbook.

Timothy N. Mitchell

PhD, University of Birmingham, UK

The Editio Critica Maior of Mark (the Critical Text) and the Majority Text

The Editio Critica Maior of the Gospel of Mark was published in 2021 and with it an online toolset that allows the user to examine the data in more detail. This toolset is referred to as the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) and is hosted on the INTF's University of Münster webpage.

These CBGM tools are powerful and facilitate the comparison of any of the 209 manuscripts (referred to as witnesses) utilized in the edition and the examination of the readings in the whole of Mark. The methods and tools used for this edition have come a long way since Wescott and Hort's edition of 1881. Yet many interested in the textual history of the New Testament are unaware of these developments and trends, two of which are of great importance.

First, the editors of the ECM of Mark have abandoned the theory of text types as unsupportable by the evidence (See Klaus Wachtel "On the Relationship of the "Western Text" and the Byzantine Tradition of Acts: A Plea Against the Text-Type Concept" in the "Studies" volume of the ECM ACTS). As a result, this frees up the editors to mine other manuscripts for older readings.

Second, readings found only in the Byzantine tradition are given greater weight than before (see Klaus Wachtel "Notes on the Text of Mark" in the "Studies" volume of the ECM Mark). In the Gospel of Mark Wachtel notes this trend.

"In the 33 passages where the ECM now differs from NA28/UBS5, the editors opted for the MT in 20 cases. In only six cases the decision was against the MT, mostly where the Byzantine reading is bracketed in NA28/UBS5. In 107 out of the 126 passages with a split guiding line, one of the alternative guiding lines is the MT reading. Only 15 of these 107 MT readings agree with the text of NA28/UBS5." (Wachtel "Notes on the Text of Mark," page 1).

These two developments, the abandonment of the theory of text types, and the greater weight given to the Byzantine tradition reveal how far modern reasoned eclecticism has left Wescott and Hort behind. Using the witness comparison tool helps to illustrate this trend of greater respect for the Byzantine tradition.

First, the initial text is designated by a capital A (for ausgangstext German for initial text) which is what the editors call the earliest attainable text closest to what the authors wrote. When an A is entered in the "Witness 1" box and MT (for Majority Text, i.e. basically the Byzantine tradition) is entered into the "Witness 2" box the CBGM indicates that they agree 88.71%, nearly 89%!

If the same comparison is made between 03 (Codex Vaticanus) and the MT, and between 01 (Codex Sinaiticus) and the MT the results reveal that 03 agrees with the MT only 84% and that 01 agrees with the MT at 83%. These results indicate that the editor's reconstructed A text, the text that they see as the oldest form of the text, does not look exactly like the text of 01 and 03 and where they differ, the difference moves the A text towards the Majority Text and away from the text of 01 and 03.

Another indication of the greater respect is the number of Majority Text readings that the editors mark as preceding the readings found in 01 and 03. This can be seen by using the same comparison tool. When 01 is compared with the MT, out of the 741 variants that the editors made a decision, at 254 variants (34%) the variant found in the Majority Text is seen as preceding (older than) the reading found in 01! The same phenomenon can be seen with regard to the text of 03. The comparison tool indicates that when 03 is compared with the MT, out of the 684 variants that the editors made a decision, at 138 variants (20%) the variant found in the Majority Text is seen as preceding (older than) the reading found in 03!

These simple queries using the CBGM of Mark witness comparison tool indicate that the editors of the leading critical editions of the Greek New Testament have come a long way from the theories utilized by Wescott and Hort and popular among reasoned eclectics in the 20th century. No longer do textual critics slavishly follow the text found in either 01 or 03 or any other witness traditionally attributed to the so-called Alexandrian Text. In fact at many variants the editors believe that the Majority Text preserves the older text over against the text found in 01 and 03.

An Autograph Diptych from Roman Britain

While visiting the British Museum I always enjoy viewing the Roman Britain room where the Vindolanda Tablets are on display. While browsing and snapping pictures with my phone I noticed that one of the tablets, Tab.Vindol 182, has several lines with a strikethrough. This indicates that this wooden notebook was actively used and edited as a working list. As the museum description indicates, the tablet contains a working list of accounts due. Presumably, as the accountant worked through the various accounts listed and collected what was due, the particular account was lined through. I found this fascinating because it is these strikethroughs that reveal that this was a working text, an autograph. Most likely the accountant that is lining through the text was the one who wrote the list as well.

