Is NT criticism any different from textual criticism of secular texts?
In principle, not at all [See for example McGn.TCLI, 55-91]: And this shall give us some interesting moments, for we shall at certain points herein note that statements made by some regarding the text of the NT would be regarded as odd in the circles of “secular” textual criticism. Using textual criticism, how much of the NT can we recover and designate as authentic? The popular idea is that textual criticism has been able to recover the NT text with 99% accuracy. That’s a total of three pages in your average Bible without study notes being in question. Textual critics 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” of the NT – which would be less than a third of a page. Generally, however, it seems that very few scholars in this field are willing to be so bold. Most scholars in this field seem to settle for vague phrases, ranging from speaking of the “retreating mirage” of the original text
