Daniel Wallace quoted by Elijah Hixson:
"we are confident that in this place, it's one of these two [or rarely, three] options, but we're not completely sure which one. It can often be as simple as "Did Luke use one word for 'and' or a different word for 'and' here?"
What a diversion. If we are allowing that the Textus Receptus and Byzantine Greek texts are alternatives to the Westcott-Hort recension, Critical Text editions, then we have about 40 full verses that are omitted in the Critical Text and definitely hundreds of major variants, thousands overall (and sometimes one word or one letter, as in 1 Timothy 3:16, can be a huge difference, affecting fundamental Christology).
One trick that began with Fenton Hort was to assume the Critical Text as the true text and then claim 99.5% consistency, simply ignoring the huge differences from the historic TR bibles to the Vaticanus-primacy text..
The idea was to assume that e.g. the Mark ending is known to be not scripture, after all it is given an A in the A-B-C-D-E probability system! Who cares about 1600+ Greek manuscripts and many thousands of Latin and many hundreds of Syriac, 99.9% of the mss. in those languages, and Ante-Nicene ECW references. It is "certain" that the 12 verses are not scripture... it is claimed. Circularity, the jewel.
Why do Daniel Wallace and/or Elijah Hixson try to point us to mini-differences, such as transposition variants?
That type of "look, over here at the tiny differences" shell game is Critical Text apologetics that is out of context. Which is a far greater problem than the quibbles about the Daniel Wallace quote possibly being used without full context.
Btw, I have never used the Wallace quote simply because it is better to actually explain the probability system mentality of modern scientific textual criticism.
Including the 100+ verses that have no support, as verses, anywhere in the textual manuscripts, the point made by the paper by Maurice Robinson.