The Bibliographical Test and the Hunt for the Latest Numbers

In my article, The Bibliographical Test Updated, I updated the number and earliness of manuscripts for the New Testament in comparison to other ancient manuscripts. Since then some apologists have asked whether we need to update our numbers on an annual or even semi-annual basis. The short answer is No. Frequent updating of the bibliographical test is unnecessary and it is virtually impossible to do so. I will deal with each of these in turn. But first, some background.

The Bibliographical Test Defined

The bibliographical test examines the overall number of extant manuscripts (abbreviated to MSS or MS for the singular) and the difference between the date of the original writing, called the autograph, and the date of the earliest surviving, or extant, manuscript. Since we do not possess the autograph of even one ancient document, this test best determines transmissional accuracy for any ancient document. The apologist’s argument is that the New Testament (NT) MSS numbers outstrip the numbers of Homer’s Iliad and every other ancient work, and, since that is the case, if one is going to accept the transmission of these other works as reliable, the consistent scholar must also accept the transmission of the NT as reliable.

Why Frequent Updating of the Bibliographical Test Is Unnecessary

I write that frequent updates of the bibliographical test are unnecessary because the NT manuscript numbers don’t change that much in comparison to other MSS. To try to redo the bibliographical test every six months would be like getting a colonoscopy every six months—unless they’ve found something concerning in the last one, it’s probably not going to be much different 180 later and a colonoscopy is a lot of trouble. Likewise, the NT MSS numbers aren’t going to change much in relationship to other MSS in just a year, or two, or even five. Of course, it’s possible that someone could stumble upon a MSS treasure-trove but the odds of that are so slim that it just isn’t worth searching it out. Perhaps every ten years would be about right? After all, 40 years later the Iliad MSS may have almost tripled but it hasn’t changed the major point—the NT still overwhelms the MSS of every other ancient author.

Why Frequent Updating of the Bibliographical Test Is Extremely Difficult

But more to the point is that it is extremely difficult, and even impossible, to update the bibliographical test very often. And here is where it gets rather technical and only those who teach or write on the bibliographical test are going to want to read what follows (I probably lost most of my blog readers at the title of this post).

The reason I say it is almost impossible, if not impossible, to update the bibliographical test very often is because although apologists may wait breathlessly for the next new NT MSS update; the scholars of Homer, Sophocles, Herodotus, etc., are not breathlessly waiting for their MSS numbers to be updated. And since the NT’s competitor’s MSS aren’t being updated all that often, to only update the NT MS numbers fails then to provide an accurate comparison. The bibliographical test is, in essence, a snap shot of the numbers of the NT and other authors at a particular time. Now, when the Iliad MS numbers are updated again, then it might be a good idea to update the bibliographical test but that’s probably not going to happen very soon or very often. The Iliad numbers provided by the world’s expert on Homeric MSS, Martin L. West of Oxford, were done in 2001 and there may not be another official update for years to come because, as I said, it just isn’t a burning issue for Homer scholars.¹

Also, there is a great difference between catalogued MSS and recently discovered fragments that haven’t been catalogued.²   West’s work on Iliad papyri is a catalogue. In other words, each MS is described and given a specific number and for each MS number often several fragments will be listed that have been determined to comprise one particular MS number. Now, if we hear someone say that they’ve just discovered some new Iliad MSS, we can’t just simply add that to the total because when they are yet to be catalogued, we really don’t know how they fit together. If since West’s catalogue, for example, someone finds five previously unknown Iliad MSS fragments, after close examination, it may turn out that all of them might only represent one MS. It is also possible that all five of the new fragments might turn out to actually be a part of an already known MS housed in a library somewhere (unlikely, but possible). In that event all five of them wouldn’t increase the total Iliad MSS count at all! Thus constantly chasing the latest fragment finds to add to the catalogued number is mistaken.

Of course this is also the case with NT MS finds. Thus the actual NT MS count often actually decreases because if the cataloguers decide that seven NT fragments actually are a part of the same MS then the number goes from seven to one. Do you see what I mean?

