The Production of a New Testament Document (Part 2 of 2)

Book Forms

     It is probable that most, if not all, of the original New Testament documents were written in scroll (or roll) form. The length of the writing determined the size of the scroll, usually no more than twenty sheets pasted together, about a foot (30 cm) high and seldom exceeding thirty-five feet (10.5 m) in length. Extant papyrus scrolls of the Egyptian Book of the Dead are more than 100 feet (30 m) long, but they were meant to be buried in a tomb, not read. The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts would have each filled a papyrus scroll of thirty-one or thirty-two feet (9.5 m) in length, thus having to be issued in two volumes instead of one. The English word “volume” comes from the Latin volumen, meaning “something rolled up” (cp. biblion in Luke 4:17, 20; John 20:30; Rev. 6:14). The text was written in many columns (each two or three inches [5-7½ cm] wide), so that the unused part of the scroll could be neatly rolled up on the left- and right-hand sides.

     It is possible that some of the New Testament documents, particularly those originating in major industrialized centers like Rome, were composed in codex form. A codex was shaped much like a modern book, consisting of several leaves or pages bound together. This form came into widespread use near the end of the 1st century AD.¹ It was a more convenient form than the scroll, especially for reading and for text reference, and also for writing on both sides (reducing the cost of production). The codex allowed multiple volumes (e.g. all four Gospels or all the Pauline epistles) to be collected into a single book. Very early on Christians adopted and popularized the codex format in preference to the scroll. Of the approximately 172 extant biblical manuscripts or fragments transcribed prior to AD 400 or not long thereafter, all but fourteen were produced in codex form.

Handwriting

     Uncial or Majuscule script consists of unconnected capital letters (sometimes called “book-hand”). The word “uncial” is derived from the Latin uncia, meaning “a 12th part,” or perhaps uncialis, meaning “inch-high.” It has been suggested that the term came to be applied to writings that occupied about one-twelfth of an ordinary line of text. This term has a precise meaning in Latin writing but only a derived and less precise meaning in Greek (see B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman, The Text of the NT 17; J. H. Greenlee, Introduction to NT Textual Criticism 17).

     In the earlier centuries practically no accents, breathing or punctuation marks or adornments were used, with no division between words – a style known as scriptio continua. While scriptio continua admittedly had the potential of causing ambiguity in the text, this was less likely in the Greek language with, among other things, its structure of word endings. Greek words typically end in vowels (or diphthongs) or in one of only three consonants (nu, rho, sigma), and ancient texts were read aloud and copied syllable by syllable rather than letter by letter. Moreover, the original apostolic documents were personally delivered and publicly read by someone well acquainted with the message (cf. Acts 15:22-32; Eph. 6:21-22; Phil. 2:19-25; Col. 4:7-9). In English, the expression GODISNOWHERE could be read as either, “God is now here” or “God is nowhere.” However, in Greek, the expression ΟΘΕΟΣΠΑΡΕΣΤΙΝΝΥΝ can only mean, “God is now here,” with no ambiguity. New Testament manuscripts earlier than the 10th century were written in uncial letters.

     Minuscule is descriptive of smaller (lower-case) letters. Cursive writing, wherein letters were connected and could be written rapidly, was used for non-literary documents (e.g. personal notes, receipts, lists, etc.). Although the terms “cursive” and “minuscule” are sometimes used interchangeably, “cursive” applies to the less formal style of non-literary documents, while “minuscule” refers to a neater form used for literary texts (such as New Testament manuscripts). In the early 9th century AD cursive was modified and formalized into the minuscule style that was suitable for literature; by the end of the 10th century it had replaced uncial for literary purposes. About nine-tenths of the extant Greek New Testament manuscripts are written in the minuscule style.

Amanuenses  

     It was a common practice during the Hellenistic age for skilled writers (amanuenses) to be employed for writing just about any document, from literary works and legal records to business transcripts and personal letters. In particular Paul seems to have followed the customary practice of his contemporaries by employing the aid of secretarial expertise (Rom. 16:22) and then writing his own subscription (1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; 2 Thess. 3:17; Philem. 19), although Paul was not the only biblical writer who utilized secretarial assistance (cf. Jer. 36:1-4; 1 Pet. 5:12; Acts 15:22-23).²

Conclusion

     Beyond the oral transmission of divine revelation, biblical documents serve as an extension of prophetic and apostolic teaching. More than paper and ink and human instrumentality, these writings communicate God’s will for mankind. “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See C. H. Roberts and T. C. Skeat, Birth of the Codex 54-61. In Epigram 1.2 of the Roman poet Martial (d. 102), dated 84-86, reference is made to writings in the codex form (see C. P. Thiede and M. D’Ancona, The Jesus Papyrus 103-105); cf. D. C. Parker, NT Manuscripts 13-21.

