How Many Manuscripts Do We Have?

This question is important when it comes to textual criticism and defending the reliability of the Bible. However, we need to have a balanced (or at least honest) answer. Don’t worry, truth still favors reliability, but being open or transparent with facts allows skeptics to engage in the conversation rather than constantly attack.

What most people focus on is the sheer number of manuscripts. Yes, the NT particularly has enormous amounts of support compared to any other author of Greco-Roman literature. Homer is the closest with about 600-700 copies of his writings. Sophocles and Aristotle are next with 100-200. We could dive deeper into these copies, noting their dates and how much time had passed between the authors and the approximate date of the first copy. I’ll leave that for a later post.

When we turn to the NT, we have about 5800 manuscripts. The following chart is from 2017, so numbers probably need to be adjusted. Papyri are certainly our most important witnesses, since they are early. 

        Witness Type                                    #                Date Range

Papyri                 128     2nd–8th

Uncials (Majuscules)          322     Mostly 4th–10th, but some as early as 2nd

Minuscules (Cursives)             2926     9th–16th

Lectionaries                 2462

Total                  5838 

Versions: Some will make a brash claim that we have 15,000-20,000 copies of the NT. This is flat incorrect. Any number that is exaggerated like this is most likely including early versions of the NT, that is where the NT was translated into Latin, Coptic, or Syriac. The value of these versions varies, depending on their date, the skill of the scribe/ text type, and the quality of the manuscript that they were translating. 

It is possible for versions to be a witness for very old readings, so they could be quite valuable. 

We have approximately 10,000 Latin manuscripts, from 3rd to 16th centuries. 

The Coptic version has both Sahidic and Bohairic strands, and its origins are in the 3rd century.

The Syriac version also has origins into the 3rd century.

Yes, we have an abundance of evidence. And it’s early. This bodes very well for helping determine original wording.

Truth time 1. Dan Wallace identifies four reasons why our number of Greek manuscripts needs to be adjusted. (1) some manuscripts have been lost or misplaced (2) some have been destroyed (3) some are parts of others that have already been identified [so we’ve counted twice], (4) some were identified as one type of manuscripts (e.g., majuscule) and then corrected to another (e.g., lectionary)—we categorized twice. All of these corrections affect the numbers by about 100-200. I will hunt down his article on this, but for now, see his chapter in Interpreting the NT Text by Bock and Fanning.

Truth time 2. The skeptic’s favorite topic to point out is the amount of differences among the manuscripts. Here’s the number: 400,000 (ish). Bart Ehrman’s most popular quote is that there are more variants than words in the entire NT (138,000 words). The more manuscripts we have, the more potential for variants.

However, I would much rather have 6000 manuscripts with many differences than just one manuscript or no differences. That’s cult like. Or as if someone destroyed manuscripts that disagreed with them. That has happened throughout history with religions, and again, I’d rather be honest with the data we have.

Two encouraging thoughts to close:

(1) The text has been stable. The TR forms the basis for the KJV. The TR was built from a handful of late, Byzantine texts. The NA28 uses an entirely different method (reasoned eclecticism) to determine accurate readings whenever there is a variant in the text. It “usually” agrees with Alexandrian readings. 

Yet, there are only 5,000 differences between the TR and the NA28. That’s 96% agreement. 

(2) Text critics like to break the 400,000 variants down into three categories: (a) insignificant for the meaning of the text. This would be spelling, synonyms, “the,” switching word order, etc. (b) meaningful but not realistic. These are readings only supported by one or two manuscripts. We know these are very unlikely to be original. (C) meaningful and realistically could be the original reading. 

Only about 1% of the 400,000 fit into category C, and none of them affect any major doctrine. As in, Jesus’ deity is never denied. Salvation is always by faith. Jesus always rises from the dead. We can trust the reliability of the NT based on the data we have.

But it’s still preferred to be transparent with all the information. And listen to the concerns of others before blasting them with our knowledge. Probably a good place to apply Prov 26:4-5.

John 7:53-8:11

 John 7:53-8:11

This section is known as the pericope adulterae and is not found in the earliest and “best” manuscripts. The vast majority of scholars assume this section is not original but was added later to the gospel of John. Bruce Metzger states, “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). goog_2054247443

Omission

    External evidence: P66, 75 ℵ B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. Manuscripts A and C are unreadable at this point in the text, but if you measure the pages, there would not be enough room for all of these verses. Note: A in Gospels is Byzantine

    Internal arguments: John 8:12 naturally flow from John 7:52. No prophet is welcome in his hometown. There is no need for John to link “Light of the World” with Isa 9:1-2 (see below), because these texts were ingrained in the audience’s mind. The light/dark theme is so prevalent in John, that adding or removing one more story would not strengthen John’s narrative. It’s just as likely that a later scribe/editor inserted a story here because it “fit.”

