thedistillers

Craig Blomberg.

I often read from apologists similar claims.

I don't want to argue whether this is true or not, or whether or not the NT can be mostly reconstructed. I am interested to know where those precise numbers come from. Are they entirely made up? Or are they determined after running statistical tests? Is there a methology historians use also for other books, which allow them to estimate to what % a book can be reconstructed beyond a reasonable doubt?

How come we can attribute such % when we don't have the originals, or the copy of the originals, or the copy of the copy of the originals, etc? Shouldn't there be an important margin of error, which can't lead us to conclude anything beyond reasonable doubt?

Toto

We went through a lot of numbers in this thread - "The N.T. is scientifically 99.5% textually pure." . I think you will find what you need there if you go through it.

thedistillers

Thanks. It seems to me those discussions, like the recent discussion on Ehrman, are not very productive.

It seems those numbers are entirely made up. I have not seen anyone presenting a methodology that allow us to estimate any % beyond any reasonable doubt.

andrewcriddle

I don't think the numbers are made up although you are probably right to regard reasonable doubt as the wrong term.

The figures seem to correspond more or less to the amount of disagreement/agreement among modern critical editions from Tregelles onward.

The claim might be better put. "The variations in reading between early manuscripts, versions and quotation of the NT only cause any real uncertainty about the archetype (the no longer existing manuscript fom which all existing copies descend) in 1-3 % of the text."

The thread to which Toto linked contained some vigorous debate about how far the archetype can be taken as representing the original, but that is maybe another issue.

Andrew Criddle