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)

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 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.

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)

Pliny the Younger: A Written Work as a Lasting Monument

In the midst of praising his friend Octavius's excellent poetical works, Pliny urged him to not delay the publication of his friend's work. The reasons were twofold. 

First, some of his verses had already begun to circulate without Octavius's consent. Accidental and unwanted publication of an author's unfinished writings often occurred in antiquity. In response, Pliny urged Octavius to quickly publish his completed writing so that those pre-circulating verses could then be claimed as his own.

Second, Pliny believed that completing and publishing a written piece would be a lasting monument to the author's fame. The work would far outlive the author's life and ensure their memory lived on in those who read the book.

"What an indolent fellow you are, or perhaps I should say how hard-hearted you are and almost cruel to keep back so long such splendid volumes of verse! How long will you deprive yourself of the chorus of praise that awaits you, and us of the pleasure of reading them? Do let them be borne on the lips of men and circulate through all the wide regions where the Roman tongue is spoken. People have long been eagerly looking forward to your publishing them, and you really ought not to cheat and disappoint them any longer. Some of your verses have become known, and - no thanks to you - have broken down the barriers you set round them, and unless you rescue them and include them in the main body of your work they will one day, like vagrant slaves, find someone else to claim the ownership of them. Don't lose sight of the fact that you are but mortal, and that you can only defend yourself from being forgotten by such a monument as this: all other titles to fame are fragile and perishable, and come to a sudden end as soon as the breath is out of your body. . . . However, as to publishing, do as you please, but at least give some public readings, in order to stir you on to publishing, and that you may at length see how pleased people will be to hear you, as I have for a long time been bold enough to anticipate on your account. For I picture to myself what a run there will be to hear you, how they will admire your work, what applause is in store for you, and what a hush of attention." (Ep. 2.10)

I find it fascinating that in the same letter (Ep. 2.10) Pliny both admits to the volatility of ancient publication (in that someone may plagiarize Octavius's work) and proclaims that a published writing would be akin to a great monument for the author, far outliving them and ensuring the author's memory lived on into the future.

This idea of a written piece being a part of the author's lasting fame Pliny expounded upon previously. In an earlier letter to his friend Caninius Rufus, he urged him to drop everything and get to writing.

"But really it is time that you passed on your unimportant and petty duties for others to look after and buried yourself among your books in that secluded yet beautiful retreat. Make this at once the business and the leisure of your life, your occupation and your rest; let your waking hours be spent among your books, and your hours of sleep as well. Mould something, hammer out something that shall be known as yours for all time. Your other property will find a succession of heirs when you are gone; what I speak of will continue yours for ever - if once it begins to be. I know the capacity and inventive wit that I am spurring on. You have only to think of yourself as the able man others will think you when you have realised your ability. Farewell." (Ep. 1.3)

It is obvious that Pliny was fully aware of the potential for copyist errors and plagiarism, with regard to ancient publication practices. Nevertheless, Pliny fully expected that a book would continue to be considered the author's own work and live on into posterity. This is because Pliny himself was intimately familiar with written works that had been penned hundreds of years before his time.

It is good to remember this ancient understanding and tension between the problems inherent in ancient publication and the glory and fame a written work could give the author long into the future. Especially when we approach the practice of textual criticism of the New Testament. Even though it may be difficult for modern textual critics to discern between later textual changes and the author's intended words. The response should not be to then assume that there was no completed (whether intentional or otherwise) version of the text that the author intended. This is one of the concluding arguments that I make at the end of one of my published articles,

"Though the modern textual critic may have difficulty discerning between the authorial text and later additions and corruptions made to the text after the document began to circulate, this does not mean that the ancients did not make these distinctions or that the modern textual critic should not" (Mitchell, "Exposing Textual Corruption," pg. 290)

_______________________

English translation of Pliny's Letters are by J.B. Firth, http://www.attalus.org/info/pliny.html

"Exposing Textual Corruption: Community as a Stabilizing Aspect in the Circulation of the New Testament writings during the Greco-Roman Era." JSNT 43.2 (December 2020): 266-298.

