How Trustworthy Is the New Testament Text?

Examining the Greek Manuscript Evidence

The New Testament is often said to be the best-attested text of antiquity – but what does that mean for its trustworthiness? This blog will explore the manuscript evidence behind the New Testament, from the sheer number of Greek copies to famous early documents like Papyrus 52, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus. We’ll also highlight insights from leading textual scholars (Daniel B. Wallace, Gordon Fee, F.F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, and others) who have studied these manuscripts, and explain why even with thousands of textual variants no core Christian doctrine is in doubt. Finally, we’ll address modern skepticism from critics like Dr. Bart Ehrman and see how scholarly responses affirm the integrity of the New Testament text.

1. Overview of New Testament Manuscript Evidence

When it comes to ancient writings, the New Testament stands in a league of its own for manuscript support. To date, over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have been cataloged. Some of these are mere fragments while others are nearly entire Bibles, copied by hand over the centuries. This number doesn’t even count the 20,000+ manuscripts in other languages (like Latin, Coptic, and Syriac), which boost the total evidence even further.

For comparison, most works of famous Greek or Roman authors survive in only a few dozen or hundred copies at best. In fact, the New Testament is “by many degrees, the best-attested document of the entire ancient world” in terms of manuscript quantity. The nearest rival is Homer’s Iliad with around 1,800 manuscripts – only about one-third as many as the New Testament.

The New Testament is preserved in three main categories of manuscripts:

Greek manuscripts: Over 5,800 full or partial copies
Latin manuscripts (Vulgate, Old Latin, etc.): Over 10,000
Other ancient translations (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, etc.): Over 9,300
Patristic Citations (Church Fathers quoting the NT): Over 1 million references

Total manuscript count: Over 25,000+ copies (not including patristic quotations)

Comparison with Other Ancient Documents

The table below shows how the New Testament compares with other major works from antiquity:

Ancient Work	Author	Date Written	Earliest Copy	Time Gap	Number of Copies
New Testament	Various	50–100 AD	2nd century (P52, c. 125 AD)	25–50 years	25,000+
Iliad	Homer	c. 800 BC	c. 400 BC	400 years	1,800
Histories	Herodotus	c. 430 BC	c. 900 AD	1,300 years	109
Gallic Wars	Julius Caesar	c. 50 BC	c. 900 AD	950 years	251
Annals	Tacitus	c. 100 AD	c. 850 AD	750 years	33
Republic	Plato	c. 375 BC	c. 900 AD	1,275 years	7
Metaphysics	Aristotle	c. 350 BC	c. 1100 AD	1,450 years	49

What This Means for the New Testament

Manuscript Quantity: The New Testament has more copies (by a factor of 10 to 1,000 times) than other ancient works.
Time Gap: The New Testament’s earliest copies appear within 50–100 years, while most ancient works have a gap of 500–1,500 years between the original and the earliest surviving copy.
Textual Certainty: Because there are so many manuscripts, scholars can compare them to reconstruct the original text with high accuracy. In contrast, for works like Plato’s Republic, we rely on only 7 copies copied over a thousand years later.

Even Bart Ehrman, one of the most vocal critics of the New Testament text, acknowledges this:

“We have more copies of the New Testament than any other book from antiquity. It is simply in a different category from anything else we have.”

The sheer number of New Testament manuscripts, their early dates, and their geographical distribution make the NT the best-preserved text from the ancient world. No other document comes close.

Why do numbers matter? With so many manuscripts, scholars can cross-check and verify the text. Imagine having 1 or 2 copies of a letter from antiquity – errors in copying would be hard to detect. But if you have tens, hundreds, or thousands of copies, differences between them become apparent and the original wording can be reconstructed with high confidence. As the renowned scholar F.F. Bruce observed,

“The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.”

In other words, on purely documentary grounds, the New Testament enjoys a wealth of evidence that would make any classical historian envious. This abundance of manuscripts, combined with their early dating (as we’ll see next), gives us strong reason to trust that the text of the New Testament has been preserved with great fidelity.

2. Early Manuscript Discoveries: P52, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Washingtonianus

One way to gauge textual reliability is to look at how early our surviving copies are. The closer a copy is to the time of the original writing, the less time there was for copyists’ errors or legendary development. Here the New Testament also shines. We have manuscript fragments dating back to the early second century – incredibly close to the end of the first century when the New Testament was completed.

Rylands Library Papyrus P52, the oldest known New Testament fragment, is a small piece of John’s Gospel dated to around 100–150 A.D. It measures only a few inches across, with portions of John 18 on each side, but its significance is enormous. Discovered in Egypt and now housed in the John Rylands Library, Papyrus 52 (P52) is widely regarded as “the earliest portion of any New Testament writing ever found.”

Its early date (possibly within just a few decades of the Gospel of John being written) and its location (found in Egypt, far from where John’s Gospel was likely composed in Asia Minor) provide evidence that the New Testament writings spread quickly and were being copied well within living memory of the apostles. In practical terms, P52 pushes the existence of John’s Gospel back to the early 2nd century, rebutting any claim that the Gospel of John was a much later, legendary text. It’s a tiny fragment, yet it bridges a crucial gap between the originals and our later copies.

