Are We Certain That the Early Texts of the New Testament Remain Reliable?

The Question of Reliability and the Importance of Early Witnesses

Reliability is not a mere intellectual curiosity; it is a matter of great significance for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the Greek New Testament. If the text on which we base our faith and teaching rests on an uncertain foundation, our confidence in its authority would be questioned. Since the days of the apostles, Christians have desired a trustworthy record that reflects what was written in the first century C.E. Many have wondered whether the passage of centuries has eroded the purity of the text. Has frequent copying distorted the original words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude? Or has divine providence, combined with diligent human effort, provided us with a text that can be known and trusted?

When we speak of the “early texts” of the New Testament, we refer to the earliest manuscripts, either in fragmentary or more substantial form, that take us back to the second or third century C.E. These manuscripts are vital for reconstructing the text that left the hands of the inspired authors and was transmitted from congregation to congregation. Though it is true that we do not have the actual originals, the wealth of manuscript evidence attests that the text has been remarkably preserved. As we will see, the question of reliability is answered by weighing the witness of numerous manuscripts, versions, and quotations from early Christian writers. Though textual variants exist, the main body of New Testament content has been safeguarded across centuries.

Such a process of preserving ancient documents by hand often included unintentional scribal errors. Yet those minor oversights did not overshadow the underlying text. The overall stability of the New Testament is all the more remarkable when we consider the limited technology of antiquity and the volatility of religious persecution. Copyists, whether professional or semiprofessional, labored under many conditions, sometimes hurrying, other times carefully reviewing their work. The end result, however, shows a text that is more than 99% reflective of what the original authors penned, and the variants that do exist typically involve only minimal changes that do not affect the fundamental teachings.

The content of this chapter will center on whether the earliest manuscripts uphold or undermine the integrity of the Greek New Testament. Attention will also be drawn to the nature and categorization of manuscripts and how they confirm a serious commitment in the early centuries to preserving the sacred text. Modern critical texts such as the Nestle-Aland 28th Edition (NA28) and the United Bible Societies 5th Edition (UBS5) owe much to the foundational work of these early witnesses. They remain reliable guides to the wording found in the oldest extant manuscripts. By examining the evidence, we find that an uncontrolled, disordered, or “wild” copying environment was not the norm. Instead, there are manifold indications that many scribes worked with care and diligence. As 1 Peter 1:25 states, “the word of Jehovah endures forever,” which certainly finds an echo in the reliable manuscript record that has come down to us.

Early Manuscripts: Categories and Their Significance

It is common to divide the ancient witnesses of the New Testament into papyri (written mostly on papyrus) and parchment codices (written on animal skins). The earliest surviving copies of New Testament writings date to about 125 C.E. (the probable date for the famous Papyrus 52, which contains a portion of the Gospel of John). Some manuscripts are mere fragments, but others contain extensive blocks of text, such as Papyrus 45 (P45) or Papyrus 66 (P66).

By the second and third centuries, Christians were diligently producing and circulating copies of the Gospels, Paul’s letters, and other New Testament documents. Though the earliest copyists were not miraculously guided, they nonetheless frequently approached their work with devotion. Some had greater skill than others. Certain scribes took a very meticulous approach (called “strict”), adding almost no departures from their exemplar. Others introduced more variations, whether by error or by intentional conflation of readings (known as “free”). As Kurt and Barbara Aland pointed out, scribes did not all follow the same level of exactness, yet a substantial number of early manuscripts reveal careful copying.

It is therefore misleading to claim that all early manuscripts were produced in a wild or uncontrolled manner. To be sure, some reveal significant deviations from their exemplars, but others are well-executed, demonstrating a reliable tradition that had a strong presence from the outset. Luke 1:3 acknowledges that Luke himself “investigated everything carefully,” thus demonstrating that early Christian communities placed value on meticulous documentation. The same principle eventually guided scribes who strove to reproduce the text faithfully, believing it to be authoritative Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16).