See also my comments on page 298 of,

"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).

Interview on The Hardcore Humanities Podcast

Released today is an interview I did with Jamie Tibke host of The Hardcore Humanities Podcast.  The interview can be found on Spotify and Apple ITunes. Link to Spotify posted below.

The Hardcore Humanities Podcast https://open.spotify.com/episode/2480jEi5oxaKZxaRMUsEXb

Augustine's Letter to Firmus

I have recently been reading through Augustine's "City of God" again. It is a fascinating work. In reading a few secondary sources I rediscovered a letter written by Augistine to a man named Firmus. One can find a nice English translation on Roger Pearse's blog and from which I quote in full here. One can glean some interesting insights with regard to the late antique publication and distribution of a Christian writing.

"To Firmus, My Distinguished and Deservedly Honored Lord, and My Cherished Son, Augustine Sends Greeting in the Lord.

The books on the City of God which you most eagerly requested I have sent you as I promised, having also reread them myself. That this, with God’s help, should be done has been urged by my son and your brother, Cyprian, who has furnished just that insistence I hoped would be forthcoming.

There are twenty-two sections. To put all these into one whole would be cumbersome. If you wish that two volumes be made of them, they should be so apportioned that one volume contain ten books, the other twelve. For, in those ten, the empty teachings of the pagans have been refuted, and, in the remainder, our own religion has been demonstrated and defended—though, to be sure, in the former books the latter subject has been dealt with when it was more suitable to do so, and in the latter, the former.

If, however, you should prefer that there be more than two volumes, you should make as many as five. The first of these would contain the first five books, where argument has been advanced against those who contend that the worship, not indeed of gods, but of demons, is of profit for happiness in this present life. The second volume would contain the next five books, where [a stand has been taken against those] who think that, for the sake of the life which is to come after death, worship should be paid, through rites and sacrifices, whether to these divinities or to any plurality of gods what­ever. The next three volumes ought to embrace four books each; for this part of our work has been so divided that four books set forth the origin of that City, a second four its prog­ress—or, as we might choose to say, its development,—the final four its appointed ends.

If the diligence you have shown for procuring these books will be matched by diligence in reading them, it is rather from your testing than from my promises that you will learn how far they will help you. As for those books belonging to this work on the City of God which our brothers there in Carthage do not yet have, I ask that you graciously and will­ingly acceed to their requests to have copies made. You will not grant this favor to many, but to one or two at most, and they themselves will grant it to others. Among your friends, some, within the body of Christian folk, may desire instruc­tion; in the case of others, bound by some superstition, it may appear that this labor of ours can, through God’s grace, be used to liberate them. How you are to share it with them you must yourself decide.

For my part I shall take care to make frequent inquiry, God willing, what progress you are making in my writings as you read them. Surely, you cannot fail to know how much a man of education is helped toward understanding the written word by repeated reading. No difficulty in understanding occurs (or, if any, very little) where there is facility in reading, and this gains in scope with successive repetitions. Constant appli­cation [brings to fruition] what [through inattention] would have remained immature.

In earlier letters, my distinguished and deservedly honored lord and my son Firmus, you have shown acquaintance with the books on the Academics that I composed when my con­version was yet fresh. Please write in reply how you came to this knowledge.

The range of subject matter comprised in the twenty-two books of my composition is shown in the epitome that I send you." (Augustine, ep. 1A)

In response to Pearse's blog post, Dirk Jongkind of Tyndale house had made some observations over on the Evangelical Textual Criticism Blog (I made a  couple of comments there myself referring to Gamble). There he notes that Augustine is likely referring to unbound loose leaves of an already written book that could then be assembled in the various orders as Augustine instructs Firmus.

It is of course impossible to know how common this practice was, but Augustine's letter may be evidence that authors (at least late antique authors) had some input over the paratextual features of a work. Not just the titles, but even the physical format of it's publication.

