Good article. I grew up under Textus Receptus and KJV only influence. Now I find out this is actually a later source.
- Chrysostom specifically noted that 8:1 said "no condemnation", but that verse 4 added "to them that walk not after the flesh".
- Meanwhile, (8:4) is included in all translations. Thus, no major Bible doctrine is corrupted by the translations, when you take context into consideration.
Chrysostom supported the middle reading AND the long reading so he did not support the short reading in the Critical Textes.
Here, he quotes what appears to be the longer version. So, what are we to make of this? That Chrysostom had a manuscript of Romans that included the longer reading seems unlikely, considering how clear he is on the matter when actually preaching on Romans with the book open in front of him.
Nice try : but you [ Luke Wayne of CARM ] have zero evidence to support the claim that Chrysostom not used the Epistle to the Romans.
And even without it; how can you judge his memory because he disagrees with you.
It is clear that Chrysostom not supported the Critical Textes as you do.