Publication and Circulation of Early Christian Writings

P. Oxy 405

The previous post discussed the culture of publication and circulation of literature in Greco-Roman antiquity. The early Christians were no different in their methods of copying, distributing, and publishing their own writings. There are several pieces of evidence that suggest an early and fairly wide distribution of Christian writings in the first few centuries of the Christian era. First we will look at some fragments of early Christian papyri, then we will turn to the testimony of the early Church fathers, and finally we will look at the testimony of Paul.


Early Christian Papyri
The table on the left gives a small sampling of various fragments of Christian writings discovered in Egypt and in Duro-Europos located in modern day Syria. When the date of these fragments are compared with the location of their composition (probable for some), a picture of early Christian publication emerges.
For example, the Shepherd of Hermas was likely composed in Rome early in the 2nd century, and must have been immensely popular (as the Church fathers also reveal) as fragments of the Shepherd were found in Egypt that date to the end of the second century (P. Oxy. 4706 and P. I and 1.4 among others). This reveals the wide and fairly rapid distribution of the Shepherd at an early date.
Also note that the canonical Gospels were written all across the Roman Empire in the 1st century; from Rome where Mark and Luke were most likely composed all the way to Ephesus in Asia Minor where John was most likely written to Antioch where Matthew may have been composed. By the end of the 2nd century these four canonical Gospels had been circulated and distributed as far as the eastern edges of the Roman Empire. A 2nd century fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron, a harmony of the four canonical Gospels, was found all the way in Syria at Duro-Europos (P. Dura 10).
Most revealing of the rapid interchange between the Christian communities of the 2nd century is P. Oxy 405, a fragment of Irenaeus' Against Heresies (see map below). This copy of Against Heresies dates to within Irenaeus' lifetime and at the latest within fifty years after his death. When taking into to account Greco-Roman publication practices discussed in the previous post, the news that Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies would have had to travel these 1,600 miles within twenty years or so, in order for a copy of it to be made and discarded in the sands of Egypt (P. Oxy 405).
These few papyrus fragments suggest a lively christian community that traveled and communicated, corresponded, and circulated its writings widely.

Polycarp and Hermas on Circulation and Copying
The Shepherd of Hermas was a very popular non-canonical Christian writing of the second century (see discussion above). It consists of a long series of "visions", "mandates", and "parables." Within the section of "visions", the author described the distribution and publication of the work;

“Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city, along with the elders who preside over the Church.” (Herm. Vis. 2.4)

It appears that there would have been two different Church figures, Clement and Grapte, who would have been responsible for getting the word out about the Shepherd and would have functioned as the contact points for those wishing to obtain a copy of the work. Also note that in the same way Pliny increased awareness of his poetry and speeches through public reading (see previous post), Hermas would have increased awareness of the Shepherd through public reading.

Polycarp bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor (just north of Ephesus) has left some tantalizing fragments of information that may shed light on the way in which the letters of Ignatius of Antioch were disseminated very soon after he penned them. There are seven letters that survive from the hand of Ignatius as he was imprisoned on his way to Rome. He had wrote several of the Churches that were on his traveling route. Scholars place the time of Ignatius' arrest and the date of his letters early in the second century (ca. 110 CE).
There is only one letter of Polycarp that is preserved today and that is his letter to the Philippian Church. At the end of this letter, Polycarp answers a request that he had received from the Philippians;

“Both you and Ignatius have written me that if anyone is traveling to Syria, he should take your letter along also. This I will do, if I get an opportunity, either myself or the one whom I will send as my representative, on your behalf as well as ours. We are sending to you the letters of Ignatius that were sent to us by him together with any others that we have in our possession, just as you requested. They are appended to this letter. . . As for Ignatius himself and those with him, if you learn anything more definite, let us know.” (Poly. Phil. 13.1-2)

There would have had to have been close and fairly rapid communication between these communities for these exchanges to have taken place so quickly. Polycarp would have already received several letters from Ignatius. We know that it could only have been a year at most since Ignatius had passed through the area as the Philippians where still asking as to his whereabouts.
The letters that are mentioned here, that were sent to Polycarp at Smyrna, would very likely have been the letter Ignatius wrote to the Church at Smyrna and the personal letter that Ignatius wrote Polycarp.
Therefore, Polycarp reveals to us that within a short period of time, letters had been received and sent, and a collection process of Ignatius’ letters had already begun as they were beginning to be widely circulated.


