Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

Examining the Early Centuries of Textual Transmission

The suggestion that nearly all Greek New Testament manuscript variants emerged before 200 C.E. has roots in the work of several twentieth-century scholars. E. C. Colwell in Methods in Establishing the Nature of Text-Types noted that the overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200 C.E. G. D. Kilpatrick in The Bodmer and Mississippi Collection argued that almost all variants could be presumed to have been created by 200 C.E. Kurt and Barbara Aland in The Text of the New Testament stated that practically all substantive variants in the text of the New Testament are from the second century. Some authors have concluded that the greatest explosion of new readings took place early, so that by about 200 C.E. the overwhelming majority of variants had already developed. The question is whether such a claim, taken at face value, accurately reflects the documented manuscript evidence.

There is a school of thought that envisions the second century as a chaotic period in which scribes made many changes, deliberate or accidental, in the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. This approach has led some to surmise that the New Testament books were not seen as Scripture in the earliest era. They propose that a lack of canonical recognition opened the door for an unrestrained approach to copying. Observers like Lee McDonald suggest that numerous mistakes and scribal alterations indicate that churches did not fully recognize scriptural authority until the end of the second century C.E. That assumption has influenced many to characterize the early text as wild, free, chaotic, or subject to near-constant alteration. Yet thorough inspection of the available manuscripts from the second and third centuries reveals a more structured scenario.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Initial Assumptions about Early Copyists

Some textual critics of the early twentieth century worked with a limited number of papyrus fragments. Among the handful of manuscripts first discovered, some were indeed carelessly copied. There was a strong inclination to extrapolate this handful of poorly produced manuscripts into a general picture that early Christian copyists were semiliterate amateurs who expected the imminent return of Christ, thereby devaluing precise manuscript duplication. These copyists were assumed to have introduced a flood of alterations as they tried to strengthen or clarify orthodoxy, or simply as a result of carelessness.

Commentators like Frederic Kenyon, longtime director of the British Museum, once stated that early Christians, being poor and persecuted, would hardly have preserved their texts meticulously. Early papyri such as P45, P46, and P66 were examined during that time. P45 shows evidence of multiple omissions and editorial rearrangements, causing some scholars to conclude that the earliest scribes were neither precise nor consistent. P66 displays a variety of corrections, including some that appear to improve grammar or style, but this does not prove that the scribe was untrained; it simply indicates that a corrector or the scribe himself reviewed the text. P46 also bears some idiosyncrasies, yet careful analysis by Günther Zuntz concluded that it represents an early Alexandrian text of high quality.

P45 fueled the belief that many early copies were wildly inconsistent. This papyrus, dating between 200 and 250 C.E., contains parts of the Gospels and Acts. Its scribe often omitted words, phrases, or entire clauses, leading to charges that the text was “free” or “abbreviated.” Yet P45 is only one manuscript among many. The discovery of more papyri shifted the balance of evidence. In the 1950s, P75 was unearthed in Pabau, Egypt, revealing a text extremely close to Codex Vaticanus (B), a fourth-century manuscript widely regarded as one of the most reliable witnesses to the New Testament. This close affinity shows that not all scribes of the second or third century were incompetent. Some were quite meticulous, producing text in line with what modern critics believe to be an accurate representation of the originals.

The Debate Over Recensions in the Second Century

Some scholars, such as Helmut Loester, argued that the second century was marked by so many chaotic readings that a “recension” or critical revision was necessary around 200 C.E. This theory proposes that Christians eventually recognized a need to standardize the text, so they consolidated manuscripts into a more coherent version. A related claim suggests that only after about 200 C.E. did believers begin viewing New Testament writings as Scripture. Hence, the text would have been treated more casually before that point, allowing for extensive alterations.

Others, including Zuntz and Kenyon, surmised that a recension began earlier, perhaps in the mid-second century, culminating in the early fourth century. These scholars proposed that Codex Vaticanus (c. 300–325 C.E.) is a result of such a recension, compiled and refined from widely divergent manuscripts. A major reason for that view was the apparent purity of Codex Vaticanus. Because it differs in significant ways from the later Byzantine manuscripts, some believed it must have gone through editorial processes.