     ² This convention is clearly demonstrated in the papyri (cf. E. G. Turner, Greek Papyri: An Introduction 82-83). See also R. N. Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuenses,” in New Dimensions in NT Study 282-87; E. R. Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul; G. J. Bahr, “Paul and Letter Writing in the Fi[rst] Century” 465-477; “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters” 27-41; J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer 8-16; M. P. Prior, Paul the Letter-Writer.

Related Posts: Production of a NT Document Part 1, Divine Revelation and Inspiration of the Scriptures

Image credit: https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1278&bih=663&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=eysAW7LkF4vKjgSwz4qIDw&q=writing+the+new+testament&oq=writing+new+test&gs_l=img.1.0.0i8i30k1.10354.13276.0.15164.16.15.0.0.0.0.230.2282.0j12j3.15.0....0...1c.1.64.img..1.15.2279...0j0j0i67k1.0.EZIUf_j94WQ#imgrc=6TxY6xZ6A4alKM:

Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 4 of 4)

Assumption # 5: "Ancient authors were reclusive individualists, solely involved in the production of their works with no outside influences or contributors."

Paul by Rembrandt

     If a writer’s unique literary habits can be identified, a seemingly objective standard is then available to discern between authentic and spurious works produced in his name. However, the entire focus of this popular analysis is limited to the individual author, while no consideration is given to any number of significant external factors. Were biblical writers as solitary and confined as current critical scholars seem to imagine?
     The concepts of solidarity and individuality may be relevant to modern literary cultures and westernized thinking but are viewed quite differently in the context of oral cultures and ancient practices. The more common procedure in the ancient Mediterranean world was to orally dictate information to a skilled amanuensis who was then responsible for putting it into writing. Note, for instance, that Baruch wrote for Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:1-32), Tertius wrote for Paul (Romans 16:22), and Silvanus wrote for Peter (1 Peter 5:12). The intriguing question is, how much compositional freedom was the trusted scribe allowed in the writing process? While a definitive answer is beyond determination and would no doubt have varied from one situation to the next, the reality of tandem compositions makes the appraisal of an author’s literary features much more tentative if not contestable, particularly when more than one secretary may have been involved. 
     Beyond the secretarial component and of even greater consequence is the issue of joint-authorship. Consider, for example, the book of Psalms, which is universally understood as the product of multiple authors. David, Asaph, Korah’s sons, Solomon, Moses, Heman, Ethan, and various anonymous writers all contributed to this collection of poetic compositions. Would it then be legitimate to isolate the authorial peculiarities of only one of these contributors and then critique the entire volume with this restrictive focus? In light of conventional literary procedures in the historical-cultural settings of biblical writings, how should the compositional features of a given text be evaluated? The idea of a lone author producing his work in solitary confinement is a fairly modern, westernized concept that does not fit the ancient biblical model.
     Probably more than anyone else the apostle Paul has been victimized by this anachronistic misrepresentation. The real historical Paul comprehended, executed, and communicated his mission in the context of a community of fellow believers and co-laborers. Not only is this demonstrated in the Acts narrative, where Paul is rarely depicted alone, but even in his own writings we find copious references to co-senders and co-workers, prolific use of exclusive "we" terminology, and allusions to collaborative ministry. He was undoubtedly an influential leading figure in his group of associates, but "Paul the individualist" is an unfounded misconception. Collective responsibility appears to have been the norm. To speak of "Pauline theology," for example, fails to effectively appreciate that the theology of Paul was something mutually formulated and shared within a cooperative environment. Far from being a lone maverick, the apostle understood his calling, his message, and his work as an integrated part of a whole, never discounting the indispensable partnership of trusted companions.
     Seeing that most of the New Testament documents were written in letter-form, a unique insight into the production of a first-century apostolic manuscript is provided by the letter embedded in Acts 15:23-29. The context reveals that after a group discussion and consensus among the Jerusalem apostles and elders under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (v. 28), a letter was commissioned to convey their decision. Two of their number, Judas-Barsabbas and Silas, served as amanuenses (note v. 23, graphō = to "write"). These two men were further authorized to verbally communicate the contents of the letter to the recipients (v. 27). Upon its completion, Judas and Silas delivered the letter to the Antioch congregation by publicly reading it, while they (as prophets) also imparted additional instruction (vv. 30-32).
     In view of current critical analysis, how would one go about assessing the language and style with which the contents of this apostolic missive were conveyed, and to which of the multiple contributors would the whole enterprise be ascribed? Even though a negative case against the traditional authorship of a number of biblical books has been carefully constructed by generations of liberal scholars, the foundational premise is invalid. The presumption of an author’s virtual independence is contrary to what the evidence supports. Notwithstanding the prophetic instrumentality and influence of a prominent figure, the legitimacy of any objection that focuses on the literary features of a solitary writer must therefore be called into question.
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Authorship of Ephesians, Biblical Authorship Part 1, Biblical Authorship Part 2, Biblical Authorship Part 3