Moving forward a couple of centuries, we come to the great parchment codices of the Bible. A codex is the ancestor of the modern book – pages bound together – and early Christians adopted the codex format earlier than most. The two most important early Bible codices are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both from the 4th century (300s A.D.), which contain the New Testament (and much of the Old Testament) in Greek. These are essentially our oldest complete New Testaments.

Codex Sinaiticus (so named because it was found at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai) was rediscovered in 1844 by Constantin von Tischendorf, who famously found old parchment leaves in a waste basket at the monastery. Eventually over 400 pages were recovered, and scholars were astonished to find it contained the entire New Testament in Greek, plus books like the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas.

Codex Vaticanus (named for the Vatican Library, where it has been kept since at least 1475) is likewise a 4th-century Bible. It originally had about 820 pages; today it still contains a complete New Testament except for a few missing pages at the end (Hebrews 9:14 onward, which were replaced in the 15th century). Vaticanus is written in a beautiful three-column format and is often considered “our most important biblical manuscript, because of all the manuscripts we have, Codex Vaticanus comes closest overall to the original wording of the New Testament,” according to one scholar.

Codex Washingtonianus, also known as the Washington Manuscript or Codex W, is a significant early Greek manuscript of the Gospels, dating to the late fourth or early fifth century. Housed in the Freer Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution, it is notable for containing unique textual variants and a remarkable interpolation known as the Freer Logion within Mark’s longer ending. In the spring of 2002, I had the joy of examining this Codex firsthand in the Smithsonian’s underground archive at the Freer Museum. During this visit, I had the privilege of discussing its significance with the curator and a scholar of Byzantine manuscripts. It was an experience I will never forget—standing before a manuscript that has preserved the words of the Gospels for over a millennium, engaging in scholarly dialogue about its history and textual value.

United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, houses several significant Greek biblical manuscripts, including Uncial 0206, a 4th-century parchment fragment containing portions of 1 Peter 5:5–13. This fragment, written in large monumental uncial letters, bears similarities to the handwriting of Codex Sinaiticus. Additionally, the seminary preserves a 4th-century papyrus fragment from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri collection (P. Oxy. XV 1779) containing a portion of Psalm 1, as well as a 5th-century fragment of the Gospel of Matthew. These manuscripts are invaluable to textual criticism and biblical scholarship, offering insights into early Christian textual transmission. Having lived in Dayton, Ohio, before moving outside of Cincinnati, I had the privilege of working directly with this manuscript, an opportunity that deepened my appreciation for its historical and theological significance. Engaging with such an ancient witness to the biblical text in my hometown remains a cherished experience in my study of textual criticism.

It’s hard to overstate how crucial these early manuscript discoveries are. They show that by the 4th century – long before any church councils or medieval scribes – the New Testament text was being preserved with care. In fact, earlier papyri (on papyrus paper rolls) from the 2nd and 3rd centuries fill in the gap between P52 and these codices. We now possess dozens of papyrus fragments of various New Testament books dated between 150 and 300 A.D. All this means we can trace the text back very close to the originals. As a result, the time gap between when the New Testament books were written (mid-1st century) and our earliest substantial copies (2nd–4th century) is relatively very small – just a few decades for fragments, and a couple of centuries for complete books

Classifications

New Testament Greek manuscripts are classified into two main script styles:

Uncials (Majuscules) – Written in all capital letters, these manuscripts date primarily from the 4th to 9th centuries. Examples include:
- Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ or 01)
- Codex Vaticanus (B or 03)
- Codex Alexandrinus (A or 02)
- Codex Bezae (D or 05)
Minuscules – Written in a smaller, cursive script, these manuscripts date from the 9th century onward. They are identified by numerical designations (e.g., Minuscule 33, Minuscule 1739).

Additionally, NT manuscripts are found on different writing materials:

Parchment (animal skin) – Used extensively from the 4th century onward, particularly in Uncial and Minuscule manuscripts.
Papyrus (designated with “P” and a number, e.g., P52, P66, P75) – Early manuscripts (2nd–4th centuries), written on plant-based material.

Families

New Testament Greek manuscripts have traditionally been categorized into textual families based on their shared characteristics:

Alexandrian Text-Type – Considered the earliest and reliable, this family includes manuscripts such as:
- Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ or 01)
- Codex Vaticanus (B or 03)
- Papyrus 66 (P66), Papyrus 75 (P75)
  This text type is characterized by brevity and careful preservation, primarily found in Egypt.
Western Text-Type – Found in manuscripts with more paraphrastic tendencies, often expanding or rewording phrases. Notable examples:
- Codex Bezae (D or 05)
- Codex Claromontanus (D or 06) This text was widespread in the early church, particularly in Latin-speaking regions.
Byzantine Text-Type – The dominant textual tradition from the 9th century onward, characterized by smooth and harmonized readings. Examples include:
- Codex Alexandrinus (A or 02)
- Minuscule 33 (the “Queen of the Cursives”) This is the basis of the Textus Receptus and later editions of the King James Version (KJV).

Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)

More recently, textual scholars have shifted from rigid textual families to a more fluid approach called the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM). This method does not assume fixed textual families but instead examines the relationships between individual manuscripts through computer-based textual analysis. CBGM has been instrumental in the production of the Nestle-Aland 28th Edition (NA28) of the Greek NT and is being further refined for future textual editions. So, while the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine classifications remain useful, CBGM represents a more dynamic way of tracing manuscript relationships, recognizing that textual transmission was more organic than previously thought.

3. Insights from Leading Textual Scholars

Such an important collection of documents has not been left to guesswork – textual scholars have poured over the New Testament manuscripts for over 300 years, comparing and analyzing them. Notably, many of the most respected scholars in this field (including believers and some skeptics) affirm that the New Testament text has been reliably transmitted. Here are a few perspectives:

1.) Kurt and Barbara Aland were foundational figures in modern New Testament textual criticism, overseeing the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) in Münster, Germany. Kurt Aland played a key role in shaping the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (NA26 and NA27) and was instrumental in developing the Categories of New Testament Manuscripts, which classify texts based on reliability. He strongly advocated for an eclectic approach to textual criticism, using evidence from multiple manuscript families to reconstruct the original text. Barbara Aland continued his work, editing subsequent editions of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece and contributing to critical editions of the Greek New Testament.

2.) F.F. Bruce (British biblical scholar) – as quoted earlier, Bruce argued that the New Testament’s authenticity would be “beyond all doubt” if judged by normal historical standards, given the evidence. In his classic The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1943), Bruce concluded that we have good grounds to trust the New Testament text. He famously said it is “not the lack of evidence, but the very abundance of it that is perplexing” for textual critics of the New Testament, since there are so many manuscripts to consider (a nice problem to have).

3.) Bruce M. Metzger (Princeton scholar, editor of the Greek New Testament) – Metzger spent a lifetime studying New Testament manuscripts and led the team that produced critical editions of the Greek New Testament. He noted that of the thousands of variant readings in the manuscripts, “none…need have alarmed the laity or the clergy, for the variation in wording does not affect basic Bible doctrines.” In other words, after all the academic labor of sifting manuscripts, no essential Christian belief is put in jeopardy by a disputed textual reading. Metzger’s student, Bart Ehrman (now a well-known agnostic critic), actually agrees on this point – Ehrman admits that “the position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”

4.) Eldon J. Epp is a leading textual scholar known for his work on scribal tendencies, canon development, and textual criticism as a discipline. He has argued that theological motivations played a role in certain textual variants, urging scholars to consider the social and doctrinal influences on early scribes. His research has also emphasized the historical context of textual transmission, challenging assumptions about textual stability. His collection of essays, Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism, remains an essential resource for understanding the evolution of the discipline.

5.) Dr. Daniel B. Wallace (Executive Director, Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts) – Wallace is a leading contemporary textual critic who has personally examined many early manuscripts. He emphasizes that the multitude of New Testament manuscripts allows us to cross-check the text far more thoroughly than for any other ancient book. In his words, “we have more than 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts, the oldest going back to the 2nd century. We have almost a thousand times as many manuscripts as the average classical author has for their works”. Wallace also stresses that copying the New Testament was not like the “telephone game”, where a message inevitably gets garbled. Unlike a whispered message, ancient scribes made written copies that could be compared with other copies, and there were “multiple lines of transmission” – meaning if one line of copies introduced a mistake, copies from another line would preserve the correct reading. Thanks to this, Wallace concludes that no essential affirmation of the Christian faith has been compromised: after centuries of scrutiny, “scholars have declared that no essential affirmation has been affected by the variants. Even Ehrman has conceded this point in…debate”.

6.) David C. Parker is a pioneering figure in digital textual criticism and has led efforts to create electronic editions of the Greek New Testament. He was a key editor of the Codex Sinaiticus Project, which provided the first full digital edition of one of the oldest New Testament manuscripts. Parker also played a leading role in the International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP) and has been a major advocate for using computational methods in textual analysis. His book An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts is widely used in academic settings.

7.) Dr. Gordon D. Fee (textual scholar and co-editor of the standard UBS Greek New Testament) – Fee likewise has defended the reliability of the New Testament text. He has pointed out that the vast majority of textual variants are minor and that the New Testament we read today is essentially the same in message as what was originally written. Fee encourages Christians not only to acknowledge the variants but also to trust that God’s Word has been preserved through them. In one essay, he noted that textual criticism (the science of studying manuscript variants) actually strengthens our confidence in the text by showing where the few uncertainties lie, instead of leaving us in the dark.

8.) Holger Strutwolf is the current director of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) and a key figure in the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM). His research has focused on textual relationships between manuscripts, and he oversees the editing of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (NA28, NA29). Strutwolf’s work has been instrumental in modern computer-assisted textual criticism, refining how textual variants are evaluated and classified.

9.) Peter J. Gurry is a rising scholar in textual criticism, CBGM, and scribal habits. He has written extensively on the reliability of the New Testament text and has engaged in apologetics regarding how variants impact Christian theology. Gurry works with Phoenix Seminary and co-authored A New Approach to Textual Criticism with Tommy Wasserman, a book that explains the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) in a practical way.