However, the discovery and analysis of P75 altered those conclusions. P75, dated around 175–225 C.E., lines up remarkably with Codex Vaticanus in Luke and John. The correspondence rate in these portions is approximately 92–94 percent, although some place it a bit lower. This alignment implies that Vaticanus, more than a century later, preserves a text that had been transmitted with great care. Scholars like Gordon Fee concluded that P75 shows no sign of a fresh editorial overhaul. Instead, it and Vaticanus reflect a “relatively pure line of descent” from the originals. That scenario undermines the theory of a chaotic text stabilized only by a late recension. Instead, it suggests a strong textual tradition existed in the second century.

The Notion of an Early “Free Text”

Kurt and Barbara Aland once described the earliest period as including normal, free, strict, and paraphrastic scribal tendencies. In their earlier writings, they emphasized the “free” dimension as though it were the predominant style from the second to the third century. However, their own later research caused them to revise that stance, since close inspection of additional papyri revealed that not all scribes were so casual. Many early manuscripts show consistent fidelity to an exemplar, with only minimal or predictable scribal errors.

The Alands eventually recognized that the evidence demanded more nuance. Certain manuscripts such as P45 and P66 in John do exhibit a freer style. Yet others, particularly P75, proved remarkably “strict,” limiting omissions, transpositions, and modifications. The bigger picture is that the earliest text cannot be pigeonholed as uniformly chaotic. Instead, scribes varied in quality and methodology. Some apparently believed that the text was indeed sacred and to be transmitted carefully, while others took liberties, whether intentional or accidental.

Were All Variants in Place by 200 C.E.?

Colwell, Kilpatrick, and the Alands made statements that practically all substantive variants were in existence by 200 C.E. Critics note that such a claim implies that the earliest papyri, especially those predating 200 C.E., would contain or attest most known textual variants, including ones that later appear in the Byzantine tradition. In truth, pre-200 C.E. manuscripts are fragmentary, covering only portions of certain books. P52 is a small fragment of John 18, dated c. 110–150 C.E. P46 contains much of the Pauline corpus, though incomplete. P66 covers a large portion of John, but with many corrections. P75 covers Luke and John. Additional papyri such as P90, P104, P137, and others are even smaller. The suggestion that all or almost all variants were created by 200 C.E. is difficult to verify if one expects those papyri to show broad Byzantine expansions or large-scale insertions. That evidence does not appear.

Some interpret the statements by Colwell, Kilpatrick, and the Alands as indicating that the types of variants—omission, transposition, substitution, and occasional intentional changes—were part of scribal behavior from the earliest stage. This observation may be correct, but it is a far leap from that to claiming that the entire range of later Byzantine additions was fully formed by 200 C.E. Nonetheless, many scholars agree that all the major kinds of variations probably emerged early. Specific textual families—Alexandrian, Western, and others—began to crystallize over the following centuries, culminating in the strong Byzantine tradition.

The Role of the Early Papyri

The second-century and early third-century papyri significantly shape modern textual criticism. Their existence counters the idea that the text was purely in flux, for some demonstrate careful, almost professional copying. P46, which Zuntz labeled an early Alexandrian text, preserves Pauline letters in a consistent form. P66, though replete with corrections, indicates a scribe who attempted to match the exemplar faithfully, with editorial marks likely introduced by a corrector. P75 is the prime example of a disciplined scribe, revealing that a line of text akin to Codex Vaticanus existed well before the fourth century.

These papyri, far from being wild or chaotic, show that at least some communities placed high value on preserving the text of the Gospels and Epistles intact. The notion that the New Testament was not regarded as Scripture in the second century is weakened by evidence that skilled copyists were at work. Although early Christians were persecuted and not wealthy, they still recognized the importance of these writings, especially as they preserved the teachings of Christ and the apostles.

Even if some second-century manuscripts were not copied by fully trained scribes, that does not prove universal laxity. Christians had reason to consider these works sacred. Paul’s letters, for example, were circulated among congregations (Colossians 4:16), and Peter openly referred to Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16). Tertullian in the early third century spoke of “authentic writings” of the apostles kept in certain churches, indicating that at least some original documents or exact copies were preserved and treated with veneration.

