Appreciating How Copying Practices Shaped Our Manuscript Evidence

Textual criticism aims to retrieve the original words of Scripture. In today’s climate, some modern commentators and critics insist that the vast number of manuscript variants severely undermines confidence in the New Testament text. These critics, including well-known scholars such as Agnostic Bart D. Ehrman, often emphasize that there may be hundreds of thousands of textual differences found among the extant Greek manuscripts. They sometimes claim that these supposedly vast and uncontrollable variations negate any realistic possibility of reconstructing the original. However, such assertions ignore key facts about how ancient copying practices worked, how textual criticism functions, and how far scholarship has advanced in recovering the authentic words penned by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude.

The earliest Christians eagerly preserved and copied the Gospels, the Pauline letters, and other apostolic writings, recognizing them as vital for congregational teaching and for equipping believers. Their scribes ranged from amateurs making personal or congregational copies to skilled professionals adept at copying documents. Many scribes were more than capable of faithfully reproducing text. Others, lacking the same expertise, occasionally introduced errors such as omitted words or lines, added words from a parallel context, or transposed letters. Yet different scribes made different mistakes. Over time, the wealth of surviving copies—some entire manuscripts, some partial, some as early as the second or third century C.E.—collectively enables scholars to identify and correct scribal errors.

Jewish scribes had long practiced careful transmission of Hebrew Scriptures, a tradition that later influenced Christian scribes. Even so, all these copyists were human. God’s spirit had guided the original authors into producing inspired, inerrant texts, but no scriptural teaching indicates that each subsequent copying would be divinely safeguarded from minor slips. Instead, Jehovah wisely allowed the copying process to run its course, relying on the ample manuscript base to protect the text. Ultimately, these many documents confirm that textual variations can be identified and resolved. The science of textual criticism compares manuscripts, aligns their readings, and discerns where and why scribal errors arose. This rigorous method has produced critical texts of the Greek New Testament that are incredibly close to the original words.

Explaining Why the Number of Variants Need Not Alarm Us

Some critics assert that if only the original writings were inspired and subsequent copies could contain errors, how can we trust any passage as truly representing the original? The implication is that if errors creeped in, certainty is unattainable. That line of reasoning misunderstands textual criticism. The standard approach uses a range of witness manuscripts. By carefully weighing internal and external evidence, scholars converge on readings that bear all the marks of authenticity. Further, we know from historical evidence and from the textual scholar’s scrutiny that relatively few variant readings pose serious difficulty. Even critics who talk of hundreds of thousands of “differences” seldom highlight that most of these variations are trivial.

One explanation for the large variant count is the sheer number of available manuscripts. The New Testament enjoys a uniquely rich documentary foundation—far more than any classical work from antiquity. Even within the second and third centuries C.E., we possess papyri preserving broad stretches of the text. By some calculations, there are more than 5,898 Greek manuscripts in whole or in part, along with thousands more in ancient Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other versions. The more manuscripts we have, the more variations accumulate, because each scribal slip is counted as a distinct difference. Yet this same abundance of evidence is precisely what gives textual critics unparalleled resources to verify each verse’s wording.

Consider a hypothetical scenario: If 100 people simultaneously copied the Gospel of Matthew by hand (18,346 words), we could anticipate small scribal slips. Yet it would be nearly impossible for all 100 scribes to introduce exactly the same error in precisely the same place. By comparing their copies, a skilled textual scholar would spot where only a few manuscripts deviate, isolate those mistakes, and restore the correct reading. Extending that logic across thousands of manuscripts and multiple centuries, one sees that scribal errors inevitably occur, but they can be systematically identified and weeded out. This explains how having thousands of manuscripts produces an initially large quantity of variants but ultimately yields certainty once the variants are collated and analyzed.

Recognizing That Most Variants Are Insignificant

Of the thousands of variations, the vast majority are minor slips: differences in spelling, use of abbreviations, or word order that do not alter meaning. Greek scribes might substitute one synonym for another, omit a conjunction, or shift a pronoun slightly. Though these changes are “variants,” they do not obscure or negate any crucial teaching. Another category involves “nonsense readings”—clearly unintentional errors that produce meaningless phrases. Some variants are singular readings, preserved in only one manuscript. By definition, such outlier variants lack broad support and carry little weight.