10.) Tommy Wasserman is a Swedish textual scholar specializing in New Testament textual transmission, scribal habits, and variant analysis. His research has explored the text of Jude, analyzing how its variations reflect early Christian theology. Wasserman’s work in CBGM and digital textual criticism has contributed to refining modern textual methodologies. He has also co-authored books on textual criticism’s role in apologetics and its implications for biblical studies.

11.) Dirk Jongkind is the principal editor of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament (THGNT) and a specialist in scribal habits, early manuscript traditions, and papyrology. His work focuses on producing a text as close as possible to the early Greek witnesses while avoiding later scribal interpolations. Jongkind’s An Introduction to the Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House explains the principles behind the THGNT and defends a reasoned eclectic approach to textual criticism.

12.) Peter J. Williams is a leading New Testament textual scholar and Christian apologist, specializing in manuscript studies, early Bible translations, and the historical reliability of Scripture. He is the Principal of Tyndale House, Cambridge, where he oversees research on biblical texts and textual criticism. Williams has contributed significantly to the study of scribal habits and the transmission of the Greek Gospels, as well as the impact of early Syriac translations on textual criticism. He is also known for his public defense of the reliability of the New Testament, engaging with skeptics like Bart Ehrman to demonstrate that textual variants do not undermine Christian doctrine. His book Can We Trust the Gospels? presents a compelling argument for the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts, drawing from both textual evidence and historical context. Through his work on the Tyndale House Greek New Testament (THGNT) and his lectures on biblical reliability, Williams has become a key figure in bridging academic textual criticism and apologetics.

13.) Klaus Wachtel is a major contributor to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) and has played a central role in applying digital analysis to textual criticism. His research at the INTF has helped develop methodologies used in the Nestle-Aland 28 (NA28) and the Editio Critica Maior (ECM). Wachtel’s work seeks to map textual relationships among manuscripts, providing a clearer picture of how the New Testament text was transmitted.

14.) Maurice Robinson is a textual scholar known for his defense of the Byzantine text and his role in editing The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform. Unlike many modern scholars who favor the Alexandrian text type, Robinson argues that the Byzantine tradition represents the most stable textual transmission and should be given greater weight in reconstructing the New Testament.

15.) Michael W. Holmes is a scholar specializing in textual criticism and early Christian literature. He edited the SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT), which serves as an alternative to the Nestle-Aland text. Holmes has contributed extensively to discussions on how textual criticism affects our understanding of Christian doctrine and the historical development of the biblical text.

Scholars who have spent their careers examining these ancient manuscripts—people who would certainly know if the text had been hopelessly corrupted—maintain that we can recover the New Testament with a very high degree of accuracy. The consensus of modern experts (whether evangelical Christian or secular academic) is that over 99% of the original text can be established beyond reasonable doubt. The remaining 1% of uncertain readings are typically well documented in footnotes of modern Bibles and affect no central doctrine of the Christian faith (more on this next). Far from being a point of embarrassment, the science of textual criticism has allowed scholars to confidently declare the New Testament text essentially sound. As Sir Frederic Kenyon (former director of the British Museum) summed up: “The last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.”

4. Textual Variants: Do They Affect Doctrine?

If one hears that there are hundreds of thousands of textual variants among New Testament manuscripts, it can sound alarming. In fact, it’s true that there are an estimated 300,000–500,000 variants across all our manuscripts.

But raw numbers alone are misleading – we need to understand what these variants are. A textual variant simply means any difference in wording between two manuscripts. This could be as small as a single letter, or as large as an omitted/added sentence. Given that we have about 5,800 manuscripts, and the New Testament contains over 138,000 words, it’s no surprise that when you compare all those copies you’ll find many differences.

However, not all variants are created equal. The vast majority are incredibly minor – spelling differences, word order changes, or the presence/absence of a tiny word like “the” or an “and.” To give a classic example: some Greek scribes would sometimes add an “ν” (nu) at the end of certain words if the next word started with a vowel (much like we might use “an” before a vowel sound in English). This “movable nu” appears in some manuscripts and not in others, but it has zero effect on translation or meaning. It’s akin to the difference between writing “who” vs “whom” – a matter of formality or grammar that doesn’t change the basic content of a sentence.

By far, these sorts of trivial variants make up the bulk of the differences. Scholars estimate around 99% of all textual variants have no meaningful impact on the text’s message. In other words, if you read two different manuscripts of, say, Romans, virtually all the differences you’d notice would be things like alternate spellings or word order—nothing that would change a doctrine or even an important historical fact.