For discussion of the grammar and style of the passage vs. the rest of John’s writings, see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to Raymond Brown, this section is actually closer stylistically to Luke’s writings (John [AB], 1:336).

Inclusion

    External evidence: D M lat 

•    E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks
•    225 places the pericope after John 7:36, 
•    ƒ1 places it after John 21:25, 
•    {115} after John 8:12, 
•    ƒ13 after Luke 21:38, 
•    corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53

See M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41–42.

    Internal arguments:

Certain phrases in the passage would seem to fit the context (e.g., great day of the feast = Feast of Tabernacles, v. 37; “early dawn” leads to “light of world” in 8:12 with a parallel to Isa 9:1-2). John could also be using the example of the woman as coming to “the Light” while her accusers fall back into darkness.

Conclusion: Manuscript D is the only major early majuscule/uncial to support the passage’s inclusion. I definitely agree with the majority of scholars that this passage was not in John’s original text. We can argue from an internal standpoint for the passage’s inclusion, but just as strong a case can be made on similar grounds that it was not in the original manuscript.

HOWEVER, just because this text was not part of John’s gospel, that does not mean the event itself never occurred. Scholars are divided whether this reflects an event Jesus’ ministry that circulated orally and was written down, but it never was included in the original text. It was simply added later. Is it canonical? No. Inspired? No. Did it happen? Perhaps. I can certainly picture Jesus responding to an adulteress in this way. Of course, we should be careful how we nuance our discussion of the formulation of Scripture. This is an intriguing case.

Mark 16:9-20

 “Then he appeared to the eleven themselves, while they were eating, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him resurrected. He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”
— ‭‭Mark‬ ‭16‬:‭14‬-‭15‬‬

“These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; they will place their hands on the sick and they will be well.””
— ‭‭Mark‬ ‭16‬:‭17‬-‭18‬‬


Mark ends at 16:8

    External evidence: ℵ B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss.

• Sinaiticus and Vaticanus testimony here are huge.
• Clement of Alexandria and Origen do not know of these verses.
• Eusebius and Jerome affirm that Mark ends at 16:8 in all manuscript that they know.

 

 Internal arguments:

Vocabulary and style not like Mark (this is a double-edged sword when it comes to determining authorship and authenticity of books/sections of books). But the data is as follows: ἀπιστέω, βλάπτω,

βεβαιόω, ἐπακολουθέω, θεάομαι, μετά ταῦτα, πορεύομαι, συνεργέω, ὕστερον are found nowhere else

in Mark. One word (θανάσιμον) and phrase referring to disciples (τοῖς μετ΄αὐτο γενομένοις) would only

occur here in the entire NT.

The connection between vv. 8 and 9 is awkward at best. Mary Magdalene is "reintroduced." Jesus is

assumed to be the new subject, when the entire chapter has been about the women.

The principles of text criticism (reasoned eclecticism, at least) would presume that it's much easier to assume the text grew over time. Scribes would see an abrupt ending and add to the text than see a nice, rounded ending to Mark and cut it out.

Either shorter or longer ending of Mark

Shorter reading: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded.

After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and

imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.”
 

   External evidence:

Short + Long ending: L Ψ 083 099 0112 579 al

vv 9-20 after v. 8: A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Θ ƒ13 33 2427 Majority lat syc, p, h bo

  

 Internal arguments: f

So what happened to the ending of Mark?

(1) the Gospel was never finished; hmm...unlikely. I mean, Mark could have been receiving persecution

and never been able to finish. But there has to be better options.

(2) the last leaf of the gospel was lost prior to copying. Unlikely, because it would have been written on

a scroll. The last section of Mark would have been the most protected. There were no "leaves" until the

codex/book was invented centuries later.

(3) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here. Believe it or not, this fits Marks modus operandi.

Mark loves mystery in his gospel and challenging the reader. Nothing better than basically leaving the reader with sense of wonder after most amazing event and the basic question, “Will you believe, and how will you respond?”

Conclusion:
I definitely lean towards the manuscript evidence that does not include vv. 9-20 of chapter 16. There’s both internal evidence in these verses and external (stronger manuscript) support for Mark ending at v. 8, even though it leaves the gospel “open” per se.

 
Just because verses are not original does not mean events they discuss didn’t happen. E.g., I still think the woman caught in adultery (beginning of John 8) sounds like something very much like Jesus would do.

V.  14 doesn’t sound like Jesus, especially post resurrection, but it could have happened. The “accompanying signs” have inspired many church practices in various denominations but we can argue about that another time.

Some even say the “Great commission” has been fulfilled bc from Jesus and disciples’ perspective, taking gospel to “ends of earth” has happened. Was Jesus really thinking of every people group? I don’t know. It’s possible and every nation certainly needs to hear the gospel. But I don’t think anything is hindering Jesus’ return. 

What’s our responsibility now? Love others. Make disciples. Serve sacrificially. Show hope where there is none.