__________________________________

Tab.Vindol. 182. Ink writing tablet | Roman Inscriptions of Britain

The Path from Textual Doubt to Textual Confidence

I was recently in Bellingham, WA for helicopter maintenance business and had the opportunity to meet up with Mark Ward who is a philologist with Faithlife/Logos Bible Software. I was able to tour the Faithlife headquarters and Mark asked to interview me about my recently completed PhD. He asked me about my faith journey from doubt in the text of the New Testament to confidence. 

I also mention my plans to move to Ukraine and teach at Kyiv Theological Seminary. For more information see https://send.org/give/missionaries/mitchell

I did make one error during the interview, I mentioned Hesiod as being banished but actually meant to say Ovid. You can listen/watch the interview here https://youtu.be/CCB43GDsrXM

Libanius of Antioch and His Letter Carriers

I am currently reading the book "The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch" by Raffaella Cribiore. It features the life and work of Libanius of Antioch who taught rhetoric in Constantinople and Nicomedia but settled in Antioch when he accepted a chair of rhetoric. Though Libanius was a pagan, he taught several notable Christian scholars including John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and had some dealings with Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. Another famous student of his was Julian who became Emperor, better known as Julian the Apostate. I find it fascinating that both Christian and pagan alike had the same educational background at the time. Apparently, John Chrysostom despised his formal teacher and openly mocked him in his work "On Babylas" (Cribiore, 140). There are a significant number of his letters that survive to this day. There are a few interesting details in the book that I find tantalizing. One is that Libanius would write letters that would give reports of his student's progress to their parents or guardians. These reports were often summarized by the letter carriers. One such letter Cribiore translates in the book.

(ca. 355 CE)

To Eupator,

Your children are enduring in Daphne the work that ends in summer. They have our permission so that the trees, the waters, and the breezes may make their task more palatable. If someone criticizes them on account of the place, let it be known that he is, in truth, a false accuser.
The bearer of this letter will tell you what I think about both of them. I consider both you and your sons blessed because of him: Olympius, the best of men on earth, cares about your family. (Cribiore, 262)

Several of Libanius's students were from outside Antioch and were sent there to study under Libanius along with their slave, a pedagogue, that was entrusted with their learning. These pedagogues were often tasked by the parent or guardian of the student with giving regular updates and progress reports. In one of Libanius's progress reports, he mentions that the student's pedagogue is the letter carrier and is tasked with giving greater details of the students progress once he arrives.

(ca. 359/360 CE)

To Letoius iii

When you participated in the meeting concerning important matters that was called in the presence of a friend of ours, you said that your nephew was with us and that you intended to write to him and to me about him, but you did not do either. We, however, are writing and are sending the pedagogue, who does not allow us to write a long letter. If I praised this young man at length, he is the one you would ask if my words were true, so it is better to give my report about these things to him. (Cribiore, 290)

That Libanius relies not only on a trusted letter carrier to deliver his message, but to elaborate on it has several parallels in the New Testament. For example, in Ephesians 6:21, Paul relies on Tychicus to not only bear his letter but to give a more detailed report as well. 

So that you also may know how I am and what I am doing, Tychicus the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord will tell you everything. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may encourage your hearts. (Ephesians 6:21-22)

_____________________________

Raffaella Cribiore, "The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch" (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007) 

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri and The Titles to Paul's Letters

I have been reading through a new book by Benjamin Laird, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Liberty University. This new monograph covers the formation of the Pauline letter collection; "The Pauline Corpus in Early Christianity: Its Formation, Publication, and Circulation."