Also, what we have here is another, very common example of books being distributed through private networks. In this case the author is giving advice as to what form the book should take. Notice also that Firmus is to be sending out copies of the book to those in Firmus's network.

"As for those books belonging to this work on the City of God which our brothers there in Carthage do not yet have, I ask that you graciously and will­ingly acceed to their requests to have copies made. You will not grant this favor to many, but to one or two at most, and they themselves will grant it to others."

It is note worthy that Augustine does not want many copies to be made by Firmus, "only one or two at most." Any other copies should be made by those who receive the books from Firmus. Those in Carthage should then distribute copies as they see fit. 

One can see in this description the ever widening and broadening circles of distribution for the "City of God" as people in Carthage and beyond request and circulate copies.

Of course, this same network would inadvertently provide a means by which textual alteration of the work would be made known. Notice how Augustine had been informed that there were those who had already received and read portions of the "City of God." In a similar way, he could be made known if readers misunderstood his work, misrepresenting it, or even if they were plagiarizing or altering it.

Review of Matthew Larsen "Gospels Before the Book"

The September 2019 issue of JETS published my review of

Matthew Larsen. "Gospels Before the Book." New York: Oxford University Press, 2018 (JETS 62.3 pg. 641-645).

The following post is taken from the text of my JETS review, minus the chapter summaries. Since the JETS review guidelines limit the word count of the reviews I was unable to quote the text of the cited primary sources. I decided to repost the evaluation portion of the JETS review and include the primary source quotations in order to allow readers to better follow the critical engagement.
____________________________

The main thesis for "Gospels Before the Book" is largely built upon the idea that first-century notes (hypomnēmata) were not considered “bookish” or “finished" and would often be refashioned at will by users of these texts (or “authored,” to use Larsen’s term). However, when the primary sources cited are given a closer reading, they actually push back against this idea. For example, Larsen refers to the hypomnēmata of Cicero’s consulship, stating that the “goal was to script unfinished pre-literary raw material” and that this material was not meant “to be thought of as public” even though these hypomnēmata “were in circulation” (pp. 13–14). He uses the example of Cicero and Caesar’s Gallic Wars (which were also notes) to argue that these hypomnēmata were really considered “pre-books” by ancient readers (p. 14). Yet, in both the letters to Atticus, Cicero referred to these very same notes as a completed book (Latin, liber) (Att. 1.20; 2.1).

"Of my writings I send you my consulship in Greek completed. I have handed that book to L. Cossinius. My Latin works I think you like, but as a Greek you envy this Greek book. If others write treatises on the subject I will send them to you, but I assure you that, as soon as they have read mine, somehow or other they become slack." (Att. 1.20)

"On the 1st of June, as I was on my way to Antium, and eagerly getting out of the way of M. Metellus's gladiators, your boy met me, and delivered to me a letter from you and a history of my consulship written in Greek. This made me glad that I had some time before delivered to L. Cossinius a book, also written in Greek, on the same subject, to take to you. For if I had read yours first you might have said that I had pilfered from you. Although your essay (which I have read with pleasure) seemed to me just a trifle rough and bald, yet its very neglect of ornament is an ornament in itself, as women were once thought to have the best perfume who used none. My book, on the other hand, has exhausted the whole of Isocrates's unguent case, and all the paint-boxes of his pupils, and even Aristotle's colours. This, as you tell me in another letter, you glanced over at Corcyra, and afterwards I suppose received it from Cossinius. I should not have ventured to send it to you until I had slowly and fastidiously revised it. However, Posidonius, in his letter of acknowledgment from Rhodes, says that as he read my memoir, which I had sent him with a view to his writing on the same subject with more elaboration, he was not only not incited to write, but absolutely made afraid to do so. In a word, I have routed the Greeks. Accordingly, as a general rule, those who were pressing me for material to work up, have now ceased to bother me. Pray, if you like the book, see to there being copies at Athens and other Greek towns for it may possibly throw some lustre on my actions." (At. 2.1)

