[Mad Dawg]

Finally, John 20:28 could have been altered, as so many have been, for doctrinal purposes (see 1 Tim 3:16 for example). We really can't be sure what the first century original John 20:28 said since the oldest copy of John 20 is a third century (c. 250 AD)  manuscript (P⁵), the result of about 150 years of freelance handcopying.

Doesn't this sort of objection necessitate a kind of theological agnosticism -- or require a faith in 'sacred tradition'? We can criticize any text and derogate any authority this way, can't we?

[kosta50]

Doesn't this sort of objection necessitate a kind of theological agnosticism -- or require a faith in 'sacred tradition'? We can criticize any text and derogate any authority this way, can't we?

It's not without a precedent, is it? I gave you several examples of just such alterations in #74.