Benjamin Merkle's "Exegetical Gems" (A Discussion)-Part II

Chapter 2 in Exegetical Gems is about textual criticism or the science of trying to establish "which textual variant is most likely the original reading" (page 6). Merkle uses Romans 5:1 as a test case for textual criticism: some Greek texts have ἔχωμεν but a number of other texts contain the variant ἔχομεν. The first form is subjunctive whereas the latter form is indicative. Which reading is preferable? How should the issue be sorted out? 

Merkle reports that we have approximately 6,000 Greek MSS at our disposal today that range from 125 CE to the sixteenth century (page 6). In order to know the most likely reading of the original MSS, one must look at both the external and internal evidence. The external evidence includes factors like a manuscript's age (usually older texts are thought to be less prone to errors), the number of MSS that contain a certain reading (i.e., variant), and the number of MS families that attest to a variant (e.g., the Byzantine or Alexandrian family of MSS). 

On the other hand, internal evidence refers to a writer's style and theology. For instance, is the writing contained in the MS reflective of Paul or Peter's style of writing? Whose theology does it seem to reflect? Another factor is which reading/variant best accounts for how the other variants arose. There is a notable debate about how one should read John 1:18: is "only-begotten God/god" the original reading or "only-begotten Son"? Which reading best explains how the other arose?

Two other forms of internal evidence are what textual critics refer to as the lectio difficilior (the more difficult reading) and the lectio brevior (the shorter reading). Textual critics normally think it is unlikely that a scribe changed a reading from an easier to harder lectio or from a longer to a shorter lectio; therefore, the harder and shorter readings usually are thought to be the original lectiones. How do these factors apply to Romans 5:1?

Greek Text (NA28): Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

The operative variant in this case is ἔχωμεν, which WH prefers and this is what Stanley Porter likes as well, so why do textual critics and NA28 opt for ἔχομεν? The external evidence favors ἔχωμεν since the earliest and some excellent MSS contain the reading and so do various textual families; nevertheless, the indicative seems less probable from the standpoint of internal evidence. While the (hortatory) subjunctive form of the verb is difficult, most consider it too difficult to be genuine. Moreover, the context of Romans 5:1 and Pauline theology may favor the indicative form of the verb.

Regardless of whether a textual critic or Bible translator chooses the subjunctive or indicative form, Merkle insists that the difference is slight, and I think the important lesson here is what difference it can make to know Greek and reflect on issues like which reading is more original or more likely to be original. So I will close with the opinion of one famous commentator.

Joseph Fitzmyer (Anchor Bible Commentary on Romans, page 395):