Q: How did you arrive at the number of 97.3% for manuscript uncertainties? A: I found the total number of Greek words in the New Testament to be 133,892 (manually counting from Aland et al. 3rd ed). (Aland et al. 3rd edition and 4th edition have identical words in the main text.) I double-checked many parts to reduce miscounts. The total number of manuscript variations I have seen are 3,599 words in 1,637 places. These were determined by looking through Aland et al. 3rd edition, Aland et al. 4th edition, Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the New Testament, Barry, and footnotes from the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV. I excluded 441 words in 82 places listed below, because most of the following criteria were met: 1. There was no disagreement between the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscript families, 2. The earliest manuscripts were unanimous 3. Aland et al. in 3rd or 4th edition called it "A – virtually certain" 4. The variant was only in one manuscript or else only in some late manuscripts. I had the following assumptions. 1. I generally paid more attention to early manuscripts, 2. Paid less attention to church writings for one and two word differences, because they could have paraphrased, 3. Did not discount either the Alexandrian or the Byzantine manuscript families. Other places Places Words Miscellaneous 27 89 p75 (=Bodmer 14/15) 4 4 Sinaiticus 2 3 2nd corrector of Sinaiticus 1 4 Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus 1 1 (1 letter spelling difference) Bezae Cantab., sometimes some Italic 15 116 Bezae Cantabrigiensis + Sahidic Coptic 1 5 Vaticanus 2 5 Bezae Cantabrigiensis Italic, Mid Egyptian Coptic 1 44 Bezae Cantabrigiensis Priscillian 1 2 Sahidic Coptic 1 15 Bezae Cantabrigiensis Syriac 1 ? Syriac 1 2 Ephraemi Rescriptus 1 1 p15 (3rd century) 1 1 p72, Georgian 1 1 Bezae Cantabrigiensis + Alexandrinus 1 1 Alexandrinus 2 2 Slavonic, Armenian, Clementine Vulgate 1 4 Corrected Alexandrinus, Middle Egyptian Coptic 1 7 Order of Philippians 1:16 and 17 1   Tertullian and F (9th century) 1 2 Bezae Cantabrigiensis Some Syriac, Italic 1 2 Bezae Cantabrigiensis Italic, some Syriac Mid Egyptian Coptic 1 23 Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Athanasius 1 1 Bezae Cantabrigiensis Syriac 4 56 Bezae Cantabrigiensis Italic, Syriac 1 2 Bezae Cantabrigiensis Syriac, p38 (300 A.D.) 1 21 Italic, Middle Egyptian Coptic 1 1 Ethiopic 1 2 Total 76 389 This left 3,599 uncertain words in 1,658 places. Out of 133,892 total words, 3,599 / 133,892 = 2.7%. Q: What are some other people’s opinion of the uncertainty of words in the New Testament? A: Before comparing numbers, it is important to notice that different numbers report different things. My 97.3% is for all manuscript variations that have any reasonable probability of being the correct reading. This is regardless of how insignificant the spelling or other change in meaning would be. The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and A General Introduction to the Bible p.474 says that Westcott and Hort’s figures would make 98.33%. Bruce Metzger estimated 99.5% for all manuscript variations that have any change of meaning. Keith Elliot and Ian Moir in Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament p.8 says "Most modern textual critics can agree on the bulk of the text (some 95 per cent of it, perhaps). It is the remaining 5 per cent or so where disputes occur and differing conclusions may be found." According to A General Introduction to the Bible p.474 Ezra Abbot estimated about 95% / 99.75%. The variant and rival readings give the 95% figure. Removing the variations that make no appreciable difference in the sense of the text gives the 99.75% figure. For all variations in all manuscripts, A General Introduction to the Bible p.468 says those occur in 10,000 places in the New Testament. Now one variant was in 20 manuscripts so you multiplied that one variant by 20, and if you did similarly for all variants, A General Introduction to the Bible p.468 says counting that way gives 200,000 manuscript-places. It is interesting that both in talking with Mormon missionaries and reading footnotes by Muslim authors, the only number I have seen for Bible manuscript variations is 200,000, with no explanation that that is not 200,000 variations by variations times the number of manuscript with the variations. When someone repeats that number without knowing what it means, ask them how they think that could be true, since there are less than 134,000 words in the entire New Testament. Q: In the NT, what is the degree of uncertainty in the variant readings? A: Aland et al (3rd edition), Aland et al (4th edition), and Green have different opinions on some words. Aland et al (3rd edition) shows manuscript variations in 1,333 places, puts the variations in 4 categories. "A" means "virtually certain", "B" means "some degree of doubt", "C" means "considerable degree of doubt", and "D" means a "very high degree of doubt". "The apparently large number of C decisions is due to the circumstances that many readings in the A and B classes have had no variants included in the apparatus, because they were not important for the purposes of this edition. By far the greatest proportion of the text represents what may be called an A degree of certainty." (p.xiii) Assuming I counted correctly, in the third edition there are 121 (9%) A, 468 (35%) B, 603 (45%) C, and 141 (11%) D in the entire New Testament. The probability of a variation being a particular letter seems fairly uniform among the books, except that Revelation has 71 of the 92 listed variations as C. Q: Which manuscripts are in general the most reliable? A: All of the manuscripts have basically the same words, with a difference of only 2.7% (about 3,564 words). However, some Christian scholars energetically debate the differences in this 2.7%, with primarily three different views. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the earliest and some think the most reliable (except for John 6:53-8:11). Aland et al. the NIV translators, and a majority of scholars today hold to this view. A church father named Origen (225-254 A.D.) extensively studied many Bible texts we do not have available today, and his work undoubtedly influenced the Alexandrian manuscript family. The early Alexandrian family manuscripts are p45 in Acts, p46, p66, p75, part of Sahidic, and two early manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, written on expensive vellum (deer hide). These two might have been the "official copies", Constantine ordered to be written just after Christianity was legalized, or they might be rejects. These go back to about 325-350 A.D. Two authors are Clement of Alexandrian and some of Origen. According to The Text of the New Testament p.216, "most scholars have abandoned Hort’s optimistic view that codex Vaticanus (B) contains the original text almost unchanged except for slips of the pen". Later Alexandrian manuscripts are Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, T, the Freer Gospels in Luke 1:1-8:12 and John), X, Z, Delta in Mark, Xi, Psi, 33, 81, 104, 326, 579, 892, 1241, and Bohairic Coptic. Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus are Alexandrian in everything but the gospels. For the book of Acts in Later Alexandrian we have p50 (284-305 A.D.). For Paul’s letters we have H, I, 1739 For the other letters we have p20, p23, 1739. For Revelation we have 1006, 1611, 1854, 2053, 2344. This list is according to The Text of the New Testament p.216. The Byzantine manuscripts some think are most reliable. In the east, manuscripts being written gradually "standardized", and there are 1,100 manuscripts of the Byzantine Lectionary. This viewpoint is growing among scholars, as the manuscripts typically agree with quotes from John Chrysostom, which takes this tradition back to 392-407 A.D.. For large changes there are least 54 word modifications between the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscript families and 577 words absent in the Alexandrian and present in the Byzantine. This about 0.5% (631 words). In other words, 20% of all text variations are due to Alexandrian vs. Byzantine issues. The Textus Receptus (TR), also called the Received Text, some think is the most reliable. In the West, manuscripts being written became more and more standardized. This Latin standard is called "the Textus Receptus". The King James Version follows the Textus Receptus, except that it adds 1 John 5:7-8. Jay P. Green, Sr. primarily uses the Textus Receptus in his a Greek/Hebrew to English parallel Bible. One can find merit for each of the three views on different passages. It would be nice to find "the one family" that has all the correct readings, but perhaps the truth is that all families have a few incorrect readings. A crazy view that some people have today is that "God’s inspired word" is not the meaning the words convey, nor is it the Greek and Hebrew, but it is the English words in the King James Version. All other versions are labeled as "New Age Versions". Some call this the "King James Only" view, and these people "onlyites". However, be aware that not every scholar who believes the King James is the most accurate English translation necessarily holds to this crazy view. 1 John 5:7-8 was added to the King James Version because it was in the Third edition of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus. It was not in his second version as the Catholic Church wanted, because Erasmus would not put it in unless they could show him a single Greek manuscript that had it. He put it in the third edition because they showed him a Greek manuscript. Unknown to him, that manuscript had just been written the year before. Erasmus must have learned of this, because he did not put it in his fourth edition either. However, before deciding to devote your entire life to studying these 2.7% variations, remember 2 Timothy 2:14 and 1 Timothy 6:4, where Paul commands Timothy to avoid quarreling about words. Why are there these differences? A key reason is that the Greek copyists probably believed that precisely copying each word was not their primary intent. Their main intent was to communicate God’s meaning as accurately and precisely as possible. Some did that by having a literal copy, others by correcting spelling, grammar, improving the phrasing, and making the meaning more precise, and some by paraphrasing. Q: What are the some of the oldest Bible texts in the Alexandrian manuscript family? A: The oldest Alexandrian manuscripts are Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.), p20 (3rd century), p23 Urbana (3rd century), p45 + p46 (= Chester Beatty), p47, p50 (284-305 A.D.), p52, p66 (125-175 A.D.) (= Bodmer II), Ephraemi Rescriptus (400-500 A.D.). It is debatable whether p4, p8, and p13 are a part of this family. P75 (early 3rd century is called proto-Alexandrian). P.Antinoopolis 2.54 p104 contain parts of Matthew. There also are a number of Coptic and Ethiopian manuscripts translated from Alexandrian manuscripts. The Coptic manuscripts themselves are subdivided into Bohairic, Sahidic, Fayyumic, Middle Egyptian, and others. Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the New Testament p.15 says that Sahidic Coptic is only Alexandrian text in part. The Origin of the Bible p.302 says that Sahidic was probably first written about 200 A.D. Note that the manuscript Alexandrinus, which sounds like it should be Alexandrian, is actually considered a Byzantine text. Among the church fathers, Clement of Alexandria and Origen (in part) quote from Alexandrian texts. Q: What are the major Byzantine texts? A: These are Alexandrinus, the Freer Gospels (Matthew and Luke 8:13-24:53) and the Byzantine Lectionary. The Gothic translation is Byzantine. The primary earliest source of Byzantine text is the sermons of John Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.), who extensively quoted scripture. Q: What are some of the differences between the Alexandrian manuscript family versus the Byzantine? A: In the Old Testament, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus do not have Exodus 28:23-28. We do not have Exodus preserved in Sinaiticus. These verse are present in the Complutensian Septuagint as well as the Hebrew Massoretic text. Dead Sea scroll 4Q22 (=4QPaleoExodusm) contains fragments of 28:22-24,26-28,30-43. See The Septuagint Version : Greek and English by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton. p.1131-1132 for more info. For the New Testament, the Alexandrian manuscripts have at least 33 verses less than the Byzantine family, which works out to 577 words less. There also are at least 54 word modifications. If someone felt certain the earliest Alexandrian manuscripts were totally correct, then the following verses would not be in the Bible: Mt 12:47; 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9-20; Lk 23:24; Jn 5:4; John 7:53-8:11. The manuscripts Bodmer 14, 15, Sinaiticus do not have Lk 23:17 while Vaticanus has it. Modern times did not produce the first people to study Bible manuscript variations. An unusual Christian from Alexandria named Origen apparently was the first to very systematically look at various manuscripts and decide which most likely was the original reading. Origen had a large number of manuscripts available to him that are lost to us today, and Alexandrian manuscripts are all assumed to be influence by his work. (Christians today debate over whether his influence is a good or bad thing.) Here is a small sampling of manuscript variations where the Alexandrian manuscripts generally say the same thing and Byzantine manuscripts say something different. Mt 18:11 ("For the son of Man is come to save that which has been lost.") is absent in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Origen (225-254 A.D.), Eusebius, and Jerome. These 9 words are included in the Byzantine Lectionary, Syriac, Armenian, Diatessaron (c.170 A.D.), and Chrysostom (392-407 A.D). Mk 10:34 has "after three days" in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic. It says "On the third day" in Alexandrinus, Byzantine Lectionary, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, Origen (225-254 A.D.). Mk 11:26 "But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins/transgressions." is missing in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Bohairic Coptic, and Sahidic Coptic. (17 words) Mk 16:9-20 The following sources do not have the longer ending. c.360 A.D. Eusebius Questions to Marianus I 193-217/220 A.D. Clement of Alexandria 225-254 A.D. Origen 407 A.D. Jerome, Epistle 120 At least 6 other ancient manuscripts Syriac 900-1000 A.D. Armenian manuscript has it, but says it was added by Aristion, whom Papias mentions 325-350 A.D. Vaticanus: blank space there. Vaticanus does not have any other blank spaces like this in the entire manuscript. 340-350 A.D. Sinaiticus: blank space there. However, according to www.LogosResourcePages.org/uncials.htm, you can see where this text was in Sinaiticus, but it was pumiced out (erased). The following manuscripts do have the longer ending 182-188 A.D. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:11 110-155 A.D. (disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John) c.170 A.D. Tatian’s Diatessaron 200 A.D. Tertullian Treatise on the Soul At least 38 ancient Bible texts 120-150 A.D. Didache ~700 A.D. on Byzantine text family 5th century Freer Gospels 400-600 A.D. Codex Bezae manuscript The later Alexandrian manuscripts have it also. c.450 A.D. Alexandrinus 400-500 A.D. Ephraemi Rescriptus Manuscript 3rd-4th century Bohairic Coptic 3rd-4th century Sahidic Coptic Jn 5:4 ("for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.") absent in p66 (150-200 A.D.), p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, and the original copies of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Alexandrinus, and the Diatessaron. The church writer Nonnus (431 A.D.) does not have this. The earliest copies with these 29 words are the Armenian and Georgian versions (both 5th century), and later corrections to Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and the Freer Gospels. However, the church fathers Tertullian (200-240 A.D.), Ambrose, Didymus, Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.), and Cyril refer to this in their paraphrased renderings. Jn 7:53-8:11 is called "the pericope of the adulteress" Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p56, p75, the Sahidic Coptic, and the Gothic do not have it. The Diatessaron, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Origen (225-254 A.D.), and Chrysostom also do not have it. The rest of the major manuscripts have it. Aland et al. says "Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus apparently had it, though their state of preservation makes this not certain. This passage is interesting in that Aland et al. says this is "virtually certain" it was in the original manuscript, yet the Alexandrian family, with the exception of Bohairic Coptic, do not have it. Thus, if one relies on the Alexandrian family of manuscripts, one has to do so recognizing that this family left out this entire passage. Of course while the Byzantine family has this passage, John Chrysostom does not. (The pericope of the adulteress and the ending of Mark are the two largest non-trivial manuscript variations in the New Testament.) Jn 10:34 "the law" is in Bodmer II 125-175 A.D. Bodmer 14,15 early 3rd century, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Byzantine Lectionary, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Athanasius (326-373 A.D.). It says "the law of you" in Chester Beatty Papyrii 200 A.D., Sinaiticus (corrected), Cantabrigiensis, Tertullian, Hilary. Eph 1:1 The words "in Ephesus" are absent from Chester Beatty II (200 A.D.), original Vaticanus, original Sinaiticus, and the early Christian writers Tertullian (200-240 A.D.) and Origen (225-254 A.D.). A corrector later added the words to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Alexandrinus also has these words, as do the Byzantine Lectionary and John Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.) 1 Cor 11:24 "broken for you", "broken" is absent in Chester Beatty II (200 A.D.), Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus (original), Alexandrinus, Athanasius (326-373 A.D.). "Broken" is present as a later correction in Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus (3rd corrector), the Gothic, Byzantine Lectionary, and John Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.) A split decision is Mk 1:2, where the Byzantine Lectionary and the Armenian says In the prophets, along with Alexandrinus, Syriac, Bohairic Coptic, Ethiopic, Irenaeus, and other manuscripts. Isaiah is mentioned in most other manuscripts including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Gothic, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, etc.. Regardless, the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscript families all do not have 1 Jn 5:7-8. The first preserved Greek manuscript that has this was not written until the 10th century, though the heretic Priscillian (380 A.D.) had heard of this. Q: Why do people put less weight on the "Western texts"? A: The Western texts is a phrase for manuscripts primarily in Europe that do not fit in the Alexandrian or Byzantine family. Some people question whether it is accurate to speak of a Western text, since the manuscripts do not have that much "affinity" with each other, except that when the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts differ, they tend to put in both readings. According to Bruce Metzger’s A Textual commentary on the New Testament p.6 the problems with the Western text are most acute in Acts, where the Western text is 10% longer. Q: What are some corrections in the p46 manuscript? A: It was probably not copied by a professional scribe, and one or two people cam along later and corrected it. Here are some examples from 1 Corinthians 13-16 for simple letter errors, that are not counted in the previous lists. 1 Cor 13:5 mu was addeded after to. 1 Cor 13:12 prosopon changed to prosupon by adding u (omega) above the line. 1 Cor 14:9 auloumenon to laloumenon by crossing out au and adding la above the line. 1 Cor 14:9 added genu after tuchoi. 1 Cor 14:20 changed tai to tais by added s above the line. 1 Cor 15:2 dots were put above katecheiv which means they corrector thought this should be deleted. 