Ancient Tablets, Notebooks, and Speeches in the Writing of the Gospels

Roman scribe with his stylus and tablets on his tomb stele at Flavia Solva in Noricum

In Book 6, Letter 5 to his friend Ursus, Pliny the Younger (ca. 61-113 AD) vividly describes a senate hearing. He mentions that during the proceedings two figures were debating each other; Licinius Nepos and Juventius Celsus. Apparently, Nepos re-opened a case that had been previous resolved and gave an untimely speech dealing with the matter that those present considered to be a breach of protocol. This is when the Jurist Celsus stepped in.

“The praetor Juventius Celsus vehemently upbraided him in a long speech, in which he taunted him with seeking to reform the senate. Nepos replied; Celsus answered him back, and neither spared reproaches and insults. I do not wish to repeat the words which pained me when I heard them spoken, but I blame even more some of our number who kept running first to Celsus and then to Nepos, according as one or other was speaking, in their desire to hear every word. At one moment they seemed to be encouraging and inflaming their passions, at another to be seeking to reconcile them and smooth matters over, and then they kept on appealing to Caesar to take the side of each, or even of both, just as actors do in a farce. What annoyed me most of all was that each was told what his opponent was going to say, for Celsus replied to Nepos from his note-book, and Nepos answered Celsus from his tablets. The friends of each kept talking to such an extent that the two disputants knew exactly what each was going to say, as though it had all been arranged beforehand.” (Ep. 6.5)

What caught my interest was the reference to “note-book” and “tablets,” both figures were referencing notes that they had obviously prepared beforehand. Celsus is described as making his reply to Nepos from a “note-book” which is translated from the Latin word “libellus.” And Nepos is depicted as referencing his “tablet,” which is translated from the Latin word “pugillaris."

The term "libellus" in this context is likely referring to "a book written in pages, and not in long rolls," especially some kind of legal brief or case notes (From Lewis and Short). This could be either papyrus or parchment. Though if it was a parchment codex the Latin word "membranis" would have more likely been used (Quintilian, Ins. Or. 10.3.31). Therefore this is likely referring to individual sheets stacked together.

P.Oxy 3929 a third century libellus or certificate of sacrifice for the Decian persecution 

The word "pugillaris" is a reference to a type of smaller hand held writing surface that was made from thin board hollowed out and filled with wax. This could then be inscribed upon by a pointy stylus and then erased easily by smoothing out the wax.

Teacher's Example Above, Student's Writing Below. Wax Tablet, II CE. (British Museum MS. 34186)

I find it fascinating that Pliny specifically mentions that these two figures are making their speeches directly from notes on writing materials rather than from rote memorization. This made me think of the intersection of early Christian "preaching" and the giving of public speeches in the Roman Senate. Irenaeus tells us that the Gospels of Mark and Luke first began as preaching events.

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." (Haer. 3.1, ANF)

Also, Eusebius hands down to us a tradition that the Gospel of John also first began as the oral preaching of the Jesus story. Only after he was urged by the Christian community did he write down the gospel of John in his old age.

"For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry." (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.24.6-7, NPNF).

After thinking about the incident recounted by Pliny of Celsus and Nepos giving speeches while consulting their notebooks and tablets, I immediately thought about the apostles using notebooks and wax tablets as references and guides in their preaching. Perhaps these kinds of preaching notes were what was contained in Paul's mysterious "notebooks" (μεμβράνας, membranis) mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:13. If so, then perhaps some of these materials were in mind when Luke mentioned "many have undertaken to compile a narrative" (Luke 1:1-4). In the same way, perhaps some of Peter's preaching notes were used by Mark and arranged and ordered by him as Eusebius quotes Papias recounting (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15). John too may have had these types of written notes when he proclaimed the Gospel story orally (as Eusebius recounts) and could have used them in the composition of his Gospel as well.

Of course this is all wild speculation, and there is no way to explore this further. However, considering the few snapshots that we have from contemporaries of the Evangelists like Pliny the Younger, this type of speculative scenario is not outside the realm of possibility.

______________________________________

Latin text and English translation of Pliny’s Letter taken from Pliny: Letters - Book 6 (attalus.org)

Codex Sinaiticus: A Hulking Pile of a Book

In a recent issue of "Expository Times," Christfried Böttrich of Greifswald University (Germany) published an article on the Codex Sinaiticus.

