Papyrus Facsimiles from Manuscript Shop

I recently received a gift from Wes Huff of three facsimile papyrus manuscripts from the Manuscript Shop. I have been so impressed by the quality and attention to detail that I wanted to share some of the features of these museum quality replicas. The three manuscripts are P75, P52, and P46.

P75
The facsimile of the Pap.Hanna.1 (Mater.Verbi) papyrus, formerly known as Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV (also known as P75) is an excellent representation of the original. Comparing the overall shape of the replica with the online images provided by the Vatican Library (page 2A.8r) reveals how exactly the outline was matched with the original fragment, even the worn through-holes and edges of the original are recreated. On page 2A.8r are preserved the titles of both the Gospel of Luke and of John. Zooming into the titles on the facsimile and on the online images reveals an exact match of the letter shapes and the darkness of the ink represented in the ink of the original letters, however, the replica reveals what appears to be some bleeding of the title letters (see image below). 

P75 Facsimile on stand

The stand has a very nice inscription that includes the reference of the biblical text preserved on each side

P52
The famous Rylands Papyrus 457, more widely known as P52, is housed in the John Rylands library at the University of Manchester in the UK. This facsimile is quite striking and it is difficult to tell the difference between the original and the replica. The letters in the P52 facsimile are more exact than the P75 replica and do not have the "bleeding" effect. Even with my poor quality photograph, when the original P52 and the facsimile are seen side by side, the likeness of the two pieces is quite striking. The P52 copy is unique in that the description and content of the fragment is etched directly on the plexiglass plate covering the papyrus rather than on the stand as with the P75 and P46 stands (though the online version for sale doesn't have the plexiglass etched).

P46
The last facsimile is an excellent copy of a page from P46 that is owned by the University of Michigan where it is assigned the shelf number P.Mich inv. 6238 (both the recto and the verso). The lettering on this replica is very sharp allowing the small details of the interlinear correction on the recto, third line from the top, to show clearly. There is very little "bleeding" in the lettering and the worn holes in the papyrus are mimicked quite well, though, as the comparison image shows, the holes in the replica are slightly larger than in the original. 

Closeup of the etching on the stand for P46

All three replicas with their accompanying cloth protective pouches.

Despite the minor details that I mentioned above (the slightly larger wear holes and the "bleeding" of the letters) these facsimiles are absolutely stunning and the craftsmanship and attention to detail shows at every level and thus, they seem to be priced very low for their level of quality (consider the hefty price tag of these comparative quality papyrus facsimiles). It would take someone very familiar with the originals to be able to tell that they were reproductions. I would guess that if these facsimiles were placed beside their original counterparts, it would be difficult to discern which was the replica and which the original. At the very least, they are museum quality and would be very useful as classroom aids in learning palaeography, textual criticism, or learning to read Greek. Besides these useful applications, these pieces are excellent additions to any collection for display, whether a seminary, university, home, or office library.

Review of Garrick Allen, Words Are Not Enough: Paratexts, Manuscripts, and the Real New Testament

 

In the September 2025 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society appears my review of,

Garrick Allen. Words Are Not Enough: Paratexts, Manuscripts, and the Real New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2024)

My review of the book is positive, my chief disappointment being the lack of detailed discussion of commentary manuscripts. Here is my concluding assessment.

"Though Allen uses nonacademic language, the work is replete with extensive footnotes providing a well-researched and documented study. At nineteen pages, the bibliography is an excellent resource in itself, providing a ready starting point for research into this complex field. Overall, Words Are Not Enough is a welcome introductory work that meets a need in the broader field of NT manuscript studies." (JETS 68.3 (2025), 579)

Augustine and Jerome on Composition, Publication, and Biblical Scholarship

I was reading through Jerome's Letter 112 (Augustine's Letter 75) in which he wrote to Augustine of Hippo in reply to a number of questions that Augustine had sent by way of a Deacon named Cyprian. In this letter, Jerome is responding to a series of lengthy questions that Augustine had sent through to his location in Jerusalem. There are many interesting insights into the way in which books were composed and circulated in the late antique Roman world. 