What about the other 1% of variants? There are indeed a few places where manuscripts disagree on a phrase or verse that might make a noticeable difference in a passage. These are the variants that textual critics focus most of their attention on. Examples include: the last verses of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9–20, the “long ending” which is absent from our oldest copies, however I have defended in my blog post “A Defence for the Longer Ending of Mark“), the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11, which is likewise missing from the earliest manuscripts), or a few shorter phrases (such as the explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7, which appears to be a later addition in Latin manuscripts). Variants like these are often highlighted in the footnotes or margins of modern English Bibles, with notes like “some early manuscripts do not contain this verse.” This transparency lets readers know where the text is in question. Crucially, no core doctrine of Christianity hangs on these disputed texts. For instance, while the story of the adulterous woman is a beloved passage, every teaching it contains can be supported from other undisputed scriptures. The doctrine of the Trinity does not rely on the contested line in 1 John 5:7, but on many other clear verses. And the resurrection of Christ (the centerpiece of the Gospel of Mark) is affirmed in all four Gospels and Paul’s letters, regardless of how Mark’s own Gospel ends. As Dr. Craig Blomberg quips, “No cardinal belief is left in limbo, uncertain of its foundation.”

Examples and Catagories:

Textual variants in New Testament manuscripts can be categorized based on their frequency and significance. Below is a list from the most common to the least common, along with examples.

1. Spelling Differences (Orthographic Variants) – Most Common

These include minor differences in spelling, often due to regional variations or copyist habits.

Example:

John 7:8
- Some manuscripts read οὐκ (ouk, “not”).
- Others read οὔπω (oupo, “not”).

This is a minor variation that does not change doctrine.

2. Movable Nu (Ν)

As noted above, a movable ν (Greek: ν κινητόν) is an optional ν added to the end of certain words when the next word begins with a vowel, much like “a” vs. “an” in English.

Example:

Matthew 5:8
- Some manuscripts have καθαροι εισιν (katharoi eisin, “are pure”).
- Others have καθαροι εισι (katharoi eisi, “are pure”).

No change in meaning.

3. Word Order Changes (Transposition)

Greek allows flexible word order, so scribes sometimes rearranged words without affecting meaning.

Example:

1 Thessalonians 2:13
- Some manuscripts read λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ (logon tou Theou, “word of God”).
- Others read τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον (tou Theou logon, “God’s word”).

Meaning is unchanged.

4. Synonym Substitutions

Different Greek words with the same meaning were sometimes substituted.

Example:

Mark 1:4
- Some manuscripts have βάπτισμα μετανοίας (baptisma metanoias, “baptism of repentance”).
- Others have βάπτισμα μετανοήσεως (baptisma metanoēseōs, same meaning but different form).

No theological impact.

5. Interchanging “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus”

Scribes occasionally switched the order of “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus.”

Example:

Romans 3:24
- Some manuscripts read ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (en Christō Iēsou, “in Christ Jesus”).
- Others read ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (en Iēsou Christō, “in Jesus Christ”).

This affects style but not doctrine.

6. Articles (Adding or Omitting “The”)

Greek often uses or omits the definite article (ὁ, ἡ, τό) in ways that don’t affect English meaning.

Example:

Matthew 1:18
- Some manuscripts say τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (tou Iēsou Christou, “of Jesus Christ”).
- Others say Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Iēsou Christou, “of Jesus Christ”).

English translations remain unchanged.

7. Dittography (Accidental Doubling)

A scribe accidentally wrote a word or phrase twice.

Example:

Luke 14:5
- Some manuscripts read ὑιὸς ἢ βοῦς (huios ē bous, “son or ox”).
- Some repeat “ox” (ὑιὸς ἢ βοῦς ἢ βοῦς), a clear copyist mistake.

8. Haplography (Accidental Omission)

A scribe accidentally skipped a word or phrase, often due to similar word endings.

Example:

1 John 2:23
- Some manuscripts lack “ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει καὶ τὸν πατέρα” (“whoever confesses the Son has the Father also”).

Omissions like this are often restored by comparing multiple manuscripts. Sometimes they appear in the margins of manuscripts where the text omits it, showing the copying error had been recognized; however, paper and parchment were expensive, so the error is simply included on the side.

9. Assimilation to Parallel Passages

Scribes sometimes made a passage match a similar one from another Gospel.

Example:

Matthew 9:13 vs. Mark 2:17
- Some copies of Matthew 9:13 include “to repentance” at the end, likely borrowed from Luke 5:32.

10. Placing Part of a Verse Elsewhere

A phrase is moved to a different spot in the verse.

Example:

John 3:16
- Some manuscripts place “should not perish” before “but have eternal life”, while others reverse the order.

The meaning remains unchanged.

11. The Addition or Omission of Entire Phrases

Scribes sometimes added clarifying words or omitted phrases.

Example:

Luke 11:2-4 (Lord’s Prayer)
- Some manuscripts include “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”, while others omit it.

This is likely due to harmonization with Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer.

12. The Addition or Omission of Entire Verses

A few later manuscripts add or omit whole verses.

Examples:

Mark 16:9-20 (The “Long Ending of Mark”) – Absent in early manuscripts.
John 7:53–8:11 (The Woman Caught in Adultery) – Not found in the earliest copies.

These passages are noted in modern Bibles with footnotes.

13. Doctrinal Clarifications or Interpretations

Some changes reflect theological emphasis.

Example:

Luke 2:33
- Some manuscripts say “his father and mother” (biological term).
- Others say “Joseph and his mother”, likely to emphasize the virgin birth.

