{
  "article": "<section class=\"plain-english-door\" aria-label=\"Introduction\">\n  <p class=\"plain-english-door__kicker\">Answer packet</p>\n  <h3>Variants are real; they do not mean the textual core vanished.</h3>\n  <p class=\"plain-english-door__lead\">Textual variants in the New Testament should be named plainly. Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and the Comma Johanneum are not small footnotes. But honest textual criticism also shows that the central apostolic proclamation is not hanging on those disputed passages. This row gives a small answer to textual-variant pressure without pretending the pressure disappears.</p>\n</section>\n\n<div class=\"detail-section-heading\">Observation</div>\n<div class=\"detail-article-block\">\n<p><strong>The textual-variant objection is strongest when Christians hide the famous examples.</strong> The longer ending of Mark, the woman caught in adultery, and the Comma Johanneum should be named directly. Public trust is not helped by pretending they are not disputed.</p>\n<p>The answer is that variants are part of a manuscript audit trail. Most variants are minor; the meaningful and viable subset is smaller; and the disputed famous passages are visible precisely because textual criticism exposes them. The recoverable core of the New Testament witness does not depend on those passages.</p>\n</div>\n\n<div class=\"detail-section-heading\">What This Answers</div>\n<div class=\"detail-article-block\">\n<ul>\n<li>It answers the claim that variants make the New Testament text unrecoverable.</li>\n<li>It answers panic from raw variant counts by distinguishing trivial, meaningful, viable, and doctrine-relevant variants.</li>\n<li>It supports public inspectability: uncertainty is marked, not hidden.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>\n\n<div class=\"detail-section-heading\">What This Does Not Answer</div>\n<div class=\"detail-article-block\">\n<ul>\n<li>It does not prove inspiration.</li>\n<li>It does not prove the Resurrection or Christ identity directly.</li>\n<li>It does not deny that some passages are textually disputed.</li>\n<li>It does not erase the negative pressure row; it only gives a partial answer.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>\n\n<div class=\"detail-section-heading\">Bayesian Meaning</div>\n<div class=\"detail-article-block\">\n<p>This is a paired <code>defeater_answer</code> row for <code>E-DEF-TEXTUAL-VARIANTS-KEY-PASSAGES</code>. It gives a small capped answer to textual-variant pressure: <strong>H-CANON-TEXTUAL-RELIABILITY: +0.02 log10BF</strong>. It is not direct Resurrection evidence and not direct Christ-identity evidence.</p>\n</div>\n\n<div class=\"detail-section-heading\">Caveats</div>\n<div class=\"detail-article-block\">\n<ul>\n<li>Keep the negative textual-variants row visible.</li>\n<li>Do not hide Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, or the Comma Johanneum.</li>\n<li>Do not claim that every wording detail is equally certain.</li>\n<li>Do not treat textual recoverability as proof of every theological claim.</li>\n</ul>\n</div>",
  "axioms": [
    "A6",
    "A7"
  ],
  "bayes_factors": {
    "H-CANON-TEXTUAL-RELIABILITY": {
      "log10BF": 0.02,
      "bf_min": 0.01,
      "bf_max": 0.03,
      "rationale": "Textual criticism marks major variants and supports recoverability of the central textual core, modestly answering variant pressure without denying disputed passages."
    }
  },
  "bf_status": "ready",
  "category": "Defeater Answers",
  "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."
  ],
  "counts_in_cache": true,
  "evidence_id": "E-ANS-TEXTUAL-VARIANTS-STABLE-CORE",
  "visual_asset": {
    "src": "assets/evidence-viewer/evidence-images/textual_variants_and_the_stable_core.png",
    "title": "Textual variants and the stable recoverable core visual overview",
    "alt": "AI-generated comparative visualization for Textual variants and the stable recoverable core. Illustrative only, not experimental data.",
    "caption": "AI-generated conceptual / comparative visualization ? illustrative only, not experimental data. Presented inside a Christian evidence map. Partial answer / comparative pressure; not standalone proof.",
    "width": 1448,
    "height": 1086
  },
  "hypothesis_ref": [
    "H-CANON-TEXTUAL-RELIABILITY"
  ],
  "last_updated": "2026-05-28T00:00:00Z",
  "major_category": "Scripture / Text",
  "metadata": {
    "answer_status": "partial_answer",
    "canonical_anchor": "E-DEF-TEXTUAL-VARIANTS-KEY-PASSAGES",
    "cap_eligible": true,
    "cap_exempt_reason": null,
    "cap_family": "defeater_rival_pressure",
    "cap_notes": "Paired answer to textual-variant pressure. It reduces one support-layer objection and must not become direct Resurrection or Christ-identity evidence.",
    "cap_profile": "rival_pressure",
    "category": "Defeater Answers",
    "counts_as_direct_christ_identity": false,
    "counts_as_direct_logos_synthesis": false,
    "counts_as_direct_resurrection": false,
    "defeater_family": "textual_variants",
    "defeater_target": [
      "H-CANON-TEXTUAL-RELIABILITY"
    ],
    "dependency_cluster": "canon_textual_reliability_defeaters",
    "dependency_cluster_id": "canon_textual_reliability_defeaters",
    "dependency_cluster_label": "Gospel differences and textual/canon objections",
    "dependency_cluster_role": "child",
    "dependency_role": "child",
    "dependency_weight_class": "semi_independent",
    "directness": "supporting",
    "evidence_function": "defeater_answer",
    "governance_reviewed": "2026-05-28",
    "last_updated": "2026-05-28",
    "major_category": "Scripture / Text",
    "paired_defeater": "E-DEF-TEXTUAL-VARIANTS-KEY-PASSAGES",
    "rev": 1,
    "scoring_note": "Small capped answer-row credit only. It supports textual/canon reliability, not direct Resurrection or Christ identity.",
    "source_status": "source_review_pending",
    "sub_category": "Textual Variants"
  },
  "positive_apologetic": {
    "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."
  },
  "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.",
  "status": "active",
  "sub_category": "Textual Variants",
  "summary": "Datum: major New Testament textual variants are real and should be named, but they do not erase the recoverable core of the textual witness.",
  "tags": [
    "Defeater-Answer",
    "Textual-Variants",
    "Canon",
    "Scored"
  ],
  "tilt": "positive",
  "title": "Textual variants and the stable recoverable core",
  "type": "atomic"
}