Truly consequential variants are rare. Even Bart D. Ehrman, who accentuates the variance, acknowledges that the essential doctrines remain intact. He often references the figure that there are more variations in the manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament yet fails to clarify that these “differences” include repeats of the same slip across hundreds of manuscripts. Imagine if a single letter was misspelled in 3,000 manuscripts; it is often miscounted as 3,000 variants, but it is ultimately just one mistake repeated. Textual scholars, for instance, counts textual variants by considering each unique variation as a single variant, regardless of how many manuscripts contain that variation. So, if “Jesus Christ” appears as “Christ Jesus” in 20,000 manuscripts, we would count this as one variant, not 20,000. Some have inflated variant counts by tallying each occurrence in individual manuscripts. This leads to a significant overestimation of the actual number of unique textual variations

When textual critics assemble the actual places where manuscripts diverge—also called variation units—they find that only a small subset substantially affects the reading. Even among these, the question is rarely about major doctrinal statements, such as whether Jesus is the Son of God or was crucified or resurrected. The primary issues revolve around short phrases or minor expansions. For instance, in Mark 1:41, does the text say Jesus felt compassion, or was he indignant? In Romans 5:1, is it “We have peace with God” or “Let us have peace with God”? While such places deserve careful study, they do not alter the central themes of Scripture. As for big textual questions like the long ending of Mark (16:9-20) or the story of the adulterous woman in John 7:53–8:11, translators often bracket them or footnote them, indicating the uncertainty. Transparency about these matters helps readers appreciate the reliability of the rest of the text.

Clarifying How Variants Are Counted

A widespread misconception traces back to how variants get tabulated. Sometimes it is alleged that if a single letter is omitted in 1,000 manuscripts, that is 1,000 errors. Yet textual critics do not typically multiply each slip by the number of manuscripts containing it. Rather, they look at each distinct place in the text where a variation occurs, calling that a variation unit. That place might have two or more variant readings, but the question is basically whether “the” is present or absent, or whether the phrase is “of God Christ” or “of God and Christ,” and so on. The presence or absence of that slip in multiple copies does not multiply the significance of that variant. Hence, popular claims that the New Testament has 400,000 textual differences can be extremely misleading if not explained in detail. Indeed, modern textual scholarship focuses more on variation units, mapping how they appear across manuscripts, and then employing well-honed criteria to detect the original reading.

Another confusion arises from the difference between a textual variant and a scribal error. Most scribal errors do not survive across multiple manuscript lineages. If an error appears in only one known manuscript, textual critics often disregard it as insignificant. The same is true for ungrammatical nonsense readings. By contrast, a genuine textual variant might have been introduced early on and carried forward by entire scribal lineages. If we suspect that an alternate reading could be original, that variant becomes significant. Because the New Testament textual tradition is so extensive, critics can usually trace variant lineages back toward earlier centuries, evaluating which reading aligns with the characteristic patterns of known scribes or families of manuscripts. Through such analysis, they typically identify the reading that best matches the earliest attested form of the text.

Surveying the Actual Certainty Level of the Greek New Testament

One crucial source on the text is the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, now in its 28th edition, and the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, 5th edition. These widely recognized critical texts incorporate the best of modern scholarship in reconstructing the original. Bruce M. Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament likewise provides insight into thousands of textual decisions. This commentary classifies variants into levels of certainty: A (certain), B (almost certain), C (difficulty in deciding), or D (great difficulty). When we examine how many words in the Greek New Testament are subject to these categories, it becomes apparent that most of the text is unaffected by serious uncertainties. A significant portion of variants falls into A or B, meaning the reading is certain or close to certain. A smaller fraction is labeled C or D, signifying more difficulty, but that fraction is still minute compared to the entire 138,020 words that make up the Greek New Testament.