Distribution of Papyri by Century and Type
DATE	ALEX	WEST	CAES	BYZ
110-200	P⁵² P³²P⁴⁶P⁶⁶P⁷⁵P^77/103 P⁸⁷ P⁹⁰ P¹⁰⁴ P¹³⁷	0	0	0
200-250	P^4/64/67 P¹³ P²³ P²⁹ P³⁰ P³⁹ P⁴⁵ P⁶⁶ 0189	P²⁹P³⁸	0	0
250-300	P¹ P⁵ P⁹ P¹² P¹⁵ P¹⁶P¹⁸P²⁰ P²² P²⁷ P²⁸ P³⁷P⁴⁰ P⁴⁷ P^49/65 P⁵³ P⁶⁵ P⁷⁰ P⁷² P⁷⁸ P⁸⁰ P¹⁰¹P¹⁰² P¹⁰⁴P¹⁰⁶P¹⁰⁷ P¹⁰⁸P¹⁰⁹ P¹¹¹P¹¹³ P¹¹⁴P¹¹⁵ P¹¹⁸ P¹¹⁹P¹²¹P¹²⁵P¹²⁹ P¹³⁰ P¹³¹ P¹³² P¹³³ 0220	P⁴⁸ P⁶⁹0171	0	0
300-400	P⁶ P⁷ P⁸ P¹⁰ P¹⁷ P¹⁹ P²¹ P²⁴ P²⁵ P³⁸ P⁵⁰ P⁵⁷ P⁶² P⁷¹ P⁸¹ P⁸² P⁸⁵ P⁸⁶ P⁸⁸ P¹¹⁰ P¹¹⁷ P¹²⁰ P¹²² P¹²³ P¹²⁶	P²¹ P⁸⁸	0	0

Confirming Rather Than Overturning the Established Text

Maurice A. Robinson once observed that the current Nestle-Aland 28th edition is about 99.5 percent the same as Westcott and Hort’s 1881 edition. This similarity is not because papyri lacked importance. On the contrary, the early papyri have in many instances reinforced the editorial decisions made by nineteenth-century scholars who relied heavily on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Though they did not have direct access to these second- and third-century fragments, Westcott and Hort deduced that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus represented a very ancient text, and subsequent discoveries have validated that conclusion.

Many textual critics, including Bruce Metzger and Philip Comfort, point to examples where the papyri tilt the balance in favor of specific readings, at times resurrecting a short reading that might otherwise have been considered an omission. One case is at Matthew 26:20, where P37, P45, P64+67, and others confirm the shorter reading “with the twelve,” matching Codex B and D against the longer “with the twelve disciples.” This is a small example, but it underscores that the papyri have, on occasion, influenced editors to move away from Westcott and Hort’s reading or reaffirm it after reexamination.

Some, like Eldon J. Epp, ask why the papyri matter if the final text remains nearly identical to Westcott and Hort’s. Epp explains that these early fragments are crucial for delineating text types, tracing the earliest textual history, and refining critical canons. The papyri open a window into second-century scribal habits, revealing how scribes treated the text at a stage not far removed from the originals. They confirm that the text could be carefully transmitted, exemplified in manuscripts like P75, or subjected to compression, paraphrase, or minor expansions, as in P45. In either scenario, the papyri demonstrate the seriousness with which many early communities handled scriptural documents.

The Trustworthiness of Early Copyists

J. Harold Greenlee observed that, in the earliest period, many Christian books were likely copied by non-professional scribes who nevertheless had a vested interest in accuracy. Although they might not have received formal training in a scriptorium, the same reverence for apostolic writings that emerges in the second century suggests they strove to preserve the text’s content. Greenlee also commented that this phenomenon should not be exaggerated; Christians did not casually alter their writings beyond recognition. As the text circulated and was recognized as having divine authority, even these less formal copyists realized they were handling sacred documents.

The Alands at one point described the earliest text as “free,” but they did not entirely discount the presence of more disciplined scribes. Their later research into the papyri led them to revise that simplistic picture. They came to recognize that only certain manuscripts show free or wild copying. Others, like P75, are quite strict. Many manuscripts fall into what they labeled “normal,” adhering closely to the exemplar while making smaller blunders typical of any hand-copying process.

https://www.amazon.com/EARLY-VERSIONS-NEW-TESTAMENT-Transmission/dp/B0DSJSXJKW/

The Alexandrian Factor

The theory that the Alexandrian text is the product of a later recension was popular early in the twentieth century. Kenyon’s premise was that an Alexandrian scholar in the early fourth century organized a coherent text, culminating in Codex Vaticanus. More extensive research changed that perspective. P75 negates the need for a major editorial overhaul at the dawn of the fourth century. The text found in P75 from about 175–225 C.E. largely matches Vaticanus. Even if the scribe of Vaticanus did not directly copy from P75, both reflect a stable chain that transmits the same textual form.