Jerome mentions in passing that Cyprian had brought three long letters from Augustine that Jerome describes as "three letters, or rather three little books" (Ep. 112.1/1). The striking thing about this is that Jerome had only three days to write a response to these long letters before Cyprian had to leave for the long trip home. That is an amazing turn around by Jerome and was obviously aided by a secretary because he says that he wrote "in the hurry of extemporaneous dictation" (Ep. 112.1/1). Later in the letter Jerome mentions using an amanuensis for dictating quotations from various writers.

"I have dictated to my amanuensis sometimes what was borrowed from other writers, sometimes what was my own, without distinctly remembering the method, or the words, or the opinions which belonged to each." (112.3/4)

In his response, Jerome mentions that Augustine had acquired a copy of Jerome's work "On Illustrious Men," but without a title affixed.

"You say that you received from some brother a book of mine, in which I have given a list of ecclesiastical writers, both Greek and Latin, but which had no title; and that when you asked the brother aforesaid (I quote your own statement) why the titlepage had no inscription, or what was the name by which the book was known, he answered that it was called Epitaphium, i.e. Obituary Notices." (Jerome Ep. 112.2/3)

This is a fascinating interaction because Augustine, living in North Africa, was able to send a letter to Jerome, all the way across the Mediterranean, in Jerusalem, asking Jerome to explain what the intended title was for his work. That is a distance of some 1,500 to 2,000 miles by sea or land. Yet, despite the distance Augustine was able to send an inquiry, and Jerome was able to send a detailed and lengthy reply.

Besides the question about the title of Jerome's work, Augustine sent detailed examples of potential problems in Jerome's theological interpretation of Pauline theology. Jerome gives a detailed explanation and defense of his theological interpretations and makes the following statement in passing.

"Moreover, refrain from stirring up against me the unlearned crowd who esteem you as their bishop, and regard with the respect due the priestly office the orations which you deliver in the church, but who esteem lightly an old decrepit man like me, courting the retirement of a monastery far from the busy haunts of men; and seek others who may be more fitly instructed or corrected by you. For the sound of your voice can scarcely reach me, who am so far separated from you by sea and land. And if you happen to write me a letter, Italy and Rome are sure to be acquainted with its contents long before it is brought to me, to whom alone it ought to be sent." (112.4/18)

 Jerome appears to be complaining that the correspondence between himself and Augustine is not private, but traverses all of Rome and Italy (which is far closer to Augustine than Jerusalem) before the letter reaches Jerome in a backwater Monastery in Palestine. This is an interesting insight into the speed at which information by letter could be copied and distributed throughout the late Roman Empire. It shows the transparency of their correspondence and the inability for either to fabricate untruths or cover their tracks if they were to engage in heresy or less than stellar scholarship.

Finally, Jerome gives some insight into the way in which he and other early Christian scholars notated their works to indicate the sources of various readings.

"In another letter you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the Seventy have said more than is found in the Hebrew. But the asterisks indicate what has been added by Origen from the version of Theodotion. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense than the order of the words." (112.5/19)

There are several examples of asterisks and obelisks being used in the margins of manuscripts throughout the centuries. Below are two examples, one image is of an asterisk between the columns of Codex Alexandrinus, and another image is of an obelisk in the margin of a 13th century Latin copy of 2 Corinthians.

Jerome's final jab at Augustine is filled with sarcasm and perhaps a touch of weariness at excessive questions from an unappreciative user of his work.

"Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations." (112.5/19)

This interchange gives valuable insight into the level of scholarship in the late 4th century. It questions the idea of a geographically locating certain readings within their copies of the Bible. For if a copyist found something that was questionable in their copy of the scriptures, they could potentially write to another acquaintance across the Roman world and enquire into the state of the text at their colleague's disposal. This is exactly what we see occurring in the case of Augustine and Jerome.

