Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TimBowe · 04-08-2011, 07:00 AM

When we hear people say the New Testament is the best attested book from the ancient world we need to know that more than 90 percent of the New Testament manuscripts date from the eighth century 700 years after the originals were composed. That there are literally thousands of differences that exist throughout the copies. William Lane Craig recently said the estimated textual accuracy of the New Testament is somewhere around 99.5%. That the text of the New Testament has been established in 99 percent accuracy. How can he say something like that with full knowledge that we don't have the originals of the books of the New Testament?

Roller · 04-08-2011, 07:14 AM

I doubt we have many originals for any book from the antiquity. However, I believe Mr. Craig's estimate is an excrement of the male bovine.

Juststeve · 04-08-2011, 07:58 AM

I must confess that I'm not sure what the claim that the textural accuracy of the New Testament is 99.5% even means. 99.5% if what? What is being counted here, errors, words, concepts?

Is this more than the claim that the New Testament as it exists today is very similar to the first copies we still have access to? Is it like my claim that my copy of Moby Dick is very much like the first addition?

I suspect that for the faithful in the pulpit William Lane Craig's claim implies a therefore you can believe what the Bible says, which is why he makes the claim in the first place. To fool the flock. Were that the case however I would never leave the shore for fear of the great white whale.

Steve

Toto · 04-08-2011, 08:47 AM

We had a long thread from 2008 on that 99.5% estimate.

"The N.T. is scientifically 99.5% textually pure."

In post 96, I tracked the sorce

Quote:

Originally Posted by moi

Quote:

Originally Posted by remez

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

In 4 pages of posts, I haven't seen remez actually give a citation for the 99.5% claim. Did I miss that?

regards,

NinJay

Sorry, in this discussion I thought this would have been well known.
here is one..........
Metzger, Bruce M. 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. (or via: amazon.co.uk) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

That partcular statistic does not appear to be in that book.

I have located the source of the "99.5% pure" - here

Quote:

Scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix conclude, "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts that any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book-a form that is 99.5 percent pure."

The quote is actually from Lee Strobel's Case for Christ. But when I checked Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) on Amazon, I found some discussion on p. 474 that made this seem a vast oversimplification.

And I did find this from JPHolding discussing some Islamic critics:

Quote:

The first point for consideration is that the authors tackle the common claim that we are able to restore the text of the NT to an accuracy of 99.5%. I have noted this as a popular argument; the authors complain that they do not find such a statement in the works of Metzger, who is often cited, but the offer of Westcott and Hort (Westcott and Hort asserted [Hunt.IntNT, 13] that the parts of the NT "still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part") offers much the same quantity estimate. (They charge Geisler with inventing the claim for Metzger, which I seriously doubt; though I indeed cannot find the referenced citation in Metzger's older book, I would suspect a mis-citation by Geisler as opposed to pure invention.) ...

In post 99, Jay reproduced an email from Bart Ehrman

Quote:

My note to Dr. Ehrman:

Quote:

Dr Ehrman:

Please forgive the intrusion - I know you're very busy.

I'm peripherally involved in an on-line discussion of issues of Biblical inerrancy.

Part of the discussion turns on the claim that the Biblical books are "inerrant in the original autographs".

One of the supporters of this position has made the claim that modern scholars have reconstructed the original autographs with "99.5% accuracy".

This number is variously attributed to you and to the late Bruce Metzger, always via a secondary source like Norman Geisler.

I have been unable to locate this assertion in (admittedly quick) surveys of either your work or Dr. Metzger's.

In order to clarify the matter, I'd like to ask if this 99.5% number is one you have cited, or if (to your knowledge) it is one that Dr. Metzger considered valid?

As a second question, would it be acceptable to you if I were to post your response, with attribution, in a public forum?

Very Respectfully,

[name deleted]

Dr. Ehrman's response:

Quote:

Thanks for your note. No, to my *knowledge* I have never indicated that we have been able to reconstruct the originals with 99.5% accuracy. That's certainly not something I believe. I don't recall Prof. Metzger ever putting a statistic on our efforts either, though I haven't checked all his writings (In the eight years I studied with him, I don't recall him ever saying such a thing.)