Paul on Circulation and Copying
Even as early as the mid-to-late first century there appears to have been a fairly rapid interchange between Christian communities. Paul alludes to this in some of his concluding comments to the Christians at Colossi;

“Tychicus will tell you all about my activities. . . . I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are and that he may encourage your hearts. . . Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.” (Col. 4:7-16 ESV)

When Paul wrote these words, he appears to have expect a close knit Christian community that interacted and exchanged letters, and that would circulate and copy his letters to other Christian communities. This is a similar process to what we see fifty years later with Polycarp and Smryna in Polycarp's letter above. In Col 4:16 especially, we can see the beginnings of the Pauline letter collection that would most likely lead to the gathering of Paul's letters into a single codex just as we see in P46 at the end of the second century.

[update: 0212 (P.Dura 24), Tatian's Gospel Harmony has been largely accepted by scholars to not be a copy of Tatian's Gospel Harmony but some other harmony. This does not really change the discussion or arguments that much. See (D. C. Parker, D. G. K Taylor and M. S. Goodacre, The Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony, in: D. G. K. Taylor, Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, SBL Text-Critical Studies 1 (Atlanta, GA 1999), pp. 192-228)]
____________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

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

Hurtado, Larry W. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Roberts, Colin H. Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt. London: Oxford University Press, 1979.

 

Publication and Circulation of Literary Works in Antiquity

Fresco from Herculaneum depicting a bookroll

The publication of a written text or literary work in antiquity has very little similarity with 21st century publication. There was no such thing as "copyright" in antiquity and once an author relinquished control over a literary work for copying he lost all "rights" over that document. It could then be copied in whole or in part and even changed or altered by anyone who acquired a copy of the work. Two notable figures of antiquity will help us gain insight into the "publishing" practices of the Roman world.

Pliny and Cicero On Editing and Publication

It was normal for authors to have an "early release" of their work by enlisting the support of colleagues and other literary elites in a reading-out of the text. Pliny the Younger describes for us his editorial practice in a 1st century letter to his friend Caecilius;

“First of all, I go through my work myself; next, I read it to two or three friends and send it to others for comment. If I have any doubts about their criticisms, I go over them again with one or two people, and finally read the work to a larger audience; and that is the moment, believe me, when I make the severest corrections, for my anxiety makes me concentrate all the more carefully.” (Ep. 7.17)

Here we can see that even though Pliny has already begun to circulate his work amongst his closest friends, he has not yet relinquished control over the work for the editing and correcting process is still under way.
Next, Cicero illustrates a similar practice to his friend Atticus in the 1st century BCE. He wrote;

"There is no collection of my letters in existence: but Tiro has something like seventy. Moreover, there are some to be got from you. I ought to look through and correct them. They shall not be published till I have done so.” Ad Att. 16.5 (44 BCE)

Cicero declares that though his slave/secretary Tiro has copies of his letters, Cicero has not released control of them until the editing process is complete.
Once the literary work was released for official "publication," the quality of the copies produced was at the mercy of the scribes who copied-out the text. Cicero illustrates this fact in a letter to his brother Quintus describing the copies of his literary works sold by a bookseller in Rome;

“As to the Latin books, I don’t know which way to turn—they are copied and exposed for sale with such a quantity of errors!” Ad. Quint. 3.6 (54 BCE)

Because his Latin works had been released for copying, to be produced and sold by a bookseller in Rome, Cicero had no longer any control over the quality of text that was being produced and sold.


