Alfred Persson
Member
Alfred Persson,
Greetings - I am new to this board, but thought I would reply. The variant you note (i.e. 'e' versus 'on') is duly foot-noted in the bible I consult. I could even grant that your reading may be preferable. That being the case, to what extent does one critical judgement that is conceded at the outset to be one reading with variants acknowledged wholly discredit 'textual criticism'. Moreover, how does the existence of textual variants (of which this is just one example of many) square with 'providential preservation'?
As for preferring the older MMS evidence over the more recent, at times scholarship does not adhere to this as a hard-and-fast rule. As you may be aware, it is not axiomatic as in some cases (e.g. variants in Bezae) are eschewed despite the MSS being 'early'.
Take care,
TFV
One example of unsoundness, by such a wide swath of scholars in agreement, should cause the critically minded to review every claim they make, every assumption leading to those claims.
When that is accomplished, the entire becomes suspect.
Your last serves my point, there are no absolute facts, from the dating, to the scope of usage, the alleged agendas of the copyists, its all sheer speculation.
Subjective. Whatever rings true ends up being chosen, nothing factual actually leads to the choice, or rules it out.