Zuntz suggested that a revision process began in the mid-second century, continuing sporadically until the fourth. But the closeness of P75 and Vaticanus undermines the idea of a progressive series of textual overhauls. Gordon Fee concluded that they both represent a relatively unaltered line of textual tradition dating back to the earliest exemplars. Rather than a radical editorial project, this seems to indicate a chain of scribes dedicated to faithfully transmitting their texts.

Assessing the Claim About Variant Emergence

When scholars like Colwell say that the overwhelming majority of readings were created before 200 C.E., the thrust is that scribal tendencies—omission, addition, and substitution—existed from the start of the text’s transmission. By 200 C.E., the text had been copied numerous times in different regions, generating many of the variants that would later be recognized. The question remains whether that wide range includes the fuller Byzantine expansions. Some might argue that the Byzantine text type, found extensively in medieval manuscripts, must have left some trace before 200 C.E. If so, the existing papyri from 110 to 200 C.E. should occasionally reflect such expansions, but they rarely do. The earliest manuscripts exhibit a generally more abbreviated or Alexandrian character.

P66, P75, and P46 include readings that differ from the later Byzantine standard. Certain expansions or conflations commonly found in the Byzantine tradition appear absent in these second-century or early third-century manuscripts. That indicates that, although scribal habits were indeed at work, the expansions characteristic of the Byzantine text family had not fully emerged or, if they existed, were minimal in these earliest Alexandrian exemplars. This phenomenon does not, however, exclude the possibility that other regions—especially those leaning toward what would become the Western text tradition—might have introduced variants that are absent in Alexandrian papyri.

Stability and Confirmation Through the Centuries

The presence of second- and third-century manuscripts that match codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus underscores the stability of the text. Copying the same reading across centuries confirms that the standard recognized by many textual critics was not a new invention but rather a faithful preservation of what had circulated in early Christian communities. The early manuscripts also demonstrate that textual corruption, while real, did not wholly obscure the original composition. Even if it is true that the greatest number of variants took shape by 200 C.E., those variants appear to have formed around a stable textual core.

Claims that the earliest Christians did not regard these writings as Scripture ignore New Testament indicators that believers viewed apostolic letters as authoritative. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter places Paul’s letters alongside the other Scriptures. Tertullian, writing in the early third century, noted that some churches still possessed authentic apostolic writings. Paul’s directive at Colossians 4:16 to circulate epistles among congregations also shows that these documents were treasured and shared. It is implausible that the earliest believers would not value apostolic texts, especially given how deeply they revered the Old Testament.

The Testimony of Patristic Citations

In addition to manuscript evidence, writings from early church fathers are crucial. Passages quoted by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others reveal how Scripture was read in their communities. These citations often match what is now recognized as the Alexandrian or Western text, depending on the region and era. They confirm that certain readings—some that deviate from the later Byzantine norm—existed widely by the late second century. As textual critics Bruce Metzger and others often observed, if all Greek manuscripts were lost, the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the extensive quotations by early fathers. This fact demonstrates that the text was not hidden away but was widely used and cited, reinforcing the notion that it carried scriptural authority.

The New Testament Compared to Classical Literature

Author	Work	Writing Completed	Earliest MSS	Years Removed	Number of MSS
Homer	Iliad	800 B.C.E.	3rd century B.C.E.	500	1,757
Herodotus	History	480–425 B.C.E.	10th cent. C.E.	1,350	109
Sophocles	Plays	496–406 B.C.E.	3rd cent. B.C.E.	100-200	193
Thucydides	History	460–400 B.C.E.	3rd cent. B.C.E.	200	96
Plato	Tetralogies	400 B.C.E.	895 C.E.	1,300	210
Demosthenes	Speeches	300 B.C.E.	Fragments from 1st cent. B.C.E.	1,000	340
Caesar	Gallic Wars	51-46 B.C.E.	9th cent. C.E.	950	251
Livy	History of Rome	59 B.C.E.–17 C.E.	5th cent. C.E.	400	150
Tacitus	Annals	100 C.E.	9th-11th cent. C.E.	750–950	33
Pliny, the Elder	Natural History	49–79 C.E.	5th cent. C.E. fragment	400	200
Eight Greek NT Authors	27 Books	50 – 98 C.E.	110-125 C.E.	12-27	5,898