For instance, the Gospels contain a certain number of variant units deemed relevant, but often only a handful cause real debate among textual scholars. In Matthew (18,346 words), about 153 variation units show up in the United Bible Societies text. Of those, only a minuscule quantity are assigned D, indicating great difficulty. Even in those rare D cases, translators can still make informed choices and footnote the less likely alternative. The end result is that more than 99 percent of the text stands on firm footing, leaving no serious question about whether essential doctrines or narratives remain intact.

For Acts, the Pauline Epistles, and the General Epistles, a similar pattern emerges. The Book of Revelation is somewhat more complicated due to its unique manuscript tradition, yet again only a small number of places truly challenge the textual critic. Overall, the textual certainty is remarkably high. Some textual scholars approximate that 94 to 97 percent of the New Testament text stands beyond dispute. Even the portion that remains is not lost in confusion; it rests on careful deliberation, with well-documented reasons to adopt or reject certain variants. The final text thus emerges with overwhelming stability and reliability.

Examples of a Variation Unit in Action

Colossians 2:2 offers a clear case. The standard reading in the critical text is “the mystery of God, namely Christ.” However, among surviving manuscripts, some read “the mystery of God,” others “the mystery of Christ,” others “the mystery of God, who is Christ,” and so forth. In total, one might identify about fourteen different ways these words appear across seventy-nine manuscripts. Yet these do not represent seventy-nine distinct variants. They represent a single place (a single variation unit) that draws multiple scribal attempts to clarify or correct. By comparing the earliest, most reliable sources and applying internal considerations (like the principle of the more difficult reading and the pattern of scribes harmonizing with a nearby context), textual critics often find strong reasons to prefer “the mystery of God, Christ.” This example reveals how a single textual question can spawn many minor variants. Still, it all collapses into one fundamental question: Did Paul write “the mystery of God, Christ” or “the mystery of God, the Father of Christ,” or another close variation? The differences do not shift entire doctrines. The question is which short phrase Paul’s original letter used.

Why Highlighting Variant Numbers Can Be Misleading

Again, Agnostic Bart D. Ehrman and others frequently point to the statistic that there may be more textual differences than words in the New Testament, or that some scribes were untrained, thus prone to error. Such remarks, if left unexplained, easily unsettle those unfamiliar with the real nature of these variants. They might imagine entire paragraphs missing or inserted, or fundamental teachings lost to scribal chaos. In reality, the vast majority of variants are either trivial or easily resolved by cross-examination of manuscripts. Far from preventing access to the original text, these multiple copies from across the Roman Empire confirm that we can reconstruct the text more definitively than with any other document from antiquity.

Moreover, the earliest centuries demonstrate a consistent attempt by scribes to maintain the text’s integrity. It is not that scribes randomly added or removed entire doctrines. When an occasional scribe introduced expansions—perhaps clarifying a liturgical reading or harmonizing Gospel passages—others who copied that manuscript might replicate it. Yet different scribes, in different regions, preserved alternative lines of transmission, allowing modern critics to detect such expansions. The result is that potential distortions rarely spread unchallenged throughout the textual tradition. The cross-pollination of manuscripts eventually yields an apparatus to correct scribal wanderings.

The Question of Inerrancy and Copying

Some critics misconstrue a doctrinal stance on biblical inspiration and inerrancy, supposing that if God inspired the original, He must have preserved every copy from error. The Scriptural position, however, is that the original writers were guided into producing flawless autographs. Jehovah did not promise that every copyist through the centuries would be miraculously inerrant. The subsequent scribal process, subject to normal human fallibility, produced minor variations. But textual criticism, bridging thousands of manuscripts, stands as God’s instrument to ensure that we can still confirm the original words.

Likewise, it was not necessary for God to drop completed Bibles from the sky or have angels transcribe them. By allowing normal scribal processes, He has given the church the blessing of robust manuscript evidence, which ultimately testifies to the remarkable stability of Scripture. Indeed, the advanced science of textual criticism has restored the Greek New Testament to a state extremely close to what the original authors penned. The extremely few uncertain places that remain do not affect any major doctrinal matter. Translations typically alert readers to these matters in footnotes, preserving transparency.

