I do not consider him an opponent. I wanted to know how likely it was his intepretation of the mark in the margain was correct. Since I have no expertise in textual critism I have no idea of the technical merits of his intepretation as opposed to textual critics that think the verse genuine. So I decided to see if he had an interest in the issue outside of his technical analysis that might have biased him. And I found he not only has taken sides long ago, but was heavily invested in the side his technical critism favored. I prefer expert witnesses without a dog in the fight.
“And I found he not only has taken sides long ago, but was heavily invested in the side his technical critism favored. I prefer expert witnesses without a dog in the fight.”
Actually, regardless of publishing dates of the author’s various works, it is actually a chicken versus the egg question as to whether the author’s “bias” or his analysis of scripture - which caused disagreement with traditional translations/interpretations - came first. I am sure the one scriptural reference this article proceeds from is not a singular foundation of or singular scriptural disagreement he has formed.
I am NOT defending the author’s position.
I am only challenging your view that all the author had was a bias that preceded any scriptural, textual analysis and critique he did. Yet, that process might have in fact led, in his view, to his “bias”. He would not be the first scholar whose route to disagreement with traditional views took that course. Again, I say that not to validate the view of the author. Interpreting scripture in error is as old as Christianity.