Ancient Literature Comparisons

Arguments that the text is too corrupted to be trusted often overlook a comparative approach. Works by Homer, Herodotus, Sophocles, Plato, and other classical authors survive in far fewer manuscripts, often separated from the originals by over a thousand years. Many are based on a handful of medieval copies. By contrast, the Greek New Testament stands out with more than five thousand Greek manuscripts, plus early versions and patristic references. Some of these Greek manuscripts date within one to two centuries of the original writings. This enormous wealth of documentation places the New Testament in a unique position to be critically evaluated. Even if scribal alterations occurred, they can be identified and corrected with much greater accuracy than is possible for most other ancient texts.

Addressing Extremes in Modern Debates

In more popular works, some authors overemphasize textual chaos. Bart Ehrman, for instance, highlights that scribes introduced numerous variants, more than the total number of words in the New Testament. While it is true that the raw count of variants is high, the vast majority involve spelling differences, minor transpositions, or other superficial changes that do not affect the meaning. When multiple scribes copied the text, each spelled words in personal ways or dropped lines by accident, inflating the total variants. Yet the backbone of the text remains clear, and the handful of variants with real significance for interpretation can usually be resolved by standard principles of textual criticism.

Ehrman also insists that the earliest scribes were amateurs. This overgeneralization does not harmonize with the data from scribes such as the one who produced P75. That scribe, though not a perfect copyist, showed disciplined effort to align with the exemplar, introducing only occasional minor improvements in grammar or style. Similarly, P66 may reflect multiple layers of correction, indicating that a corrector or the scribe took pains to refine the text. P46 reveals an effort toward neat copying of Pauline letters, not a haphazard, semiliterate approach.

Early Believers and the Canonical Status of Writings

Arguments that Christians did not consider the New Testament as Scripture until the late second century ignore evidence within the New Testament itself, particularly the way Peter speaks of Paul’s writings. Paul’s own letters indicate how churches were instructed to share and read his epistles. Apostolic authority was thus recognized well before 200 C.E. The earliest church recognized the voice of Christ and the apostles in these writings, leading them to preserve copies diligently. The impetus for copying was not purely an academic or casual interest; it was a deep conviction that these writings were spiritually vital.

Even if some congregations did not have the entire set of twenty-seven New Testament books, they still regarded the apostolic materials they possessed as sacred. This reverence explains why scribes tried to ensure accurate preservation. Though errors crept in, they were more likely due to typical human lapses in copying than to a cavalier view of the text’s importance.

How the Papyri Aid in Reconstruction

Modern textual critics rely heavily on second- and third-century papyri to judge variant readings. If a reading surfaces in multiple early witnesses, and these witnesses represent diverse geographical regions, it gains credibility. The papyri also shed light on scribal habits, which inform how we weigh internal and external evidence. This is exactly what Eldon J. Epp emphasized: the papyri reveal the earliest text types, clarify early textual history, and refine the canons of criticism. The papyri have indeed resulted in changes to the critical text at certain points, confirming that they are far from negligible.

A well-known example occurs at Matthew 26:20, where the older Nestle editions once included the word “disciples” after “the twelve,” but later evidence from papyri persuaded editors to drop “disciples.” This reading aligns with Codex Vaticanus and Codex Bezae. Although the change is small, it represents how papyri can overturn or confirm a variant once considered stable. In this way, the papyri do not typically force massive overhauls but instill greater accuracy and confidence.

Evaluating the Shift in Perspective After P75

The discovery of P75 in the 1950s was a pivotal moment. Prior to that, P45, P46, and P66 had contributed to the impression of a free or unpredictable text. P66 has hundreds of corrections, P45 occasionally omits words, and P46 has certain peculiarities. Then came P75, which exhibits a highly disciplined approach, reflecting a text that aligns with Codex Vaticanus. This single discovery revolutionized how scholars spoke about early scribal practices, demonstrating that the notion of uniformly chaotic copying was an oversimplification.