"Codex Sinaiticus and the use of Manuscripts in the Early Church." Expository Times 128.10 (2017): 469-478

In this article, Böttrich contends that the library at Caesarea (T. C. Skeat), rather than Alexandria (Kirsopp Lake) was the likely source of the production of the manuscript. He gives the following reasons;

"First: there are some lexical indications regarding geographical substitutes. Second: Codex Sinaiticus adopts the Eusebian system in the gospels, and offers a special text division in Acts following a model that can be traced back to Pamphilus. Third: there are two famous colophons after the text of 2 Esdras and Esther claiming a correction of the text in Caesarea at least in the 6th century; such colophons should be viewed with caution because they became inflationary in later times, being copied from one codex to the other, but these two predate such secondary usurpation." (pg. 470) 

Böttrich does not give any new evidence or argument for Caesarea as the likely place of origin. The bulk of the article focuses, rather, on the purpose for producing such a fine codex in the first place. He engages with the well known theory that both Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were two of the large Biblical codices requested from Eusebius of Caesarea by the new Christian Emperor Constantine. Here is an excerpt of the request,

"Be ready therefore to act urgently on the decision which we have reached. It appeared proper to indicate to your Intelligence that you should order fifty volumes with ornamental leather bindings, easily legible and convenient for portable use, to be copied by skilled calligraphists well trained in the art, copies that is of the Divine Scriptures, the provision and use of which you well know to be necessary for reading in church. Written instructions have been sent by our Clemency to the man who is in charge of the diocese that he see to the supply of all the materials needed to produce them. The preparation of the written volumes with utmost speed shall be the task of your Diligence. You are entitled by the authority of this our letter to the use of two public vehicles for transportation. The fine copies may thus most readily be transported to us for inspection …" (Vit. Const 4.36.2–4; quoted from the article, pgs. 472-473).

Böttrich gives several reasons why Codex Sinaiticus was not one of these codices produced for public reading in a Church worship context. First is that the four column format with its many corrections cluttering the margins does not easily facilitate public reading (pg. 474). Second is the shear size of the book;

"The biggest problem is the weight. All in all, the codex originally must have covered more than 730 parchment sheets, a hulking pile. Who could carry it in daily use? Is it conceivable to manage liturgical readings with such a codex? Regarding the emperor’s guidelines, Codex Sinaiticus would not have been a clever solution." (pg. 474-475)

No one can argue that Sinaiticus is a very large codex and must have weighed a tremendous amount in its original complete form. Its size, however, may not exclude it from having been used in a Church worship context. There is at least one instance from about the same time period that mentions a Church congregation holding several large copies of the Bible. In the capital city of Cirta, Numidia, in North Africa, during the great persecution under Diocletion (ca. 303 CE), there is a detailed account of the confiscation of Bibles. In this account, a subdeacon surrenders to the officials a very large copy of the scriptures [codicem unum pernimium maiorem] and several church readers surrender "five large codices, and two small ones" [codices quinque maiores et minors duos] (Gamble, "Books and Readers," pgs. 145-147). Of course, the overall size of these copies are relative, and they still may be considerably smaller than Codex Sinaiticus. Even so, as this account suggests, it would not be out of place for a Christian congregation to use a larger copy of the Bible in their worship practices.

As Böttrich mentioned, Sinaiticus's four column layout is not unlike a bookroll from the height of the Roman Imperial era (pg. 474). This format, however, does not necessarily imply that Sinaiticus was not meant for public reading. As William Johnson noted, there were many who read out from bookrolls in group settings and were able to navigate its format. Johnson describes a scene in which the physician Galen (last half of the second century) and his rival Martialius publicly read from a bookroll and argued over its text (Johnson, "Reading and Reading Culture," pgs. 88-89). Johnson also recounts a dinner party scene described by Aulus Gellius (last half of the second century) where passages from poets were read out from bookrolls and discussed amongst the learned group (Johnson, pg. 105). Some of the formatting in Sinaticus also suggests that the codex had public reading in view. "Ekthesis" and other reading aids are used throughout the codex, and several places in the codex, the text is formatted into lists in such a way that the reading-out of these lists would emphasize each word in a unique way. Peter Head noted this in his paper "The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus," stating that, "These lists would also have been reflected in public reading of the text of Sinaiticus, with each item pronounced carefully and separately, developing emphasis over the course of the lists" (pg. 13). I argue in my paper "Codex Sinaiticus as a Window into early Christian Worship," that these lists were read in a public worship setting in a unique way that facilitated learning or memorizing these words and phrases (pg. 12).