Most textual variants do not affect meaning or doctrine. The vast majority are spelling differences, word order shifts, or minor clarifications. Even the larger changes (such as entire verses) do not alter core Christian beliefs, as those doctrines are confirmed elsewhere in the text.

So, do textual variants matter? For scholars, yes – each variant is a window into the history of the text and must be evaluated to reconstruct the original. But for the average reader, the important point is that the New Testament you read today is not missing some secret “lost” verses nor filled with unknown errors. We can be confident of what it says. Even Bart Ehrman, one of the loudest voices drawing attention to textual variants, agrees that the core message of the New Testament has remained the same. After exhaustively studying the variations, he admits: “If [my mentor Bruce Metzger] and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands.”

Those one or two dozen places are footnoted in your Bible; none of them affects an article of faith or a command of Christ. In sum, minor copyist errors exist, but the real substance of the text is securely preserved.

A Modern Example: Imagine your history teacher gives an important speech about an upcoming exam. Five students in class decide to take notes, but they each write things down a little differently.

Emma writes: “The test is on Friday, and it will have 50 questions.”
Jake writes: “The test is on Friday, and it will have 55 questions.”
Sophia writes: “The exam is on Friday, and it will have 50 multiple-choice questions.”
Liam writes: “The exam is Friday, and it will include 50 questions.”
Noah writes: “The test is on Friday and has 50 questions.”

Later, someone who missed class asks what the teacher said. Even though the students’ notes aren’t exactly the same, it’s easy to compare them and figure out what was originally said:

The test is on Friday (all five agree).
The test has 50 questions (four agree, and one likely made a small mistake).
The test is called either an exam or a test, but that doesn’t change the meaning.

Because we have multiple sources, we can confidently reconstruct the teacher’s original words. If we only had one person’s notes, we wouldn’t know whether an error had been made. But with multiple copies, we can cross-check and verify the original message.

The New Testament manuscripts work the same way. Even though scribes made small mistakes over time—like a misspelled word or an extra phrase—the sheer number of manuscripts allows scholars to compare them and determine what the original text actually said. Instead of being a problem, having thousands of copies with small differences is a huge advantage, because it helps us get back to the original wording with high accuracy.

One additional important note is that we also have the writings of the early Church Fathers who provide invaluable insight into how the New Testament was understood and transmitted. Their extensive citations and allusions are so numerous that, as Bruce Metzger observed, “if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, it would be possible to reconstruct practically the entire New Testament from the quotations made by the early Church Fathers.” These references serve as a double-check on the integrity of the text, allowing scholars to cross-reference them with manuscript evidence. Additionally, they reveal how early Christians interpreted Scripture, shaped doctrine, and engaged in theological discussions, demonstrating the foundational role the New Testament played in worship and belief from the earliest centuries.

5. Engaging with Modern Skepticism

In recent years, scholars like Dr. Bart D. Ehrman have popularized the issue of textual variants in books like Misquoting Jesus. Ehrman often points out that there are “more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament,” a statement that, while technically true, can be very misleading if taken out of context.

Hearing this, some might conclude the New Testament is hopelessly unreliable – but as we’ve seen, that’s far from the case. Let’s address a few of the common skeptical claims:

“We don’t have the originals, only copies of copies of copies…” – This is true; we do not have the original parchment or papyrus that, say, Paul or Luke wrote on. But this is not unique to the New Testament – we have no originals of any works of antiquity. Historians work with copies. What matters is how close in time those copies are and how many we have. As shown above, the New Testament’s copies are exceptionally early and numerous by ancient standards. The worry behind this claim is the idea that as copies were made of copies, errors would snowball (the “telephone game” analogy). However, unlike a telephone game, we still have the earlier copies in the chain! We aren’t stuck with just the last copy in a long line; we have copies from various centuries (2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.) that allow cross-checking. If a scribe in the 8th century introduced a mistake, we can catch it by comparing with a 4th-century copy that doesn’t have that mistake. Far from a blind transmission through one line, the New Testament was copied in multiple geographical regions, creating several streams of tradition. Modern textual critics have a rich dataset to work with – like multiple witnesses to an event – which is why they are confident in reconstructing the original text.

“Scribes changed the text for theological reasons” – Ehrman’s scholarly work (in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) highlighted places where early Christian scribes may have altered words to clarify doctrine or combat heresy. For example, a scribe might tweak a verse to reinforce that Jesus is fully human (against Docetism) or fully divine (against Arianism). Do such changes exist? Yes, there are instances of what looks like intentional alteration. But these tend to be “changes to the Gospels to harmonize them” or to make a point clearer – they are not wholesale inventions of new doctrines. And because we have so many manuscripts, we often have both the altered and original readings preserved in different manuscripts. Textual scholars can spot these and almost always determine which is the earlier reading. The key point is that these variants do not overturn the teachings of the New Testament. For example, if one copyist in the 3rd century rephrased a verse about Jesus to emphasize his divinity, that doesn’t mean other copies hadn’t already been calling Jesus divine (they did, repeatedly). There is no evidence of a conspiracy by scribes to insert some completely new doctrine into the text that wasn’t already believed. As Dr. Daniel Wallace responds to Ehrman: “to suggest that these alterations change essential affirmations of the NT is going far beyond the evidence. The variants [Ehrman] produces do not do what he seems to claim… for more than two centuries, most biblical scholars have declared that no essential affirmation has been affected by the variants.”

