Benjamin Merkle's "Exegetical Gems" (A Discussion)-Part XIII-Aorist Indicatives

I'm finally getting back to discussing Merkle's "Exegetical Gems": I will post four more submissions about the book before concluding my discussion of his work. This post deals with chapter 16, which covers aorist imperatives.

Merkle begins by referencing the famed article by Frank Stagg on "The Abused Aorist" (published in JBL 1972). Stagg's goal was to refute suggestions that the aorist verbal form is inherently or necessarily punctiliar (Merkle 71). Rather, any punctiliarity associated with the aorist comes from "the lexical meaning of the verb and the context."

See Easley. https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/07/aorist-verbs-vis-vis-present-tense.html

Merkle illustrates this point by invoking Ephesians 4:20: ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάθετε τὸν Χριστόν

The verb there (ἐμάθετε) is aorist indicative 2nd person plural and it's negated by οὐχ ("you did not learn"). HCSB: "But that is not how you learned about the Messiah"

With this verse in mind, Merkle asks the following questions:

"In using the aorist form, is Paul indicating that this verb should be viewed as a onetime action or a single event such as conversion? Or can the verb communicate a summary statement that would allow an undetermined period of time?" 

Before answering these questions, Merkle supplies an overview of Greek aorist indicatives. This verbal tense-form is the most frequently used in the New Testament: the aorist portrays action as a whole without respect "to its progress or duration." It is the default tense for narratives, and this tense-form occurs with a past reference 80% of the time. To find out more about various uses of the aorist (e.g., ingressive, constative, etc.), see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-greek-aorist-and-its-diverse-uses.html

Getting back to the chapter's focus, Merkle addresses whether ἐμάθετε in his estimation is punctiliar or could allow for an extended period of time. He begins by reviewing and assessing the stance of Ernest Best, who argues that the aorist verb in Ephesians 4:20 is punctiliar: he thinks it refers to the time when the Ephesians became Christians. However, as we read the next verse, two other verbs come into play: ἠκούσατε and ἐδιδάχθητε. Both of these verbs are aorist ("heard" and "were taught"), so how should we construe them? Moreover, what impact do they have on Ephesians 4:20?

Best applies ἠκούσατε to "the time of conversion" and ἐδιδάχθητε to "a past period of teaching" since he reckons the verb does not appropriately fit with the depiction of ongoing action. This commentator concludes: “The two verbs of hearing and being taught may refer to the same event of becoming a Christian looked at from distinct angles." The bottom line is that Best believes the aorist verbs in Ephesians 4:20-21 depict punctiliar rather than ongoing action.

On the other hand, Harold Hoehner insists that ἐμάθετε is inceptive, portraying the action at its initial stage. This would mean that the verb in this context points to "the time of conversion. Gentiles and Jews who had previously opposed God, heard Christ preached and received him. This then is the beginning point of their ‘learning Christ’" (Merkle quoting Hoehner). 

While Hoehner doesn't agree in toto with Best, Merkle appears to be less than satisfied with either explanation. He invokes Wallace, Thielman, and Lincoln to make a case for construing ἐμάθετε as a constative aorist. He quotes Wallace, who writes that a constative aorist "describes the action in summary fashion, without focusing on the beginning or end of the action specifically."

Therefore, Merkle concludes that the aorist in Ephesians 4:20 delineates action as a whole: it is not punctiliar or depicting a one-time action. Another scholar invoked is William J. Larkin. To quote Merkle, "Thus Larkin is certainly correct in writing, 'A point in time event like conversion reads too much into the aorist tense."

The next chapter in his book is about perfect and pluperfect indicatives. 

Greek Information of the Day: Intensive Particles (Quote From Blackwelder)

Note the strong inferential force of dē with the aorist imperative denoting urgency in I Corinthians 6:20, “For you were bought with a price: now [or indeed, really, by all means therefore] glorify God in your body.” Findlay points out that the command to glorify God in, not with, the body, makes it the temple wherein each man serves as priest.[135] “Paul’s argument stands four-square for the dignity of the body as the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit united to the Lord Jesus.”[136]
The most common intensive particle in the New Testament is men. Its original function was “emphatic confirmation of single words, usually the weightiest word in the sentence.”[137] It may be translated surely, indeed, in truth, and the like. Sometimes men has a concessive force (e.g., II Cor. 11:4, “For if indeed he that comes proclaims another Jesus”), and there are instances where it implies contrast. “Its most common usage is to help differentiate the word or clause with which it occurs from that which follows.”