Böttrich's article is a nice summary of the scholarship and theories behind the production of arguably the world's most famous Biblical manuscript. He makes a great assessment that Caesarea is the likely origin of its production and that Sinaiticus is likely not one of the codices manufactured at Emperor Constantine's demand.

Codex Sinaiticus (www.codexsinaiticus.org)

_______________________________________________________
Bibliography

Böttrich, Christfried."Codex Sinaiticus and the use of Manuscripts in the Early Church." Expository Times 128.10 (2017): 469-478

Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995
Head, Peter M. "The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations." TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism , Vol. 13 (2008): 1-38.

Johnson, William A. Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities. Edited by Joseph Farrell and Robin Osborne. Classic Culture and Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Mitchell, Timothy. "Codex Sinaiticus as a Window into Early Christian Worship." in Eleutheria 3:1 Fall (2014): 2-19.

How Long a Book? The Useful Life of Papyrus and Parchment Books

George Houston, in his work “Inside Roman Libraries,” surveyed book collections in antiquity, analyzed their contents, the date of composition, and the rough date of the discarding of the collection in a trash heap, or, in the case of the library at Herculaneum, the last known period of use. From these data Houston concluded that the useful life of papyrus bookrolls was on average 100-125 years and 300 to 500 years in extreme cases (pg. 257).

There is some difference, however, in the useful life of papyrus and parchment books in the various climates where they may be used for making books. In the later part of the second century, the physician Galen described the process of copying out books that were in a Roman library in order to preserve, for his own collection, copies of these works;

"These (books), then, did not cause me a small pain when copying them. As it is, the papyri are completely useless, not even able to be unrolled because they have been glued together by decomposition, since the region is both marshy and low-lying, and, during the summer, it is stifling." (Peri Alupias 19)

It is clear that in the more humid climate of Rome, the useful life of papyrus, if not properly cared for, was much reduced. As Galen so richly describes, the damp atmosphere quickly decomposed the organic papyrus material.

Library of Celsus in Ephesus (ca. 135 CE)

Examples From the Caesarean Library
In the more arid environment of the East, papyrus books could have a very long life. In the library of Caesarea in Palestine, Pamphilus (ca. 280 CE) set about making copies of Origen's works, in his own hand, in order to build the library's inventory. Apparently, these works were still present in the library, and in use, over 100 years later when Jerome wrote (ca. 392 CE);

Pamphilus the presbyter, patron of Eusebius bishop of Caesarea, was so inflamed with love of sacred literature, that he transcribed the greater part of the works of Origen with his own hand and these are still preserved in the library at Caesarea. (Jerome, Vir ill. 75; NPNF 2:377)

It is apparent that Pamphilus copied these works on papyrus because Jerome noted that Eusebius' immediate successors set about restoring the Caesarean Library's inventory in 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 (codices(?); membranis) the library of Origen and Pamphilus that had been damaged." (Jerome, Vir ill. 113; translation taken from Carriker, p. 23, n. 70)

Therefore, the works that Jerome had noted, that were in the hand of Pamphilus, were papyrus books that were still in use in the Caesarean library over 100 years later during Jerome's lifetime.

It is noteworthy, however, that Euzoius set about to restore the library's works in parchment codices, rather than papyrus. This was likely due to the fact that parchment was much more durable and had an incredibly long shelf life. As was noted in a previous post, the parchment Codex Sinaiticus, which was copied sometime ca. 350 CE, was still being used in the 6th or 7th centuries when scribes corrected the text to "an extremely old copy corrected in the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus." Thus, the Codex Sinaiticus was still being used and consulted by scholars 200-300 years after its creation!

At least in the case of the Caesarean Library, papyrus books had a useful life of more than 100 years, and parchment many times longer.
____________
Bibliography

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

Houston, George W. Inside Roman Libraries: Book Collections and Their Management in Antiquity. Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 2014.