1 Cor 15:17 estai to easte 1 Cor 15:24 the corrector put a slash through "i" when he should have put a slash through "a" 1 Cor15:34 amartanute to amartanete 1 Cor 16:1 ei to eis 1 Cor 16:7 pardu to parodu When comparing manuscripts for significant variants, I used the original reading (versus later corrections) in all the manuscripts. Q: What do we know about the Vaticanus manuscript? A: Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.) is the oldest existing member of the Alexandrian manuscript family. It often is abbreviated as "B" or is called uncial 03. It is 325-350 A.D. according to the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.253 and c.325-350 A.D. according to A General Introduction to the Bible p.393. What has been preserved: Vaticanus has preserved only verses 46:29-50:26 in Genesis, and the rest of the Old Testament except for 2 Kings 2:5-7 and 1-13, and Psalm 105:27-137:6. The missing section in Psalms was added in the 15th century. As in Vaticanus, Hebrews follows 2 Thessalonians. Some apocryphal books are in Vaticanus, as are in most Greek Bibles. Vaticanus does not contain 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh. The New Testament is all preserved up until Hebrews 9:15. After that some leaves were lost. Missing are 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation. Aland references Vaticanus in the book of James, and the New International Greek Testament Commentary on James p.60 says Vaticanus contains the complete book of James. Physical Appearance: It was written with brown ink on expensive vellum, with each leaf being 27-28 centimeters square. There were three columns per page and 40-44 lines per column. Today it is in Vatican City in the middle of Rome Order of Old Testament Books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras (=Ezra-Nehemiah) Psalms (with Psalm 151), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (=Sirach, =Wisdom of Sirach), Esther, Judith, Tobit, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel. Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Epistle of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel (with Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susannah, and Bel and the Dragon]. See The Journey from Texts to Translations p.50 for more info. Order of New Testament Books: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, (following are missing but the presumed order) 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Revelation. See The Journey from Texts to Translations p.60 for more info. Scribes and Correctors: One scribe wrote the Old Testament, and another wrote the New Testament. There were two correctors. One corrected the manuscript about 350 A.D. soon after it was written. The other corrector lived in the tenth or eleventh century. A humorous note is that one corrector made a change in Hebrews 1:3. A later corrector changed it back, and wrote in the margin "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone, and not alter it!" It turns out the original was not correct. Distinctives of Vaticanus: It generally follows the other manuscripts in the Alexandrian family. It does not have John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:43-44, and Luke 23:34. Like Sinaiticus, it has a blank space for the longer ending of Mark. Vaticanus contains all of Romans (minus 16:24) in the same order as Bibles today. No ancient manuscript omitted 1 Peter 5:3 (9 words) except for Vaticanus. Jn 16:28 "from/by the Father" is in Vaticanus. Many other manuscripts have "came forth from the Father", including p5 (200-250 A.D.), p22, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Byzantine Lectionary, Diatessaron (c.170 A.D). As a side note there is a Codex Vaticanus 354 (S) manuscript of the gospel. However, it is a totally different manuscript, dated 949 A.D., that just happens to have the name Vaticanus in it also. See The Origin of the Bible p.181, A General Introduction to the Bible p.391-392, and Manuscripts of the Greek Bible p.74-75 for more info. Q: What do we know about the Sinaiticus manuscript? A: Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.) is the second oldest existing member of the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. It often is abbreviated as "Aleph" or is called uncial 01. It is 340 A.D. according to the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.253 and c.340 A.D. according to A General Introduction to the Bible p.393. What has been preserved: It has preserved half of the Septuagint Old Testament. Specifically, it has Genesis 23:19-24:46 (with gaps); Numbers 5:26-7:20 (with gaps), 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, Ezra-Nehemiah as one book from Ezra 9:6 on, Esther, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentation to 2:22, Joel through Malachi, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Job. The Apocrypha is in Sinaiticus: specifically Tobit, Judith, 1 and 4 Maccabees, Wisdom, and Sirach. The New Testament is all preserved, except the scribes did not include John 7:53-8:11, and a blank space reserved for Mark 16:9-20. Sinaiticus contains all of Romans (minus 16:24) in the same order as Bibles today. The order of New Testament books is the Four Gospels, Paul’s Letters, Hebrews, Acts, the Catholic Letters, Revelation, the Letter of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas, according to Metzger’s Manuscripts of the Greek Bible p.76. Two other books are in Sinaiticus: the Letter/Epistle of Barnabas and part of the Shepherd of Hermas. Physical Appearance: It originally had at least 730 leaves. Today we have 390 leaves plus fragments of 3 more leaves. (a leaf is two pages.) There are four columns per page and 48 lines per column. It is written on expensive vellum. There were no spaces between words and almost no punctuation. Old Testament quotes are shown as quotes. Today it is in London, UK. For more info and a photograph, see Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p.76-79. Order of Old Testament Books: Genesis, (Exodus