Blackwelder, Boyce W. Light from the Greek New Testament (Kindle Locations 2612-2623). Reformation Publishers. Prestonsburg, KY. Kindle Edition.

1 Peter 1:8 (Parsing, Syntax and Semantics)

Greek: ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε, εἰς ὃν ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες πιστεύοντες δὲ ἀγαλλιᾶτε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ,

"Whom having not seen, you love: in whom also now though you see him not, you believe and, believing, shall rejoice with joy unspeakable and glorified" (1 Peter 1:8 New Advent Translation)

It's an okay translation, but the rendering would be more idiomatic if the NAT constructed the English syntax differently. I believe the translation strives to mirror the original Greek structure/order. Nevertheless, I want to parse some of the words in 1 Peter 1:8 to see what points we can learn from Peter's correspondence with first-century Christians living in Asia Minor.

ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε-We begin with an accusative singular form of the relative pronoun ὅς: translate "Whom" as NAT does or use "him." This pronoun is the direct object of ἀγαπᾶτε and it's apparently the object of the aorist participle (P.J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, page 102): the pronominal term ὃν refers to the Lord Jesus in 1 Peter 1:7.

Contrariwise, I like how the ESV, NWT and other translations add the idea of concession for this part by using "Although" or "Though." That is a good way of handling οὐκ + the aorist active participle. Furthermore, the action delineated by ἰδόντες is likely antecedent to the action delineated by ἀγαπᾶτε.

Why is οὐκ and not μὴ employed with ἰδόντες here? See Achtemeier, page 103. 

Despite not having seen Jesus, these first-century followers of Christ still believed in the Son of God and rejoiced with ineffable joy over their faith in him. In the last part of 1 Peter 1:8, NAT translates "with joy unspeakable and glorified." The Greek is χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ

χαρᾷ is dative singular feminine of χαρά; ἀνεκλαλήτῳ is equally dative singular feminine of ἀνεκλάλητος. Finally, δεδοξασμένῃ is perfect passive participle dative singular feminine of δοξάζω.

ἀνεκλάλητος-"ineffable, unspeakable, inexpressible"

δοξάζω-"glorify, praise, honor" (Mounce)

These Christians could say regarding Jesus, "though we never personally met you, we believe in and love you."



 

The Dative in Colossians 1:16

Greek: ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·

I think it would be fair to say that ἐν + the dative case here could be rendered "in him." As for the dative case itself, I originally learned that it describes how action affects the indirect object: I equally learned that casus dativus/ἡ δοτικὴ πτῶσις is the "to" or "for" case. But while these observations are technically correct, the matter becomes more complex with Greek prepositions and cases.

For instance, context is a factor that one must consider when translating the dative case. Additionally, one must reflect on the usus loquendi of the particular dative being analyzed. What is its particular usage within a determinate context?

For example, ἐν + dative could be locative (maybe locative of sphere) or it could be instrumental. The Old Vine's Dictionary used to describe constructions like Colossians 1:16 that way. Compare 2 Cor. 5:19.

Nevertheless, I prefer to say that Colossians 1:16 is probably a dative of agent while I acknowledge that it could be understood differently. Cf. also Heb. 1:1-3.

Benjamin Merkle's "Exegetical Gems" (A Discussion)-Part XII-Imperfect Indicatives

As we continue with this book discussion, which I will conclude on 7/31/2023, this entry is for chapter 14 of Exegetical Gems. In this unit, Merkle considers imperfect indicatives: his focus text is Galatians 1:13.

We all know Saul of Tarsus' history; he was advancing in the ranks of Judaism as a Pharisee and tried ardently to ravage the ecclesia of God and Christ. Saul's efforts were sincere but he later spoke about his earlier course in 1 Timothy 1:13, calling himself a blasphemer, an insolent man and the foremost of sinners. However, because he was ignorant (lacking the requite knowledge), Jehovah forgave Saul and assigned a ministry to him. He became an apostle to the nations and we know him as Paul. The apostle recounted his prior course to the Galatians: it's interesting how translators render 1:13:

NWT 2013: "Of course, you heard about my conduct formerly in Juʹda·ism, that I kept intensely persecuting the congregation of God and devastating it"

ESV: "For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it."

Byington: "For you have heard about my life back in my Jewish days, that I was extraordinarily active in persecuting and ravaging God’s church"

Why do translators handle Galatians 1:13 in these diverse ways?