“Hundreds of thousands of errors – the text is unreliable!” – By now, we know that raw number reflects mostly trivial differences. To put it in perspective, if one manuscript spells a word “honor” and another spells it “honour,” that counts as a variant. Multiplying such spelling variants across 5,800 copies quickly adds up. But it’s a mistake to equate “variant” with “error” in the sense of something that changes the message. After decades of examining every variant, textual scholars (including agnostics like Ehrman and believers alike) agree on roughly 99% of the text. The dispute is over a small number of passages, none of which overturn Christianity. In a public dialogue, even Ehrman conceded: “I don’t believe that the core tenets of the Christian faith are affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” This is a striking admission from someone often cited by skeptics – effectively, even the leading textual skeptic agrees that the New Testament we have today conveys the same doctrines as originally written.

In engaging with modern skepticism, it’s important to distinguish between legitimate scholarly discussion and sensationalism. Textual critics do argue vigorously about certain verses – that’s the normal process of refining our knowledge. But none of them are suggesting we have lost, say, one of Jesus’s key teachings or that some books of the New Testament drastically changed over time. What tends to happen is skeptics emphasize the number of variants to shock the public, without explaining the nature of those variants. Responsible scholars, on the other hand, emphasize the quality of the textual transmission.

To quote Dr. James White, “We have a plethora of variants, but we also have a plethora of manuscripts. And those two go hand in hand. It is because God has given us so much evidence that we have to deal with differences. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing.” In other words, the very fact we can talk about 400,000 variants means we have almost as many opportunities to confirm the text! By comparing all those manuscripts, we can be more sure of the original words, not less. Contrast this with a work that survives in just one medieval copy – there you’d have zero “variants,” but also zero way to check its accuracy.

There are, of course, other objections biblical skeptics use to reject the trustworthiness of the New Testament text which, upon closer examination, simply do not hold. Here are a few:

1. “Why Would God Inspire an Inerrant Text but Not Keep the Copying Process Inerrant?”

This objection assumes that divine inspiration should extend beyond the original writings (autographs) to the copying process itself, ensuring that every manuscript remained perfect. If God inspired the Bible inerrantly, why did He allow mistakes in transmission? Wouldn’t an all-powerful God have ensured that His word was copied without error?

God’s usual mode of operation is to work through human agents rather than override their limitations. Just as He used fallible men to write Scripture while still guiding them in inspiration (2 Peter 1:21), He also allowed fallible scribes to copy the text. However, He ensured that His word would be preserved through an abundance of manuscripts rather than through a single, divinely protected document. This approach actually strengthens textual integrity rather than weakens it. If a single perfect manuscript had been preserved, it could have been altered or controlled by a single group, making corruption undetectable. Instead, God’s method of preservation ensured that His word remained verifiable through thousands of manuscripts from different locations and traditions, allowing scholars to reconstruct the original text with remarkable accuracy.

2. “If God Wanted Us to Have His Word, Why Didn’t He Engrave It in an Indestructible Form?”

Some critics argue that if God truly intended for the Bible to be preserved perfectly, He could have inscribed it on stone, metal, or another indestructible material. By allowing it to be written on fragile materials like papyrus and parchment, they claim that God set up the text for corruption or loss over time.

This argument assumes that God’s priority was physical durability rather than faithful transmission through generations of believers. Even when God did provide written inscriptions in stone, such as the Ten Commandments, the tablets were broken and replaced (Exodus 32:19). Furthermore, faith is not built on relics but on a living, active word that has been copied and passed down faithfully (Hebrews 4:12). God’s choice to use perishable materials ensured that copies would be made, preventing any one group from monopolizing the text. Rather than safeguarding the Scriptures in an unalterable physical form, He ensured their survival through widespread dissemination.

3. “How Can We Trust the New Testament When It Was Copied by Fallible People?”

Some argue that since the New Testament was copied by hand for centuries before the invention of the printing press, it is inevitable that scribes introduced errors, making the text unreliable. If copying was left to fallible scribes, how can we be sure that our modern text is accurate?

While it is true that scribes made mistakes, these errors are overwhelmingly minor and do not affect doctrine. Furthermore, scribes were not careless; many worked with great precision, particularly as Christianity spread and the need for accurate copies increased. By the time professional scribal practices were established in monasteries, copying had become even more meticulous. The presence of multiple manuscript families (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, etc.) allows textual critics to cross-check and identify errors. Because the manuscripts come from different geographic locations, we can detect changes rather than being reliant on a single stream of tradition. Far from being unreliable, the high degree of agreement among thousands of manuscripts proves that the message of the New Testament has remained intact.

4. “Wouldn’t It Have Been Better If God Preserved One Perfect Copy?”

A common argument is that if God wanted to prevent textual uncertainty, He could have ensured the survival of one single, perfect manuscript, rather than allowing multiple copies with variations. Wouldn’t this have prevented textual disputes?