Cicero on Borrowing/Lending Books

There were very few booksellers in the Roman world. If someone wished to acquire a copy of a book they would usually ask colleagues and acquaintances to lend them a copy of the work in order to copy it out. The many letters of Cicero also provide insight into the practice of borrowing and lending books for copying. In a letter to his friend Atticus Cicero writes;

“I have received the books from [by] Vibius: he is a miserable poet, but yet he is not without some knowledge nor wholly useless. I am going to copy the book out and send it back” Ad. Att. 2.20 (59 BCE)

And in another letter to Atticus he writes;

“Alexander’s books—a careless writer and a poorer poet, and yet not without some useful information—I have sent back to you.” Ad. Att. 2.22 (59 BCE)

These quotations illustrate the normal practice of acquiring literary works by borrowing the book from a friend and then making a copy after which the work was then sent back.

P. Oxy. 2192 with its two postscripts

Oxyrhynchus Papyri on Borrowing/Lending Books

The thousands of papyri found in the Roman city of Oxyrhynchus provide us with a few examples of this book-borrowing practice. A fragment of a letter dating to the 2nd century CE illustrates this
borrowing practice in striking detail. P. Oxy. XVIII 2192 is a fragmentary papyrus letter in which the main body of the letter is missing. All that is left are the remains of two postscripts written in a different hand than the text of the letter. The first postscript is written by the sender of the letter. It is in a different hand than the main body of the letter due to the fact that the sender most likely used a professional scribe to compose the letter. The first postscript reads;

“Have a copy made of books six and seven of Hypsicrates’ Men Who Appear in Commedies and send it to me. Harpocration says that Pollio has them among his books, and probably others may have them too. And he also has prose epitomes of Thersagorus’s Myths of Tragedy.”

It is obvious that the sender of the letter wishes to acquire sections of a literary work that his library was lacking. He does know where to obtain them and the recipient of the letter has access to them and is able to make copies of them and send them back to the sender of the letter.
The other postscript is in a different hand than the first post script. This hand was made by the recipient of the letter. Once he recieved the letter, he wrote his response and then had the letter sent on. The second post script reads;

“Demetrius the bookseller has them, according to Harpocration. I have ordered Apollonides to send to me some of my books—which ones you’ll find out from him. And if you find any volumes of Seleucus’s work on Tenses/Metrics/Rhythms that I don’t own, have copies made and send them to me. Diodorus’s circle also has some that I don’t own."

The second postscript gives further instructions and makes further requests for literary works. A bookseller is mentioned, but it appears that it was normal to acquire books by borrowing them from a friend than purchase them from a bookseller.

The quotations from Pliny and Cicero and the evidence from P. Oxy. 2192 give us a picture of the publishing activity in antiquity. In the next post we will see how these practices carried over into the early Christian world.
_____________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

Johnson, William A. Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire A Study of Elite Communities. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Radice, Betty, trans. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. London, England: Penguin Books, 1969.

Irenaeus, Apostolic Testimony, and the "Original Text"

Michael J. Kruger, is professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary (see his webpage here). In the recently publish work The Early Text of the New Testament, Dr. Kruger provided a chapter in which he examined early Christian attitudes towards reproducing their texts, that is, copying what they viewed as scripture. Kruger examined "how they would have understood the transmission and preservation of these texts, and how they would have responded to changes or alterations in the text" (Kruger, 63). In the chapter, several lines from the Old and New Testaments are discussed as well as the many statements in the writings of the Church fathers which might be viewed as warnings against altering the text while copying. On page 78, Kruger points to a colophon at the end of one of Irenaeus' letters which is mentioned by Eusebius in his Church history. Kruger only gives the colophon a passing mention. But what is interesting is that Eusebius happens to make mention of the colophon in context of a letter which Irenaeus wrote to a friend Florinus who lapsed into Valentinian Gnosticism (Hist. eccl. 5.20). I find it interesting that Eusebius appears to be connecting Irenaeus' appeal to eyewitness/apostolic testimony with altering the text during transmission. Therefore, it seems that Dr. Kruger's conclusions about early Christian attitude towards the copying of the text is shared, at least, by Eusebius. Here is the passage from Eusebius in full;

Irenaeus wrote several letters against those who were disturbing the sound ordinance of the Church at Rome. One of them was to Blastus On Schism; another to Florinus On Monarchy, or That God is not the Author of Evil. For Florinus seemed to be defending this opinion. And because he was being drawn away by the error of Valentinus, Irenæus wrote his work On the Ogdoad, in which he shows that he himself had been acquainted with the first successors of the apostles. 