An obelisk in the margin of a 13th century Latin copy of 2 Corinthians

An asterisk between the columns of Codex Alexandrinus

New Testament Textual Criticism at Tyndale House Cambridge

 

Tyndale House is a residential research library that is located in Cambridge, England. The library is one of the largest and best collections of research material for biblical scholarship. I stayed for a week at Tyndale House a few years ago and found an amazing research environment. It was a place where I had a seemingly unlimited amount of research materials at my fingertips and where I met with several other scholars over tea and coffee. Tyndale House is the source of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament and the soon to be released Textual Commentary. There are so many past and current textual scholars that have studied at Tyndale House in some way, either in their doctoral studies, or afterwards for post-doctoral research, their impact is hard to overestimate.

It is because of this and more that I am excited to share about Peter Montoro (PhD, University of Birmingham, UK), who has been working remotely as a scholar for Tyndale House. If you own a copy of the THGNT you will see his name already in the acknowledgments. Thus far Peter has been working remotely for Tyndale House in the USA, but he is now moving into a new fulltime permanent position in Cambridge and will be moving his family to England. Here is an excellent interview with Mark Ward discussing Peter's future research plans at Tyndale House, please give it a listen.

Future Advances in New Testament Textual Criticism - YouTube

The Montoro family requires financial assistants in order to make the move from the USA to England. If you feel motivated to give financially, you can find the link to his Give Send Go page here. 

Chuck Norris CBGM Meme

The real reason the ECM volumes are being produced so quickly and with such a high level of quality! -- Chuck Norris IS the CBGM!

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.

Some Observations on Orthography and the Π Group

A Shelf in the Old Library at Magdalen College, Oxford

After having completed my dissertation for some months, and with it now recently being made available online, I have had time to reflect back on some of the conclusions of the years of study. After transcribing all of the witnesses to be included in the examinations, I had to regularize those readings that were not genealogically significant, which means tagging these readings to be ignored by the collation software. Chapter 3 of the dissertation covers in detail the entire process (Mitchell, Family Π in the Gospel of Mark, pp. 71-102). I noticed that many of the regularizations were spelling differences involving the substitution of similarly sounding vowels or the omission of the same letter in a word containing a double consonant (i.e. λλ). Tables 3.1 through 3.6 in Chapter 3 list out the number of orthographic variations (pp. 91-98). It seems to me that those who used these manuscripts were comfortable with variations in spelling as long as the words sounded the same when pronounced while being read out. Because so many of these manuscripts were prepared and used for lectionary readings, this may be a byproduct of this type of environment. I conclude that

"[this] may reflect a more utilitarian attitude of the scribe who may have cared more for function rather than perfection. That is, as long as orthography did not impede the transmission of meaning, then it did not impede its usefulness." (Mitchell, Family Π in the Gospel of Mark, p. 102)

Most of these manuscripts reflect late antique or medieval attitudes towards the copying of texts, so it may not be applicable to earlier centuries. With that said, I wonder how much of the modern textual critic's approach to errors in the text related to spelling are actually anachronistic to some degree. It makes me wonder how many more variations, especially those that hardly affect meaning, such as transpositions or word substitutions with a synonym that have a large semantic overlap, would have been considered an acceptable byproduct of hand copying. For those who created and used these manuscripts, the vast majority of these types of variations would likely not have been considered "errors" as we see them today, which can be the cause of many modern day apologetic, epistemological, and theological crises.

Timothy N. Mitchell, "Family Π in the Gospel of Mark" Now Availabile

I was just informed that the PDF version of my PhD dissertation and it's accompanying data are now available freely on the University of Birmingham's Ethesis Repository. The PDF of the dissertation is available at the following link.

https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/13692/

I won't re-post the abstract as it can be read at the above link. The summary of my findings are these;

1) The so-called Family Π is actually a group because the manuscripts do not originate from a lost archetype.

