Having blogged about the discrepancy between the number of manuscripts in Myths and Mistakes and the number recently given by INTF, I asked Jacob Peterson, the author of the chapter in question, to weigh in. I’m happy to share his thoughts here. —ed.
I had several people send me the INTF blog post by Katie Leggett and Greg Paulson in the days after it was posted and now I’ve been asked to write a short addendum here about Peter’s posts (here and here). Having been out of the field essentially since my chapter in Myths and Mistakes was published, this feels a bit like I’ve been granted some lasting and undue authority as an adjudicator on the issue at hand. At best, I have some thoughts for your continued consideration.
Preliminarily, I want to reiterate an overriding theme from my chapter—as Peter did in his
most recent piece—that at the level of disagreement we have between my count and INTF’s the
stakes are incredibly low and inconsequential, no matter how interesting the issue might be as an
intellectual exercise. As I’ll show below, we are arguing over around 100 manuscripts out of over
5000. Beyond that, I have only a couple things to contribute that I think bring my numbers and
theirs much closer. And, of course, I’ll offer updated guidance at the end.
If I have an actual qualm with the blog from INTF, it is in the conclusion to use the maximal count of 5700 as the total number of manuscripts when just two sentences earlier it was stated that “you can add together all destroyed manuscripts with ones presumed missing, and subtract this number from the total number of manuscripts, which results in 5,541 manuscripts.” I spent a fair amount of space in my chapter dealing with these categories and problematising issues around lost/destroyed/missing manuscripts, especially those for which we do not have images or the images are illegible (see especially p. 58). If the question is how many manuscripts are there and not how many were there, then surely a “destroyed” manuscript ain’t there (pardon my mostly suppressed Texas grammatical heritage).
In trying to explain the difference between my count and INTF’s, Peter points out that I got it correct for majuscules but says that “since minuscule and lectionaries turn out to have a far smaller rate of difference [from the Liste numbers due to loss], Peterson’s extrapolation undershot the total by hundreds.” I don’t contest what the Liste records as the state of things today, and certainly do not in any way malign them for an inability to perfectly reflect an ever-changing landscape of manuscripts spread around the world. Rather, as I contend in the chapter and its footnotes (especially p.68 fns. 44 and 45), minuscules and lectionaries probably do experience a rate of loss not too dissimilar to the majuscules but keeping track of them is much more difficult and the payoff is not worth the effort.
If I have an actual qualm with the blog from INTF, it is in the conclusion to use the maximal count of 5700 as the total number of manuscripts when just two sentences earlier it was stated that “you can add together all destroyed manuscripts with ones presumed missing, and subtract this number from the total number of manuscripts, which results in 5,541 manuscripts.” I spent a fair amount of space in my chapter dealing with these categories and problematising issues around lost/destroyed/missing manuscripts, especially those for which we do not have images or the images are illegible (see especially p. 58). If the question is how many manuscripts are there and not how many were there, then surely a “destroyed” manuscript ain’t there (pardon my mostly suppressed Texas grammatical heritage).
Moving forward with their 5,541 number, we also need to account for the passage of time since I wrote my chapter. I submitted the draft in December 2017 with a limited subsequent edit in April 2019 to include the famed “First Century Mark” into my various charts, especially since I had a chart on the preservation of Mark in the first four centuries. In the nearly 5 years since that edit, the last issued numbers in the Liste have changed as follows.
| Category | M&M Count | INTF Blog count | Additions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Papyri | 139 | 141 | 2 |
| Majuscules | 323 | 326 | 3 |
| Minuscules | 2940 | 3019 | 79 |
| Lectionaries | 2483 | 2555 | 72 |
That’s a total of 156 newly utilised numbers in the Liste, which roughly aligns with the 167 stated in
the INTF blog to have been added since January 2019 (they indicate that some lectionaries were
assigned to previously vacated numbers). If we subtract those 167 newly catalogued manuscripts
from INTF’s 2023 number of 5541, we arrive at a count of 5,374 manuscripts. That is more than close
enough to my approximation of 5300 to make me happy and justify the extrapolations I was doing.
In trying to explain the difference between my count and INTF’s, Peter points out that I got it correct for majuscules but says that “since minuscule and lectionaries turn out to have a far smaller rate of difference [from the Liste numbers due to loss], Peterson’s extrapolation undershot the total by hundreds.” I don’t contest what the Liste records as the state of things today, and certainly do not in any way malign them for an inability to perfectly reflect an ever-changing landscape of manuscripts spread around the world. Rather, as I contend in the chapter and its footnotes (especially p.68 fns. 44 and 45), minuscules and lectionaries probably do experience a rate of loss not too dissimilar to the majuscules but keeping track of them is much more difficult and the payoff is not worth the effort.
Thus, my count relies on the Liste being, justifiably, out of sync with the real-world
conditions of the much larger and harder to monitor class of minuscules and lectionaries.
This is certainly a theoretical point—and a bit anecdotal from working in, visiting, and contacting
dozens of monasteries—and it was made in the broader service of my point to use prudent and
round numbers rather than sensational ones.
Thus, we might say INTF and I were offering two
different types of counts. My extrapolation was an approximation based on a readily ascertainable
(and might I say accurate!) rate of loss within the majuscules to give a likely total of how many
manuscripts there actually are, whereas INTF is offering a “state of the Liste” count that indicates
how many manuscripts are currently catalogued and maybe still survive.
Whatever the case may be for this last point, I’m glad to see that my now-outdated numbers were not far off the mark. I’m similarly pleased to see that some of my comments have now been incorporated into the Liste, although doubtfully under the influence of my chapter. I have in mind here the de-listing of P99 and recognition that 0229 was not destroyed, among others. We should all be thankful for INTF’s ongoing work to maintain the Liste, not least so that I can pop in every once in a while to say a few things.
Whatever the case may be for this last point, I’m glad to see that my now-outdated numbers were not far off the mark. I’m similarly pleased to see that some of my comments have now been incorporated into the Liste, although doubtfully under the influence of my chapter. I have in mind here the de-listing of P99 and recognition that 0229 was not destroyed, among others. We should all be thankful for INTF’s ongoing work to maintain the Liste, not least so that I can pop in every once in a while to say a few things.
In conclusion, with the updated catalogue and in view of my own
advice about numbers, I’m happy to update my own guidance regarding how we should answer the
question of how many manuscripts there are of the New Testament: 5500.