The reason such statistical certainty is impossible is that one would need to have the originals themselves to see whether our reconstruction is 99.5% correct in relation to them. Without the originals as a base text, there is no way to know.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation. Paul writes his letter to the Galatians. The first church (in the region of Galatia) that receives it decides to have someone make a copy. That person is not a trained scribe, just a literate Christian, and he doesn't do a very good job (remember, I'm just speaking *hypothetically* here! But why *couldn't* this be possible?). He leaves out some words, he adds some words, he corrects the grammar, he adds a few thoughts of his own -- these things happen! Suppose, then, that he changes something like 10% of the letter in one way or another. And suppose the original was destroyed in a fire, so that all subsequent copies are made from this one copy that is 10% different from the original. How would we ever know that this is what happened? We'd have absolutely no way to know -- all of our subsequent copies would go back to this one copy, which was off by 10%. So even if we could reconstruct the exemplar from which all surviving copies derive with 99.5% certainty (which I doubt), we would be reconstructing an "original" that was in fact 10% removed from the *real* original.

There are hundreds of such possibilities that could be imagined. We simply don't know what the original looked like -- in some places that we know we don't know (since scholars regularly debate dozens and dozens of places) and probably in places where we don't know (since the oldest form of the text may itself be a change of the original text). People who want to put a statistic to it do so because they are afraid of the implications of not knowing. But fear is not a historical criterion.

Yes, feel free to post my response as you wish. Thanks again for the question. Best wishes,

-- Bart Ehrman

hjalti · 04-08-2011, 09:26 AM

I always like to cite John 21 or Marcion's version of the pauline epistles when stuff like this comes up.

All the manuscript have John 21, yet, it's very plausible that John 21 is a later addition. I'm sure that in any calculations apologists make of the "textual accuracy" they don't include stuff like John 21. And if a whole chapter can be added to the textual tradition, and leave no trace, then what else could've happenede? Most likely we only have an accurate copy of a later edition of John. The apologist might claim that the edition with John 21 is the "original onw", but then he can just say that anything is the "original". Why then not just say that Westcott and Hort is the original and say that the NT is 100% accurate!

And of course we know of a very different version of most of the Pauline epistles, and how many manuscripts do we have of that version: 0. And how does the good ol' apologist claim to know that the version we have was always original and the Marcionite version always not the original.... he doesn't. Then you can have some fun and try to point out some possible interpolations.

Roller · 04-08-2011, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

I always like to cite John 21 or Marcion's version of the pauline epistles when stuff like this comes up.

All the manuscript have John 21, yet, it's very plausible that John 21 is a later addition. I'm sure that in any calculations apologists make of the "textual accuracy" they don't include stuff like John 21. And if a whole chapter can be added to the textual tradition, and leave no trace, then what else could've happenede? Most likely we only have an accurate copy of a later edition of John. The apologist might claim that the edition with John 21 is the "original onw", but then he can just say that anything is the "original". Why then not just say that Westcott and Hort is the original and say that the NT is 100% accurate!

And of course we know of a very different version of most of the Pauline epistles, and how many manuscripts do we have of that version: 0. And how does the good ol' apologist claim to know that the version we have was always original and the Marcionite version always not the original.... he doesn't. Then you can have some fun and try to point out some possible interpolations.

Long ending of gMark suffers from similar problem, no?

Sheshbazzar · 04-08-2011, 06:33 PM

Urup! yer not supposed to detect that WLC and his ilk are pulling these claimed percentages straight out of their asses.

hjalti · 04-08-2011, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Long ending of gMark suffers from similar problem, no?

Right, but in that case we have actual manuscripts that don't contain the ending.

Kapyong · 04-08-2011, 06:52 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

When we hear people say the New Testament is the best attested book from the ancient world

In what sense?