Addressing Notable Critics and Their Claims

Bart D. Ehrman’s works, such as Misquoting Jesus or Whose Word Is It?, often emphasize scribal changes. Ehrman notes that in the early centuries, scribes were less professional and more apt to alter texts. This portrayal only partially represents the data. It is true that some early scribes were not professionals. Yet many early Christian scribes were reverent, careful, and read these writings in liturgical settings—ensuring a measure of oversight. Furthermore, scribal freedom was not as wild as Ehrman insinuates. The variety of textual families indicates that some groups of copyists were indeed more consistent with the text. Potential expansions or omissions can be pinpointed. Ultimately, Ehrman’s raw numerical claims about hundreds of thousands of variants do not reflect the reality that they coalesce into a far smaller number of variation units, most of which are obvious or easy to solve.

Similarly, critics sometimes repeat Ehrman’s claim that we do not have copies of the originals, or even copies of copies, so we can never be sure of any verse. But the time gap between the original composition of some New Testament books and the earliest surviving manuscripts is shorter than for almost any classical work. For example, the John Rylands Papyrus (P52), containing verses from John 18, dates around 125–150 C.E., only a few decades after John’s probable writing in 98 C.E. Then, we have P66 dating to about 125-150 C.E., containing John 1:1–6:11; 6:35–14:26, 29–30; 15:2–26; 16:2–4, 6–7; 16:10–20:20, 22–23; 20:25–21:9, 12, 17. We also have P75 dating to 175-225 C.E., containing Luke 3:18–22; 3:33–4:2; 4:34–5:10; 5:37–6:4; 6:10–7:32, 35–39, 41–43; 7:46–9:2; 9:4–17:15; 17:19–18:18; 22:4–24:53; John 1:1–11:45, 48–57; 12:3–13:1, 8–10; 14:8–29; 15:7–8. This closeness gives considerable confidence in the fidelity of transmission. Meanwhile, classical texts often rely on manuscripts centuries further removed from their authors. No mainstream historians suggest we must reject Caesar’s Gallic Wars or Tacitus’s Annals for want of earlier manuscripts. How much more do we trust the New Testament, with its far richer attestation?

Demonstrating the High Degree of Certainty Across the Canon

Meticulous research by textual critics reveals that the New Testament can be considered thoroughly reliable. Scholars like Kurt Aland, Bruce M. Metzger, and others led efforts culminating in the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts, which represent the fruit of centuries of collations, comparisons, and methodical analysis. Time and again, discoveries of papyri in Egypt from the second or third century confirm that the later medieval manuscripts often preserve the same essential text. Even where differences surface, modern critics can trace lines of descent, adopting readings that best fit the overall external evidence, internal coherence, and style consistent with the author’s known usage. In short, far from undermining Scripture, the manuscript tradition underscores the consistent preservation of the text.

An example is in Matthew 11:15—“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Some manuscripts read, “He who has ears let him hear,” omitting “to hear.” The difference does not disrupt meaning, since both forms convey the same exhortation. A deeper example is Matthew 23:26, where some manuscripts add a phrase from the previous verse about “the dish.” On balance, the evidence supports the shorter reading, likely indicating a scribal insertion from verse 25. In each instance, the committees producing standard Greek texts weigh the evidence. Only rarely (as with Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53–8:11) do they bracket extended blocks of disputed text. These well-known passages are not hidden. Consequently, readers can approach the New Testament confident that the standard text reflects the original and that any complicated passage is identified and footnoted.

Why Original Text Restoration Still Matters

Some modern academics argue that textual criticism should abandon the quest for an “original text,” focusing instead on documenting the “living text” as it evolved through centuries. Indeed, textual critics can profitably explore how scribes introduced expansions, clarifications, or harmonizations. Yet the primary mission of textual criticism, historically, has always been to determine, as closely as possible, what the original authors wrote. Scholarship from Johann Jakob Griesbach, Constantin Von Tischendorf, B. F. Westcott, F. J. A. Hort, Kurt Aland, and Bruce Metzger was driven by this purpose. Their labor built the modern critical editions that allow readers worldwide to encounter Scripture’s earliest form.