The Aland Classification of Papyri as of 2002

The Aland Classification and the Misconception of a “Free Text”

Kurt and Barbara Aland, in their influential work The Text of the New Testament, eventually separated the early papyri (and some early parchment witnesses) into categories labeled “at least normal,” “normal,” “strict,” and “free.” These classifications were intended to distinguish the scribes’ approach to their exemplar. A “strict” text shows very few deviations from the parent manuscript, “normal” allows for a modest number of variants, and “free” suggests a scribe who felt no constraint in making changes. In earlier generations, many scholars assumed that the early centuries of textual transmission were chaotic, a description sometimes buttressed by the discovery of a few poorly copied manuscripts. However, as the Alands collected, collated, and analyzed more manuscripts, they realized the picture was more complex. Many early papyri do not support the theory that the text was transmitted in an unrestrained manner.

While certain manuscripts in the second and third centuries might display a “free” text with expansions or grammatical rearrangements, these are in the minority. The largest single category of early manuscripts is not the “free” type but the “strict” type. Colwell’s 1969 study on the scribal habits of P45, P66, and P75, alongside James Royse’s subsequent investigations, revealed more about the pattern of singular readings. These studies showed that scribes could indeed introduce changes, but such changes followed certain identifiable patterns. In some manuscripts, scribes strived for consistency in spelling or grammar. Others tried to harmonize parallel passages, especially among the Gospels. But none of these variations truly threatened the overall substance of the text. Rather, they help textual scholars isolate specific scribal habits and thus more easily filter out errors.

The Role of Singular Readings in Understanding Scribal Habits

When it comes to scrutinizing the reliability of an ancient manuscript, textual critics often focus on singular readings. A singular reading is a variation found in only one manuscript and not supported by any other extant evidence. If a manuscript displays numerous singular readings, it suggests that the scribe took excessive liberties or introduced numerous errors. By contrast, if singular readings are minimal, the manuscript proves to be more faithful to its exemplar. Using this methodology, scholars like Colwell, Royse, and Philip Comfort were able to assess the fidelity of early papyri.

For instance, Papyrus 75 (P75) is widely regarded as a “strict” exemplar with remarkably few scribal deviations. Its text aligns closely with Codex Vaticanus (B), a fourth-century C.E. manuscript known for preserving what has often been called the “Alexandrian” text. By comparing other manuscripts to P75, scholars can gauge the reliability of those scribes and pinpoint distinctive variants. The conclusion drawn by many is that a substantial portion of the earliest witnesses reflect a stable, carefully preserved text.

One might recall Paul’s directive to Timothy to “guard what has been entrusted” (1 Timothy 6:20). While that exhortation primarily addressed doctrinal fidelity, the principle of safeguarding truth naturally extends to the transmission of the written text. Early Christians recognized that the letters and Gospel accounts carried apostolic authority. This recognition motivated many scribes to treat their exemplars with seriousness, though not all to the same degree.

The Alexandrian Text-Type and the Notion of an Original

Over the centuries, textual scholars have identified certain text-types, the most well-known being the Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western. The Alexandrian text is recognized for its brevity and for the absence of elaborate smoothing or stylistic changes. Historically, Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א), both dated to around the fourth century C.E., served as primary representatives of this text-type. However, with the discovery of papyri like P66 and P75, it became evident that readings we call Alexandrian reach back to the end of the second century. This continuity suggests that the so-called “Alexandrian” tradition may well reflect an archetype of the text that emerged quite early.

Some today argue that the pursuit of “the original text” is misguided because of the complexities in textual history, but such a claim is misplaced. Although the search for the exact word-for-word original is nuanced, the fact that the ancient world left us abundant witnesses means we are not left in the dark. The presence of textual variants does not invalidate the possibility of discerning the authentic text. Rather, it compels textual scholars to sift the evidence responsibly.

