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)

Review of Matthew Larsen "Gospels Before the Book"

The September 2019 issue of JETS published my review of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

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

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

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

Cicero's Letters to Atticus English translations taken from here

Eusebius Church History English translations taken from here

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

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

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

Martial's "Epigrams" English translation taken from here

Pliny he Younger's Letters English translation taken from here

Quintilian, Transcriptions, Publication, and Mark's Gospel

Mark writing the Gospel, London Rothschild Hours

Quintilian, a famous orator from the later part of the first century CE (see previous post), wrote his most famous work "Institutes of Oratory" in response to requests made by his students. Apparently, his students and followers wished for Quintilian to put down his vast knowledge and experience in teaching and practicing the art of rhetoric into a more permanent written form (Pref. 1-3). He dedicated the work to Marcellus Victorius because of his "extraordinary love of letters" and because, Quintilian wrote, "my treatise seemed likely to be of use for the instruction of your son" (Pref. 6).
It seems, however, that portions of Quintilian's teaching on rhetoric was already circulating in written form. He wrote that, 

"This I rather designed, because two books on 'The Art of Rhetoric' were already in circulation under my name, though neither published by me nor composed for that object, for after holding two days' discourse with me, some youths, to whom that time was devoted, had caught up the first by heart; the other, which was learned indeed in a greater number of days (as far as they could learn by taking notes), some of my young pupils, of excellent disposition, but of too great fondness for me, had made known through the indiscreet honor of publication. In these books, accordingly, there will be some things the same, many altered, very many added, but all better arranged, and rendered, as far as I shall be able, complete." (Pref. 7-8)

It is clear that this work, "The Art of Rhetoric," contained transcriptions of Quintilian's lectures, but was not written by Quintilian himself, and was done without his knowlege. Though this writing was attributed to Quintilian, he did not regard it as a sanctioned work, fully polished and complete, worthy of circulation. He contrasted this poorly written transcription with his "Institutes," which was designed to teach "from the very cradle as it were of oratory, through all the studies which can at all assist the future speaker to the summit of that art" (Pref. 6). It was Quintilian's desire that this new, carefully crafted work would supplant the inferior transcription in circulation, for he told Victorius that the material in the "Institutes" was "better arranged, and rendered, as far as I shall be able, complete" (Pref. 8).

Quintilian's account of the transcription of his lectures being published, brings to mind Papias's account (ca. 100 CE) of the circumstances surrounding the composition of Mark's Gospel.

"And the Elder used to say this: '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. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not omit anything which he heard or to make any false statement in them." (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39; Holmes, 569)

According to Papias, Mark copied down the teaching of Peter, arranged the material into a written document that contained everything that Peter taught. An interesting difference between Quintilian and Mark is that, in Quintilian's case, the transcriptions were circulated under his name, whereas, Mark's Gospel, as far as we know, was never circulated under Peter's name. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Mark was more instrumental in "composing" material while keeping it faithful to Peter's teaching. Also, Quintilian does not seem to be too pleased that this writing is circulating under his name and would rather have something more polished and complete attributed to him.
__________
Bibliography

Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Quintilian. 2006. Institutes of Oratory. Ed. Lee Honeycutt. Trans. John Selby Watson. http://rhetoric.eserver.org/quintilian/ (accessed June 30, 2016).

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