One of the rules of thumb of modern textual criticism, is that a scribe is more likely to insert than omit. This rule of thumb needs to be reexamined.
1. Methodological Considerations
The rule of thumb does not appear to have been derived empirically. Instead, the rule of thumb seems to have a popular solution to the dilemma that often faces textual critics: did document 1 add or did document 2 omit?
The supportive reasoning is usually that scribes would have been timid to leave anything (even marginal notes) out, because they would not want to subtract from the Holy Writ. Furthermore, there are occasional examples that can be identified in which a scribe apparently inadvertently copied a marginal note into the text.
Another supportive reasoning is that scribes are more likely to explain something hard than to omit the explanation of something simple. Thus, this reasoning argues that scribes are more likely to provide an explanation than to omit it.
Neither of these tenets, however, appears to be readily testable. The warning against subtracting from Scripture is paired with a warning about adding to Scripture. Furthermore, a hurried scribe might omit an explanation that seemed obvious to the scribe. Thus, neither supporting reasoning is motivationally compelling. Neither supporting reasoning is the result of a method of analysis designed to figure out what errors actually do occur, in order to decide what default rule to use in questionable cases.
2. Empirical Considerations
The known subtractions/omissions heavily favor subtractions as the default error. There are few cases that we can identify where a “sleepy scribe” (as the 19th century collators called them) had inadvertently copied in a marginal note. On the other hand, homoioteleuton is a frequent scribal error.
On top of that, it is clear that transcribing texts by hand was tedious. Taking shortcuts rather than long cuts is a well documented observation of human nature.
Finally, especially early on, marginal material was clearly distinguishable, falling outside the relatively neat columns of letters, and varying in size and hand from the original. In some cases there may have been troubles to distinguish between corrections and commentary, but the unusual situation is more likely to have made the scribe pay attention than doze off.
In view of those two considerations, the present author takes a different default position, namely that all things being equal, it is more likely a careless scribe omitted than that a careless scribe inserted material.
This different default position happens to change the preferred reading of many passages from the modern critical text back to the Textus Receptus, restoring (in this author’s opinion) the original fullness of the text.
May God Greatly be Praised,
-Turretinfan
7 responses to “Methodological/Empirical Criticism of Textual Criticism”
I would respond to the Muslims to give religious equality to Christians in all Muslim countries, then we’ll have something to talk about.
I would respond to the Muslims to give religious equality to Christians in all Muslim countries, then we’ll have something to talk about.
Religious equality?Since when has the notion of religious equality been Orthodox, and what does that have to do with the post?
Religious equality?Since when has the notion of religious equality been Orthodox, and what does that have to do with the post?
He must have misread the title as Muslim Imperialism Criticism.
He must have misread the title as Muslim Imperialism Criticism.
The wind began to change quite a while ago now on this important and terribly flawed “canon”.
Greenlee offered one large restriction (half of variants):
(b) the shorter reading is generally preferable if an intentional change has been made. The reason is that scribes at times made intentional additions to clarify a passage, but rarely made an intentional omission…
(c) The longer reading is often preferable if an unintentional change has been made. The reason is that scribes were more likely to omit a word or a phrase accidentally than to add accidentally.
Greenlee, Introduction to NT TC (1983, Eerdmans)
___________________________________
Royse, after a deep study of scribal habits and singular readings, went much further:
“…These considerations suggest, therefore,
that a Canon of Transcriptional Probability could be formulated as follows:
In general the longer reading is to be preferred, except where:
a) the longer reading appears, on external grounds, to be late; 126 or,
b) the longer reading may have arisen from harmonization to the immediate context, to parallels, or to general usage, or
c) the longer reading may have arisen from an attempt at grammatical improvement.
The frequency of omissions by scribal leaps and of omissions of certain inessential words such as pronouns must be kept in mind, and when such omissions may have occurred the longer reading should be viewed as even more likely.
Such a canon would, of course, be only one tool among many for investgating the NT text. And deciding whether one of the three listed types of exceptions has occurred would often be difficult.
This is all we should expect. As Hort and others have noted, and as we have seen amply confirmed in our six papyri, the sorts of errors made by scribes vary enormously. Hence, no simple rule will suffice for all or even most variations. What we can hope for, though, are guidelines that are based on the evidence of the documents. And with the judicious use of such guidelines may come insights into the history of the text and, from time to time, revisions of what would otherwise be accepted as the NT text.”
Royse, Scribal habits …, (Brill, 2008) p. 735 fwd (see also footnotes)
__________________________________
Peace
Nazaroo