A single manuscript would have been far more vulnerable to loss, destruction, or alteration. If only one official copy had been preserved, then a ruler, religious group, or even a catastrophic event could have altered or destroyed it, and no one would be able to verify the original wording. Instead, God ensured that the New Testament text was copied and spread across the ancient world, making corruption impossible without detection. This means that even if one group attempted to modify the text, their changes would be evident when compared with other copies from different regions. The diversity of manuscripts actually protects the integrity of the text rather than weakening it.

5. “Why Didn’t Early Christians Standardize the Text Sooner?”

Some skeptics suggest that the early church should have acted immediately to eliminate textual variations and enforce a single, uniform text. If the church had done so, wouldn’t that have prevented textual differences?

This objection assumes that the early church functioned as a centralized institution capable of controlling all copies of Scripture. In reality, early Christianity spread rapidly across different regions, and manuscripts were copied and distributed organically. Because Christianity did not originate as a political or state-sponsored religion, the transmission of texts was not tightly controlled, which paradoxically helped prevent widespread tampering. The lack of centralized control actually helps confirm the authenticity of the text, since no single authority was able to rewrite or suppress it.

6. “Didn’t Early Christians Alter the Text to Fit Their Theological Beliefs?”

Some argue that early scribes may have intentionally modified texts to reinforce Christian doctrines, such as the divinity of Christ. If scribes had theological motivations, how can we trust that we have the original wording?

While some scribes may have clarified theological points in minor ways, we can detect and correct these changes by comparing manuscripts. More importantly, doctrines such as the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and salvation by grace do not depend on any one verse but are affirmed across multiple books. Even if a scribe attempted to emphasize a doctrine, the doctrine itself was already clearly present in the earliest manuscripts. No systematic corruption of the text has been found—only minor variations that are easily identifiable through textual criticism.

7. “Why Do Some Bibles Include Disputed Passages Like Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11?”

Some critics point to passages like the long ending of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery, which are absent from the earliest manuscripts. If God preserved His word, why do some passages seem uncertain?

The fact that modern Bibles openly note textual uncertainties demonstrates scholarly integrity, not suppression. These disputed passages are well-documented, and their presence or absence does not alter any major doctrine. The transparency in modern translations shows that textual critics are committed to accuracy rather than hiding textual issues. Even if these passages were later additions, they do not introduce any new teachings that are not found elsewhere in Scripture.

The Bottom Line:

Modern skepticism has not disproven the New Testament’s reliability. On the contrary, it has prompted deeper study and each time the core text emerges essentially unscathed. Even critical scholars who don’t believe in the inspiration of Scripture will acknowledge that we have a pretty solid grasp of what the New Testament authors wrote. As Prof. Bart Ehrman ultimately admits, if all the manuscripts were destroyed, and scholars had to reconstruct the New Testament from his and Bruce Metzger’s research, they’d agree on almost everything.

The debate is not “Do we know what the New Testament really said?” but rather “What does it mean for us today?” which is a different question.

Conclusion: Why the Manuscript Evidence Matters

The trustworthiness of the New Testament text can be explored at many levels – historical, theological, philosophical. But on the basic factual level of textual authenticity, the evidence is very encouraging. We have more manuscripts, earlier manuscripts, and better-quality manuscripts for the New Testament than any other ancient book. Scholars—whether faithful Christians like Daniel Wallace and Gordon Fee, or more critical academics like Bart Ehrman—agree that our modern New Testament is an accurate reflection of the original writings. No doubt, the scribes who copied these texts over millennia were not infallible; they made ordinary mistakes and sometimes edits. Yet, through the science of textual criticism, those mistakes have been identified and corrected in our printed Greek New Testaments. As a result, when you read your Bible, you can be confident you’re reading the same words (in translation) that Matthew, John, Paul, or Luke penned in the first century.

The abundant manuscript evidence has, in a sense, given the New Testament a “checks and balances” system that preserves its integrity. Dr. Bruce Metzger, after a lifetime of comparing New Testament manuscripts, was asked how the New Testament fared as a historical document. He replied: “The reader may be assured that the New Testament text is secure. … In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests, the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writings.”

So, is the New Testament text trustworthy? Yes – abundantly so. We can read it with a reasonable expectation that we are reading what the apostles and evangelists actually wrote. The manuscripts have been sifted, the variants catalogued, and the resulting text has stood the test of time and scrutiny. As Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Mark 13:31). While textual criticism is a human scholarly endeavor, many believers also see in this preservation the providential hand of God, ensuring that His Word endures for future generations. In any case, from a purely historical-documentary perspective, the New Testament has proven to be a remarkably stable text. In the grand scheme, the differences are microscopic, and the message is monumental.

References:

Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968).
Gordon D. Fee, “Modern Textual Criticism and the Revival of the Textus Receptus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21, no. 1 (1978).
Frederic G. Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (London: Harper & Brothers, 1940.
Craig L. Blomberg, Can We Still Believe the Bible? (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2014).
Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2005).
James R. White, The King James Only Controversy, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2009).
Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).

Mere Christianity for the Digital Age

Knowing God / What is Mere Christianity? / Basic Theology

How Trustworthy Is the New Testament Text?