Cicero also requested Atticus to make copies to be distributed in Athens and other Greek towns so that these transcripts could be read as a completed standalone composition (Att. 2.1). Cicero had previously sent copies to others, such as Posidonius, in order to use as material for a more “polished" piece. Despite this, Cicero appears to treat Posidonius’s history (if he were to have authored it) as a potentially separate work. This history would have had a different author with recognizable additions and alterations to his own notes (Att. 2.1). Cicero would not have considered Posidonius’s history the same writing as his own notes (though altered), which Larsen appears to be arguing. The same can be said about the conclusions drawn from Pliny the Elder’s annotations and the poet Martial. Pliny the Younger gave an account in one of his letters concerning his uncle, Pliny the Elder. Apparently his uncle had kept copious unpublished notes (commentarii) of all his reading and studying. These texts were offered to be purchased by Larcius Licinus for the astonishing sum of 400,000 sesterces (as observed by Larsen, pp. 17–18).

"Such was the application which enabled him to compile all those volumes I have enumerated, and he left me one hundred and sixty commonplace books, written on both sides of the scrolls, and in a very small handwriting, which really makes the number of the volumes considerably more. He used to say that when he was procurator in Spain he could have sold these commonplace books to Largius Licinus for four hundred thousand sesterces, and at that time they were much fewer in number"(Pliny, Ep. 3.5)

Apparently, Martial helps explain why such an enormous sum was offered for Pliny the Elder’s commentarii. In Epigr. 1.66, Martial complained that someone had stolen his writings and exhorted the thief that instead of stealing his work this person should have looked for “unpublished poems and raw pieces of writing, which only one person knows” (p. 18). 

"You are mistaken, insatiable thief of my writings, who think a poet can be made for the mere expense which copying, and a cheap volume cost. The applause of the world is not acquired for six or even ten sesterces. Seek out for this purpose verses treasured up, and unpublished efforts, known only to one person, and which the father himself of the virgin sheet, that has not been worn and scrubbed by bushy chins, keeps sealed up in his desk. A well-known book cannot change its master. But if there is one to be found yet unpolished by the pumice-stone, yet unadorned with bosses and cover, buy it: I have such by me, and no one shall know it. Whoever recites another's compositions, and seeks for fame, must buy, not a book, but the author's silence." (Martial, Ep. 1.66)

For Martial, one should attempt to publish someone else’s work as their own only when that work had never circulated, this is because, according to Martial, “A famous book cannot change its master” (p. 18). Rather than supporting Larsen’s thesis here, Martial reveals that commentarii and hypomnēmata (or any other written piece) could be refashioned into a different composition by another author only when this material had not yet gone into circulation and become known. This was because the author would have considered this misappropriation a theft and not the normal use of texts already in circulation (as Martial did in Ep. 1.66). This is why Licinus offered such a large sum for Pliny the Elder’s material; they were unpublished and thus no one would know that Licinus was not their author. Therefore, Martial actually reveals that the publication and circulation of a writing was a definitive point at which a text became more or less fixed, not more fluid. The physician Galen provides a good example of this phenomenon. In his On My Own Books he describes how many of his lecture transcripts were given to his friends and students for their own personal use and edification (De libr. propr. 19.10). These notes were circulated widely without his consent and were altered, misappropriated, and plagiarized by others (De libr. propr. 19.10). His students informed Galen of the situation, gathered these aberrant copies, and gave them back to Galen so that he could then correct them (De libr. propr. 19.10).

“[M]y books have been subject to all sorts of mutilations, whereby people in different countries publish* different texts under their own names, with all sorts of cuts, additions, and alterations—I decided it would be best, first to explain the cause of these mutilations, and secondly to give an account of the content of each of my genuine works. Well, as for the fact of my books being published by many people under their own names, my dearest Bassus, you know the reason yourself: it is that they were given without inscription to friends or pupils, having been written with no thought for publication, but simply at the request of those individuals, who had desired a written record of lectures they had attended. When in the course of time some of these individuals died, their successors came into possession of the writings, liked them, and began to pass them off as their own.[ . . .]* Taking them from their owners, they returned to their own countries, and after a short space of time began to perform the demonstrations* in them, each in some different way. All these were eventually caught, and many of those who then recovered the works affixed my name to them. They then discovered discrepancies between these and copies in the possession of other individuals, and so sent them to me with the request that I correct them.”(De  libr.  propr.  19.10).

