So the NA & UBS text read: ωστε ουκετι ει δουλος αλλα υιος ει δε υιος και κληρονομος δια θεου "so that you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then also an heir through God." The variant I am struggling with is "... an heir of God through Christ" κληρονομος θεου δια χριστου The variant makes good theological sense. The dia with the genitive implies the intermediate agent. And we are told that believers are heirs of God and co heirs with Christ in other places in Paul. So this construction seems strained. But then that makes it the less difficult reading. The more difficult reading would be to make God the intermediate agent with the dia rather than the ultimate agent. So internal evidence, as always, is self conflicting. The external evidence is tricky. The NA/UBS reading has P46 א A B C 33 1739 lat bo CL. Mostly Alexandrian with a bit of western in there as well. The variant (which I prefer theologically) has Aleph2 Family330manuscripts C3 D 0278 Byz ar sy. So this has testimony from all 3 text types, though the Alexandrian is quite weak. In addition there are other variants that seem to correct the "through God" reading to "because of God" (changing "God" from genitive to accusative). There are other minor variants that correspond with the variant above like "heirs of God through Jesus Christ" or "heirs through Christ". These have decent Alexandrian support along with the Western and Byzantine. If you want to see a more detailed MSS list, use wwww.laparola.net/greco/ Here is my major struggle. I want to say that the Byzantine variant is the better reading, largely because of geographical diversity (yay Sturz). However, I am having a hard time explaining how the Alexandrian "heirs through God" arose. How do you go from the Byz reading to the Alexandrian one? ΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΟΣΘΥΔΙΑΙΥ to ΚΛΗΡΟΝΟΜΟΣΔΙΘΥ? (Forgive the incorrect uncial font, since there is no uncial font here).