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).

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]

Cicero: Making Duplicates of Letters

Scholars have often recognized the ancient practice of writers keeping copies of their own letters. One example from Cicero (54 BC), illuminates the many difficulties that arise out of the practice of communicating through letters. Writing to his brother Quintus,

"I forgot to write to you about Caesar; for I see what sort of a letter you have been expecting. But he wrote to Balbus and told him that the whole packet of letters, in which were mine and Balbus's, was so soaked with water when he received it that he did not even know there was any letter from me. He had, however, made out a few words in Balbus's letter, to which he replied in the following words : "I see that you have written something about Cicero, which I could not understand, but as far as I could conjecture, it was the sort of thing that I thought more to be desired than hoped for." So later on I sent Caesar an exact duplicate of my letter." (Ep. ad Quint. Frat. 2.12)

There are a few interesting incidental details that reveal the problems associated with letter writing. First, there was an entire packet of letters delivered to Caesar all at once. The phrase in Latin here is "fasciculum ilium epistularium," which is just referring to a packet or parcel of letters. It seems to imply a loose bundle of individual leaves rather than anything that was bound together like a codex. One can infer that these letters, though written likely over a span of several days, were delivered to Caesar at one time, indicating that it may have taken some time to deliver them.

Second, the material, either papyrus or parchment, was damaged by inclement weather. Either the pages were so stuck together that they couldn't be separated and the writing made out, or the ink had been completely washed away by the rain (or likely both). This reveals the precarious nature of the material written upon. It is a miracle that there are any documents that have survived from the ancient world at all.

Third, this side note by Cicero reveals that a common practice was for letter writers to keep a duplicate copy of their correspondence on file for just such a circumstance. Cicero was able to make another copy of the letter and re-send it to Caesar.

Finally, this anecdote presents an example of social networks preventing the loss or corruption of texts. In this instance, it was not the deliberate alteration or misuse of a written text that was being guarded against, but the loss of text through damage by rain and moisture. It looks like Balbus, upon receiving his reply from Caesar, notified Cicero that his letter to Caesar had been damaged and lost and Cicero was able to re-write the letter and thus allowing the transmission of the message or information to be completed.

This example brings together a few themes from the ancient world that often surface. First, that the written material was highly volatile and susceptible to environmental damage or loss (such as this example from Arsinoites in Egypt during the first and second centuries AD). As in the story of the worn archival documents at Arsinoites, the only insurance against the loss of these documents was in having duplicates of these texts, in this case, the duplicates of Cicero's letters. And second, one aspect of this preservation against the loss or corruption of texts was through social networks guarding against this loss.

_______________________________

Cicero, Letters to his Friends. M. Cary trans. LCL. Vol 3. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960. Page 523.

Long-Lasting Autographs of the Bible

I sometimes enjoy looking at older evangelical theological and apologetic arguments (from the 19th and early 20th centuries) concerning the veracity of the Christian scriptures (whether the Old Testament or the New Testament). I find it fascinating when I discover that many arguments for and criticisms against the trustworthiness of the various aspects of the scriptures are not as recent as I had once thought. One such example I discovered while flipping through the old "The Fundamentals of the Faith" volumes. These were originally published as ninety or so articles in a twelve-volume pamphlet series known as the "Fundamentals of the Faith," which appeared from 1910 to 1915. R. A. Torrey then collected these articles and republished them in a four-volume set in 1917 entitled, "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth." Over one million volumes of these republished articles were distributed and they became widely influential.