This account effectively acts against Larsen’s thesis. Though these copies were crude and had no title or name affixed, Galen and his friends and students took issue with their alteration and appropriation by others. Even though they were mere “notes” he still considered them his own writings. Larsen attempts to use Galen as an example of this type of material being treated as fluid texts (pp. 29–30). Though his compositions were misappropriated and altered by others, these were considered corruptions, clear additions to Galen’s definitive writings, and his students worked hard to correct these alterations. This would not have occurred if this type of alteration and appropriation of notes was a culturally acceptable practice as Larsen attempts to argue. Despite these difficulties, Larsen goes on to apply to the Gospel of Mark his unique reading of the primary sources, declaring that “[t]here is no evidence of someone regarding the gospel [Mark] as a discrete, stable, finished book with an attributed author until the end of the second century CE” (p. 1). A few lines later he states that “there is no evidence of the idea of gospel as a gospel book with an author until much later” (p. 2). Despite this claim being an argument from silence, Justin Martyr provides early second century evidence that Mark was likely considered a separate and distinct composition referred to as a “Gospel.” In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin makes a clear reference to Mark 3:16–17 (Dial. 106).

"And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder."(Dial. 106)

Larsen agrees that Justin does appear to make reference to Mark, “[h]e does not, though, call the text ‘the Gospel according to Mark’ nor even use the name ‘Mark’” (p. 92 n. 52; p. 180). This is not entirely correct, however, for in his First Apology Justin does refer to these writings as the “memoirs [ἀπομνημονεύματα] of the apostles” that were also called “Gospels” and these texts were handed down from previous generations (1 Apol. 1.66).

“For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.” (1 Apol. 1.66)

Contrary to Larsen’s claim, something like the Gospel of Mark was read by Justin and referred to as a “Gospel” that had recognizable contours as a distinct composition. It was passed down from former Christians and was read alongside the writings of the prophets in Sunday worship services in the first half of the second century (1 Apol. 1.67). 

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things." (1 Apol. 1.67)

Concerning Papias’s statements about the composition of Mark and Matthew preserved in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, Larsen claims that Matthew did not write “a separate gospel” from Mark, rather, he merely placed Mark’s copying of Peter’s preaching “in an interpretive arrangement” (p. 92).

"But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
This also the presbyter said: 

"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." 

These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

"But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able."" (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39)

This highly speculative reading of Papias is largely based upon the “ancient writing practices and modes of authorship” discussed earlier (p. 92). As analyzed above, however, the ancient sources do not support the thesis concerning hypomnēmata. A simple reading of Eusebius’s quotation of Papias reveals that two distinct authors with two distinct writings are in view. Overall, Larsen’s thesis that hypomnēmata were textually fluid holds true only for those texts that remain uncirculated (as Martial reveals in Ep. 1.66). Once released and disseminating, whether intended by the author or not, the written material becomes “fixed” and distinctions between the initially released text and alterations are often made known in the community of readers (as Galen reveals in De libr. propr. 19.10). Therefore, Larsen’s conclusions ring hollow, that “[n]ew theories and frameworks must be developed that take textual fluidity seriously and do not rely on notions like author, book, or finished versions of text” (p. 154). The primary sources referenced in Gospels Before the Book reveal that first and second century figures actually did interact with texts in the ways that Larsen attempts to argue against. In other words, they did interact with writings using concepts “like author, book, [and] finished versions of text” (p. 154). Though most of the work remains unconvincing, there are one or two aspects of Gospels Before the Book that might commend it to those who lack knowledge of ancient publication. The monograph does survey an array of Greek, Roman, and Jewish primary sources. These could instruct those who are uninformed on ancient practices of composition and circulation as they relate to Gospel studies and textual criticism.