Greek (WH): Ἠκούσατε γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ, ὅτι καθ' ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν

The verb ἐπόρθουν is imperfect: the imperfect morphology (tense-form) is imperfective aspect, which means that the verb depicts action as "progressive, internal, or incomplete" (Merkle, page 63). The imperfect "almost always" grammaticalizes past time since it's in the indicative mood. But how does markedness potentially affect imperfect-tensed verbs? Given marked features, the imperfect functions like the present tense does:

Progressive (Luke 4:15), inceptive (John 5:9), iterative (Acts 2:40), and tendential (Acts 18:4) Aktionsarten. The last category known as tendential could apply to Galatians 1:13.

Merkle explains that Greek tends to wield the imperfect in order to communicate attempted action or an action that is tried but not necessarily completed. Several verses in the NT appear to confirm that imperfect indicatives have the ability to portray conative or inchoate action.

I will conclude the last part of this discussion with some prior research I've done on this question:

James Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery classify ἐδίωκον and ἐπόρθουν in Galatians 1:13 as examples of the Greek descriptive imperfect, meaning that the verbs describe what has taken place at some time in the past. However, they note that ἐπόρθουν "could also be interpreted as a tendential imperfect" (Syntax of NT Greek, 91).

Compare the tendential imperfect at Acts 26:11. In the final analysis, I agree that it is a judgment call when translating Galatians 1:13, but it seems to me that Paul did not lay waste or destroy the Christian congregation. Rather, he tried laying waste to God's congregation.

Walter W. Wessel (in Mounce's grammar) states that ἐπόρθουν at Galatians 1:13 is a tendential imperfect, expressing attempted action (BBG, 176). Again, the reasoning is that Paul did not really devastate the congregation of God, but only attempted to do so. Moreover, ἐδίωκον appears to express repeated action in the past (customary action), which explains the NASB's "used to persecute . . . "

Ralph Earle writes: "The imperfect tense would suggest that Paul 'was ravaging' the Church and trying to destroy it, but that he did not completely succeed" (Word Meanings in the NT, 271).

Hans D. Betz, Galatians, page 67--Hermeneia Series:

112 Bauer's tr. uses the imperfect de conatu: "I tried to destroy." So also BDR, § 326. Cf. the same term Gal 1:23; Acts 9:21, in the same context. The term is common as a description of political oppression. See 4 Macc 4:23; 11:4; Philo Flacc. 54; Josephus BJ 4.405; Ant. 10.135. For passages see also LSJ, s.v., and Philippe- H. Menoud, "Le sens du verbe Porqein," in Apophoreta, Festschrift fur E. Haenchen (BZNW 30; Berlin: Topelmann, 1964) 178-86. G reads ἐπολέμουν ("I attacked") instead, perhaps an influence of the Latin expugnabam.

Douglas Moo, Galatians, page 100:

With a ὅτι (hoti, that), Paul elaborates on the specifics of that “former way of life in Judaism.” First, he was “intensely persecuting the church of God and trying to destroy it” (καθ᾿ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν, kath’ hyperbolēn ediōkon tēn ekklēsian tou theou kai eporthoun autēn). Both verbs are in the imperfect tense, the former because it is a durative idea—“I was persecuting”—and the second because it is conative—“I tried to destroy” (Wallace 1996: 551).

The conative use is synonymous with the tendential Aktionsart. Other verses that Merkle cites to support the case for Galatians 1:13 being conative are Matthew 3:14-15; Luke 4:42; Mark 15:23. 

Benjamin Merkle's "Exegetical Gems" (A Discussion)-Part XI-Present Indicatives

Merkle begins chapter 13 with some sage advice that concerns reading the biblical text and the presuppositions that we bring to the Bible. Yet his primary objective is to discuss present indicatives with 1 John 3:6 as the focus.

1 John 3:6 (WH): πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ μένων οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει· πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν.

Four options are presented in the chapter as to how one should understand this passage. The main issue is whether John claims that true Christians are now sinless or can get to that point before this ungodly world ends. However, before addressing these questions, Merkle reviews aspects of the present indicative.

While it would seem that Greek present indicatives signify present action, and they certainly do, there are cases where present indicative verbs refer to past action, future action or action that is omnitemporal/gnomic. Present indicatives are imperfective vis-à-vis their aspect: this means that "the action is portrayed as progressive, internal, or incomplete" (Exegetical Gems, page 58). What ultimately determines how present indicatives function are marked features of discourse such as lexicality, grammar or context/linguistic setting. Here is an example of how markedness affects a present indicative verb's kind-of-action. The functions of these verbs include:

Progressive (1 John 2:8), durative (Luke 13:7), iterative (Acts 7:51), gnomic (Matthew 7:17), instantaneous (John 11:41), historical (Mark 1:40), futuristic (Revelation 1:7).