In the fourth volume appears an article by A. C. Dixon, "The Scriptures" where the author first attempts to define the term "scriptures" and then proceeds to argue for the preservation of the Torah manuscript that Moses was commanded to write after his encounter with God (Exodus 17:14, Deutoronomy 31:9; Dixon, "The Scriptures," p. 264). I quote the relevant passage at length below,

"The Bible is literature written by the command of God, under the guidance of God, and preserved by the providential care of God. Moses commanded that the book of the law should be placed by the side of the Ark. No safer place could have been found, and the more I study the history of the Bible the more profoundly am I convinced that God has kept His book by the side of some ark all through the ages. As the Church has been under His care and protection, so has the Book.
It is not difficult for me to believe that the manuscript which Hilkiah found in the Temple [that Josiah commanded to read out] was the identical book which Moses wrote in the wilderness, and that this very manuscript was in the hands of Ezra on the pulpit of wood as he preached in the open air [Nehemia 8]. It is only one thousand years from Joshua to Josiah and only one hundred and seventy-five years from Josiah to Ezra. There are now in our libraries scores of manuscripts which we know to be over a thousand years old, and two or three which have certainly been preserved more than fourteen hundred years. With the kindly oriental climate and the care which the Jewish reverence for the book would naturally lead them to have, it is not at all improbable that the manuscript of Moses should have been preserved for more than a thousand years. And the history of the Bible from the time of Christ to the present confirms the proposition that it has been preserved by the providential care of God." (Dixon, "The Scriptures," p. 266)

Here Dixon uses the (modern) phenomena of manuscripts that are over a thousand years old surviving in libraries as support for his proposition that the physical autograph of the Torah from the hand of Moses must have also survived for over 1,000 years.

In it's basic sense, Dixon's argument is strikingly similar to other arguments put forward in more recent times with regard to the autographs of the New Testament. This arguement goes like this, if some ancient manuscripts could last X years, then Biblical autograph(s) must have lasted X years too.

__________________________________________

A. C. Dixon, "The Scriptures," pages 264-272 in The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (Volume IV. R. A Torrey, et. al. eds. 1917. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008)

New Testament Authors, Autographs, and Elitist Romans

An article published in a recent issue of JETS explored the definition of "autograph" as it related to the composition of the New Testament writings and Greco-Roman publication practices;

 "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.

The paper posited 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."
The article seemed to garner a positive response from readers as well as questions regarding the applicability of the thesis to the Pauline corpus. Another line of feedback questioned the validity of applying the composition practices of Roman elites with the authors of the New Testament documents, who may have been from humble uneducated backgrounds.

Other than Paul (and possibly Luke), we have very little knowledge of the social status and education levels of the authors of the New Testament writings. Despite this, much has been made of the statement in Acts 4:13;

"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus."

This verse has often been used to show that Peter and John could not read or write (whether in Greek or Aramaic), were from the lower level of the social strata, and thus, could not have authored any of the New Testament writings (Ehrman, 75). However, this appears to be going too far with this statement in Acts. The context of the passage has to do with a meeting of the Sanhedrin examining the teaching of Peter and John with regard to Jesus. Because ἀγράμματοί (uneducated) is used along with ἰδιῶται (laymen) it seems more likely that the Sanhedrin were astonished because they thought (or knew, see below) that Peter and John had no legal training in biblical interpretation and rabbinical law and did not hold an official position in the Temple. Similar statements were made in John 7:15 with regard to Jesus; "How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?" The astonishment is expressed over Jesus showing such learning in biblical interpretation and his followers addressing him as 'Rabbi' when he had no formal rabbinical training. It seems then that Acts 4:13 has little to do with Peter and John's ability to read and write and their education in general (Bruce, 102;cf. Kraus, 439-440).

In contrast, it may be that some of the disciples, namely John, walked in the elite social strata of Judean society. If we take the statements in the Gospels at face value (we have very little else to go on), then it may be that John came from an elite family. If one compares Matthew 27:56, Mark 16:1, and John 19:25, it may be that John's mother was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Luke indicates that Mary was related (ἡ συγγενίς) to Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist (Luke 1:36). Elizabeth was from the Aaronic line and was married to Zacharias, a priest (Luke 1:5). Therefore, the apostle John may have been distantly related to the Priestly family through his mother, even though John himself did not hold an office in the Temple worship.