Clare K. Rothschild and Trevor W. Thompson. "Galen: 'On the Avoidance of Grief,' " Early Christianity 2 (2011) 110-129

The Gospel of John and Readers of Mark

I have been reading through Richard Bauckham, ed. The Gospel for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). In chapter five, "John for Reader's of Mark," Bauckham argued that John wrote his gospel with the understanding that the Gospel of Mark had been widely disseminated and read throughout the larger Christian community (p. 148). Therefore the Gospel of John was written in order to complement the stories and the chronology of Mark (p 170-171). John must have had the Gospel of Mark in view and not just oral traditions as these oral traditions might vary from place to place in their specifics and chronology (p. 164). This dependance can be seen particularly in two parenthetical glosses found at 3:24 and 11:2 (p. 151).

Eusebius on John's Gospel
Bauckham's theory aligns well with Eusebius' explanations concerning Mark;

"Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. . . . [Mark] had no intention of giving and an ordered account of the Lord’s sayings." (Hist. eccl. 3.39.15)

A little earlier Eusebius had given the motivation for John to write his gospel;

“And after Mark and Luke had already made the publication of the Gospels according to them, John, they say, used all the time, a proclamation that was not written down, and at last came to writing for the following cause. After the three Gospels which had been previously written had already been distributed to all, and even to himself, they say that he welcomed them and testified to their truth, but that there was therefore only lacking to the Scripture the account concerning things which had been done by Christ at first and at the beginning of the proclamation. . . . Now they say that on account of these things, the apostle John was exhorted to hand down in the Gospel according to himself the time passed over in silence by the first evangelists and the things which had been done by the Savior at this time.” (Hist. eccl. 3.24.7-11)

According to Bauckham, several of John's parenthetical glosses (i.e. 2:14-22; 3:24) can be explained as chronological correctives or explanations for readers of Mark who might be confused by the differences between the events as they occur in John and those in Mark (p. 153, 159). Bauckham's theory aligns well with Eusebius' understanding of the writing of Mark and John. Mark and Luke had apparently already circulated widely when John decided that he would write his gospel account. If Mark wrote down Peter's preaching without regard to chronology, it would have been necessary for John to correct or explain the chronology at points of variance.

Mark: Macro Level Stability
Reading this got me thinking about the textual veracity of the Gospel of Mark. Bauckham's theory in "John for Readers of Mark" would only work if the overall structure and content of the Gospel of Mark has remained preserved over the centuries. Let me explain.
There has been significant scholarly interchange over the last few years concerning the usefulness of the term "original-text" (see Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’). Some scholars are more skeptical than others, but there is an overall hesitation to assume that the Gospel texts that we have preserved today (in critical editions) are the same as when these Gospels were penned in the first century. If Bauckham's theory is correct, then the parenthetical glosses in John (if original, and Bauckham makes a convincing case that they are) indicate that the overall structure of Mark preserved today is very similar to that which circulated in John's day in the late first century. This confirms Holmes' reflections on the preservation of the Gospels;

"In short, a very high percentage of the variation evident in the text of the Four gospels and Acts affects a verse or less of the text. On this level, the fluidity of wording within a verse, sentence, or paragraph is sometimes remarkable. At the same time, however, in terms of overall structure, arrangement, and content, these five documents are remarkably stable. They display simultaneously, in other words, what one may term microlevel fluidity and macrolevel stability."
(Holmes, From Original Text to Initial Text, 674)

__________________________
Bibliography 

Epp, Eldon Jay. “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism.” Harvard Theological Review. 92.3 (1999): 245–281.

Holmes, Michael W. “From ‘Original Text’ to ‘Initial Text’: The Traditional Goal of New Testament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion.” Pages 637-681 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Second Edition. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. New Testament, Tools, Studies and Documents 42. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
______________________________

More on the Subject of New Testament Textual Corruption

Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corruption: Part 1

Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corruption: Part 2

Eusebius and New Testament Textual Corruption: Part 3

Asclepiodotus and Theodotus, the Banker: 'Corruptors' of Scripture  

A Riot in the North African Church! Augustine on Jerome's Translation of the Bible 
 

Basil the Great and Ancient Manuscripts

Basil the Great

 A previous post discussed the useful life of ancient papyrus books and a few Church fathers that mentioned ancient manuscripts in their writings. It is a real treat when an ancient author explicitly references a textual reading, it is even more exciting when they mention the age and number of manuscripts that contain a particular reading.