If, hypothetically, we concluded that the presence of variants renders the original unknowable, we would have to abandon not only New Testament studies but also the textual study of other ancient works by Greek or Roman authors. No reputable classicist dismisses the authenticity of Plato, Aristotle, or Tacitus merely because scribes introduced some errors. Scholars weigh manuscripts, trace genealogical relationships, and identify scribal tendencies. Likewise, we continue to refine our understanding of the New Testament text in a similar manner. When we see that the text of the major critical editions (NA28, UBS5) has remained substantially consistent despite the discovery of new papyri, it demonstrates a significant measure of stability.

Early Christian Copyists and the Sacred Nature of the Text

We can ask why so many of the scribes in the second to fourth centuries took pains to copy the text conscientiously. A plausible factor is the sacred perception of these writings. Paul’s letters were already viewed as “Scriptures” in the first century (2 Peter 3:15-16). If indeed these documents were considered the inspired Word of God, then ensuring their faithful transmission would have been a solemn responsibility. Although the copyists were not miraculously prevented from error, they nonetheless would have felt accountable for every stroke. Deuteronomy 4:2 warns against adding to or taking away from Jehovah’s words, and while that is contextually referring to the Mosaic Law, the principle of preserving Scripture continued to resonate with later generations.

Judaism had a long heritage of meticulous copying of the Old Testament, and some of that same reverence may have carried over into the Christian community. Even if not every scribe maintained this level of care, a sufficient number did. This is why a “strict” approach is not rare in early Christian manuscripts. P1, P4, P23, P27, P35, P64+67, P70, P75, and others reveal a disciplined method of transcription. The ratio of “strict” or “normal” texts to “free” texts in the earliest centuries indicates that this was not some random phenomenon. Rather, it reflects a broader pattern.

How the Papyri Confirm the Reliability of Today’s Critical Text

Before the major papyrus discoveries of the twentieth century, many scholars wondered if our relatively late great uncial codices (like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) accurately represented the second-century text. Then papyri such as P66 and P75 came to light, validating that these codices did not spontaneously appear in the fourth century with new readings. Their text is firmly rooted in an earlier stage of transmission. Papyrus 75, for example, shows such close alignment with Codex Vaticanus that it appears the same textual tradition was active throughout the third century. Consequently, the critical text compiled in NA28 and UBS5, which relies heavily on these manuscripts, has a solid claim to reflect the earliest recoverable text.

Furthermore, Eldon J. Epp noted that new papyri have not introduced many significant variants to challenge the text that was already known from later witnesses. Substantial portions of the text remain unchanged despite these discoveries, confirming the continuity from the earliest centuries onward. Even in cases of small differences, these variants often involve word order, spelling peculiarities, or minor grammatical adjustments. Seldom does a variant disrupt core theological statements. For instance, John 1:1 unequivocally points to the nature of the Word, and it remains consistent across the spectrum of textual witnesses.

Scribal Practices and the Elimination of Errors

That a small portion of manuscripts do contain major scribal liberties does not negate the fact that the majority of scribes followed an exemplar with respectable diligence. Indeed, one might compare this to how the presence of counterfeit currency does not invalidate real money; it simply shows that careful discernment is needed. By comparing multiple manuscripts across geographical regions, textual scholars can isolate singular readings and weigh variations. No one copyist introduced all the same errors. Hence, a reading that is found in multiple streams of transmission is more likely to be original. On the other hand, a reading that appears in only one or two manuscripts raises suspicion.

Through such a method, scholars have a valuable toolbox for weeding out errors. As 2 Timothy 3:16 reminds us, “All Scripture is inspired of God.” Though it was not physically safeguarded against scribal slips, the very nature of textual study allows for a rigorous comparison that brings us exceedingly close to what the original authors wrote. The difference between the reconstructed text and the absolute original is so minimal that the meaning and instruction remain intact.