2 At the close of the treatise we have found a most beautiful note which we are constrained to insert in this work. It runs as follows:

“I adjure thee who mayest copy this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by his glorious advent when he comes to judge the living and the dead, to compare what thou shalt write, and correct it carefully by this manuscript, and also to write this adjuration, and place it in the copy.” 

3 These things may be profitably read in his work, and related by us, that we may have those ancient and truly holy men as the best example of painstaking carefulness.
4 In the letter to Florinus, of which we have spoken, Irenæus mentions again his intimacy with Polycarp, saying:

“These doctrines, O Florinus, to speak mildly, are not of sound judgment. These doctrines disagree with the Church, and drive into the greatest impiety those who accept them. These doctrines, not even the heretics outside of the Church, have ever dared to publish. These doctrines, the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions of the apostles, did not deliver to thee. 

5 “For when I was a boy, I saw thee in lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in splendor in the royal court, and endeavoring to gain his approbation.

6 I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,' Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures.
7 These things being told me by the mercy of God, I listened to them attentively, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart. And continually, through God’s grace, I recall them faithfully. And I am able to bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and as was his custom, would have exclaimed, O good God, unto what times hast thou spared me that I should endure these things? And he would have fled from the place where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words.

8 And this can be shown plainly from the letters which he sent, either to the neighboring churches for their confirmation, or to some of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.”

Thus far Irenæus. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. 1)

____________________________________________

Kruger, Michael J. "Early Christian Attitudes Towards the Reproduction of Texts." Pages 63-80 in The Early Text of the New Testament. Edited by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

The Gospel of Thomas and the Secret Jesus

In the introduction to the English translation of the gospel of Thomas in The Nag Hammadi Library edited by James M. Robinson, Helmut Koester wrote that "The Gospel of Thomas is more akin to one of the sources of the canonical gospels, namely the so-called Synoptic Sayings Source (often called "Q" from the German word Quelle, "source"), which was used by both Matthew and Luke" (Robinson, 125). A few paragraphs earlier in the the introduction Koester also wrote that,

The Nag Hammadi Codices

 "If one considers the form and wording of the individual sayings in comparison with the form in which they are preserved in the New Testament, The Gospel of Thomas almost

always appears to preserve a more original form of the traditional saying (in a few instances, where this is not the case, the Coptic translation seems to have been influenced by the translator's knowledge of the New Testament gospels), or presents versions which are independently based on more original forms." (Robinson, 125)

A superficial reading is enough to see that there is an underlining assumption made by Koester, that Thomas preserves primitive Jesus sayings when compared to the canonical gospels. How should one take this claim? Is Thomas an independent, reliable, extra-canonical source, for Jesus' sayings?

