The New Testament and textual criticism – “the shorter reading is preferred” (Part 2)

In my last post (link), I delved into the “venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior” (the shorter reading is the more probable reading); pointing out that, “many of the assumptions/criteria used support the lectio brevior potior canon/rule are problematic.” I then provided lengthy quotes from two scholars—Harry Sturz and George Kilpatrick—who maintained that scribes more often than not shortened the texts they were copying, rather than adding. In other words, it is the longer reading that ‘is the more probable’, not the shorter.

In this post, I will focus primarily on a New Testament textual critic who has spent decades comparing the oldest extant NT manuscripts—James R. Royse, Ph.D. (1969) in Philosophy, University of Chicago, Th.D. (1981) in Biblical Studies, Graduate Theological Union. The following quotes will be from his magnum opus, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (Brill, 2007, pb. SBL, 2010 – entire book can be read online HERE). This massive tome (1,051 pages), “is based on a dissertation of the same title submitted to the faculty of the Graduate Theological Union in 1981 for the degree of Th.D.” (p. XIII). From the first chapter we read:

One of the crucial principles of Hort’s masterly survey of the materials methodology, and results of New Testament textual criticism is: “Knowledge of documents should precede final judgement upon readings.” As Hort’s own comments make clear, knowledge of the sorts of errors that a particular scribe tended to make, and of his overall method and accuracy of copying, is an essential portion of this “knowledge of documents.” Accordingly, one finds in Hort’s work and in the works of other critics various assertions concerning the copying habits of scribes of significant manuscripts. (p.1)

Concerning these “various assertions”, Royse then writes:

 … as we shall see in detail in chapters 4–9, numerous scholars have attempted to characterize the habits of the scribes of the most important of the papyri. Unfortunately, however, the comments found in the works of Hort, von Soden, and others, appear usually to be based upon data that are incomplete and that have not been selected by means of a carefully formulated and implemented methodology. One consequence is that critics differ ab initio on the value to be ascribed to the various manuscripts, and even where they agree it is not clear what the evidence supporting the common position really is.

This lack of evidence is seen most clearly when one moves to the next level of generalization, namely, from the habits of the scribes of particular manuscripts to the determination of the habits of scribes in general. These general habits are presumably discovered, of course, on the basis of a detailed knowledge of the specific habits attributed to the scribes of some sample of the extant manuscripts. The general habits serve, then, as the basis of our knowledge of transcriptional probability (and improbability): what sorts of alterations scribes are likely (or unlikely) to have made in the text. Finally, this knowledge permits us to formulate the several canons of internal evidence, which are found in various textbooks and prolegomena, and which are an essential tool in the critic’s task of reconstructing the history of the text of the New Testament.

Regrettably, though, most presentations of these canons are not—as far as one can tell from the exposition—based on the actual knowledge of documents of which Hort speaks, but rather appear to rest upon a priori reflections on how scribes behaved (or must have behaved). And when particular readings are cited—presumably as evidence—the evaluation of one reading as the original and another as arising by a scribal error is frequently suspect from a methodological point of view, and so one is left wondering why the direction of scribal error may not have been other than is stated. (pp. 3, 4 – bold emphasis mine)

Royse’s observation that the canons presented by many textual critics are not “based on the actual knowledge” of the documents under consideration, but rather, “rest upon a priori reflections on how scribes behaved” is telling. Further, when many textual critics actually cite “particular readings” their “evaluation of one reading as the original and another as arising by a scribal error is frequently suspect from a methodological point of view.”

Royse then adds:

It would, of course, be beyond the scope of the present study to deal with all the secondary literature that makes assertions, justified or not, concerning the habits of scribes. But a few references may indicate that the appropriate sort of evidence for such assertions is often lacking, and that various problems may arise as a consequence in the evaluation of particular variants.

For instance, one of the most detailed and influential statements of the canons of textual criticism has been that of Griesbach. If we look at, say, his first canon, that of lectio brevior potior (“the shorter reading is to be preferred”), we will gain the impression that Griesbach had the wideranging knowledge of documents necessary to delineate precisely when scribes were likely to add and when, as exceptions, they were likely to omit. We may, of course, be sure that Griesbach did have such knowledge, and may well regard his distillation of this knowledge into various rules as having sound authority. Nevertheless, it is significant that no specific reading of a manuscript is cited as a foundation for this first canon. And in fact, no specific reading of a manuscript is cited anywhere within Griesbach’s Prolegomena, Sectio III, which is titled: “Conspectus potiorum observationum criticarum et regularum, ad quas nostrum de discrepantibus lectionibus judicium conformavimus.”* The fact that Griesbach does not even attempt to present evidence for his statements about how scribes copied makes it difficult (if not impossible) for later students to know what exactly he would have considered as evidence, to check the evidence upon which his statements rest, or to revise his statements in the light of the new evidence provided by subsequent manuscript discoveries. (pp. 4, 5 – bold emphasis mine)

[*Novum Testamentum Graece 1:lxiii–lxxxii: “Survey of the more important critical observations and rules, by which we have formed our judgment about variant readings.”]