Further clues indicate that John may have moved in the elite class of Judean society. The author of the Gospel of John (if taken at face-value, the apostle John) is known for referencing himself anonymously (compare John 1:35-40) and is most likely the anonymous disciple mentioned in John 18:15;

"Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest"

John is known well enough by the High Priest Caiaphas that he is allowed to enter into the "elite" areas of the Temple complex. If John was known to the High Priest, then this might shed some light on Acts 4:13 because the Priest overseeing the Sanhedrin would have known personally that John had received no formal rabbinical or legal training and therefore "that they were uneducated, common men."

Coupled with this, if one looks at the use of ἀγράμματοί in the papyri, then it becomes clear that being ἀγράμματοί does not automatically classify one as coming from the lower strata of society. A well know example comes from the Fayum in Greco-Roman Egypt. Petaus (2nd century AD), even though he was ἀγράμματοί this did not prevent him from operating in the upper strata of society and holding a position of status as a village scribe. One had to own a great deal of property to be considered for the position of village scribe (Kraus, 443: Harris, 278-279).

Of course, none of the above is meant as an apologetic defending traditional authorship of the Gospel of John or the veracity of the New Testament. Rather, it is only meant to emphasize the uncertainty of the education levels of the apostles and followers of Jesus. It is a mistake to assume that all of the apostles and disciples (who later authored New Testament writings) were uneducated and illiterate, and/or from the lower social strata. Of the authors of the New Testament writings, John at least may have been a member of the Judean elite society and therefore may have shared in similar Greco-Roman attitudes towards literary composition discussed in the JETS article. Explicit examples of John's careful consideration could be gleaned from his writings, but will have to wait for another time.

_____________________________
Bruce, F. F. Commentary on the Book of Acts: The English Translation with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Ehrman, Bart D. Forged: Writing in the Name of God : Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. New York: HarperOne, 2012.

Harris, William V. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991.

Kraus, Thomas J. "'Uneducated', 'Ignorant', or Even 'Illiterate'? Aspects and Background for an Understanding of AΓPAMMATOI (and IΔIΩTAI) in Acts 4.13." NTS 43.3 (1999); 434-449.

What Are the New Testament Autographs?

I am privileged to have an article published in the June issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society;

"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.

The abstract reads;

"This article explores the definition of the NT "autographs" as articulated in various inerrancy doctrinal statements. It begins by sketching the history of the doctrine of the inerrancy of the "autographs," followed by some modern criticisms of the doctrine. Greco-Roman publication composition and publication practices are surveyed by investigating three figures from the beginning of the Roman Imperial age through to its height: Cicero, Pliny the Younger, and Galen. Four extant examples of ancient papyrus "autographs" are examined, illustrating the draft and rewriting stages of composition. After analyzing Greco-Roman publication, a definition is proposed: in reference to the NT, the "autographs," 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."

A significant portion of the article focuses on select quotations from the letters and writings of Cicero, Pliny, and Galen illustrating that the writing process was often a long process which involved writing and rewriting. Friends and associates, scribes, and personal secretaries would often be a part of the editing process as well. All the while it was expected that these early draft stages of composition would not circulate beyond the immediate circle of associates who were offering feedback to these initial stages of composition. The key event that signaled the end of this process was the releasing of the work, by the author, for general circulation by the author's circle of acquaintances.
I also bring into the discussion a few extant examples of papyrus autographs. This is merely to illustrate that, usually, early stages of the writing process were characterized by rewriting, editing, deletions, and corrections. These papyrus copies were obviously not meant for wider circulation because they were incomplete. Of course, the event that would signal the completion of the composition process would be the releasing of the document for circulation by the author's associates.
Therefore, I think that, in light of this practice, the doctrinal statements should define the New Testament "autographs" in the same manner, that is, the completed form of the New Testament writings that were released for circulation.

Valentin de Boulogne, Apostle Paul Writing