Synoptic Familiarity

In his recent work Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas’s Familiarity with the Synoptics, Mark Goodacre argued (as the title suggests) that the author of Thomas was familiar with the redacted, completed form of the synoptic gospels, see especially his chapter discussing saying 79 (Goodacre, 97-108). Goodacre spends considerable time working with the early Greek fragments of Thomas found at Oxyrhynchus as they predate the Coptic version found at Nag Hammadi by one hundred years or more and (most likely) represent an earlier form of the document. These are P. Oxy. 1 ca. 200 CE, P. Oxy. 655 ca. 200-250 CE, and P. Oxy. 654 ca. 250 CE (Ricchuiti, 196).
Goodacre points to several lines of evidence in order to draw attention to Thomas’s familiarity with the synoptics, but this post will highlight only two features in particular. First, there are several word-for-word agreements between the synoptics at several places suggesting that the author(s) of Thomas referenced the completed text of the gospels while writing (see especially saying 26, Goodacre, 30-33). And second, the author(s) of Thomas left out important elements of Jesus’ pericopes which indicates the author(s) had an intimate familiarity with the sayings as they appear in the synoptics (Goodacre, 109-127). For example, because everyone is familiar with the saying “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” most anyone can simply say “When in Rome . . . “ with out finishing the sentence because most anyone will immediately recognize the saying and be able to finish it in their minds. The same can be said concerning the author(s) of Thomas and Jesus' sayings. They were so familiar to the author(s) that they attempted to make the saying more cryptic but failed to include important details that were essential to the story and plot of the pericope.

Scribal Alterations

A second major clue that testifies against the credibility of Thomas as a source concerns the transmission of its vorlage. Timothy Ricchuiti compared the earlier Greek fragments of Thomas with the much later (by one hundred years at least) Coptic translation of the gospel. He noted that at several places there were significant variations between them. Note especially a comparison of P. Oxy. 655 at logion 24, which reveals a very large section of the Greek text that has been edited out by the redactors of the Coptic Thomas for most likely theological reasons (Ricchuiti, 221-223). There are several other places that could be mentioned that involve theological redaction in the Coptic text when compared with the earlier Greek fragments, such as logion 2,3,5, and 6 (Ricchuiti, 210). Overall, Ricchuiti’s study concluded that “[i]t does indeed appear that the Coptic scribe altered Thomas in such a way as to make it more amenable to the community that eventually decided to include it in the Nag Hammadi writings” (Riccuiti, 228).

The Secret Jesus

Many scholars are eager to search Thomas for primitive material in reconstructing the historical Jesus because there are so many familiar sayings of Jesus intertwined throughout the work (Robinson, 124-125). It appears that the author(s) of Thomas were keen to present sayings of Jesus that were familiar to the readers of the canonical gospels. But why?

Mark Goodacre suggested that the most likely reason the author of Thomas used the synoptics in composing Thomas was to "authenticate" the "newer, stranger material" (Goodacre, 172). He continued:

"It is no accident, in other words, that Thomas interlaces Synoptic and non-Synoptic material, two or three sayings at a time, always keeping the sound of the Synoptic Jesus close at hand while interweaving sayings from Thomas's enigmatic, secret Jesus." (Goodacre, 172)

Therefore, it appears that the author(s) of Thomas were dependent on the synoptics in order to theologically alter the appearance of Jesus as an enigmatic Gnostic figure. Couple this with the apparent theologically motivated scribal alterations from the Greek to the Coptic version, and one must come to the conclusion that Thomas is not a reliable source for authentic sayings of Jesus.

Echoes of the Historical Jesus

Despite the apparent theological tampering by the author(s) of Thomas, there are clues that suggest Thomas contains echoes of extra-canonical Jesus sayings. One intriguing clue concerns saying 22 which is quoted (albeit loosely) in 2 Clement 12.2, a second century sermon, as well as several other early Christian sources (Holmes, 102).[1] Because there is wide and early attestation to logion 22, it is very likely that there are authentic echoes of Jesus contained in this saying.
Therefore it is not wise for scholars to dismiss Thomas out of hand, but rather, Thomas should be approached as any other ancient document, on its own terms as the author(s) originally intended the work to be read (Goodacre, 174).

___________________________________________________________

[1] For an excellent summary of the ancient sources concerning this logion see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas22.html

Goodacre, Mark. Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas’s Familiarity with the Synoptics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

Holmes, Michael W. ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Updated Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.

Ricchuiti, Tim. “Tracking Thomas: A Text-Critical Look at the Transmission of the Gopel of Thomas.” Pages 189-228 in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence. ed. Daniel B. Wallace. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011.

Robinson, James M., and Richard Smith. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988.

This post was adapted from a response I made to a forum discussion question in one of my classes.