-------------------------------------------

Cicero's Letters to Atticus English translations taken from here

Eusebius Church History English translations taken from here

Galen, "Selected Works" (P. N. Singer, trans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997)

Justin Martyr, "First Apology" English translation taken from here

Justin Martyr, "Dialogue With Typho" English translation taken from here

Martial's "Epigrams" English translation taken from here

Pliny he Younger's Letters English translation taken from here

Aristides of Athens and Early Christian Writings

 Aristides was an Athenian Philosopher who lived sometime during the reign of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 CE). His apologetic work was good enough to have staying power because Eusebius, in his "Church History," makes reference to Aristides and his Apology (ca.325 CE),

"Aristides also, a believer earnestly devoted to our religion, left, like Quadratus, an apology for the faith, addressed to Hadrian. His work, too, has been preserved even to the present day by a great many persons." (Hist. Eccl. 4.3.3)

Jerome, in his "On Illustrious Men," also mentions Aristides and his Apology (ca. 393 CE).

"Aristides a most eloquent Athenian philosopher, and a disciple of Christ while yet retaining his philosopher's garb, presented a work to Hadrian at the same time that Quadratus presented his. The work contained a systematic statement of our doctrine, that is, an Apology for the Christians, which is still extant and is regarded by philologians as a monument to his genius." (De vir. 20)

In this Apologetic work Aristides compares the Christian God with the Pagan God's. At one point, Aristides begins to point Hadrian to the Christian scriptures or writings in order to validate his arguments.

"Take, then, their writings, and read therein, and lo! you will find that I have not put forth these things on my own authority, nor spoken thus as their advocate; but since I read in their writings I was fully assured of these things as also of things which are to come. And for this reason I was constrained to declare the truth to such as care for it and seek the world to come. And to me there is no doubt but that the earth abides through the supplication of the Christians. But the rest of the nations err and cause error in wallowing before the elements of the world, since beyond these their mental vision will not pass. And they search about as if in darkness because they will not recognize the truth; and like drunken men they reel and jostle one another and fall." (Apol. 16)

It appears that Aristides is stating that he was converted to Christianity after he accessed their writings and read them for himself. If we can trust his testimony here, I find it fascinating that Aristides was able to identify a collective body of recognizable Christian writings. In other words, there was at the time (ca. 117-138 CE), a collection of writings that were recognizable by a non-Christian outsider as their definitive supporting documents. In turn, Aristides expected Hadrian to be able to recognize these writings as well.
It is also interesting that these writings were even available to the outsider. Aristides does not mention how he obtained a copy, but it had to be either through a book seller, a library, a friend, or a Church. In the early decades of the second century, these early Christian writings were circulating to such a degree that a Philosopher in Athens could obtain copies and read them for himself.

Divine Sanction Against the Corruption of Texts

Because there were no copyright laws and books stores in the Greco-Roman world, texts were primarily circulated through social contacts (see previous post, HERE and HERE). Once an text was released for circulation and began to enjoy broad circulation, authors effectively lost control over the fate of their work. Because of this, it was not uncommon for works of literature, poems, and speeches to be altered and plagiarized by others. Authors sometimes hoped to circumvent such alterations by issuing a warning against the corruption of their work, either through careless copying, outright alteration, or theft (plagiarizing). This kind of warning is used in Revelation 22:19 where John invoked the warning found in Deuteronomy 4:2,

"if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." (Rev. 22:19; ESV) 

In the case of Christian authors and scribes, God's judgement was often given to those who would dare mutilate a text. Here are a some examples;

(ca. 180 CE) Irenaeus of Lugdunum, Gaul (modern day Lyons, France), in his "Against Heresies" discussed a variant reading for the 'mark of the beast' of Revelation in some manuscripts of his day (see previous post here). After noting that some inferior copies of Revelation read '616' instead of '666'  alluding to the curse found in Revelation 22:19 he wrote,

"there shall be no light punishment [inflicted] upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the Scripture,under that such a person must necessarily fall." (Hear. 5.30.1; ANF 1:559)