and Leviticus are lost), Numbers, (missing Deuteronomy through 2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras (=Esther-Nehemiah), Esther, Tobit, Judith, 1, 4 Maccabees, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, (Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Amos, and Micah lost), Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Psalms (including 151), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (=Sirach, =Wisdom of Sirach), Job. See The Journey from Texts to Translations p.50 for more info. Order of New Testament Books: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Acts, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas. See The Journey from Texts to Translations p.60 for more info. Scribes and correctors: Three scribes copied Sinaiticus. Scribe A, who copied most of the historical and poetic books of the Old Testament, almost all the New Testament, and the Epistle of Barnabas, was a better speller than B, but not nearly as good as D. B copied the prophets and the Shepherd of Hermas, and was a bad speller. D had nearly perfect spelling. He copied Tobit and Judith, the first half of 4 Maccabees, and the first 2/3 of Psalms. He apparently copied 6 pages of the New Testament. Distinctives of Sinaiticus: According to Herman Hoskier, there are the following number of places with differences between Sinaiticus and the Textus Receptus in the gospels: Matthew 656+, Mark 567+, Luke 791+, John 1022+, for a total of 3036+ places of differences in the gospels. Sinaiticus is unusual for its endings of the gospels. Like Vaticanus, Sinaiticus is has a blank space for the longer ending of Mark’s gospel. Thus they were aware of a longer ending, but chose not to copy it. In addition, ultraviolet lamps have shown that the scribe finished the Gospel of John ends at 21:24, put two decorative lines (called coronis), and wrote that it is finished. Then the vellum was washed to remove the lines and last statement, the same scribe wrote verse 25, added the coronis, and wrote it is finished. This is according to The Text of the New Testament p.45-46, written by Bruce Metzger in 1968. So we consider the Sinaiticus version of John ending in 21:25 because the same scribe wrote it. According to D.A. Waite, 8972 words were affected in the Gospel versus the Textus Receptus. 3,455 words were omitted, 839 were added, 1114 were substituted, 2299 were transposed, and 1265 were modified. It has more changes than Vaticanus. Of course, Waite cannot prove any words were added or omitted, only that they were included or absent. Lk 11:23 "scatters me" is in the original Sinaiticus Bohairic Coptic, and Ephraemi Rescriptus. All the other major manuscripts have "scatters" Jn 1:34 The "chosen" is in p5 (200-240 A.D.), original Sinaiticus, Sahidic Coptic and few other manuscripts. The "son" is in corrected Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Cantabrigiensis, the Byzantine Lectionary, Bohairic Coptic, Armenian, Origen (225-254 A.D.), Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.) See A General Introduction to the Bible p.392-394 for more info. Q: What do we know about the Alexandrinus manuscript? A: Alexandrinus (c.450 A.D.) is a little later than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It is often abbreviated "A" or called Uncial 02. It is c.425 A.D. according to the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.253 and c.450 A.D. according to A General Introduction to the Bible p.393. What has been preserved: It has preserved all of Genesis except for Genesis 14:14-17; 15:1-5, 16-19; 16:6-9, which are mutilated. The Twelve Minor Prophets are directly before Isaiah. It contains the rest of the Old Testament except for 1 Samuel 12:17-14:9 and Psalms 49:20-79:11. In the New Testament Alexandrinus has preserved Matthew 25:7 to the end, Mark, Luke, John (except 6:50-8:52), Romans (minus 16:24), 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians (except 4:13-12:6), the rest of the New Testament, 1 Clement, and 2 Clement until 12:4. Psalms of Solomon is in the table of contents but it is lost. Alexandrinus contains all of Romans (minus 16:24) in the order of 1:1-14:23; 16:25-27; 15:1-16:23; 16:25-27 (The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary : Romans 1-8 p.6) It contains 16:25-27 twice. It contains all of James. The Apocrypha is in Alexandrinus: additions to Daniel, Tobit, Judith, 1 Esdras, 1-4 Maccabees, Sirach. Other books at the end of the manuscript were written the Psalms of Solomon, and 1 and 2 Clement, with some parts of 2 Clement missing. Physical appearance: The leaves measure 32.1 cm by 26.4 cm. It was written on expensive vellum with brown ink. There are two columns per page, and 46-52 lines per column. There are no spaces between the words, and Old Testament quotes are indicated. It was written in large, square uncial writing with no punctuation. It currently is in London, UK. Order of Old Testament Books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Epistle of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel (with Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon] See The Journey from Texts to Translations p.50 for more info. Order of New Testament Books: Matthew (some missing), Mark, Luke, John (some missing), Acts, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians (some missing), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Revelation, 1 Clement (some missing), 2 Clement (some missing), Psalms of Solomon (table of contents only). See The Journey from Texts to Translations p.60 for more info. Scribes and correctors: Two to five scribes wrote this manuscript, and there were numerous corrections, by both the scribe who originally wrote the words and others hands. The corrected version is very similar to the Textus Receptus. Distinctives of Alexandrinus: Some would say it appears as an Alexandrian Manuscript with Byzantine influence. Others would say it represents a third family, the Western family, which is a combination of the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. It does not have Luke 22:43f, and is missing John 7:53-8:11. 2 Tim 2:22 Alexandrinus has "loving" while other manuscripts have "calling" Phm 12, Alexandrinus and corrected Sinaiticus almost stand alone in saying "whom I sent back yours" vs. other manuscripts who say "whom I sent back to you" or similar. Phm 25 Alexandrinus does not have "amen" at the end. Sinaiticus, the Byzantine Lectionary, and p87 c.125 A.D. have "amen" at the end. See A General Introduction to the Bible p.394-395 and Manuscripts of the Greek Bible p.86 (photograph p.87) for more info. Q: What do we know about the Ephraemi Rescriptus [C] manuscript? A: Ephraemi Rescriptus (400-500 A.D. or 400-450 A.D. or c.345 A.D.) is considered neither an early nor a late manuscript. It often is abbreviated as "C" or else is called uncial 04. It was written 5th century (400-500 A.D.) according to Aland et al., or 400-450 A.D. on various web sites. It was written c.345 A.D. according to the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.253 and A General Introduction to the Bible p.393. What is preserved: It has preserved James 1:1-4:2 and the Gospels, Acts, the letters and Revelation. Ephraemi Rescriptus contains all of Romans (minus 16:24) in the same order as Bibles today. It probably contained all of the New Testament, and at least part of every New Testament book is preserved except for 2 Thessalonians and 2 John. Much of the Old Testament is lost. It has only preserved all or parts of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles. For apocryphal books it has preserved at least parts of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom of Solomon. Distinctives of Ephraemi Rescriptus: It has 616 instead of 666 in Revelation. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.253 says the manuscript is "a compound of all major types, but it agrees frequently with the Byzantine." A General Introduction to the Bible p.394 also says it is a compound of different types but agrees frequently with the Byzantine family. Q: What do we know about the Cantabrigiensis Bezae (D) manuscript? A: Unlike Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, the Latin Vulgate, and today’s Bibles, Cantabrigiensis Bezae has the gospels in a different order. Order of New Testament Books: Bezae has only preserved in order: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Acts, and 3 John. See The Journey from Texts to Translations p.60 for more info. Q: What do we know about the Freer Gospels (W)? A: The Freer Gospels are also called Codex Washingtonianus. They are from the fourth or early 5th century (300-450 A.D.) or fourth to 5th century (Aland et al.) What is preserved: The Old Testament is lost except for parts of Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Psalms. The New Testament has preserved the four gospels, 1, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1, 2 Thessalonians, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. (Romans is the only one of Paul’s letters that is not preserved here.) Order of New Testament Books: The Gospels in order are Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark. Mark has the long ending. Distinctives of the Freer Gospels: After Mark 16:14, is has "And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now’ – thus they spoke of Christ. And Christ replied to them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven." (A General Introduction to the Bible p.400) See A General Introduction to the Bible p.400 for more info. Q: What are the distinctives of the three Coptic families of translations of the New Testament? A: The three main Coptic families are Sahidic, Bohairic, and Fayyumic, and they were almost certainly translated from manuscripts in the Alexandrian family. There are no peculiar renderings listed in Aland. The different Coptic families do not always agree among themselves. For example, Mt 12:47 Include verse 47 "Then said one to him, Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to you." (Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bohairic Coptic) vs. verse 47 is absent (corrected Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic) (17 words) A fourth, smaller family is the Akhminic. It has portions of Mt 9; Lk 12-13, 17-18, Gal 5-6; Jms 5. A similar family, called sub-Akhminic has portions of Jn 2:12-20:20. Q: What do we know about the old Syriac manuscripts? A: There are two old versions: Sinaitic Syriac (4th century) and Curetonian Syriac (5th century). The Sinaitic Syriac (SyrS) manuscript was found in 1897. It is difficult to read, because it was overwritten in the 8th century. 