Aland and Aland eventually conceded that research on the early papyri had led to unexpected results that required a change in traditional views. That shift included acknowledging that not all second-century scribes were amateurs. Indeed, certain scribes produced texts that can rightly be described as carefully and faithfully transmitted. P75 gave scholars a direct view into how a second- or early third-century scribe approached copying, revealing a proto-Alexandrian text. This text was by no means chaotic, but strikingly close to one of the most esteemed biblical manuscripts of the fourth century.

The Question of an Alexandrian Recension

Kenyon once theorized that an Alexandrian scholar created a critical edition of the text early in the fourth century, leading to Vaticanus. Zuntz extended that timeline backward, suggesting the recension started in the second century and continued through the fourth. Yet P75 and other evidence make these hypothetical recensions seem increasingly improbable. P75’s strong agreement with Vaticanus indicates an unbroken chain of careful copying that did not require multiple editorial overhauls. It is more plausible that scribes who revered the text guarded it over time, allowing certain lines of transmission—most famously the Alexandrian line—to remain comparatively stable. There is no external historical trace of a grand editorial council imposing a standardized text before or near 200 C.E.

The Writers’ High View of Their Own Books

The statement that early Christians did not consider these writings as divinely authoritative neglects how the New Testament’s own authors regarded their material. Paul equated his letters with the Lord’s command (1 Corinthians 14:37). He instructed the public reading of his epistles (1 Thessalonians 5:27, Colossians 4:16). Peter viewed Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). The Gospels themselves present the teachings of Jesus as the Word of God. These claims of authority emerged early, inspiring believers to preserve the texts with care.

The example of Tertullian, writing in the early third century, referencing the “authentic writings” of the apostles still kept in certain churches, illustrates how some communities safeguarded original documents or direct copies. This is strong evidence that the text was not lightly regarded. Tertullian described these writings as “uttering the voice” of the apostles. Although eventually the original autographs would wear out, the impetus to copy them faithfully was clearly in effect.

The Argument From Silence

Bart Ehrman often stresses that we do not have the original manuscripts or even first-generation copies. That observation alone does not prove that the text was not copied accurately. In some cases, second- or third-generation copies might still be quite close to the original if each scribe aimed for precision. P75’s relationship to Vaticanus shows how a text can remain stable across at least a century or more. Some scholars note that a typical manuscript could be reproduced letter by letter in a controlled environment. Others were copied in less formal settings but still show careful work. The absolute number of variants in Greek manuscripts is indeed large, yet most are minor and do not affect meaning.

Ehrman’s stance that “early Christian centuries scribes were amateurs” is not borne out by the evidence of P66, P75, P46, and others. Some scribes were evidently semiprofessionals or literate Christians conscious of their responsibility. The argument that Christians were indifferent to textual preservation until the end of the second century fails to align with the strong communal sense that these writings carried apostolic authority.

The Impressive Quantity of Manuscripts

Compared to any other ancient text, the New Testament has unparalleled manuscript support. The total of Greek manuscripts stands at around 5,800. Many of these date to the medieval period, but a significant number are from the earliest centuries. Versions in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic, plus citations in early patristic writings, amplify that data, creating a dense tapestry of overlapping witnesses. By weaving these strands together, textual critics can identify and correct many scribal slips. This abundant evidence also refutes claims that the text is irretrievably lost. Instead, the text can be reconstructed to a high degree of certainty.

In classical literature, authors like Homer, Plato, and Tacitus survive in far fewer manuscripts, often separated from the original by much greater intervals. Where dozens or hundreds of variations might lurk in the single extant copy, no external witnesses can check them. By contrast, the Greek New Testament’s numerous and widespread manuscripts make cross-comparison feasible. If the earliest scribes had introduced massive alterations, the textual tradition would carry contradictory traditions that could not easily be resolved. The actual picture is quite different: there is remarkable continuity in core readings, buttressed by second- and third-century papyri.

Why the Second-Century Situation Matters

If indeed most variants were introduced by 200 C.E., the essential textual framework must have been in place when believers recognized these writings as apostolic. Congregations circulated Paul’s letters, Gospels, and other epistles, producing copies that varied slightly in spelling or phrasing yet substantially maintained the original message. By the time of Irenaeus in the late second century, the fourfold Gospel was widely accepted as authoritative. This acceptance is inconceivable without earlier scribes diligently transmitting those very Gospels.