Because there are some documents even older than the NT for which we have the ORIGINAL literally carved in stone (e.g. Behistun inscription, Egyptian tomb inscriptions, the Rosetta Stone, the Moabite Stone) - making them absolutely 100% accurately attested from the original because they ARE the original.
http://visopsys.org/andy/essays/darius-bisitun.html

K.

andrewcriddle · 04-09-2011, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

I always like to cite John 21 or Marcion's version of the pauline epistles when stuff like this comes up.

All the manuscript have John 21, yet, it's very plausible that John 21 is a later addition. I'm sure that in any calculations apologists make of the "textual accuracy" they don't include stuff like John 21. And if a whole chapter can be added to the textual tradition, and leave no trace, then what else could've happenede? Most likely we only have an accurate copy of a later edition of John. The apologist might claim that the edition with John 21 is the "original onw", but then he can just say that anything is the "original". Why then not just say that Westcott and Hort is the original and say that the NT is 100% accurate!

With John 21 one should probably distinguish between two types of claim.

Claim A: A version of John without chapter 21 was in general circulation among early Christians, but this version has been replaced in all surviving manuscripts by our present version. This is IMO unlikely.

Claim B: The main author of John did not write chapter 21. Before general release of the Gospel of John for the use of other early Christians, a disciple of the main author added chapter 21 and made a few other changes. Claim B seems more likely than Claim A, but in this case the version with chapter 21 is in practice pretty much the original, at least it is the only version that the great majority of early 2nd century Christians ever knew about.

Andrew Criddle

04-08-2011, 07:00 AM	#1
TimBowe Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oak Lawn, IL Posts: 1,620	Textual Accuracy Of The New Testament When we hear people say the New Testament is the best attested book from the ancient world we need to know that more than 90 percent of the New Testament manuscripts date from the eighth century 700 years after the originals were composed. That there are literally thousands of differences that exist throughout the copies. William Lane Craig recently said the estimated textual accuracy of the New Testament is somewhere around 99.5%. That the text of the New Testament has been established in 99 percent accuracy. How can he say something like that with full knowledge that we don't have the originals of the books of the New Testament?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2011, 07:14 AM	#2
Roller Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cleveland Posts: 658	I doubt we have many originals for any book from the antiquity. However, I believe Mr. Craig's estimate is an excrement of the male bovine.

04-08-2011, 07:58 AM	#3
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	I must confess that I'm not sure what the claim that the textural accuracy of the New Testament is 99.5% even means. 99.5% if what? What is being counted here, errors, words, concepts? Is this more than the claim that the New Testament as it exists today is very similar to the first copies we still have access to? Is it like my claim that my copy of Moby Dick is very much like the first addition? I suspect that for the faithful in the pulpit William Lane Craig's claim implies a therefore you can believe what the Bible says, which is why he makes the claim in the first place. To fool the flock. Were that the case however I would never leave the shore for fear of the great white whale. Steve

04-08-2011, 09:26 AM	#5
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	I always like to cite John 21 or Marcion's version of the pauline epistles when stuff like this comes up. All the manuscript have John 21, yet, it's very plausible that John 21 is a later addition. I'm sure that in any calculations apologists make of the "textual accuracy" they don't include stuff like John 21. And if a whole chapter can be added to the textual tradition, and leave no trace, then what else could've happenede? Most likely we only have an accurate copy of a later edition of John. The apologist might claim that the edition with John 21 is the "original onw", but then he can just say that anything is the "original". Why then not just say that Westcott and Hort is the original and say that the NT is 100% accurate! And of course we know of a very different version of most of the Pauline epistles, and how many manuscripts do we have of that version: 0. And how does the good ol' apologist claim to know that the version we have was always original and the Marcionite version always not the original.... he doesn't. Then you can have some fun and try to point out some possible interpolations.

04-08-2011, 06:33 PM	#7
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Urup! yer not supposed to detect that WLC and his ilk are pulling these claimed percentages straight out of their asses.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.