(ca. 390 CE) Rufinus of Aquileia translated Origen's De principiis from Greek into Latin. In the preface to his translation he affixed a warning,

"[V]erily, in the presence of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I adjure and beseech every one, who may either transcribe or read these books, by his belief in the kingdom to come, by the mystery of the resurrection from the dead, and by that everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, that, as he would not possess for an eternal inheritance that place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, and where their fire is not quenched and their worm dieth not, he add nothing to Scripture, and take nothing away from it, and make no insertion or alteration, but that he compare his transcript with the copies from which he made it, and make the emendations and distinctions according to the letter, and not have his manuscript incorrect or indistinct, lest the difficulty of ascertaining the sense, from the indistinctness of the copy, should cause greater difficulties to the readers" (De prin. praef.;ANF 4:238)

As Gamble noted in his "Books and Readers," Christians were not the only ancient writers and copyists to invoke a divine sanction against the corruption of a text. Artemidorus, writing about the same time as Irenaeus affixed at the end of his work on the interpretation of dreams.

"I ask those who read my books not to add or remove anything from the present contents. For any person who is able to add points to my work would more easily write a work of his own. And if certain things that I have written in these books seem superfluous, the reader should use only those things that please him without discarding the rest of the books. For he should realize that it was out of obedience to Apollo, the overseer god and guardian of all things in addition to being my own native god, that I undertook this treatise. Apollo has encouraged me in the past, and now especially, when I have made your acquaintance, he clearly presides over my work, and has all but commanded me to compose this work." (Oneir. 2.70; Gamble, "Books and Readers," 125)

In the case of Artemidorus, it is the god Apollo who entreated him to compose the work and it is Apollo who watches over his work so that it may not be corrupted through copying.

For further reading on the use of divine sanctions against the alteration of texts, see Michael J. Kruger, "Early Christian Attitudes toward the Reproduction of Texts," pages 63-80 in
 "The Early Text of the New Testament(Edited by C. R. Hill and Michael J. Kruger. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

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

Pliny the Younger: Bestselling Author in Gaul

Greco-Roman authors largely preferred private copying through friends and acquaintances to publish their work over commercial book sellers (see previous post). Despite this, bookseller were utilized, even if in some type of limited capacity (see previous post). Once an author's text began to circulate outside of the author's circle of acquaintances, the author could lose all knowledge of where his works were being copied, sold, and read.
Horace (65-8 BCE) illustrated this well when he wrote that “[w]hat you have not published you can destroy; the word once sent forth can never come back” (Ars. 389-390). Once published, anyone who was unknown to the author could obtain a copy of the author's composition and distribute it across the Roman world. Yet, even in these circumstances, an author could learn the fate of their work. This occurred in the case of Pliny the Younger (ca. 100 CE), when he received a letter from a friend, Rosianus Geminus, who lived in Lugdunum, Gaul (modern day Lyon, France). Pliny wrote a letter in response,

"I have your letter, an especially welcome one as you want me to write you something which can be included in your published work. I will find a subject, either the one you suggested or something preferable, for yours may give offence in certain quarters - use your eyes and you will see. I didn't think there were any booksellers in Lugdunum, so I was all the more pleased to learn from your letter that my efforts are being sold. I'm glad they retain abroad the popularity they won in Rome, and I'm beginning to think my work must really be quite good when public opinion in such widely different places is agreed about it." (Ep. 9.11).

 We can see from Pliny's return letter that his books were quite popular in Gaul. Even in the case of anonymous booksellers acquiring and selling copies of Pliny's works abroad, he was still able to obtain information regarding them through his circle of acquaintances and friends. Thus, any major alterations, corruptions, or plagiarizing of his work (at least in Gual) could have been made known to him.
  

Statue of Pliny the Younger on the Cathedral of S. Maria Maggiore in Como

________________

Horace. Satires, Epistles, and Ars Poetica (H. Rushton Faiclough, trans. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942), 483.