The Illusory Need for the Autographs

Some wonder if all this effort would be unnecessary if only we discovered the original manuscripts. While the notion of finding the actual scrolls penned by Paul or Luke might captivate the imagination, there would be no definite method of proving authenticity beyond doubt. More to the point, the physical document is not the paramount issue—rather, it is the preserved content. The content survives through the thousands of manuscripts, with scribal errors canceled out by the cross-checking of multiple lines of transmission.

Had the original autographs been divinely protected from disintegration, we would doubtless cherish them. Yet that was not Jehovah’s purpose. The miracle, if one may call it that, resides in the massive documentary evidence allowing textual scholars to restore the text to a high degree of accuracy. Far from lacking in resources, the New Testament boasts a quantity of manuscripts that dwarfs that of any other ancient writing. We do not need the original physical documents to reconstruct the original words. Our existing data is abundant.

Controlled Transmission and the Fallacy of a Textual Morass

No era of New Testament copying was fully uniform; that must be acknowledged. Different regions adopted different copying practices, and scribes of varied ability contributed to the textual stream. Some introduced expansions, others made stylistic adjustments, still others attempted to correct perceived errors in their exemplar. Yet by comparing these variations across a wide range of manuscripts, scholars discern recurring patterns and identify which readings are older, which are secondary, and which are mere scribal slips.

Claims that the text was in a turbid or chaotic state overlook the fundamental consistency among many witnesses. In fact, as more early manuscripts have come to light over the past century, the notion of a hopelessly fluid text has receded. More than 70% of the earliest manuscripts (as tabulated by the Alands) are judged “at least normal,” “normal,” or “strict.” This means that the majority of surviving early copies do not support the idea of rampant alteration. Rather, they confirm that conscientious copying prevailed in the second to fourth centuries.

Harmonization, Polishing, and Unintentional Errors

Even the best scribes occasionally introduced small errors. A scribe may have had difficulty discerning a letter or word due to faded ink, or his eyes might have jumped from one line to another (a phenomenon called parablepsis). Though these issues resulted in accidental omissions or duplications, the combined witness of multiple manuscripts can expose such errors.

Intentional changes sometimes arose when a scribe tried to harmonize parallel passages. For instance, Mark’s Gospel might be slightly adjusted to conform to Matthew’s wording on a particular event, or vice versa. In other cases, a scribe might have inserted a clarification to help the reader. Yet these modifications are typically easy to spot once we compare a broad range of manuscripts. At times, we even find marginal notes that reveal the scribe’s thinking process. Such insights illustrate that while the scribal process allowed for mistakes, these mistakes were neither systematic nor so pervasive as to obscure the original text.

The Alexandrian Tradition and Modern Editions

Today, the NA28 and UBS5 rely heavily on manuscripts that reflect the Alexandrian tradition, along with due consideration of other traditions. The papyri discoveries have shown that Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (א) simply reflect a textual stream whose roots stretch back into the second century. By analyzing the genealogies of readings, scholars can determine which variants likely represent the earliest stage. In a great many cases, the Alexandrian reading is borne out by papyrus discoveries.

However, textual criticism is not about championing just one text-type but about finding the most compelling evidence for each variant. Certain Byzantine or Western readings may occasionally be original, and so each variant must be judged on its merits. Nonetheless, the Alexandrian text generally shows less expansion and a stricter adherence to what appear to be the earliest forms of the text.

Modern Discussion About the Original Text

Some modern theorists suggest that because we lack a single uniform stream of transmission, the term “original text” should be replaced with a less defined concept like “initial text.” Yet this semantic shift does not alter the underlying pursuit. Whether we call it the “original,” “initial,” or “autograph” text, it remains a body of words penned by the apostles and their close associates. Because ancient scribes did not produce uniform copies, a certain number of variants is inevitable, but the earliest manuscripts show that the core text can be faithfully discerned. Romans 15:4 speaks of “the things that were written formerly” as a source of instruction. That conviction in the stability of Scripture continues, grounded in the careful work of textual analysis.