Relinquishing the original text goal would impoverish biblical scholarship, hamper doctrinal clarity, and risk overshadowing the importance of the final text that circulated among the early congregations. If the conversation simply cataloged scribal changes, it might fail to highlight that these changes were generally small, localized, and correctable. Indeed, the broad witness of manuscripts firmly attests to the stability of the overall text. As John Fell wrote in the seventeenth century, textual critics have long recognized that God’s providential supervision, combined with robust manuscript attestation, means the original text is within our grasp.

Summarizing the Strength of the Textual Record

There is no question the New Testament stands uniquely attested among ancient literature. Writers such as Virgil or Tacitus have far fewer manuscripts, often dated many centuries after the originals. Yet no classical scholar suggests we must doubt every line of Virgil’s Aeneid or Tacitus’s Annals. By contrast, the Greek New Testament is preserved in thousands of manuscripts, including many that date relatively close to the time of writing. This wealth of data not only amplifies variants but also grants the means to solve them.

As a result, the critical Greek New Testament, exemplified in the Nestle-Aland 28th edition or the UBS 5th edition, approximates extremely closely the words that Paul, John, and others penned. Indeed, textual scholar Daniel B. Wallace has commented that the Greek texts used in the modern era differ from the originals in only a tiny fraction of readings. None of these differences pertain to fundamental Christian doctrines about the nature of God, Jesus, salvation, or resurrection. In practical terms, translations based on these critical editions, such as the ESV, UASV, CSB, and others, represent the Word of God with high fidelity.

Encouraging Confidence in the Scriptures

Those new to textual criticism may at first be unsettled by talk of hundreds of thousands of variants. But they need not be intimidated. The essential perspective is that these numerous differences reflect many repeated mistakes across thousands of witnesses. The actual portion of uncertain text is minuscule. Meanwhile, the presence of so many manuscripts spanning wide geographical regions ensures that no singular scribe’s error or deliberate alteration could universally corrupt the text. If one region introduced a reading, other regions might preserve a more accurate form. Modern textual scholars, sifting through these lines of evidence, converge on a stable, authoritative text that stands nearly identical to what the apostles authored.

In practical terms, believers can open their Bibles with trust. Where a reading remains uncertain, footnotes typically indicate the alternative. The result is transparency. Christians can reflect on the rare textual decisions with calm assurance that no vital doctrine stands or falls on these variants. Meanwhile, the robust manuscript tradition helps confirm the continuity of Scripture’s message from the apostolic age to today. The same letters that strengthened early congregations continue to build up the church, guiding believers in accurate knowledge and godly devotion.

Conclusion: Unity and Trust Through Textual Criticism

Critics who focus on raw variant counts without explaining the nature and distribution of those differences risk creating alarm. Yet the consensus of sober scholarship is that textual criticism, far from revealing an irreparably damaged text, has confirmed how reliably the New Testament was transmitted. Through centuries of research, the shape of the text stands clearer than ever. The thousands of manuscripts, once accused of bearing innumerable divergences, unify into a stable reading that conveys the same truths the early church knew.

Neither the occasional scribal slip nor the presence of some difficult passages undermines the broader text. Instead, the careful work of collating manuscripts and applying well-established criteria ensures that the original words remain discernible. The best available critical editions reflect that mission successfully accomplished. While minor questions remain in a few places, they pertain to details not altering the fundamental revelation of Christ’s identity, his sacrifice, or the moral instructions for believers. Because of this, textual integrity is more than a theoretical concept. It is a living reality testifying to God’s providence in preserving His Word across centuries.

Readers, then, can confidently accept that Scripture is indeed God’s inspired revelation, reliably conveyed through the ages. With the science of textual criticism allied to a vast manuscript tradition, the body of Christ can study, preach, defend, and live by the words of the apostles with the highest assurance that what they read truly represents the mind of the original writers, who were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). Summed up simply: The abundance of manuscript variants does not undermine but rather reinforces the reliability of the New Testament. Bible readers may rest assured that the text before them is, in essence, the very same text that changed lives in the first century and still changes lives today.

You May Also Enjoy

How Might Criteria for Evaluating Readings Deepen Our Confidence in the Transmission of the New Testament Text?

About the Author

Online Guided Bible Study Courses

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION