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)

Codex and Canon

In New Testament scholarship it has been popular to attribute canonical motivations to the early Christian preference for the codex. Michael J. Kruger wrote that "Christians began to prefer the codex about the same time that the New Testament canon was beginning to take shape" (Kruger, Canon Revisited, 249). Likewise, J. K. Elliott stated that "canon and codex go hand in hand in the sense that the adoption of a fixed canon could be more easily controlled and promulgated when the codex was the normal means of gathering together originally separated compositions" (Elliott, "Manuscripts, the Codex and the Canon,” 111). John Meade has effectively argued against this view in "Myths about Canon," a chapter published in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. Drawing on his earlier work in The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity, Meade has presented evidence from the various canon lists that explicitly list out books of the bible that were considered canonical, that is divinely inspired and worthy of study as scripture. These lists often contrasted with the Church father's own citation and use practices. To give just one example mentioned by Meade, Athanasius cites Genesis and the Shepherd of Hermas alongside each other in his De incarnatione 3.1, indicating to some that Athanasius viewed the Shepherd as equally scripture and canonical alongside Genesis. Yet, as Meade notes, Athanasius specifically refers to the Shepherd as non-canonical (Meade, "Myths about Canon," 259). This evidence indicates that the early Christians would include books considered "canonical" and those considered "useful" but not considered "canonical" bound together in the same codex. Meade concludes his chapter by suggesting that the "codex was primarily a repository of the varied and many books that Christians read" (Meade, "Myths about Canon," 275).

Considering Rothschild's and Coogan's articles on the codex and discontinuous reading, Meade's chapter in "Myths and Mistakes" further underscores the practical considerations of the early adoption of the codex. If canonical considerations were not the motivation behind the binding together of canonical and non-canonical books, then what was the common factor in adjoining these types of works? I believe that Meade gives the answer in the end, that the common factor was that these canonical and non-canonical books were both read. Canonical and non-canonical books were studied alongside each other and even cited in their theological works. This highlights the ancient practical need for a book form that would allow for the discontinuous access that study, writing, and teaching would necessitate.

________________________

J. K. Elliott, "Manuscripts, the Codex and the Canon,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 63 (1996); 105-122.

John Meade, "Myths About Canon: What the Codex Can and Can't Tell Us," in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2019), 253-275.

Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012).

Wes Huff, Joe Rogan, P. Ryl. 3.457 (P52) and the Gospel of John

Joe Rogan Holding up a facsimile of P52 that Huff made and presented to Rogan.

Christian Apologist and New Testament Scholar Wes Huff of Apologetics Canada appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. The interview has gone viral within the New Testament Textual Criticism communities in the online sphere particularly because of Huff's statements around the John Ryland papyrus known as P52 (shelf number P.Ryl. III 457).

It seems that everyone has wanted to jump into the discussion surrounding this fragment, including Brent Nongbri, professor of History of Religions at MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion, and Society in Oslo. Over on his excellent blog Variant Readings, he listed several points of critique concerning P52 that Huff discussed on the Joe Rogan Experience. Nongbri has published extensively on the uncertainties of assigning dates to manuscripts using other non-dated papyri, especially with regard to P52. Despite Nongbri's obvious expertise I was a bit surprised by some of his criticisms of Huff's comments.

First was Huff's statements about the Christian use of the Codex. I had to re-watch that portion of the interview to be certain of the wording. When I first watched the interview I was in complete agreement with what Huff said, that Christians used the Codex exclusively with regard to their scriptures, which is absolutely true.Yet Nongbri seems to think Huff was arguing that ONLY Christians used the codex.

"The codex is “almost exclusively a Christian convention”: False. We have many codices that contain non-Christian material."

I don't think that this was what Huff was trying to convey when he was recounting the story to Rogan. Following are Huff's words in their full context.

"C. H. Roberts is, you know, literally going through these piles of manuscripts in these drawers that are being, like, stashed away and he finds this guy [P52], and he sees that it's written on both sides, which is almost exclusively a Christian convention. Because in the ancient world, they used scrolls. And the Christians, for reasons we're not entirely clear on, they start to make codices, books. Mhmm. And so, they write on both sides and so he says, okay this is written on both sides it's probably a Christian manuscript." (This at the 01:57:31-01:57:54 mark of the YouTube interview)

Nongbri's criticism appears to be taking issue with something that Huff never meant to say. It is most certainly true that Christians exclusively used the codex for their sacred writings, and this is likely what Huff was referring to and not that Christians invented the codex or that secular writings never appeared in the codex format. This becomes clear when his statements are taken in full context. In my hearing, Huff was highlighting the importance given in the discovery and publication by Roberts of the fact that P52 was the earliest known copy of a New Testament writing and it was a codex. In the description of the P52 in the Catalogue of Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library Vol. III Theological and Literary Texts, it is in the preparation of this volume that Roberts "discovered" the Ryland's fragment, he notes that, 

"The fragment is part of a leaf of a papyrus codex and thus conforms to the almost universal rule that works of Christian literature were written in the codex form" ("Catalogue," pg. 1).

Along with this, in the editio princeps of P52, Roberts had this to say.

"The fact that it is part of a codex, not of a roll, need now cause no surprise; thanks to recent discoveries we are coming to regard the codex as the normal vehicle for Christian literature even in the second century." ("An unpublished fragment," pg. 12)

The fact that the fragment was so early (at least according to the dating conventions of the day) and that it was a codex played a part in the excitement surrounding it's discovery and publication and Huff was right to point this out.

In this info graphic Wes Huff gives details concerning the Christian use of the Codex. Note that Huff acknowledges that Christians did NOT invent the Codex and that Christian papyri only amounts to 20-40% of codices.

Second, Nongbri called attention to Huff's statement that the Ryland's fragment likely originated from Oxyryhnchus Egypt. Nongbri wrote.

"Most likely comes from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.” Misleading. We don’t really know where this piece came from because it was bought on the antiquities market and not scientifically excavated. It’s possible that it comes from Oxyrhynchus, but Grenfell was buying from dealers elsewhere in Egypt in addition to the area of Oxyrhynchus."

The pushback by Nogbri about Huff's statement concerning provenance is hardly warranted. Roberts stated this about the fragment.

"Unfortunately, the provenance of the papyrus cannot be exactly determined. It was one of a large number purchased for the Library by the late B. P. Grenfell in 1920; the group to which it belongs consists of some literary texts and documents of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, all of which are stated to have come either from the Fayum or from Oxyrhynchos." ("An unpublished fragment," pg. 24).

Not only does Roberts believe P52 originated in the Fayum or Oxyrhynchus, Nongbri himself stated that either of these locations were it's likely provenance. In his article, 'The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel," Nongbri wrote in response to Roberts statements quoted above,

"Even absent that statement of provenance, we would be on safe ground assuming one of those two locales simply given the relative numbers of papyri discovered at those locations." ("The Use and Abuse of P52," pg. 27 footnote 14)

Therefore, if both Roberts in the editio princeps and Nongbri himself confirms that P52 is likely from Oxyrhynchus or from the Fayum, then Huff's statement was not misleading, it was on point.

Thirdly, with regard to the dating of P52 and the composition of John's Gospel, Nongbri has long taken issue with arguments like the one mentioned by Huff. It is worth quoting both Huff's comments, and Nongbri's reply together.

""But the unanimous consensus is that it’s comfortably second century, potentially beginning of the second century, which means that, this is found in Egypt; John is probably writing his gospel in Ephesus. So it has to be written by John, spread around, find its way to Egypt, copied and then end up in this manuscript, which means at minimum, you’ve already pushed the Gospel of John back into the first century, comfortably.” Very much debatable. This is the same story that was being told pretty much from the time of the publication of P52 in 1935. In older versions, the date of the papyrus was usually given as “circa 125 AD,” but here the rhetoric is a bit more slippery: “comfortably second century, potentially beginning of the second century.” But for the logic to work, that “potentially beginning of the second century” has to become “definitely beginning of the second century.” But the dating of P52 is not at all certain; it is just based on handwriting analysis, and there are good parallels for the script of P52 in papyri from the late second century and even the third century (see my 2020 New Testament Studies piece)"

A few things that should be noted here, one is the date range given by Nongbri. It is certainly true that this type of hand used by the scribe of the Rylands fragment has comparable examples into the third century. No one is disputing this. It is also true that, as Nongbri notes himself, these date ranges do not mean that P52 definitely dates to the early third century either. I really do think that Nongbri overstates his case somewhat. The fact that so many copies of John have survived, even if they all do date to the early third century, does say something about when the Gospel of John was composed. It at least speaks to the popularity and frequent copying of the text which reflects positively on its reception. It is certainly possible that P52, or even P.Bodmer II were copied in the second century. All Huff would need to do is change a few words of his comments and Nongbri's criticism would completely miss the mark.

"But the unanimous consensus is that it’s comfortably second [to early third] century, potentially beginning of the second century, which means that, this is found in Egypt; John is probably writing his gospel in Ephesus. So it has to be written by John, spread around, find its way to Egypt, copied and then end up in this manuscript, which means at minimum, you’ve already pushed the Gospel of John back into the first century, comfortably. [If the fragment dates to the early second century.]”

If these few minor changes were made and stated, then nothing that Huff claimed would have fallen within the realm of Nongbri's technical criticism. Along with this, Huff's comments were made in the context of the fragment's discovery. And with regard to the initial impact of the publication of the editio princeps, it certainly did have this affect on the consensus surrounding the date of composition for the Gospel of John.

Joe Rogan Experience #2252. Click Image for Link to YouTube Video

_______________________________________

Brent Nongbri, "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel," Harvard Theological Review, 2005; Vol. 98, p. 23-52.

Brent Nongbri, “Palaeography, Precision and Publicity: Further Thoughts on P.Ryl.Iii.457 (P52),” New Testament Studies 66, no. 4 (2020): 471–99.

C. H. Roberts, Catalogue of Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library Vol. III Theological and Literary Texts (Nos. 457-551), Manchester: Sherratt and Hughes, 1938.

C.H. Roberts, "An unpublished fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 1936; Vol. 20 (1), p. 45-55.

Review of Nicholas A. Elder's "Gospel Media"

I recently reviewed Nicholas Elder's new book "Gospel Media: Reading, Writing, and Circulating Jesus Traditions" (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2024). I reviewed the book for the Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics.

Scribal Memory and Textual Fluidity in Copying Christian Texts

Marble Relief of a Scribe from Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus (ca. 2nd cen. BCE)

Istvan Czachesz, "Rewriting and Textual Fluidity in Antiquity: Exploring the Sociocultural and Psychological Context of Earliest Christian Literacy" in Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity (Leiden: Brill, 2010); 425-441.

I was recently reading the article by Czachesz, referenced above, that engages with early Christian scribal practices from the perspective of modern studies on memory. I came across a lengthy quote that intersected with my own research interests.

"With no institution existing to safeguard the faithful reproduction of religious literature, the fate of books in the ‘religions of the book’ was not very different from the fate of ancient books in general. Not all texts were, however, equally fluid. A book with very large circulation and high authority was arguably more resistant to modifications. If a text was relatively accessible and well known among the educated, like Homer in Graeco-Roman culture, alterations to it were more easily spotted and less likely to be accepted as original than changes made to less well- known texts. In this case, a rewritten text could be identified as a new literary work, dependent on a well-known, authoritative text as its source. In contrast, the random distribution and small circulation of less well- known works, or of new works aſter their release, made them especially vulnerable to changes. In such cases, it was oſten impossible to know that the text at hand existed in multiple versions or to identify the authoritative version." (Czachesz, pg. 431)

I do generally agree with Czachesz's observations here, that in the first century "A book with very large circulation and high authority was arguably more resistant to modifications." I only disagree in that a work that had a narrower circulation would also be resistant to textual change for exactly the same reasons as a more popular work. The difference being that a smaller group that circulated a less popular text may have greater success in getting the collaboration of everyone involved in order to alter that text. It would still require the agreement of all those circulating and engaging with the text in question for significant alterations to a text to take effect. I discuss this and other issues in my article,

Timothy Mitchell, "Exposing Textual Corruption: Community as a Stabilizing Aspect in the Circulation of the New Testament Writings during the Greco-Roman Era" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43.2 (2020): 266-298.

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.

Review: "Logos and Literacy" by Jordan Peterson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 6: Mass Production - 19:01 minutes.

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

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

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

Summary of Content:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review:

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

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

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

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

The partners of Gutenberg; Johann Fust and Peter Schöffer Bible

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

Deconstructing New Testament Autographs

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

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

My article Hübner was referencing was this one,

"What are the NT Autographs? An Examination of the Doctrine of Inspiration and Inerrancy in Light of Greco-Roman Publication." JETS 59/2 (June 2016): 287-308.

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

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

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

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

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

In this article I wrote concerning the "autograph."

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

I continue on,

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

Finally, I wrote,

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

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

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.

Christian Networks and the Circulation of Christian Books

 

Sailing ship, 1st cen. AD (Pompeian tomb of Naevoleia Tyche Museo Della Civiltà Romana)

I recently learned of a fascinating account of Christians responding in various ways to Roman Imperial persecution in an excellent chapter by Jakob Engberg in a recent work.

"Caring for African Confessors in Exile: the Ministry of Numeria and Candida during the Decian Persecution (Cyprian, Epistulae 21-22)," pages 267-293 in Carmen Angela Cvetković and Peter Gemeinhardt, eds, Episcopal Networks in Late Antiquity: Connection and Communication Across Bounderies (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte vol. 137. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019)

After a military coup, Decius became the new Caesar of the Roman Empire in 249 CE. During this time, there were a series of revolts across the Empire and the Goths invaded Moesia and Thrace. In response to the unrest Decius issued an edict requiring all those in the Empire (not to include the Jewish people) to make sacrifices to the Gods in order to bring their favor on the troubled Empire (Engberg, 267). Decius set up an entire bureaucratic infrastructure to oversee this requirement and would issue certificates of compliance to those who would render the honor to the Gods. There are several of these certificates, or libelli, extant on papyrus (see here). Christians responded in different ways as Cyprian informs us in his treatise "On the Lapsed "(he was bishop of Carthage at the time); from actually performing the sacrifices, to bribery, having a certificate forged, or having another person perform the sacrifices in the Christian's place.

The pressures that Christians endured during this time must have been intense. Cyprian preserves a series of letters (Ep 20 and 21) that give a contemporary account of three African siblings caught up in this difficulty. They concern a man named Celerinus, who has two sisters that, at that time (ca. 250 CE), were living in Rome. In Cyprian's epistle 20 is preserved a letter from Celerinus to a Christian named Lucian who had been imprisoned after confessing himself a Christian and refusing to sacrifice to the Gods.

"Celerinus to Lucian, greeting. In writing this letter to you, my lord and brother, I have been rejoicing and sorrowful — rejoicing in that I had heard that you had been tried on behalf of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour, and had confessed His name in the presence of the magistrates of the world; but sorrowful, in that from the time when I was in your company I have never been able to receive your letters."

Celerinus entreats Lucian to pray for God's forgiveness on behalf of his two sisters currently living in Rome; Numeria who gave in and sacrificed to the God's but had since repented; and Candida who bribed her way out of the sacrifice (or possibly payed to have a libelli forged). In order to give proof of his sister's repentance, Celerinus informs Lucian of their recent service to a group of persecuted Christians.

"For this, my lord and brother, you ought to know, that it is not I alone who ask this on their behalf, but also Statius and Severianus, and all the confessors who have come thence hither from you; to whom these very sisters went down to the harbour and took them up into the city, and they have ministered to sixty-five, and even to this day have tended them in all things, For all are with them. But I ought not to burden that sacred heart of yours any more, since I know that you will labour with a ready will."

Apparently, there was a group of 65 Christians who were likely Africans themselves, some of them Lucian knew, that had travelled by ship to Rome in order to escape persecution, or because they were formally exiled (Engberg, 271).

The letter from Lucian to Celerius in response is preserved in Cyprian's epistle 21. Lucian agreed to grant this request.

"And therefore, beloved brother, greet Numeria and Candida, who (shall have peace ) according to the precept of Paulus, and the rest of the martyrs whose names I subjoin."

Lucian also mentions some of the tortures that he and his other fellow Christian prisoners endured.

"[B]y the command of the emperor we were ordered to be put to death by hunger and thirst, and were shut up in two cells, that so they might weaken us by hunger and thirst. Moreover, the fire from the effect of our torture was so intolerable that nobody could bear it. But now we have attained the brightness itself. . . . Bassus in the dungeon of the perjured, Mappalicus at the torture, Fortunio in prison, Paulus after torture, Fortunata, Victorinus, Victor, Herennius, Julia, Martial, and Aristo, who by God's will were put to death in the prison by hunger, of whom in a few days you will hear of me as a companion. For now there are eight days, from the day in which I was shut up again, to the day in which I wrote my letter to you. For before these eight days, for five intervening days, I received a morsel of bread and water by measure."

Lucian's letter is ended by a long list of names to whom Celerinus was to greet on Lucian's behalf. This reveals that there was a large network of Christians in North Africa and in Rome that know each other and communicate regularly through letters. Celerinus mentions his letters several times,

". . . and I took notice of them in my letters . . . before my letters find you in this world . . ."

Celerinus also mentions that he has written letters to other mutual Christian brethren.

"Your brethren Calphurnius and Maria, and all the holy brethren, salute you. For you ought to know this too, that I have written also to my lords your brethren letters. which I request that you will deign to read to them."

These letters he must have appended to the letter he wrote to Lucian and he expected Lucian to read these out to them.

Lucian makes mention of letters that he and his fellow Christian prisoners wrote and sent out to the community in order encourage fellow believers.

"Moreover, all of us whom the Lord has condescended in such tribulation to call away, by our letters, by mutual agreement, have given peace to all."

These social networks that spanned the Mediterranean and two major Roman city centers (Rome and Carthage) were in constant communication with each other through the exchange of letters, word of mouth, and through acts of service and hospitality. These networks could very easily be avenues by which copies of the Christian scriptures were distributed and disseminated readily and broadly throughout the Roman Empire as Christians fled persecution, were exiled, and visited each other. Not only would this ensure the continued spread and dissemination of the New Testament writings, but it would also provide a check against the "macro-level" alteration of the text of these documents as I argued in my recent article.

"Exposing Textual Corruption: Community as a Stabilizing Aspect in the Circulation of the New Testament Writings during the Greco-Roman Era" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43.2 (2020): 266-298