Scripture as Trash in Roman Oxyrhynchus

 

Excavations in the trash mounds at Oxyrhynchus

 

A number of years ago AnneMarie Luijendijk (a professor at Princeton University) wrote an article addressing the state of biblical manuscripts discovered in the trash heaps of Roman Oxyrhynchus.

 AnneMarie Luijendijk, "Sacred Scriptures as Trash: Biblical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus," Vigiliae Christianae 64 (2010): 217-254.

In this article she notes that many complete manuscripts of both secular classical literature and Christian literature were discarded as trash, often torn up into several pieces before being thrown away (Luijendijk, "Sacred Scriptures," 244). The fact that these seemingly useful manuscripts were intentionally torn up before discarding is noted as far back as the original excavation reports at Oxyrhynchus by Grenfell and Hunt (Grenfell and Hunt, “Excavations at Oxyrhynchus," 361). Don Barker has also noted that many of the book fragments found at Oxyrhynchus give evidence of being torn up before being discarded (Barker, “Codex, Roll, and Libraries in Oxyrhynchus,” 140, n33). It is nearly impossible to know the exact circumstances of why these papyri were torn up. Luijendijk gives an insightful answer at the end of the article, comparing the late antique practice of destroying sacred icons before discarding them as a way of breaking the sacred image away from the physical icon.

"I consider it quite likely that people, in this case early Christians from Oxyrhynchus, purposely shredded sacred scriptures when they discarded them in order to definitely break the link between sacred text and sacred manuscript." (Luijendijk, "Sacred Scriptures," 249)

At the end of the article Luijendijk lists out several copies of New Testament writings (and a few of the Shepherd of Hermas) that where likely thrown out as whole or nearly whole manuscripts, yet torn up into smaller fragments before being tossed into the trash mound. Why would Christians feel the necessity to throw away a copy of their scriptures, even if they were damaged? Luijendijk, indirectly gives an answer, a likely scenario is that these papyrus copies of the New Testament (and the Shepherd of Hermas) were replaced by new parchment copies (Luijendijk, "Sacred Scriptures," 230-231). Jerome informs us that at one point, an extensive project was undertaken at the Cesarean Library to restore the aging papyrus manuscripts onto parchment codices.

"Euzoius was educated as a young man at Caesarea along with Gregory, the bishop of Nazianzus, under the rhetor Thespesius and later became bishop of the same city; with very great toil he attempted to restore on parchment the library of Origen and Pamphilus that had been damaged." (Jerome, Vir ill. 113; translation taken from Carriker, p. 23, n. 70)

This possibility becomes more likely when considering that there was a manufacturer of manuscript parchment located in Oxyrhychus. Luijendijk argues this fact in another work, suggesting that Sotas, the third century bishop of Oxyrhynchus was likely involved in the production of books, noting that he wrote two letters on fragments of parchment, rather than papyrus. This was highly unusual and indicates that scraps of parchment left over from book production were available for use in letter writing (Luijendijk, "Greetings in the Lord," 144-151).

There are two implications that can be drawn from this evidence concerning the early Christian view of scripture, at least as it was held in Roman Oxyrhynchus at the time these manuscripts were discarded. First, Christians seem to have viewed the “text” of their scripture, the message that they conveyed, as more important than the physical objects of the scriptures. They did not hold onto their physical books as sacred relics to be worshiped, rather, they valued the message that the texts conveyed.

Second, related to this idea, these Christians did not seem to give greater value to the these more ancient books for their closer proximity in time to the “autographs.” In other words, they saw no need to hold onto and preserve these older copies of the New Testament writings as if they would help to safeguard the New Testament from textual corruption. Once good copies of these manuscripts were made, the old ones could be discarded.

Though admittedly speculative, these observations push hard against the idea that the “autographs” of the New Testament survived for centuries. As I have noted in a previous post, it is highly likely that early copies of at least some of the New Testament books lasted for many years. Yet, if the attitudes of Christians at Oxyrhynchus can be extrapolated more broadly in the early Christian community, it is likely that many of the “autographs and first copies” (to borrow Craig Evans’s language) of the New Testament writings were tossed into the trash heaps once good copies were made. It wasn't the guarding and keeping of the "autographs" that preserved the New Testament so amazingly well, it was the early and widespread abundant copying of the New Testament that ensured its preservation.