The Influence of Scribal Correction and Comparison of Exemplars

Even in antiquity, scribes and correctors frequently noticed divergences and cross-referenced multiple exemplars to refine the text. For instance, Papyrus 66 (P66) shows hundreds of corrections. Many of these likely came from comparing alternative readings and striving to produce the most accurate text. The fact that some scribes engaged in self-correction provides further evidence that Christians recognized the importance of a pure text. While these corrections can introduce complexity for modern scholars, they also showcase a concern for fidelity.

In the Jewish context, the scribes responsible for the Old Testament were so careful that even single letters were tallied. Although the Christian scribes do not appear to have followed identical procedures, a similar sense of sacred duty often guided them. Proverbs 30:5 states, “Every word of God is refined,” a sentiment that likely resonated with devout copyists laboring on New Testament manuscripts.

Using Textual Variants to Deepen Our Understanding

Paradoxically, the presence of variants can sometimes enrich our comprehension. By examining how scribes altered or preserved words, we gain valuable insight into early Christian doctrinal concerns and exegetical approaches. For example, a scribe’s tendency to harmonize might reveal an early Christian attempt to present the life of Jesus in a unified way. Variants that arise from certain theological controversies (such as those concerning Christ’s nature) shed light on how the text was read and understood in various communities.

Nevertheless, as interesting as these variants are from a historical viewpoint, they rarely cast doubt on central beliefs. The identity of Jesus, the significance of his sacrificial death, and the moral instructions found in the Gospels and the letters remain firmly intact across the manuscript tradition. John 3:16 consistently affirms God’s love, and Romans 5:8 consistently highlights Christ’s role in our salvation. Whether a passage has a slight word-order shift or a minor scribal slip does not overthrow the underlying message.

Was the Early Text “Wild” or “Stable”?

The rhetorical question posed by some is whether the earliest centuries represent a “wild” text, with competing streams so divergent that one cannot speak of an original. This notion, once more prevalent, has been largely overturned by tangible evidence. Papyrus discoveries from Egypt (where conditions were especially favorable to preservation) reveal that the second-century text contains many stable elements that continued into the third, fourth, and beyond. These discoveries confirm that while some scribes were less careful, many executed their tasks faithfully. Therefore, it becomes inaccurate to label the early transmission process as chaotic.

In fact, the Alands concluded that about forty out of fifty-five early New Testament manuscripts could be classified as “normal” or “strict.” Such a finding makes it untenable to depict an overwhelmingly “free” or unrestrained environment. In any discipline, whether historical or literary, the majority voice should carry substantial weight, and in this case, that voice testifies to a recognizable continuity of text.

The Principle of Multiple Attestation in Textual Criticism

In historical and biblical studies, the principle of multiple attestation asserts that if multiple independent sources attest to an event or statement, the likelihood of authenticity increases. A parallel concept operates in textual criticism. If a reading appears in manuscripts emanating from different locales or lineages, the chance is higher that the reading is original. Luke 24:44 mentions Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms, giving a sense of how first-century believers recognized inspired Scripture. Likewise, we can see how believers in varying regions valued the apostolic writings enough to preserve them with care.

Because manuscripts spread throughout the Mediterranean, cross-verification is possible. Copies from Alexandria, Egypt, can be compared with copies that surfaced in Caesarea or western regions. While differences exist, the overarching convergence is remarkable. It speaks to a shared text, recognized across vast distances, that was never wholly eclipsed by free expansions or rearrangements. That convergence supports our confidence in the text that we have today.

Textual Restoration vs. Miraculous Preservation

Some have wondered whether Jehovah guaranteed a miraculously preserved text in every manuscript or in a particular textual tradition. The evidence shows that neither the Jewish scribes nor the Christian scribes were supernaturally guided to produce inerrant manuscripts. Rather, Jehovah allowed free will and human capacity to govern the copying process. Yet that did not leave the text in disarray, for as more manuscripts emerged, the multiplicity of witnesses allowed for a refined reconstruction of the original content. By comparing scribal traditions, textual critics can identify and remove intrusive readings. The result is a text that stands at about 99% purity in terms of actual wording, leaving only a small fraction of variants that do not significantly impact meaning.