Getting back to 1 John 3:6, the point of contention is οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει: the verb is present active indicative third person singular of ἁμαρτάνω. See 1 John 5:18. Is John asserting that Christians never sin? Both experience and the very first epistle of John militate against such a view. Compare 1 John 1:8-10; 2:1; 5:16.

Robert Yarbrough reveals why it's not easy to untangle John's exact meaning (1-3 John, page 183 in the BECNT Series):

It is unlikely that John has forgotten what he wrote earlier or changed his mind in the interim. Nor is it advisable to resort to the understandable but unsatisfactory expedient of stressing the alleged continual nature of the sinning John has in mind (e.g., NIV/TNIV: “No one who lives in him keeps on sinning”). This may be true, but “keeps on sinning” (adopted also by ESV) probably overreads the verb tense (cf. Wallace 1996: 524–25; contra Kruse 2000: 120 and many other commentators). Smalley (1984: 159–60) effectively unmasks this misuse of the present tense, along with the dubious proposal that 2:1 in contrast uses aorist forms to connote isolated sinful acts. This is oversubtle. In addition, as Smalley points out, 5:16 uses the present tense to describe specific sinful acts, not chronic transgression. The present tense cannot bear the weight that the translation “keeps on sinning” places on it in 3:6, 9 (cf. Culy 2004: 73; yet note Caragounis 2006: 90: the issue is complicated!).

Daniel Wallace proposes an eschatological reading of 1 John 3:6; in other words, he argues that John is using the present indicative gnomically to state a general truth about followers of Christ, but he's also looking forward to the eschaton when believers will be free of sin. Merkle just relates this proposal without truly supplying much interaction at this point. However, the most likely interpretation of 1 John 3:6, according to Exegetical Gems, is that ἁμαρτάνει is an iterative present which means that the action portrayed by the verb would be continuous, repetitive or customary.

Merkle thinks the verb is iterative based on the epistolary context of 1 John and the immediate context of 1 John 3:6. Christian perfectionism seems to be ruled out and it's doubtful that John's word apply eschatologically, given the context; neither idea fits the setting of John's letter or the surrounding verses of the passage in question. The chapter concludes by appealing to 1 John 3:9 and its grammar, then Merkle references and quotes The First John Reader by S.M. Baugh. I tend to concur with him that the verb in 1 John 3:6 likely functions iteratively rather than gnomically or duratively.

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

Chapter 7 of Exegetical Gems deals with the accusative case, and the scripture on which Merkle focuses is Romans 10:9. Why are there such diverse translations of this verse? We find "Jesus is Lord," "Jesus as Lord" and "the Lord Jesus." Before addressing why the diverse renderings exist, the chapter explains how the accusative case functions in Greek. For instance, Dana-Mantey supply a few ways that accusatives work, and they end with noting that the accusative case frequently answers the question, "how far"?

Wallace observes that the accusative "limits as to quantity" and "is concerned about the extent and the scope of the verb’s action" (Quoted in Merkle, page 30). Some functions of the accusative case are signaling the direct object, double accusative, apposition, measure, manner, respect, and subject of the infinitive. Merkle explains that there are two kinds of double accusative constructions--(1) a personal and impersonal object, see 1 Corinthians 3:2; (2) object and complement. See 1 Timothy 2:6.

Chapter 7 of Exegetical Gems then returns to Romans 10:9 (Nestle 1904): ὅτι ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς ἐν τῷ στόματί σου Κύριον Ἰησοῦν, καὶ πιστεύσῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν, σωθήσῃ·

How should Κύριον Ἰησοῦν be rendered here? The text is an example of the double accusative being used in an object-complement construction where Ἰησοῦν is the object and Κύριον is the complement (page 31). Merkle reasons that if one were to expect "the Lord Jesus," there should be a definite article before Κύριον, but that is not what we find in Romans 10:9.

He concludes that "Jesus is Lord" is preferable to "Jesus as Lord" since "the object-complement construction is semantically equivalent to the subject-predicate nominative construction" (Wallace quoted in Merkle, page 31). Compare 1 Corinthians 12:3; Philippians 2:11.

It's interesting that NWT 2013 opts for "Jesus is Lord."

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

Chapter 6 in Merkle's Exegetical Gems covers the dative case. As should be discerned by now, Merkle likes to open chapters with a scriptural verse that's accompanied by questions. For the dative case chapter, his chosen verse is Ephesians 5:18:

καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι

Question: According to the last part of Ephesians 5:18, πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι, is the holy spirit (Holy Spirit) the content of what Christians should be filled with, "or is the Spirit the means by which Christians are filled?" (page 25).