2) The origin of the Π Group readings are that they arose as a result of copying from commentary manuscripts (catenae). The scholia acting on the text reintroduced Π Group readings into the text throughout the centuries.

3) As Π Group manuscripts were copied, the text was standardized through a process of the copyists conforming the text to the readings they were used to hearing during their lectional readings.

If you do not want to read the entire thesis, I recommend reading Chapter 1 as it will give a really good backdrop to the study. Then read the concluding summaries of Chapters 2 and 3. Read all of Chapter 4 as this chapter  contains the core arguments of the thesis. Skip Chapter 5 as it contains a long list of group readings obtained from the collation. Finally, read all of Chapter 6 as it discusses the arguments surrounding the origin of the Π Group.

The accompanying data can be found at the following links.

Accompanying data for "A Collation of Family Π in Mark" https://doi.org/10.25500/edata.bham.00000983

A Collation of Family Π in Mark [Online Edition] https://purl.org/itsee/mitchell

A positive apparatus of Family Π in Mark https://epapers.bham.ac.uk/4289

Transcriptions of 27 Manuscripts of the Gospel according to Mark https://epapers.bham.ac.uk/4290

[EDIT: I began the research for this dissertation way back in 2017. See the earlier post here where I first mentioned my dissertation topic.]

Book Review: Creating the Canon By Benjamin Laird

Creating the Canon: Composition, Controversy, and the Authority of the New Testament. By Benjamin P. Laird. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2023, xiv, + 258 pp., $30.00 paperback.

The historical circumstances surrounding the writing, distribution, selection and gathering together of the New Testament documents continues to garner much scholarly attention. Yet, there are few books that attempt to condense the nuanced historical details into an easily digestible introduction. Creating the Canon is the latest in a steady stream of new books by Benjamin P. Laird and was written in order to fulfill this need. Laird earned his PhD at the University of Aberdeen and is an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at the John W. Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
The book is segmented into three segments. Part one consists of three chapters and covers "Questions Relating to the Production of the New Testament Writings" (pp. 11-84). 
Chapter 1, "The Composition of the New Testament Writings," advances the notion that many of the writings of the New Testament were composed through the collaborative efforts of a team of secretaries, letter carriers, and others who took part in distributing the canonical writings.
Chapter 2, "The Original Autographs of the New Testament Writings," proposes that many of the New Testament writings had multiple autographs. It is argued that it is better to think of an "original edition" rather than an "original autograph" (p. 64).
Chapter 3, "The Original Readers of the New Testament Writings," articulates the idea that the canonical authors wrote with multiple communities in view rather than a single audience. This concept would mean that the New Testament writings were composed with a more universal message in mind.
Part two is the largest segment of the work and consists of three chapters, addressing "Questions Relating to the Formation of the New Testament Canon" (pp. 87-174).
Chapter 4, "Theological Controversies and the Formation of the New Testament Canon," engages with popular assumptions that are postulated as causing the formation of the New Testament Canon. The controversies surrounding Marcion, and the notion that early Church councils in the fourth century decided the canon, are discussed.
Chapter 5, "The Primary Witnesses to the Early State of the New Testament Canon," surveys the early patristic canonical lists and references to the canonical writings. The chapter also introduces the reader to some of the most important and early copies of the New Testament writings.
Chapter 6, "The Canonical Subcollections and the Formation of the New Testament Canon," highlights the influence that canonical "subcollections" had on the acceptance of the twenty seven books of the New Testament.
Part three is the shortest section of the book with only two chapters and engages with "Questions Relating to the Authority of the New Testament Canon" (p. 177-236).
Chapter 7, "Apostolicity and the Formation of the New Testament Canon," discusses the relationship of apostolic teaching and authority with the reception of many of the New Testament writings.
Chapter 8, "Apostolic Authorship and the Authority of the New Testament Canon," evaluates several modern scholarly perspectives on the foundations for the continuing authority of the New Testament writings.
Though the book functions as an introduction to the topic, it attempts to cover too many competing scholarly perspectives. Readers may find it difficult to find the common thread of thought through the various chapters. Related to this, many may have difficulty finding a clear thesis or main argument in the book.
Because the work attempts to engage with too many scholarly perspectives, often inadequate space is given when Laird supports a particular scholarly position. For example, because of the various textual problems surrounding the last chapters of Romans, Laird proposes that three copies of the "longer recension" of Romans were made, "one for the Romans, one for those in Corinth, and one for Paul and/or his associates" (pp. 61-62). Laird proposes that the secretaries or scribes of Paul (i.e. Tertius), in preparing a copy of Romans to be sent to the Corinthians, removed the irrelevant material at the end of Romans (p. 62). This would "explain both the origin of the shorter and longer recensions as well as the alternative locations of the doxology" (p. 62). Unfortunately, Laird does not expound on the reasons why a scribe such as Tertius would go to the trouble of removing irrelevant material at the end of Romans, but would retain the most irrelevant textual address, "to all those in Rome" (Rom. 1:7, 1:15), at the beginning of the letter. The fact that there are almost no Greek manuscripts that lack this address seems to be a significant hurdle to this explanation of the textual variation at the end of Romans.
Despite these criticisms, Creating the Canon would work well as a starting point for forays into the study of New Testament canon formation. Readers will be introduced to first century composition practices, the role of letter carriers, and the early process of gathering of these writings into subcollections. Chapter two, which discussed the issues surrounding the "autographs," and chapters seven and eight, concerning the issue of apostolic authority and canon formation, engaged with topics rarely seen in books on the New Testament canon. This work might prove useful as a textbook for a college or seminary class on the New Testament Canon.