The Majority of Copies
Basil of Caesarea (ca. 329-379 CE) explicitly mentions an interesting textual variant, Luke 22:36, in his Asceticon, Shorter Responses, 251. Here Basil mentions a reading that is found today in only one manuscript, the 5th century Codex Bezae (Nestle, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 340). Here Basil quoted Luke 22:36;

He [Jesus] said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one." (ESV)

Basil notes that the majority of manuscripts (τα πολλα των αντιγραφων) contain the future tense "the one who has no money bag will take it" and today this reading is preserved in Codex Bezae alone. Basil apparently preferred the minority reading, the imperative "the one who has a moneybag take it" as it stands in modern Greek editions and English translations. We can tentatively infer from Basil's statements (whether by conscious editing or by chance) that textual traditions dominant in certain regions were later superseded.
It would have been difficult (even impossible) for ancient scholars to accurately assess the number of manuscripts that contained a particular reading. But knowledge of the broader textual tradition of the New Testament must have been accessible to a degree (at least in the region of Asia Minor) because Basil makes reference to "majority of manuscripts."

The Oldest Copies Handed Down
Basil made another interesting reference to an important textual variant in Ephesians. In his Against Eunomius 2.19, Basil used Ephesians 1:1 in countering Eunomius;

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are [in Ephesus], and are faithful in Christ Jesus." (ESV)

Basil left out the bracketed words "in Ephesus" and quoted the sentence as "to the saints who are" and declared that "those who came before us handed it down in this form, and we have found it in the oldest copies" (Donaldson, Explicit References, Vol II, 501). Though the vast majority of manuscripts today contain [in Ephesus], some of the oldest extant manuscripts of Paul's epistles do not contain this phrase, P46, Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus among others (Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 532; Comfort, New Testament Text, 577-579).

Codex Sinaiticus (4th cen.) with the marginal note "in Ephesus."

In referring to the manuscripts that did not read "in Ephesus," Basil used the same word, "παλαιος," that the corrector in the Colophon of Pamphilus in Codex Sinaiticus used to describe the "extremely old copy" that Sinaiticus was corrected against (see discussion here). If we consider again the useful life of ancient papyrus manuscripts, Basil was likely referring to copies of Ephesians that were a hundred or more years old.
Another interesting aspect of Basil's comment is that he wrote that these "ancient copies" were "handed down" from "those who came before." Basil used the verb "παραδεδωκασι" (handed down), a phrase that implies a formal tradition or body of teaching. This verb is related to the noun used by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "παραδoσεις" to refer to the traditions he passed along to the Thessalonian Christians;

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions (παραδoσεις) that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (ESV)

Basil sheds some light on how he might have known which reading was in the "majority of manuscripts." When a textual variant changed the meaning of a text, how it was interpreted, or that it was traced to widely known editorial activity, then it may have been more widely known and even disseminated within Christendom. This must have happened in the case of  Asclepiodotus and Theodotus who apparently were altering their text to better accommodate their doctrinal views.
Eusebius wrote 120 or so years after the time of Asclepiodotus and Theodotus, yet he knew of their editing practices. This account he had learned from "a laborious work by one of these writers against the heresy of Artemon" which is no longer extant and is attributed to various Church fathers (Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.28, NPNF 2.1:246). Perhaps Basil had learned of the age and preference for the manuscripts that did not contain "in Ephesus" through the writings of other Church fathers, such as Origen, who discussed this variant as well (Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 532).

Bibliography
Comfort, Philip W. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary. Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 2008.

Donaldson, Amy M. "Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings Among Greek and Latin Church Fathers" (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame) 2009.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Nestle, Eberhard. Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament. Translated by W. Edie. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1901.

The Library of Caesarea: Exceptional or Representative?

6th cen. fresco discovered beneath the Lateran Chapel in
Rome, probably part of the ancient Lateran library

The previous article discussed the use of book-lists to inventory library collections in antiquity. George Houston's Inside Roman Libraries: Book Collections and Their Management in Antiquity, investigated several surviving book-lists on papyri and examined their features. These book-lists are representative of ancient practice and are illustrative of Christian book collections as well. In particular, Pamphilus cataloged the holdings of the Caesarean Library and later writers, such as Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.32.3), and Jerome (Vir ill. 38.), most likely utilized these lists in their studies.
But one may ask, "How representative of other Christian centers was the Caesarean Library? Was it exceptional?"