I was planning on giving a concise review of the book (I was given a copy for review), but haven't yet finished reading it. I found the topic so intriguing and thought provoking, however, that I wanted to give a few of my thoughts before I was completely finished reading through the book. In the monograph, Laird discusses such topics as the early Christian use of the codex, the manner in which Greco-Roman authors circulated "editions" of their letter collections, etc. I hope to comment on these topics in further posts, for now, what has caught my interest was Laird's observations and arguments on the titles to Paul's letter collection. To briefly summarise, Laird highlights the uniformity of the titles to the Pauline letter collection in the earliest extant manuscripts, reviewing such early witnesses as P46 and Codex Sinaiticus among other witnesses (pages 74-82). He notes that the titles throughout all the collections remain consistent (page 82). Laird argues that because Paul's letters were carried by trusted letter carriers that knew the author and the recipients, "it may not have been necessary at the time the writings were originally dispatched for subscriptions or letter titles to be included" (pages 74). Because the Pauline letters were named after the recipients of the letters, Laird argues, it was unlikely that they circulated as part of other letter collections (page 83). He uses Philemon as an example, in this case, the letter was actually addressed to several individuals, Philemon being only one of them (Phlm 1; page 84). Because of this, Laird surmises,

"Because the address includes the names of several individuals, it is not a foregone conclusion that the title ΠΡΟΣ [Φ]ΙΛΗΜΟΝΑ would have been universally recognized had it not been created by a particular individual or a small team on a specific location." (page 84)

Supporting this notion, Laird points to the letter to the Ephesians (page 87). The earliest manuscripts (P46, 01, and 03) all testify to the title ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ. Yet in these earliest witnesses the letter is uniformly written as ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ. According to Laird, this points to the early circulation of an influential edition of Paul's letters.

These assertions had me thinking about the many examples of personal letters that have survived from Oxyrhynchus. There are a plethora of letters preserved that have the recipient written on the reverse side and have a named letter carrier known and trusted by the sender of the letter. Of course, I cannot be exhaustive, but here are a few examples.

P.Oxy 3.530. This second century letter is one from a son to his mother concerning money matters. The letter carrier is named, a certain Chaeremon, and is obviously known and trusted by the sender of the letter because Chaeremen holds money to give to the sender's mother. Even though the letter carrier is known and trusted by the sender of the letter, the name of the one to receive the letter is still written on the back of the document.

"Dionysius to Tetheus his mother, greeting. I have received all the letters concerning which you write, and with regard to the wheat which the collectors have demanded from you it is admitted (?), but I had forgotten to make any order for payment; I have however paid in full the naubion and other taxes. Do not be concerned that the matter about which I wrote to Theon has not been carried out and that I have so long been engaged with Pausirion’s business to no purpose ... Please receive from Chaeremon the bearer of this letter 112 drachmae of silver of which you will give to my friend Sarapion son of Apei 100 drachmae and redeem my clothes, with 8 drachmae on account of interest, and keep 4 drachmae for yourself for the expenses of the festival. If I had had more I would have forwarded a further sum; I have borrowed to send even this. So pay him the money and get my clothes back safe, and put them in a secure place. Do not be anxious about us, for there is nothing the matter with us and we are at harmony with each other. Theonas salutes you. Salute the boys Apion and his brother Hermatois, Dionutas, those with Nice and the little Thaisous, all those with..., Heras and his household, Leontas the proud and his household, those with Taamois, and Thermoutharion. Good-bye. The 20th of the month Caesareus. (P.S.) Send me word about this immediately after the festival, whether you received the money and whether you recovered my clothes. Salute Dionutas and Theon. (Addressed) To my mother Tetheus." (translation taken from https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.oxy;3;530)

The images are available here (https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Papyrus_1530)

P.Oxy 3.530

P.Oxy 3.530 with the reverse showing to whom the letter is addressed:
Τεθεῦτι μητρί (Tetheus my mother)

P.Oxy 6.930. This is a letter written from a mother to her son. The first part of the letter normally containing the opening greeting is missing. Yet the receiver of the letter is preserved, written on the reverse side. Along with this, the mother is equally adressing her son's tutor who is apparently responsible for the boy. Even though the letter is addressed to her son on the reverse, she is also writing to her son's tutor Eros. 