Timothy N. Mitchell

PhD, University of Birmingham, UK

The Path from Textual Doubt to Textual Confidence

I was recently in Bellingham, WA for helicopter maintenance business and had the opportunity to meet up with Mark Ward who is a philologist with Faithlife/Logos Bible Software. I was able to tour the Faithlife headquarters and Mark asked to interview me about my recently completed PhD. He asked me about my faith journey from doubt in the text of the New Testament to confidence. 

I also mention my plans to move to Ukraine and teach at Kyiv Theological Seminary. For more information see https://send.org/give/missionaries/mitchell

I did make one error during the interview, I mentioned Hesiod as being banished but actually meant to say Ovid. You can listen/watch the interview here https://youtu.be/CCB43GDsrXM

Interview With Apologist Wes Huff on Textual Criticism, Inspiration, and Inerrancy

Here is an interview that I had with Wes Huff, Director of Central Canada for Apologetics Canada. Wes has a lot of great Christian Apologetics content on his website(https://www.wesleyhuff.com/). Please be sure to check it out!

(https://youtu.be/ffg3AMIVWJI)

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.

Upcoming Event, Text and Manuscript Conference: Pen, Print, and Pixels

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts has launched a new biannual Text and Manuscript Conference. Executive Director Daniel Wallace announced,

"This conference will be held on even-numbered years as a North American reflection of the Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, which is itself held on odd-numbered years in the United Kingdom."

The inaugural conference is slated for May 19th - 20th, 2022 and is themed Pen, Print, and Pixels. Follow the hyperlink, or go to the following link, https://conference.csntm.org/

There is a great line-up of main speakers.

Hugh Houghton

Kathleen Maxwell

Holger Strutwolf

Dirk Yongkind

Jan Krans

There is also a great selection of breakout session speakers.