One example of how this decrease has happened should suffice. Leeds University New Testament professor J. K. Elliott tells of thirty bilingual Greek-Coptic MSS numbered sa 101—sa 130 that “have been built up from over 392 fragments ( = 750 separate sheets) in various libraries (176 in Paris, 83 in Vienna, 52 in Rome, 29 in London, 13 in Cairo, 9 in Oxford, 7 in Berlin, 6 in Leiden, 4 in New York, 3 in Naples, 3 in Strasbourg, 3 in Venice, 2 in Leningrad, 1 in Manchester and 1 in Cheltenham).”³ Why this geographic dislocation? One reason is because antiquities dealers often tear a larger MS into pieces to make more money! A lot more money! Shame on them! Elliott goes on to explain that

The reconstruction of these scattered fragments requires enormous patience and the skills of a detective. Dr Schmitz allowed us to share in some of his pioneering work on sa 105 in the Munster Bericht (1982). There he showed how the bilingual (Greek-Coptic) fragments previously catalogued as 070, 0110, 0124, 0178, 0179, 0180, 0190, 0191, 0193, 0202 all belong together (and now to be known only as 070).⁴

Thus, the discovery of new MS fragments can’t simply be added to a catalogued total. It takes time for experts to see if they can fit them together with each other or to see if they might fit them into an already catalogued MS. In short, it is very difficult to establish whether two fragments count as separate manuscripts or whether they are two fragments of the same manuscript.⁵

Most Christian apologists have based the number of New Testament manuscripts on the work of Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster. In 1995 Aland and Aland reported the following:

The number of New Testament manuscripts has risen among the papyri to p96, the uncials to 0299, the minuscules to 2812, and the lectionaries to l 2281. Of these new reported manuscripts about 1,000 were discovered on research trips organized by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster. The total number of manuscripts now stands at 5,487 according to the official registry of manuscripts maintained by Aland in the Institute for New Testament Textual Research. This is only a nominal figure, however, and the actual number of New Testament manuscripts in existence today is probably more than 5,000. As a heritage of the past certain items have been counted which should not be included; several uncial fragments now identified as parts of a single manuscript have been counted separately; and, furthermore, a great many manuscripts have been irretrievably lost in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries through wars and their consequences and through natural disasters.⁶

Notice that although the Alands here gave a MS count of 5,487, they knew that as the MSS are pieced together that the number could shrink dramatically.

Therefore, based on the above, it is inaccurate to simply add new MS finds to catalogued numbers, and the results are misleading if we release new numbers of NT MSS without updated numbers for the MSS of the other ancient works to which we are comparing the NT. As soon as new catalogued numbers are released for the Iliad, then it might be wise to again update the bibliographical test.

I welcome your comments, suggestions, or questions.

1. in 2010 I asked Dr. West if he knew of a more recent update than what he had done and he replied that he did not. And he’d probably know! [↩]
2. Now it is true that in my article The Bibliographical Test Updated that I did use an estimate of Ethiopic and Sahidic MSS by the experts in those fields but that’s because there hasn’t been a recent catalogue of those works. As for the Sahidic, Dr. Karlheinz Schüssler was working on a catalogue when I wrote him so I had to depend on his estimate. [↩]
3. J. K. Elliott, book review of F. J. Schmitz and G. Mink, “Liste Der Koptischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments I. Die Sahidischen Handschriften der Evangelien” Novum Testamentum, Vol. 30, Fasc. 2., Apr., 1988, 186. [↩]
4. Ibid. [↩]
5. For more see Stanley E. Porter, “Why So Many Holes in the Papyrological Evidence for the Greek New Testament?” The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text, John L. Sharpe III and Kimberly van Kampen, eds., (New Castle, DE: The British Library & Oak Knoll, 1998), 167-186. Porter writes that the papyri were literally read to pieces and Porter points out that those we have “survived more through accident than intention” (170). [↩]
6. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2nd rev. ed., Erroll F. Rhodes, trans., (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 74-75. [↩]