CX

I just came across an interesting set of numbers in the Appendix to Bruce Metzger's landmark book "The Text of the New Testament". According to Metzger following is the complete catalogue of Greek MSS in the NT text tradition:

Papyri - 96
Uncials - 299
Miniscules - 2,812
Lectionaries - 2,281

A couple things bear noting. Firstly the miniscule script was not in use until the 9th century such that in the first 750+ years of the Common Era there are only 395 exemplars of the original Greek text of the NT. most of which are fragments rather than complete texts.

Secondly Metzger offers an interesting side note:

Haran

Metzger's book is excellent! I had no idea who he was or what textual criticism was all about until I stumbled into his book at a bookstore one day years ago. "The Text of the New Testament" really got me into textual criticism. The Alands' work is also monumental.

The numbers are higher now. This reference was probably to the third edition of Metzger's book, which was published in 1992.

There are at least 115 or 116 catalogued papyri now. P115 contains an interesting variant of the "number of the beast" in Revelation (i.e. 616 instead of 666).

I'm not sure how much the numbers have changed on the others, but I believe it has changed. It might be a good question for the TC List.

Granted there are few early manuscripts, but that is probably to be expected considering the circumstances in which Christianity began. During the early centuries, churches operated more on pieces of what we call the New Testament, whatever pieces they could come by.

Even under these conditions, the number of early surviving MSS is pretty impressive.

Consider Homer's Illiad, what Metzger calls the " 'Bible' of the ancient Greeks". Metzger lists the number of papyri as 457 and 2 uncial. Considering that the work dates back to the 8th century BC and was quite widespread, one would expect the numbers to be even higher. In fact, they are only slightly higher than the New Testament (by 457 - 395 = 64 MSS, actually less than that if you add in the newer papyri).

Also, I believe the oldest copy of Homer's Illiad dates back to 400 BC, around 500 years difference from its supposed writting. The oldest copy of the NT dates to around 125 AD, a mere quarter century or so from its original.

There are other similar examples (e.g. Euripides).

So comparatively, the New Testament seems to be pretty well attested. What difference this makes in quality of the text is for others to decide.

Haran

Oh yes. How could I forget....

One also has to take into account the persecutions in which many manuscripts were destroyed, especially during the reign of Diocletian. Considering the written accounts, this probably took a huge chunk out of the number of early manuscripts of the NT.

-DM-

It is my understanding (I have read it many times) that we have no original manuscripts of any biblical text.

-Don-

Haran

Originals....probably not.

First copies of originals....possibly.


You were probably referring to more of what you quoted from CX:

He didn't say "original manuscripts". He said "exemplars of the original".

Hope that clarifies...

Vinnie

Originals? Definately not! I know of no NT doc (fragment or not) dated to early enough to be an original.


I don't even think its possible that we have the first copies of the originals. Maybe a dopy of a copy of a copy opf a copy of a copy (some of which may have been edited).

I think I remember CX saying in another thread that 7 NT works do not even have any MSS attestation until the third or fourth century.

I am not saying the textual veracity of the NT is highly suspect. I will say that conservatives tend to overstate their case immensely. Authors like Mcdowell don't treat the data in a sober fashion and give many Christians the wrong impression of the facts.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Also, I believe the oldest copy of Homer's Illiad dates back to 400 BC, around 500 years difference from its supposed writting. The oldest copy of the NT dates to around 125 AD, a mere quarter century or so from its original.

I just popped in here for a second -- too beautiful here today to be working. And look who is back! Hello, Haran. Couldn't resist saying hello. Nice to see you again.

In 1987 p52 that was redated to 175. However, I suspect you are right about that being only a quarter century from its original.

The footnote on p 477 of Schnelle's History and Theology discusses the dating issue and p52. The date of 125 must be "given with some doubt" and 150 is preferable (and that one through Schnelle's gritted teeth). It's pretty clear the later date is preferable.

Sorry, back to work -- nose to the grindstone and all that.

Vorkosigan

Haran

You're probably right. I have a *very* hard time stating things definitely. Perhaps that is my fault. The problem is in the dating. I agree with scholarly consensus that the earliest fragment (P52) dates to around 125 AD. However, there is always a possibility that they were incorrect in dating this fragment, correct? If so, then as I stated, "Originals....probably not". Sorry if the comment sounded misleading. It was not intended that way.

I have read in a source more reputable than McDowell that we may *possibly* have (in P52) a first or second copy of the original. Whether the source was Metzger, Aland, Comfort, or another I cannot remember at the moment.

If one discounts the dating of P52 and P90... I'm sure some do.

Thanks, Vinnie. I'm familiar with McDowell. However, the scholars that I am referring to are tops in their field (i.e. NT Textual Criticism). CX is familiar with them and with my own high interest in this area. He may disagree with my assessment. However, it is hard for me to part with my qualitative probably's and possibly's for definite statements that could be wrong in either direction.

Vinnie

75 years and thats counting the redactor's work!

Vinnie

You mightfind some here who will argue P52 is a fraud. I would simply ignore that argument should it arise. But the dating of P52 is a more serious argument that requires consideration.

Here is a Metzger citation from the "Text of the NT" p. 39:

The problem is that this is the only example. At the very best (given John was written just before the end of the first century and P52 is dated circa 130 A.D.) we have not an early copy of John, but an early fragment of John. This is no way authenticates Mark, Romans or even the rest of John by itself.

So we definately don't have any origianl copies though it is possible that we have a very early fragment of one of the 27 works of the NT.

I'm not sure I follow you here?

Thank you for the clarification.


Vinnie