In like manner to a prior post, what are the most potent objections to the critical text/ Multiple-Version onlyist position? Certainly, there may be objections in general, but which objections serve as defeaters? That is, what objections either rebut their claims to the point of crippling the whole system which can only be maintained at the expense of being reasonable or undercut their position to the point of disintegration or collapse? If the goal is to locate God’s divine inspired words, I believe some such objections may be:
1.) Engaging in the enterprise of textual criticism without allowing one’s Christian presuppositions to guide the process. Modern textual criticism done by Christians is not a distinctly Christian enterprise. As such it is subject to the same rebutting and undercutting defeaters leveled against atheism, naturalism, and secularism [e.g., diminishing probabilities, provinciality of abduction, no objective standard for good, ungrounded epistemological standards, etc.].
2.) Operating as if there was not/is not a standard sacred Greek and Hebrew which the believing community has affirmed over the centuries and using that standard text as the starting point for supposed further developments. Christian textual critics should have a bias toward the text used by God’s people. A-biblical Archimedean Points are inherently self-refuting, self-defeating.