>revisions" that somehow render the extant manuscripts unreliable.
RS <<Fine, I'll withdraw that claim, because I admit that I don't have the
evidence to back it up. Fortunately, however, it's not essential or even
relevant to my argument.>>
If it wasn't essential or relevant, why did you bring it up? Of course it was
relevant. You were trying to denigrate the accuracy of the texts. Of course it
was essential. You asserted a falsehood to support the argument. I appreciate
your withdrawing the claim, but that leaves the original proposition
unopposed.