_______________________

AnneMarie Luijendijk, Greetings in the Lord: Early Christians and the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Cambridge/Massachusetts:Harvard University Press, 2008.

  

AnneMarie Luijendijk, "Sacred Scriptures as Trash: Biblical Papyri from Oxyrhynchus," Vigiliae Christianae 64 (2010): 217-254.

 

Andrew James Carriker. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. VCsup 67. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

 

Craig A. Evans, “How Long were Late Antique Books in Use? Possible Implications for New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 25.1 (2015): 23-37.

 

Don C. Barker, “Codex, Roll, and Libraries in Oxyrhynchus,”Tyndale Bulletin 57.1 (2006): 131-148.

 

Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt, “Excavations at Oxyrhynchus: Fifth Season (1905-6).

Paul's Autographs, Inspiration, and an Early Letter Collection

Many years ago, I published the following JETS article, "What are the NT Autographs?" the paper proposed that,

"in reference to the NT, the "autograph," as often discussed in biblical inerrancy doctrinal statements, should be defined as the completed authorial work which was released by the author for circulation and copying, not earlier draft versions or layers of composition." (see previous post here)

One of the wonderful things about online venues such as social media and blogs is that one can receive almost immediate feedback to published articles. One particular line of feedback that kept surfacing was "what about Paul's epistles? Perhaps Paul edited his letters and published them into a collection, would these be 'inspired autographs'? How would my definition handle this particular situation?"

I had originally intended to include a section discussing a Pauline letter collection but quickly realized that this topic moved the article in a new direction, away from the thesis and opted instead to excise the discussion all together and address the question more directly in a future publication (E. Randolph Richards has addressed some of these issues in his excellent work “Paul and First-Century Letter Writing"). I had written the article in order to specifically address the process leading up to publication and release, and not the collection/reception process, which is really where the discussion of an “inspired” Pauline letter collection belongs. It seems to me that speaking of an “inspired” or “inerrant” letter (or Gospel) collection conflates the inspiration of the scriptures as they were composed, with the reception and collection of these writings in the canonical process. Perhaps some see these developments as the same, but in my understanding, these are two very different phenomena. I see that the inspiration event concerns the inscripturation of God’s revelation to man and the canonical process concerns the reception, collection, and circulation of this revelation. 

With that said, Richards has argued that Paul archived his own letters in a personal notebook (pg. 218-223). I think that, considering what we know about ancient letter writing, this was highly likely (we are dealing with probabilities here and not absolute certainty). As people requested copies of Paul’s letters, either asking Paul directly, or asking his associates, then copies would have been made at that time from these archived copies (See this occurring in real time with Ignatius's letters in Polycarp, Phil 13.2). More than likely, an “official edition” of Paul’s letters, created from these archived copies, would have been “published” posthumously (Richards, pg. 223). This would account for the varying manner in which his letters were gathered (single letters, varying order of collection, etc.) In my mind, releasing a collection in this way is not “composition" rather it is fully in the realm of copying and circulation. Thus, I think that it falls outside the composition/inspiration process (the inscripturation of God’s revelation to man). Again, referring back to Richards’s discussion of inspiration (pg. 224-229), I think that it is more accurate to envision inspiration as an event or process over a period of time, one that includes the unique circumstances that each particular Christian community was experiencing, and Paul’s unique, letter addressing these issues. Therefore, even if Paul did gather a collection and polish them up, and release them at a later date, I am not sure that we can call this an “inspiration event,” if you will. This is where one’s theological leanings come into play. If one believes that Paul was dissatisfied with his letters and wanted to [edit:“correct them"] "polish them up" before publication, then the first versions did not perfectly convey the message that God intended his Church to read (i.e., they were not "inerrant").

If Paul did have a personal hand in collecting his letters and editing them into a more polished collection, then there raises the possibility of multiple versions of Paul's letters being in circulation. Benjamin Laird proposes this very possibility, suggesting that there were at least three different copes of the letter to the Romans made with three distinctive endings (Laird, "Creating the Canon," 61-62). There are several historical and textual problems with this suggestion, as I indicated in a previous book review. Setting these technical problems aside, if this were the case then there could be a situation in which there were three different versions of the letter to the Romans, each copied under the authority of Paul. In my suggestion above, only one of those letters would be truly "inspired," the version that Paul had made for the Church in Rome, the version that was made for the "inspiration event" (to use the conception of Richards). The other two versions of Romans would then be the products of copying, and the excised (or added) text would not be inspired in this understanding of the process.