Keith Elliot

Jeremiah Coogan

Juan Hernandez

Edgar Ebojo

Craig Evans

Georgi Parpulov

Christian Askeland

Timothy Mitchell

Peter Montro

Ryan Griffin

William Warren

Grant Edwards

James Prothro

I don't know what all of the session speakers will be presenting on, but my own presentation will be the following;

Exposing Textual Corruption in the Wider Circulation of the New Testament Writings During the Greco-Roman Era

Abstract:
In a recent publication I argued that the primary means by which books were circulated was through social networks. A natural consequence of this was that macro-level changes (to use the terminology of Michael W. Holmes) to a text within circulation would become known within that same community.
In this paper I will present further evidence that the avenues for exposing textual corruption were present even when a writing circulated more broadly. In the wider Greco-Roman culture, literature would often be circulated through booksellers allowing the work to be accessed by more extensive reading communities farther removed from the author(s) and their followers. References from Cicero, Pliny the Younger, and Galen will be explored.
In the case of the New Testament writings, evidence for those outside of the Christian community having contact with and reading scriptural books will be examined. Figures such as Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and many others will be explored.
I will be arguing from this evidence that these wider pathways of book distribution also presented opportunities for exposing the macro-level corruption of texts in circulation, specifically with regard to the New Testament writings.

Review of Abidan Paul Shah. Changing the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism.

Changing the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism. By Abidan Paul Shah. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2020, xi + 195 pp., $25.00 paper. 

The last several decades have brought sweeping changes in the way that New Testament textual criticism has been traditionally practiced. The advent of ever more powerful computing technology allows scholars to process an increasing amount of textual data. Web based tools allow images of manuscripts to be viewed almost anywhere in the world, transcriptions can be made from these images and their texts compared all through the convenience of the internet. 

 A recently released book, Changing the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism, argues that these advancements in technology and method have resulted in a shifting of the ultimate "goalpost" of the discipline away from discovering the "original text" (p. 1). This work is the published dissertation from Abidan Paul Shah's doctoral studies at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina where he earned his PhD. 

This study contends that modern trends in textual criticism have shifted the goal of seeking an "original text" (p. 2). The book is divided into nine chapters that engage with scholars, trends and methods that are, in the author's eyes, instrumental in this change in goals. 

Chapter one, the introduction, makes clear the premise for this study, that "historic Christianity" has at its foundation a "first-century text" (p 2). Shah argues that without this text (what he refers to as the "original text") no "authoritative text" exists and, consequently, "there is no longer any distinct Christian faith and practice" (p. 2). 

Chapter two summarizes what is stated as the traditional goal of seeking out the "original text," which is defined as "the text that was penned by the author" (p. 10). This assertion is supported by briefly examining scholars who have declared this goal throughout the modern history of textual criticism.

Chapter three surveys the work of Bart Ehrman who, according to Shah, "has been the major challenger to the traditional goalpost in NTTC" (p. 28). The chapter focuses the bulk of its attention on Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture concluding that "Ehrman has popularized the new approach to the NT text more than any other proponent" (p.53). 

Chapter four engages with David C. Parker's seminal work The Living Text of the Gospels. Shah argues that Parker "is a leading proponent of the new approach to the NT text, and is a well-known figure in the field of NTTC" (p. 54). He concludes that Parker's thesis "undermines the concept of a single original text" (p. 77). 

Chapter five culls through Eldon J. Epp's publications in order to tease out his stance on textual criticism. After sifting through Epp's many essays it is noted that the most influential piece is his "The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in New Testament Textual Criticism." It is surmised that his works are "repeatedly quoted in discussing the changing definition of the original text" (p. 102).

Chapter six presents the research of J. K. Elliott who, it is argued, is the most "vocal" critic of the traditional goals of textual criticism (p. 103-104). Shah highlights Elliott's shift in view, from being "optimistic" about recovering the "original text" (p. 104), to his lack of confidence in the "viability or necessity of trying to retrieve the original text of the NT" (p. 108). 

Chapter seven looks at the most recent advancement in New Testament textual criticism, the Coherence Based Genealogical Method as developed and implemented by the INTF in Muenster. The CBGM is presented as complicit in shifting the goal of New Testament textual criticism from pursuing the "original text" to pursuing an "initial text" (p. 124). It is concluded that much of the problem with the CBGM "is the difficulty in comprehending its description by its proponents" (p. 125). 