Early Christian Libraries
Eusebius tells us that Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, founded a library in Jerusalem at the beginning of the 3rd century (Hist. eccl. 6.20.1). This library of Jerusalem appears to have had extensive holdings and contained the works of Beryllus, Hippolytus, and the Dialogue of Caius with  Proclus (Hist. eccl. 6.20.2-3).
There seems to be no explicit mention of a library in Alexandria Egypt. But there was a famous catechetical school in Alexandria which flourished under Pantaenus in the late second century and later under Clement and Origen. Judging by the diversity of sources used by Clement and Origen (before he moved to Caesarea) there must have been an extensive library connected with the school (Gamble, Books and Readers, 161). It is likely that the Caesarean Library was patterned after the library of the catechetical school in Alexandria. Pantaenus personal library may have made up the nucleus of the Alexandrian catechetical school library in much the same way as Origen's personal library formed the nucleus of the Caesarean library.

Congregational Libraries
There are no other major libraries explicitly mentioned for other Christian centers in the first and second centuries. But most Church congregations would have had collections of Christian writings, epistolary material from inter-Church communications, and other archival material (Gamble, Books and Readers, 144). As early as the letter of 1 Clement (ca. 96 CE), one can ascertain that Clement must have had a modest library at his disposal in Rome for writing his letter to the Corinthian Church. Just a decade or so later Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 112 CE) indicated specific collections of writings when he referenced the "archives" of Old Testament writings (Ign. Phld. 8.2) and made reference to the letters of Paul (Ign. Eph. 12.2). The author of 2 Clement, in the early second century, alluded to specific book collections when making reference to "the books and the apostles" (2 Clem. 14.2).
Justin Martyr (ca. 140 CE) in Rome wrote of the universal practice of reading from Christian literature;

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. (Apology, 1.67; ANF 1:186)

Of course, reading every Sunday would be impossible if Church congregations had no collections of books from which to select.
Irenaeus of Lugdunum, Gaul (France, ca. 180), had an impressive array of Christian literature at his disposal, orthodox and gnostic (Haer. 1.31.2). These gnostic and "heretical" writings must have been largely available because Irenaeus criticized Christians for not reading and familiarizing themselves with their "false" doctrines (Haer. 4.preface.2.).
Melito of Sardis (died ca. 180), was a Jewish Christian who wrote extensively on the Passover, the canon of the Old Testament, and composed an Apology to Marcus Aurelius (Hist. eccl. 4.13.8; Vir ill. 24).
These Church fathers are merely representative of the prolific literary out-put of many Church leaders of the first through the third centuries (Hippolytus, Tertullian, etc). These scholars must have had extensive book collections at their disposal and many of them wrote expecting their readers to understand their references to Christian literature.
By the time of the great persecution under Diocletian in 303, book collections in Church congregations had become so numerous that Roman officials began to round them up and burn them (Gamble, Books and Readers, 145). Even in places as far reaching as the town of Cirta in Numidia North Africa Roman officials located extensive book collections (Gamble, Books and Readers, 145). The Martyrdom of St. Felix and The Martyrdom of Saints Agape, Irene, and Chione, each give evidence of sizable Church libraries (Gamble, Books and Readers, 145-148).

Mosaic of a Book Cabinet 5th cen.

Christian Book Lists
Let us return to our original question, "How representative of other Christian centers was the Caesarean Library? Was it exceptional?" When it came to the practice of inventorying the library holdings, the Caesarean library was no exception. This practice appears to have been common in Roman society (Houston, Inside Roman Libraries, 39-40). Besides Pamphilus's cataloging efforts, there is an example of a Church or monastic community inventorying their holdings in the papyrus fragment dating to the early fourth century, P. Ash. Inv. 3, which lists out Old Testament writings, Gospel writings, and even a copy of the Shepherd of Hermas (Gamble, Books and Readers, 149).
Certainly, the Caesarean library was exceptional in its connections with Origen, and Eusebius. But this library was not exceptional in its collecting of Christian literature and cataloging of its holdings, as it was a Roman practice to do so. Therefore, anywhere there was a book-collection, there was likely a book-list to go with it.

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

Gregory, Andrew. The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.


Hill, C. E. Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy. New York City: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Houston, George W. Inside Roman Libraries: Book Collections and Their Management in Antiquity. Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 2014