Before addressing this issue, the chapter reviews how the dative case works. It delimits verbal action by clarifying which person is involved, it makes salient the place where an action happens, the dative points to the means by which an action is done, and it has numerous functions: the datival construction may be the indirect object, there is the so-called dativus commodi and incommodi, the dative of reference/respect, possession, sphere/place, time, means, manner, agency, association, apposition, and direct object.

But what about Ephesians 5:18? Is the dative emphasizing content or means?

Merkle presents both sides of the issue, but he ultimately thinks this verse instantiates the dative of means. I have blogged about this subject and being filled with spirit here: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2022/11/does-jehovah-god-give-holy-spirit.html

The chapter in Exegetical Gems concludes by insisting that Christians are urged to be filled by the spirit (Spirit), and Merkle reckons that the content of such filling is the fullness of the Triune God (page 28). I obviously cannot accept his conclusion, but here's the way I concluded my blog entry for Ephesians 5:18:

As with many other matters, these exegetical issues cannot be settled in a blog post, but there is good reason to answer the question in the title of the post, negatively. While I don't believe that Ephesians 5:18 depicts the Spirit/spirit as the agent doing the filling, it does appear that the agent could be either Christ or his Father, Jehovah based on the texts above. In either case, the ultimate credit for sending the spirit or giving holy spirit to the people of God goes to Jesus' Father (Acts 2:32-33). He does not give the holy spirit sparingly.

Another possibility for Ephesians 5:18 is that it might be a dative of sphere (i.e., "be filled in the spirit"). 

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

Chapters 3 and 4 of Merkle's Exegetical Gems deal with the nominative and vocative cases.

Merkle introduces the chapter about the nominative case by telling a story concerning one of his students whose mother-in-law is a Witnesses of Jehovah. The student apparently posed a question to Merkle as to whether John 1:1 in the NWT is a valid handling of the underlying Greek--the NWT reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Contrast this rendering with the KJV: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Seasoned students of Greek know that the nominative case has multiple functions: a word in the nominative can be the subject of a finite verb; there is the predicate nominative, the appositional nominative, the nominative absolute, and the nominative used for a vocative. When it comes to predicate nominatives such as we find in John 1:1, both the subject term and the predicate nominative occur in the nominative case and these constructions have either a stated or implied equative verb (page 11).

Predicate nominative constructions supply further data about the grammatical subject, but how does one distinguish the subject term from the predicate? Merkle explains how one might go about distinguishing these uses of the nominative case and he returns to John 1:1 in order to report how he answered the student.

The Greek text for John 1:1 states (Byzantine): Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

The articular subject of the sentence is ὁ λόγος while the predicate nominative is θεὸς, an anarthrous noun. Despite being anarthrous, Merkle maintains that it should not be rendered "a god" since this verse supposedly "refers to the full deity of Jesus as God," the one whom Trinitarianism understands to be the "Second Person" of the triune Godhead (page 12).

Merkle provides seven reasons why John 1:1 does not mean Jesus is "a god." Many of the reasons will sound familiar: John was a monotheist, so he could not have considered the Logos to be a god since the apostle believed in solely one God; John evidently alludes to the Genesis account where Almighty God creates the heavens and the earth. Therefore, Jesus qua the Logos must also be the Creator since John is effecting a parallelism between his Gospel and Genesis 1.

The book appeals to "Colwell's Canon" and Daniel Wallace's grammar, both of which purportedly account for the anarthrous noun without sacrificing Christ's "full deity." Wallace asserts that the type of predicate nominative that appears in John 1:1c is "rarely indefinite." He famously reckons that the noun is qualitative. See Merkle, page 12.

Finally, Merkle mentions places in the NWT where anarthrous uses of θεὸς appear, yet they are translated "God" rather than "a god." See John 1:6; 1:12-13; 1:18. He concludes the chapter by another reference to John 20:28, Daniel Wallace, and the Nicene Creed. However, despite the seemingly plausible case made for translating John 1:1c with "God," the fact remains that "a god" is not an impossible rendering and there are reasons besides theological ones why the NWT treats θεὸς differently elsewhere. Moreover, there are good grammatical reasons why NWT says the Word was "a god."

M.J. Harris writes that "a god" at John 1:1c is grammatically admissible but theologically inadmissible. I feel that some of this resistance comes from a failure to understand what Witnesses mean by "a god" but another reason for not accepting "a god" is adherence to the Trinity doctrine. NWT is not wrong; "a god" is a possible translation even if most don't like it. On the other hand, construing θεὸς as a qualitative noun is suspect at best.

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):