Chapter eight contains Shah's "Final Appeal and Critique" (p. 127), where he discusses and critiques four major premises of the new movement (p. 128). Among other criticisms, he argues that "proponents of the new approach in NTTC balk at any suggestion of inerrancy of the NT text" (p.159). 

Chapter nine is the conclusion and final thoughts of Shah's work where he contends that Christian scholars need to affirm the traditional goals of New Testament textual criticism (p. 172). This is to be done in order to uphold the "traditional evangelical view of Scripture" (p. 172). 

Those who come to Changing the Goalpost with the expectation that there would be a fresh and detailed discussion over the term "original text" will be disappointed. Chapter two does engage with some of the more recent objections to the pursuit of the "original text." Yet, a simple definition is given as the "traditional understanding of the original text, the text as penned by the original biblical author" (p. 11). Unfortunately, very little by way of a fresh explanation or interaction with primary source material is given in response to all of the modern objections.

Along with this, some of the interactions with scholarship might give the reader the mistaken impression that the goal was to hunt for juicy sounds bites. Of course, this would be a mistake and readers would do well to hear Shah's appeal. 

 Another small detail is that some of the incidental information in the book is incorrect in a few places and gives the impression that portions of it were written some time ago and have not been updated in the meantime. For example, David Parker is stated as being the "director of the Institute for the Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing at the university’s theology and religion department" (p. 54). Of course, Parker has not been the director of ITSEE for some years and has been retired since 2017. Shah's work, however, is current in other facets such as in reference to the ECM in Acts which was published in 2017. Though this is a minor oversight, it does make one wonder if other less obvious but more important technical matters are out of date or incorrect. 

 Despite the above minor criticisms, the value in Changing the Goalpost is it's assembling of modern trends in New Testament textual criticism in a handy reference. Shah's work is useful as a history of recent developments in the discipline. It would work well as a text book alongside other standard introductions to New Testament textual criticism, in order to give a more detailed treatment of modern developments. Even though the tone is overall negative, it is interesting to see how each of the recent trends can be linked by a common problem. The abundant manuscript evidence for the Greek New Testament, with its highly contaminated textual tradition, has proved challenging for scholars. For some, it has led to an abandonment of any attempt at reconstructing an early or "original" text. For others, it has driven the development of innovative methods such as the CBGM that, despite its potential drawbacks, will serve to propel the discipline well into the twenty-first century and beyond.

Overall, Changing the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism is a helpful engagement with modern trends. It will be especially instructive for those new to the field or to those who wish to better understand recent developments in the discipline.

New Testament Textual Corruption in JSNT

In the December issue of JSNT is a newly published article that I wrote on the publication and transmission of the New Testament writings in the first centuries of the Christian era.

"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

The article is open access with both an online reading option and a downloadable pdf version. The link can be found here,

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0142064X20961282

Did the New Testament Autographs Wear Out?

P.Fam.Tebt. 15. British Library Papyrus 1885 (ca. 114 CE)

It has been a common statement for scholars to claim that the autographs of the New Testament writings would have worn out quickly through their frequent use. Metzger's comments in his The Text of The New Testament are representative;

"Their [the autographs] early loss is not surprising, for during persecutions the toll taken by imperial edicts aiming to destroy all copies of the sacred books of Christians must have been heavy. Furthermore, simply the ordinary wear and tear of the fragile papyus, on which at least the shorter Epistles of the New Testament had been written (see the reference to χαρτης in 2 John, verse 12), would account for their early dissolution. It is not difficult to imagine what would happen in the course of time to one much-handled manuscript, passing from reader to reader, perhaps from church to church (see Col. 4.16) and suffering damage from the fingers of eager, if devout readers as well as from climatic changes." Metzger and Erhman, p. 266, footnote 20)

Though these kinds of statements about the autographs appear reasonable, they are rarely supported by any actual evidence.