142 of 166 leaves survive. The surviving leaves contain Mt 1:1-6:10, 7:3-12:4, 12:6-25, 12:29-16:15, 18:11-20:24, 21:20-25:15, 25:17-20, 25:25-26, 25:32-28:7, Mk 1:12-44, 2:21-4:17, 5:1-26, 6:5-16:8 (no ending), Lk 1:36-5:28, 6:12-24:52, Jn 1:25-47, 2:16-4:37, 5:6-25, 5:46-18:31, 19:40-end). It is considered a "western text" with fewer peculiarities than D. The Curetonian Syriac (SyrC) was discovered in 1842. It has Mt 1:1-8:22, 10:32-23:25; Mk 16:17-20; Lk 2:48-3:16, 7:33-15:21, 17:24-24:44; Jn 1:1-42, 3:6-7:37, 14:10-29 (mutilated). It has some similarities to the Siniatic Syriac. Q: What do we know about the Syriac Peshitta translation of the Bible? A: Peshitta means "simple" and the Old Testament was translated before the end of the 2nd century A.D. The Peshitta does not contain 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, or Revelation. The New Testament was translation in the final decades of the 4th century (375-400 A.D.) according to the Eerdmans’ Bible Dictionary p.817. Aland et al. give a date of 400-450 A.D., but Eerdmans’ Bible Dictionary p.978 says "Once thought to be the early fifth-century work of Bishop Rabbula of Edessa, the Peshitta now appears to have been completed by the late fourth century on the basis of earlier Syriac versions." So the more modern dating is 375-400 A.D. Q: What do we know about the Armenian translation of the Bible? A: Christianity came to Armenia under a former persecutor, king Tiridates III (c.287-314 A.D.). He was converted by Gregory the Illuminator at the end of the third century. Thaddaeus and Bartholomew might have gone to Armenia prior to then. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (died c.264 A.D.) wrote to those in Armenia. According to Bishop Korium (died c.450 A.D.), Mesrop Mashtotz (c.361-439 A.D.) was a former soldier and Christian missionary who created an Armenian alphabet in 406 A.D. and translated the Bible into Armenian. There are over 1,244 New Testament Armenian manuscripts. See The Journey from Texts to Translations p.248-250 for more info. A picture of an Armenian manuscript of Matthew 1 is on p.248. Other Books: In addition to the Biblical books, some Armenian manuscripts have History of Joseph and Asenath, 4 Ezra, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. In the New Testament are the Letter of the Corinthians to Paul and a Third Letter of Paul to the Corinthians. Order of Books: After Acts, are Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude. Distinctives: Mt 1:7-8 spelling of "Asa" (Byzantine Lectionary, Syriac) vs. "Asaph" (p1 [apparently] Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Middle Egyptian Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian) (1 letter difference) In Matthew 26:28 "New" is present in Alexandrinus (c.450 A.D.), Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th century), Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Freer Gospels, Sahidic Coptic (3/4th century), Bohairic Coptic (3/4th century), the Byzantine Lectionary, f1 family, f13 family, Armenian, Ethiopic, etc. "New" is absent in p37 (middle 3rd century), Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.), Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), etc. In Mark 14:24 "New" is present in Alexandrinus, Sahidic Coptic, Diatessaron, Byzantine Lectionary, f1 family, f13 family, Armenian, Ethiopic, etc. "New" is absent in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Freer Gospels, Bohairic Coptic, etc. Mk 7:25 "Had an unclean spirit" vs. "was pressed/squeezed by an unclean spirit" (Armenian only) Jn 5:7 "while I am coming" vs. "while I drag myself" (Armenian only so not counted in the totals. Rev 21:12 "and the names" (Alexandrinus) vs. "and names" (Byzantine Lectionary) vs. "and" Sinaiticus, Armenian) (2 words) Rev 22:14 "those who wash their robes" (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vulgate, Sahidic Coptic, Ethiopic) vs. "those doing his commands" (Byzantine Lectionary, Italic, Philoxenian Syriac, Bohairic Coptic, Tertullian, Cyprian, Armenian) Q: What do we know about the Georgian translation of the Bible? A: The Bible was translated into Georgian in the Fifth century A.D. Christianity was introduced to Georgia by a slave woman name Nino, who was taken captive by Bakur, the King of Georgia during the time of the Emperor Constantine. According to Armenian tradition the Georgian translated was taken from Mesrop, a Christian from Armenia. Others think it might have been translated from the Syriac instead. However, it is also believed that it was compared with Byzantine texts. The Georgian language is unrelated to those around it. A photograph of a page of the New Testament is in The Journey from Texts to Translations p.249. The oldest Georgian set of the four gospels (Geo1) is called the Adysh manuscript (897 A.D.). There is also geoA and geoB, which form the basis of geo2. See The Journey from Texts to Translations p.250-251 for more info. Some Distinctives: Mt 1:25 "a son" (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Syriac, Middle Egyptian Coptic, Georgian) vs. "a firstborn son" vs. "the only begotten son" (Ephraemi Rescriptus, Freer Gospels, Byzantine Lectionary, Armenian, Ethiopic, Diatessaron) (4 words) Note that this differs from the Armenian.