The manuscript evidence for the passage is overwhelming -- no textual basis for removal

The only argument for removal is 'inconsistency with Paul's thought elsewhere' -- a subjective criterion. Craig Keener says 'the textual basis for removing this passage is impossibly weak.' Neither Nestle-Aland nor UBS texts note any manuscripts omitting it. Bruce Metzger's textual commentary has no discussion of it as a problem. Keener: 'It is not indeed a textual problem but a question of removing a difficult passage.' Mike compares this to trying to remove Tom Bombadil from Lord of the Rings because it feels inconsistent.