A recent issue of Mnemosyne highlights some documentary evidence that might shed light on these common claims of the New Testament autographs wearing out.

Mark de Kreij, Daniela Colomo, Andrew Lui, “Shoring Up Sappho: P.Oxy. 2288 and Ancient Reinforcements of Bookrolls,” Mnemosyne (2020):1-34.

This article discusses in detail a fragment of Sappho's Ode to Aphrodite with an underlying layer of papyrus used as a repair to the Sappho roll. It is section 4 of the article that is relevant to the New Testament autographs, "Papyri Repaired or Reinforced in Antiquity." This is a brilliant discussion of the remains of two papyri that were part of a family archive in Tebtunis Egypt. There was a dispute regarding the poor state of the documents found in the public archives of the Arisinoites. The first papyrus P.Fam.Tebt. 15 dates to ca. 114 CE, and the second, P.Fam.Tebt. 24 dates to 124 CE.

The court case involved the terrible state the public archived documents were in. Accusations arose between clerks charged with the care of the archival rolls and there were disputes as to whom the responsibility of repairing the documents fell. It is apparent that the records were in disrepair for some years as the earliest reference to the poor state of the archive was made in 71 CE (Jennifer Cromwell, "Law and the Art of Bookroll Maintenance," Papyrus Stories). The disputes between clerks in taking responsibility in repairing the damaged rolls continued into the ensuing decades with the clerks' heirs. Eventually the Prefect steps in to settle the argument (for a summary of the entire dispute spanning decades and involving the heirs see P.Fam.Tebt 24).

The relevance to the longevity of New Testament autographs can be found in the description of the state of the papyrus documents;

"The documents shown to me by the clerk Leonidas … were in some cases deprived of their beginning, or damaged, or moth-eaten, and do not allow an estimation of the cost of the διακόλησις." (P.Fam.Tebt. 15, ll. 35-37. transl. by the authors)

The beginning and end of these documents were missing and other damage such as by moths is mentioned. The explanation as to why these records were in such a poor state comes later;

"Since the books have been hastily moved from one place to another, repeatedly, lying on top of each other and unattached, due to the quantity, since the nome is so large, and since they are being handled daily, and their material is brittle, it happened that some were destroyed in parts, some others were without beginnings, and some had even fallen apart." (P.Fam.Tebt. 15, lines 68-71. transl. by the authors)

It is this description of the worn papyrus rolls and other documents that sheds some light on the autographs of the New Testaments writings. If the New Testament writings began to be copied and distributed rapidly (within a few years) throughout the first century Mediterranean world, then it is possible that the "autographs" (however one may define this) would have been subjected to similar miss-handling and damage through frequent use.
It is difficult to know precisely how long these official archival records were in a bad state, though it is clear that they were in a poor condition for at least forty years. Significant portions of these documents had to be reconstructed from duplicate archives.

"And Mettius wrote to Archelaus, sometime strategos, to make sure that we copied the missing parts from the documents entered at Alexandria and completed those rolls in the archive that are without beginnings." (P.Fam.Tebt. 15, ll. 83-85. transl. by the authors)

It is important to note here that there was text missing from these documents that had to be compared with duplicate copies in Alexandria for the missing text to be restored. Thus, if the state of these records can be compared with the "original" copies (however one may define this) of the New Testament writings, then their ability to be used by scribes as master copies in order to transcribe new copies would greatly diminish at a rapid rate. Using the example of the archival documents, within a period of 50 years the "autographs" of some of the New Testament writings could have been in an almost unusable state of preservation.

___________________________________

Bibliography

Mark de Kreij, Daniela Colomo, Andrew Lui, “Shoring Up Sappho: P.Oxy. 2288 and Ancient Reinforcements of Bookrolls,” Mnemosyne (2020): 1-34.

Metzger, Bruce Manning, and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.