Biblical Authorship: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions (Part 3 of 4)

Valentin de Boulogne's St. Paul and His Writings

Assumption # 3: "An author’s entire vocabulary is limited to a select handful of his writings."

     This seems to be the underlying assumption when the authenticity of a particular document is challenged due to its message containing a number of words or phrases that are absent from other writings attributed to the same author. Critical scholars tend to place a great deal of emphasis on hapax legomena, i.e., words occurring only once in a text or a literary collection. Ephesians, for example, is among the most disputed documents in the Pauline corpus because it employs over ninety words not found in the rest of the letters bearing Paul’s name. However, this is a tremendously subjective criterion. Consider the fact that Ephesians is the only extant Pauline epistle wherein the term "water" appears. Is it logical to assume that this basic word was not in the apostle’s vocabulary and that he did not and could not have ever used it?!
     Each book of the Bible has a distinctive thrust that necessarily calls for specific terminology. Some teachings naturally overlap and share the same or similar wording, whereas others do not. An effective communicator is aware of his intended audience and their particular needs, and his word-choice is influenced accordingly. It is not realistic to expect any writer to say the exact same things in precisely the same manner with the very same words, irrespective of his audience, his topic, his purpose, or his circumstances. Further, when attempting to evaluate the perceived vocabulary of a given author, his utilization of quotations and other borrowed materials must be factored in. And of even greater significance is the prospect of co-authors, collaborators, and secretaries. If multiple works were produced by an author with the assistance of different colleagues, who’s to say which words belong to which contributor and which ones do not? The issue of vocabulary is a notoriously weak determinant for questions of authorship.

Assumption # 4: "An author’s writing style is static, irrespective of when, where, why, and how his respective writings are composed."

     In almost every discussion about the Bible’s disputed books, literary features, particularly language and style, are involved. If an author’s characteristic writing style can be quantified, any document that exhibits variations, even if it bears his name, is removed from the list of authentic writings. Why are 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastorals considered by so many New Testament scholars as having been authored by persons other than the apostle Paul? One of the main reasons, according to current critical analysis, is that the writing styles of these epistles differ from the "genuine Paulines" and thus "do not sound like Paul."
     The most obvious question is: how does one determine which of the Pauline letters are genuine to begin with, thereby providing a standard of comparison? Since, for example, Colossians claims to be from "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1:1), why not start with Colossians and then systematically dismiss the other Pauline letters that do not conform to its manner of presentation? The truth is, consistency of vocabulary and rigidity of writing style are unrealistic expectations. This is especially true when one’s writings span a number of years, involve a variety of circumstances and topics, and address different audiences and issues. Furthermore, the limited size of the writings in question (a single chapter in some instances!) makes any attempt to assess specific authorial characteristics impracticable.
     In order for these arguments to seem plausible, a key factor that must be completely ignored is the potentiality of literary collaboration. If an author has dictated his message to a capable amanuensis, or has discussed the contents of the composition with influential colleagues, or has partnered with one or more co-authors, the language and style with which the final product is conveyed would likely betray the collaborative influences of more than one person. Of all the reasons offered by hostile critics for questioning the authorial integrity of a biblical text, the hypothetical "writing-style" premise most noticeably represents the friction between theory and reality.
--Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Biblical Authorship Part 1, Biblical Authorship Part 2, Biblical Authorship Part 4, Authorship of Ephesians