Claims that a text “in a state of flux” existed in the second century result partly from focusing on manuscripts like P45, where omissions seem frequent, or on Western texts like D, which exhibit expansions. Yet those do not represent the entire story. Parallel lines of transmission could be free or paraphrastic, while others remained strict or normal. Some communities apparently accepted minor editorial freedom; others enforced a standard approach to copying. The second century’s textual history is not monolithic but multifaceted.

Specific Examples of Early Copying

P46 includes Pauline letters and Hebrews, dated around 175–225 C.E. Although it contains some peculiarities, Zuntz concluded that it represented an early Alexandrian type rather than a chaotic text. P66, copying John, reveals a corrector’s hand, showing that scribes took the initiative to fix mistakes or clarify ambiguous spots. P45’s scribe created many singular readings by omitting words or clauses, but these omissions do not appear to arise from theological tampering. The scribe’s style involved shortening the text, yet the result is still recognizable and does not distort fundamental doctrines.

In Luke and John, P75 shows a disciplined approach, with only minor adjustments. Colwell and Royse discovered that this scribe had been drilled in careful copying, producing a text often matching Codex Vaticanus. The scribe occasionally omitted words or corrected them, but never introduced sweeping changes. This indicates a concern for preserving rather than altering the text.

Addressing the Misconception of a Late “Canon Consciousness”

Some suggest that churches only began to see the Christian writings as canonical in the fourth century, after Constantine’s favor toward Christianity. This viewpoint posits that scribes felt unconstrained before then and regularly tampered with the text. However, internal evidence from the New Testament, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and statements by second-century apologists and theologians show that believers were already using these writings with the reverence accorded to Scripture.

Papias in the early second century actively collected apostolic traditions. By referencing the words of Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew, Papias regarded these apostolic teachings as truth from the Lord. The letter known as 1 Clement, written near the close of the first century, quotes or alludes to the Gospels and several epistles, recognizing them as authoritative. The Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas also draw on apostolic tradition, showing that these communities did not regard apostolic writings as casual texts open to unbridled alteration.

The Testimony of Tertullian

Tertullian, around 200 C.E., advised believers to visit apostolic churches to read the authentic letters. He described them as “still pre-eminent in their places” and bearing the face of their respective authors. Though Tertullian wrote in Latin, the sense is that some churches still possessed either original manuscripts or exact copies recognized as genuine. If accurate, this suggests a strong impetus to retain faithful copies, because these texts were considered vital. Tertullian’s statement refutes the idea that the earliest believers were indifferent to textual purity.

The Impact of Discoveries on Scholarly Perceptions

The mid-twentieth century find of P75 caused a reevaluation of the assumption that the early text was “free.” Kurt Aland once maintained that the second- and third-century text was characterized by an almost reckless fluidity. Yet after extensive collations of newly found papyri, he acknowledged that earlier generalizations were flawed. Kenyon had voiced the idea that Codex Vaticanus was the product of a scholarly revision around the fourth century, but P75 forced a revision of that perspective. That papyrus showed a near-proto-Vaticanus text a century earlier, without any strong evidence of an editorial committee imposing changes.

As a result, modern scholarship recognizes that the second-century text was not a single “turbid morass.” Multiple textual streams existed. Some scribes did exhibit paraphrastic tendencies or introduced expansions, but others copied with discipline. Textual criticism must account for both phenomena. The earliest papyri reveal the seeds of later text types. If indeed the majority of variants emerged before 200 C.E., that underscores that scribal variation is intrinsic to hand copying. Yet it does not negate the existence of pockets of very accurate transmission.

Were Variants Deliberate or Accidental?

The second question is whether early scribes took liberties to strengthen doctrine or promote orthodoxy, leading to a proliferation of intentional variants. While some alterations appear theologically motivated, such as expansions clarifying Christ’s divinity, the scale of deliberate theological tampering is often exaggerated. Most variants reflect typical copying mishaps—skipped lines, repeated words, or transpositions. Even expansions in the Western text, for example, do not universally serve theological agendas. Instead, they often supply clarifying detail or merge parallel passages. The textual tradition that eventually predominated in Egypt (represented by the Alexandrian family) generally displays fewer expansions, suggesting that some communities discouraged editorial additions.