" ... do not hesitate to write to me about anything which you require. It grieved me to learn from the daughter of our teacher Diogenes that he had sailed, for I had no anxiety about him, knowing that he intended to look after you to the best of his ability. I took care to send and ask about your health and learn what you are reading; he said that it was the sixth book and testified at length concerning your attendant. So my son, I urge both you and your attendant to take care that you go to a suitable teacher. Many salutations are sent to you by your sisters and Theonis’ children, whom the evil eye shall not harm, and by all our friends by name. Salute your esteemed attendant Eros ... (Addressed) ... to her son Ptolemaeus." (translation taken from https://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.oxy;6;930)

The images are available here (https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/library/files/special/teach/papyrus/oxyrhynchus930.html)

P.Oxy 6.930

Both of these papyri are examples of why Laird's observations on the titles of Paul's epistles do not necessitate an early edited and released collection published in a single codex. The titles of Paul's letters most likely came from the recipient written on the back of the letter as we see from these two examples. Or, for the longer epistles, written on the outside of the folded sheets of papyrus. P.Oxy 3.530 is an example of a trusted letter carrier (Chaeremon) who is known by the sender, yet the address is stil written on the back. P.Oxy 6.930 helps to answer Laird's concerns over Ephesians. In this oxyrhynchus letter, the written recipient is not preserved at the beginning of the letter (as is the case for Ephesians in P46, etc). Yet we still know who the intended recipient of the letter was because it was preserved by being written on the back of the letter. The same could be true for the letter to the Ephesians. Assuming the theory of a circular letter is true, if the earliest copy of the letter to Ephesians had the recipients omitted in the text of the letter, but the first copy was sent to the Church at Ephesus and the recipient was written on the back, then this could account for the recipients being left blank in the body of the text, but the title being preserved as "to the Ephesians."

Considering these two letters, it is much more likely that the titles of the Pauline letters actually derived from the intended recipients being written on the outside of the original folded and dispatched letter. Especially when we consider that Colossians 4:16 actually gives evidence that individual letters were being circulated at the begining and not as part of an "official" published edition.

"And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea." (Col 4:16; ESV)

Despite this disagreement with Laird on the title origins of the Pauline letter collection, I still have found Laird's book thought provoking and suggestive. I hope to post more thoughts and reflections in the near future.

Review: "Logos and Literacy" by Jordan Peterson

For a limited time, Daily Wire is offering a documentary on the impact of the Christian Bible upon the western world. The documentary is hosted by Jordan Peterson and takes place in the Museum of the Bible in Washington D.C. It can be found at the following link.

https://www.dailywire.com/episode/logos-literacy-feature-film

The documentary run time is only 44 minutes, and because of the relative brevity, it does not delve into much detail. It is divided into nine "Chapters". The following is a list of these chapters with their location in minutes of video .

Chapter 1: Museum of the Bible - 1:28 minutes.

Chapter 2: There Must be Logos - 4:37 minutes.

Chapter 3: The Written Word - 7:21 minutes.

Chapter 4: Teaching the Psalms - 12:59 minutes.

Chapter 5: Music and Memory - 16:20 minutes.

Chapter 6: Mass Production - 19:01 minutes.

Chapter 7: Translation to the Vernacular - 23:50 minutes.

Chapter 8: The Men of Science - 31:39 minutes.

Chapter 9: The Bible's Legacy - 38:53 minutes.

Summary of Content:

Chapter 1 introduces Brian Hyland, the Curator of Medieval Manuscripts at the Museum of the Bible in Washington D.C. He begins by introducing a mural on the fourth floor of the museum. This mural blends the images of the Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bodmer Psalms in Greek, a Medieval Psalter, The Gutenberg Bible, and the title of the Old Testament portion from the King James Bible. This serves as a great introduction to the content that will be covered in this documentary.

Chapter 2 discusses the creation narrative in Genesis and the parallels it has with Mesopotamian creation stories. Keith Getty, the songwriter who composed the hymn "In Christ Alone," is introduced and he ties in the Genesis story with the presence of the "Logos" at the beginning of creation in the Gospel of John. Getty states that "beauty and truth are linked together in the creator God. Another commentator, later introduced as Vishal Mangalwadi, Christian Philosopher, interprets the use of the word Logos in John to mean that reason was at the foundation and creation of the world.