Royse moves from Griesbach to Metzger, writing the following:

As a result of the lack of clear evidence on scribal habits, many decisions about specific textual problems appear arbitrary and subjective. This judgment even applies to the Textual Commentary published by Metzger as the explanation and justification of the various decisions made in the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. The fact that the editors have recorded their reasons for their decisions on the most important variations permits us to follow their views throughout the text, and to compare their arguments at one place with those at another. Although it is clear that the editors do have a wide knowledge of documents and have utilized this knowledge in a careful manner, the assertions made about scribal habits remain without explicit foundation. (pp. 5, 6 – bold emphasis mine)

Royse then drops the following ‘bombshell’:

It is remarkable that critics and editors seem often not even to appreciate that evidence is lacking in the matter of scribal habits.

Royse proceeds to remedy what Griesbach, Tischendorf, Hort, von Soden, Metzger and so many other textual critics have woefully neglected. In pages 103-704 he provides “explicit foundation[s]” for his assertions concerning the “scribal habits” of those folk who wrote six of the oldest and most extensive manuscripts of the extant papyri: P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and P75.

I shall now move on to one of Royse’s major assessments: the scribal habits of the writers of P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and P75 demonstrates that more often than not it is the longer reading that is to be preferred, rather than the shorter. In chapter 10 (Shorter Reading?), he shares some of his thoughts concerning the canon/rule lectio brevior potior. Note the following:

One of the most venerable canons of textual criticism is that the shorter reading is generally to be preferred. This principle and some possible applications of it have already been examined briefly in chapter 1, but the discovery that all six of the papyri analyzed here omit more often than they add makes it important to return to this principle, and to ask how earlier scholars could have formulated a rule that so clearly—as it turns out—goes against the scribal activity evidenced in our papyri. (p. 705)

After citing Griesbach’s first canon¹, he then writes:

The principle of preferring the shorter reading has been utilized most influentially within the field of New Testament textual criticism by Westcott and Hort…(p. 705)

In pages 706-708 he provides clear examples of Westcott and Hort’s almost slavish application of the “principle of preferring the shorter reading.” He moves on to examples from Metzger and the Alands², after which he concludes:

The frequency with which scholars such as Hort and Metzger appeal to the preference for the shorter reading is doubtless in part due to the ease and objectivity of its application. Whether a particular reading fits the style of the author, is grammatically smoother, follows Semitic idiom, or is theologically more acceptable, is usually very much a matter of debate, and reaching any decision on such issues would involve the weighing of a great deal of evidence. But deciding whether one reading is shorter than another is, at least usually, a perfectly straightforward task. It is therefore convenient to reduce textual questions to questions of length, and then to decide accordingly. (p. 711)

Though the canon/rule lectio brevior potior has been, and still is, embraced by the vast majority of NT textual critics, Royse in pages 714-717 provides excerpts from a few scholars who, prior to the publication of his book, found significant problems with the maxim—e.g. Scrivener, Kilpatrick, A.C. Clark, Elliott, and Colwell. He follows those selections with:

And, whatever may be the status of the specific theories put forward by Clark (and others), the fact is that the six papyri studied here all demonstrate a tendency to shorten the text. Often the omissions appear to be accidental, just as many of the additions may have arisen by accidental assimilation to the context, parallel passages, or similar constructions. Many of the accidental omissions involve scribal leaps, but many have no such cause. Sometimes the omission may have been deliberate. But in any case the direction is clearly from a longer text to a shorter text. (pp. 717, 718 – bold emphasis mine)

A bit later we read:

And, of course, these scribes differ greatly among themselves with respect to other patterns of error. Indeed, precisely because the six scribes differ in so many ways, are copying different portions of the New Testament, and are utilizing texts of different sorts, it would seem that their common habit of shortening the text is a general habit, and not an anomalous feature of one or two particular scribes. To be sure, one could contend that all six scribes are anomalous, but, given their many differences, such a view would seem highly implausible, and to be based on no evidence. Naturally, we might eventually discover other early papyri that would force us to revise these conclusions, but we have to work with the available evidence. And there seems in fact to be no reason to suppose that we just happened to have found manuscripts from the six scribes of antiquity who tended to shorten their text. On the contrary, it would seem that these six manuscripts should represent a fair sample (in so far as any sample of six could be fair) of the scribal activity involved in the copying of the New Testament in Egypt in the years from, say, 175 to 300. (pp. 719, 720 – bold emphasis mine)

Shall end here for now. Hope interested folk will take the time to explore Royse’s book for themselves..

Grace and peace,

David

Notes:

1.  Full canon provided in my previous post (link).

2.  Same examples provided in previous post