Relevance for Modern Translations

For translators of the Greek New Testament, the second- and third-century papyri bolster confidence in reconstructing the text close to the era of the apostles. If scribal alterations had irreversibly corrupted these writings, one would expect the papyri to reveal wide irreconcilable gaps. Instead, the papyri largely confirm the text found in major codices like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. This does not mean every reading is beyond dispute. Minor differences remain, but they are often resolvable. When newly discovered manuscripts align with the established text, it does not render them insignificant; rather, it reinforces that the text has been reliably preserved.

The Volume of Manuscripts as a Safeguard

An often-overlooked strength is the sheer volume of manuscripts available for comparison. Copying mistakes can be isolated when multiple manuscripts from diverse regions attest the same reading. If a scribe introduced an odd alteration in one copy, other manuscripts can reveal the error. Although some regions or scribes might continue that error, the multiplicity of witnesses prevents any single variant from overtaking the entire textual tradition. This cross-pollination of data is one reason textual critics can be confident in identifying original readings. Far from undermining trust, the thousands of variants underscore the thoroughness with which the text can be checked.

Judging the Final Picture

The claim that most variants arose before 200 C.E. can be understood in a reasonable light if one sees it as a statement about scribal tendencies. By the end of the second century, the text had traveled widely, scribes had produced multiple generations of copies, and typical changes had surfaced, whether accidental or intentional. That does not necessarily mean that all later expansions had already formed. The Byzantine text type’s fuller readings, for instance, show little sign of strong presence in the second-century papyri. Instead, the early papyri confirm that the text recognized in Alexandrian exemplars, including what eventually became the primary basis for modern critical editions, was already well established.

It is vital to remember that the stability revealed by P75 and the close alignment between second- and fourth-century manuscripts indicates careful transmission. Even if a scribe like the one who produced P45 was more prone to omission, that method did not dominate the tradition. Another scribe, as seen in P75, stayed close to an exemplar that was itself faithful to an even older text. The notion that believers in the earliest centuries were careless or indifferent to scriptural fidelity is not consistent with the manuscripts that survive from that era.

Conclusion

The perception that the first two centuries of textual transmission were chaotic and that only after 200 C.E. did Christians restrain themselves from altering the text is not entirely borne out by the manuscript record. While some early copyists took liberties—either through carelessness or occasional doctrinal impulses—other scribes were diligent, producing text consistent with the manuscripts that would later be recognized as premier witnesses. P66, P75, and P46 all date to the late second or early third century and demonstrate that a disciplined copying tradition thrived in at least some Christian communities. This tradition preserved the text in a form that aligns closely with Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, underscoring an ancient textual unity rather than a chaotic free-for-all.

The suggestion that almost all variants emerged by 200 C.E. points to the reality that scribal activity naturally generated changes from the outset. The major text types—Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine—did not materialize fully formed, but the seeds of their distinctive readings likely trace to the second century. Nonetheless, the idea that early believers did not value these writings or treat them as Scripture contradicts evidence in the New Testament itself, as well as the testimony of early church fathers who cited the Gospels and Epistles as authoritative. The respect shown by scribes of manuscripts like P75 indicates that reverence for the apostolic text was already a reality in the second century.

These facts lead to a measured conclusion. Variants certainly began to appear very early, but the best manuscripts from the second and third centuries reveal a deliberate effort to preserve the authentic words. Later editorial developments, such as expansions that became characteristic of the Byzantine text, did not overshadow the older lines of transmission. Although some twentieth-century scholars believed that a flurry of wild variants pervaded the second century, later research and discoveries, including the momentous P75, show that the early transmission was more controlled than once assumed. This balanced view helps confirm that the Greek New Testament text, as reconstructed by modern scholarship, stands on a firm footing, owing to an abundance of witnesses that reach back very near the time of the apostles. It is clear that the text was not drastically reworked after 200 C.E. Indeed, many scribal errors and intentional changes emerged early, yet the major textual lines, especially in the Alexandrian family, maintained stability and faithful preservation. The evidence stands as a reminder that the early Christian communities generally treated these writings as sacred, copying them with vigilance that helped secure the continuity and reliability of the New Testament text.

You May Also Enjoy

How Are Digital Advancements Transforming New Testament Textual Criticism?

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).

Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00