Pliny. The Letters of the Younger Pliny (translated by Betty Radice. London: Penguin Books, 1969), 238-239.

Martial: A Well Known Book Cannot Change its Author

In a recent issue of the Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Matthew Larsen of Yale University published an article,

"Accidental Publication, Unfinished Texts and the Traditional Goals of New Testament Textual Criticism." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 39.4 (2017): 362-387.

Larsen mines several primary sources from Roman, Greek, Christian, and Jewish authors from Cicero in the first century BCE to Augustine in the fifth century CE. Larsen concludes by writing,

“The varied assortment of examples from Jewish, Greek, Roman and late antique Christian contexts show the prevalence of textual fluidity and unfinishedness in antiquity. Accidental publication, post-publication revision and multiple authorized versions of the same text are not surprising, since publication was only notional and so existed only as a social construct. Every new draft functions only provisionally and temporarily as a final draft, while the notion of a truly finished text in a definitive version does not map neatly onto the material ‘realia’ of the ancient world.” (pg. 15)

Larsen’s article advances our understanding of ancient composition and publication practices, by highlighting underutilized primary sources. Larsen does well to view the composition of the New Testament writings, especially the canonical gospels, as less rigidly defined texts on a sterilized linear progression from composition, to publication and wider circulation.

Yet, in several ways Larsen appears to misunderstand his own cited evidence. To give just one example, at one point Larsen cites Martial (late 1st cen. CE) as evidence for the ancient practice of compositions being plagiarized and repurposed by other authors as their own work. Larsen writes,

“In Martial, Ep. 1.66, he writes that, if you can buy a book for 6 or 10 sesterces, sure, go ahead and buy it, but if you find one yet unpolished by the pumice-stone, yet unadorned with bosses and cover (i.e. unfinished and unpublished), buy it, because you can become the author of that kind of text. Unfinished and unpublished literary raw materials, Martial quipped, were worth more because one could author what someone else wrote.” (pg. 8)

This reference in Martial is a gem of insight into first century attitudes towards literary borrowing and plagiarism. That is, plagiarism was okay, as long as one could get away with using another author’s work and circulating it as their own. Nevertheless, Martial does qualify this practice of plagiarism, here is Martial’s epigram in full;

“You mistake, you greedy thief of my works, who think you can become a poet at no more than the cost of a transcript and a cheap papyrus roll. Applause is not acquired for six or ten sesterces. Look out for unpublished poems and unfinished studies, which one man only knows of, and which the sire of the virgin sheet not yet grown rough by the contact of hard chins, keeps sealed up in his book-wallet. A well-known book cannot change its author. But if there be one with ends not yet smoothed with pumice, and not yet smart with its bosses and wrapper, buy it: such I possess, and no man shall know. Whoever recites another man’s work, and so woos fame, ought not to buy a book, but—silence.” (Epigr. 1.66) (LCL, pg. 71)

It is clear from Martial’s epigram that Larsen is correct to view plagiarism and literary borrowing as an accepted first century practice, as long as one obtained raw notes that had not been circulated. Martial even admits to holding and using unpublished notes when he wrote that, “such I possess, and no man shall know.” Despite this, Larsen goes beyond the evidence by stating that “publication was only notional and so existed only as a social construct” (pg. 15). Martial testifies against Larsen’s thesis when he differentiated between a text that was kept private and unknown and a text that was published and circulating. A text that was published could not (easily) be plagiarized for “a well-known book cannot change its author,” in other words, once a book was published under an author’s name, someone else could not easily steal this author’s work without it becoming known. This consequence can be seen in the very same poem for Martial begins his epigram by accusing another poet of stealing his own work. 

Some of the quotes referenced by Larsen are discussed with reference to the composition of the New Testament writings in,"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.

And in the forthcoming SBL paper,

Exposing Textual Corruption: Community as a Stabilizing Aspect in the Circulation of the New Testament writings during the Greco-Roman Era.
_____________________________
Martial, Epigrams (Walter C. A. Ker, trans. 2 Vols. LCL. London: William Heinemann, 1919).