Evidence Item - v0.7
Textual variants and the stable recoverable core
E-ANS-TEXTUAL-VARIANTS-STABLE-CORE
Visual overview: Textual variants and the stable recoverable core visual overview
Classification
- Evidence ID
- E-ANS-TEXTUAL-VARIANTS-STABLE-CORE
- Corpus/version
- v0.7
- Stage
- Not explicitly stage-mapped in current stage_flow.
- Category
- Defeater Answers
- Major category
- Scripture / Text
- Sub-category
- Textual Variants
- BF status
- ready
- Scoring label
- Scored row with active Bayes factors
Navigation
Primary Datum
Datum: major New Testament textual variants are real and should be named, but they do not erase the recoverable core of the textual witness.
Scoring / Hypothesis Pressure
| Hypothesis | log10BF | Min | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
H-CANON-TEXTUAL-RELIABILITY | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.03 | Textual criticism marks major variants and supports recoverability of the central textual core, modestly answering variant pressure without denying disputed passages. |
Dependency / Cap Metadata
- dependency_cluster_id
- canon_textual_reliability_defeaters
- dependency_cluster_role
- child
- dependency_cluster
- canon_textual_reliability_defeaters
- dependency_role
- child
- cap_profile
- rival_pressure
- evidence_function
- defeater_answer
- directness
- supporting
Apologetic Note
- label
- Partial answer
- title
- Public footnotes are not textual collapse.
- key point
- The famous variants should be named honestly. But their visibility is part of the manuscript audit trail, and the central apostolic witness does not depend on those disputed passages.
- conversation move
- Start by naming Mark 16, John 7:53-8:11, and the Comma Johanneum. Then ask whether these variants overturn the core proclamation or require honest textual notes.
- caveat
- This answer is partial. It supports recoverability, not inerrancy-by-slogan.
Caveats / Notes
- Source note
- Pair with E-DEF-TEXTUAL-VARIANTS-KEY-PASSAGES. Use textual criticism sources that openly handle Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and the Comma Johanneum.
- Cap notes
- Paired answer to textual-variant pressure. It reduces one support-layer objection and must not become direct Resurrection or Christ-identity evidence.
- Scoring note
- Small capped answer-row credit only. It supports textual/canon reliability, not direct Resurrection or Christ identity.
Citations
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (United Bible Societies, 1994).
- David C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (Cambridge University Press, 2008).
- Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (HarperOne, 2005), as skeptical pressure.
- Daniel B. Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament (Kregel, 2011).
- Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism (SBL Press, 2017).
- Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed., apparatus notes on Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and 1 John 5:7-8.
Recommended Citation
The Signal Evidence Dataset, "Textual variants and the stable recoverable core," Evidence ID: E-ANS-TEXTUAL-VARIANTS-STABLE-CORE, Version 0.7. Accessed [access date]. https://logos-signal.org/evidence/E-ANS-TEXTUAL-VARIANTS-STABLE-CORE/
Machine-Readable Source
This page is generated from the public evidence mirror without recalculating or changing scores.