The problem for modern scholars and theologians would be untangling this copying history. There would be no way to know with absolute certainty which version was the "first," intended for the original audience (such as Rome in the example above). Even though this textual history is complex, it does not mean that the text of Romans was never divinely inspired or inerrant, it means that our access to this text is limited by our finite human knowledge.

__________________________________

Benjamin P. Laird, Creating the Canon: Composition, Controversy, and the Authority of the New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2023)

E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004)

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.

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]

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

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

Interview With Apologist Wes Huff on Textual Criticism, Inspiration, and Inerrancy

Here is an interview that I had with Wes Huff, Director of Central Canada for Apologetics Canada. Wes has a lot of great Christian Apologetics content on his website(https://www.wesleyhuff.com/). Please be sure to check it out!

(https://youtu.be/ffg3AMIVWJI)

Deconstructing New Testament Autographs

I only just recently learned of Dr. Jamin Andreas Hübner, professor of economics at the University of the People, and a Research Fellow for the Center of Faith and Human Flourishing at LCC International University, Klaipėda, Lithuania. One of the topics that Hübner's research engages with is Christian "fundamentalism." I had not known or engaged with Hübner before I came across a tweet that he made interacting with my 2016 JETS article "What are the NT Autographs?" He tweeted that 

"Tim Mitchell in JETS 59.2 (2016) - the journal by ETS (that requires member[s] to be inerrantist), attempts to patch up these problems by bestowing Divinity/perfection to the "released" autograph, not the *original* original autographs, which doesn't solve problems..."

My article Hübner was referencing was this one,

"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.

Intrigued and delighted by his engagement with my article, I did some more digging and learned that he had recently written a book in which he fleshes out his arguments against an inspired "inerrant" autograph.

"Deconstructing Evangelicalism: A Letter to a Friend and a Professor's Guide to Escaping Fundamentalist Christianity" (Rapid City: Hills Publishing Group, 2020).

Hübner's interaction with inerrancy and autographs is found on pages 71-73, the screen shot of each page I include below.

I too, like Hübner struggled with the evangelical doctrine of inerrancy. This curiosity (some would call doubt) is what initially drove me into the field of New Testament textual criticism. Some of these issues that I had with inerrancy didn't begin to iron out in my mind until I began to gain a better grasp of the ways in which books were copied and circulated in the first few centuries of the Christian era. It was these insights that I culled together in the JETS article. After publication, I realized a few issues with the definitions my JETS article. One of which Hübner points out, without maybe realizing it. He fails to distinguish between the autographs as "text" and the autograph as "physical document."
I realized that I was not as clear on this distinction in my JETS article, and I attempted to flesh this out better in another article which was published recently.

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

In this article I wrote concerning the "autograph."

"the term “autograph” is not very helpful in describing the multifaceted aspects of divine inspiration and the composition of the NT writings, because at every phase of the draft stages, the document(s) would technically be “autographs.” Yet this is clearly not what is meant by “autograph” in doctrinal statements. Any definition of the original text, or “autograph,” must take these aspects into consideration." (pg. 92)

I continue on,

"Therefore, in reference to the NT, the “autograph,” as often discussed by apologists, theologians, and doctrinal statements, should be defined as the text of the completed authorial work the moment in which it was released by the author for circulation and copying, not earlier draft versions or layers of composition." (pg. 96)

Finally, I wrote,

"Certainly, the physical properties of the autograph (whether papyrus, parchment, wax or wooden tablet, etc.) helped to shape the text, however, it is the text—the wording—that was inspired, not the physical medium of the material autograph. Passages in the scriptures, such as Colossians 4:16, 1 Thessalonian 5:27, and 1 Timothy 4:13, imply a copying and distributing process. For Paul, addressing these congregations, it was imperative that the recipients received the text of the epistle, not the original physical material autograph penned by the sender of the letter." (pgs. 96-97)

Though my comments might not address Hübner's concerns over the issues of an inspired autograph, it is my hope that they do. Hopefully he might engage with my arguments more fully in the future.