It is worth emphasizing that we do not require the original parchment of Paul’s letter to the Romans in order to ascertain what Romans says. The words have been faithfully copied and transmitted, and any minor variations can be resolved with a high degree of accuracy. As Jesus told his listeners in John 17:17, “Your word is truth.” While the immediate context was Jesus’ prayer regarding his disciples, the principle of Scriptural truth extends to the trustworthiness of the text itself. Even though John 16:13 was directed to the apostles alone and does not apply to all Christians, those early disciples were instrumental in laying the textual and doctrinal foundation that would be carried forward.

The Testimony of Scholars and the Limitations of Modern Skepticism

Although this chapter does not lean on modern liberal scholarship, we may note that even some scholars with different theological views acknowledge the substantial reliability of the text. When carefully evaluated, the earliest manuscripts reinforce a coherent portrayal of the Greek New Testament’s stability. Skepticism often emerges from a misunderstanding of textual variants, especially from those who assume that every variant is equally significant or that they cumulatively undermine the text. Yet such a stance neglects the real evidence. The majority of variants involve spelling differences or synonyms that do not alter the sense. More significant variants are relatively few and are well-documented in modern critical apparatuses, allowing the reader to discern exactly where the text is debated.

Practical Implications: Reading and Teaching the New Testament

A person who reads a reputable modern literal translation of the New Testament can be confident that the words are drawn from manuscripts that carry substantial weight. More than that, those who teach from such a translation can assure their listeners that they are not reciting an endless chain of later corruptions. The foundation of Christian instruction remains intact. Second Timothy 2:2 advises faithful men to pass on apostolic teaching, and the manuscript tradition of the New Testament is an instrument in preserving such teaching.

We must also note that the work of textual criticism does not cease. As new discoveries arise, scholars reevaluate old conclusions. However, the fundamental text of the Greek New Testament has proven steadfast through the addition of new papyri and other archaeological finds. This stable testimony reminds us of Isaiah 40:8, “The word of our God will stand forever.” Though Isaiah was referring to the message entrusted to ancient Israel, the same principle applies to the Christian Scriptures.

Conclusion: Substantial Certainty in the Early Transmission

The evidence surveyed from the early papyri, the Aland classifications, the consistent witness of manuscripts like P66 and P75, and the broader transmission tradition all converge on one answer: The early texts of the New Testament remain remarkably reliable. While scribes were not infallible, the broad pattern reveals a careful commitment to preserving the inspired words. Variation existed, but chaos did not. A multiplicity of witnesses allows us to identify and correct scribal slips, leaving us with a text that matches, to an exceedingly high degree, what the apostles and their associates penned in the first century C.E.

There is no need to fear that we have lost the substance of the teachings or that extraneous doctrines have corrupted the message. Indeed, the concerns the early Christians had about fidelity to the truth led them to value accurate copying. The handful of early manuscripts that exhibit a “free” or “wild” approach are overshadowed by the more typical “strict” or “normal” manuscripts that reflect a stable tradition. When weighed against the immense data we possess, the conclusion is clear: We are justified in our confidence that the text we have is substantially what was originally written.

Therefore, our reading of the Greek New Testament—and of the dependable modern translations based upon it—can be pursued with faith that we have not drifted from the apostolic voice. Though human imperfection is evident in the copying process, the cumulative evidence of thousands of manuscripts, early versions, and quotations by Christian writers merges to give a strong witness: Yes, we can indeed be certain that the early texts of the New Testament remain reliable.

You May Also Enjoy

How Do Handwriting Styles Help Determine the Authenticity and Dating of New Testament Manuscripts?

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