Chapter 3 presents the advent of writing by showing some stunning images of Cuneiform tablets. Jordan Peterson discusses the gradual development of writing from keeping accounts to writing down and recording thoughts and stories. Rabbi Moshe Englander, who works at the Museum of the Bible as a Torah scribe, declares that there are 304,805 letters in the Hebrew Torah. Jeff Kloha, Chief Curator at the Museum of the Bible showcases the Bodmer Psalms, a 3rd or 4th century papyrus copy of the Greek Psalms (P.Bodmer XXIV). Hyland, continuing to discuss the Bodmer Psalms, gives a rough description of the codex and their early construction. He connects the Bodmer psalms with the Pachomian Monastery in Egypt and the requirement that all the monks in the monastery must be literate.

Chapter 4 introduces Vishal Mangalwadi who discusses that literacy is wound into the very fabric Jewish religion and culture. He notes that the Jewish people are the model to the western world that the home is the beginning of education. 

Chapter 5 gives the floor to Hyland who introduces images from a Greek Lectionary and highlights the musical notation in the lectionary. Getty declares that "Christianity is a singing religion," that the Psalms have been sung throughout Christian history.

Chapter 6 takes the viewer into the Middle Ages with the mass production of Latin bibles for use in the universities of western Europe. Hyland showcases several that are on display at the Museum of the Bible, utilizing close up camera angles and detailed shots of the colored and decorated initials. Kloha displays the museums copy of the Gutenberg Bible and discusses the role that printing had in expanding literacy and the availability of biblical text to a wider audience. Hyland also displays a bible in the museum's collection that was printed Gutenberg's partners, Johann Fust and Peter Schöffer.

Chapter 7 has Jordan Peterson and Hyland introducing the translation of the biblical text into European vernacular languages. The difficulty of word for word translation is discussed. The work of Martin Luther is highlighted, his goal of making a translation that the common people of Saxony could understand. Several close-up shots of Luther's bible are presented. Mangalwadi proposed that it was Protestant Christianity's emphasis on reading and understanding the bible that brought literacy to everyone. Kloha showcases the museums copy of the King James Bible and states that it "is the most significant translation into English ever." 

Chapter 8 has Jordan Peterson proposing that the medieval universities emerged from the Church and modern science came out of the Christian tradition. Emphasizing this fact, Mangalwadi notes that Psalms 11:2 is written over the entrance of the world's first laboratory at Cambridge University. He argues that the Christian belief in a creator motivated the first scientists to study creation. The work and impact of scientists Galileo, Newton, and Carver are discussed in light of their Christian faith. Mangalwadi proposes that modern science developed after Protestantism spread, and along with it, literacy and an "intellectual revolution."

Chapter 9 begins with Mangalwadi arguing that the modern concept of personal property and capitalism came out of the biblical teaching that each individual is a creator made in the image of God. Kloha and Getty emphasize the impact the bible has had on the arts, literature, the moral law and all aspects of western culture. Jordan Peterson wraps up the documentary by proposing that the bible is an example of the multiplicity of human experience and wisdom told in a collection of stories.

Review:

There are only a few minor criticisms that I have of the documentary overall. First, I wish there had been more close and detailed images and camera angles of the various manuscripts and books that were showcased. Some of the close up, raking light shots of the Gutenberg bible were stunning. More of this with all of the artifacts would have been even better. There were a few times where I wasn't sure if I agreed with the facts presented. For example, when the King James Bible was being featured, it was touted as "the most significant translation into English ever" by Kloha. I would disagree only in degree with this statement. It depends on what one means by significance. I would argue that either Tyndale's translation, or even the Geneva Bible translation might actually be hailed as more important than the King James Bible.

Despite these minor criticisms, I felt like the documentary was a nice 30,000-foot view of the history of the Christian Bible in the Western world. It would make for a nice center piece for a discussion group or study. It also serves as a good introduction to the holdings of the Museum of the bible in D.C. This is helpful to those who have not visited the museum and are on the edge as to whether it is worth a visit.

The following are links to two of the artifacts showcased in the documentary.

P.Bodmer XXIV -P.Bodmer XXIV (Rahlfs 2110) | Museum of the Bible

The partners of Gutenberg; Johann Fust and Peter Schöffer Bible

Biblia Latina; Johann Fust and Peter Schöffer Bible | Museum of the Bible