Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri by James Royse

Status
Not open for further replies.

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Junior
Hi brothers,
Since textual criticism is always a hot topic around here, I though I would share an except from Royse where he concludes, after a careful analysis of six ancient papyri, that the canon of textual criticism that the shorter reading is better (lectio brevior potior) is contrary to the evidence.
Royse writes, "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 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. A few remarks may serve to place the statement of the principle and its application within a historical context."
From James Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (Leiden: Brill, 2008)
My idea is sharing this is that I think a lot of our previous discussions on textual criticism have gotten bogged down in specious arguments, but at the end of the day, at least as far as the canons of textual criticism are concerned, the fact of the matter is that they are the rationalistic inventions of 19th century rationalists, with no basis in empirical data. And so it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the Majority Text or Received Text, which have not employed these flawed canons, are closer to the original text.
 
Hi brothers,
Since textual criticism is always a hot topic around here, I though I would share an except from Royse where he concludes, after a careful analysis of six ancient papyri, that the canon of textual criticism that the shorter reading is better (lectio brevior potior) is contrary to the evidence.
Royse writes, "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 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. A few remarks may serve to place the statement of the principle and its application within a historical context."
From James Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (Leiden: Brill, 2008)
My idea is sharing this is that I think a lot of our previous discussions on textual criticism have gotten bogged down in specious arguments, but at the end of the day, at least as far as the canons of textual criticism are concerned, the fact of the matter is that they are the rationalistic inventions of 19th century rationalists, with no basis in empirical data. And so it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the Majority Text or Received Text, which have not employed these flawed canons, are closer to the original text.
I am a majority text man myself. Although, I do think the CT is worth consulting and considering. I do think the MT position is much different than a TR position though. Even those the texts are close, the methodology is not from what I can see.
 
I am a majority text man myself. Although, I do think the CT is worth consulting and considering. I do think the MT position is much different than a TR position though. Even those the texts are close, the methodology is not from what I can see.
The thought processes behind modern TR apologists and MT scholars are indeed quite different. Now, whether the thought processes of the actual compilers of the TR (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza) and the compilers of the majority text were all that different is a distinct question, and probably worth some study.
Beza and the modern TR apologist are worlds apart. But the modern TR apologist generally isn't interested in learning Latin to read Beza to find out how little they have in common.
 
The thought processes behind modern TR apologists and MT scholars are indeed quite different. Now, whether the thought processes of the actual compilers of the TR (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza) and the compilers of the majority text were all that different is a distinct question, and probably worth some study.
Beza and the modern TR apologist are worlds apart. But the modern TR apologist generally isn't interested in learning Latin to read Beza to find out how little they have in common.
Agreed
 
Very interesting. I did some Googling to see who he is and papers from a panel discussion from the Society for Biblical Literature on the book turned up here. I only skimmed some of the highlights, but it seems to be a good overview and introduction to the book and its ideas if people are interested since it seems like it's a giant and highly technical book!

Thanks, Charles!
 
Scribal bias is a two way street, whether it is adding or taking away from the text.
Why would one prevail over the other?
 
Scribal bias is a two way street, whether it is adding or taking away from the text.
Why would one prevail over the other?
Because when one is copying a text it is very easy to skip a word or a line, since one is constantly looking back and forth from the source document to the copy, and one often loses one's place. And then, when one is reading the copy, it is not always apparent that something was omitted, without a direct comparison. But if you repeat something, it is always obvious obvious that you added something (see what I did there?)
I have a lot of personal experience with this as a translator. I often proof translations and find I have inadvertently skipped a line or a sentence. I have never inadvertently added a sentence.
Even in the published translations of others I have noticed whole words or phrases omitted (but I won't say what works, to avoid embarrassment to the publisher.)
But, putting aside the why, it is an observable fact that scribes, in the papyri studied, omit more often than they add. Other studies, referenced in the work, have come to the same conclusion as well.
You can review the work here. The conclusions are in chapter 10.
 
I have a lot of personal experience with this as a translator. I often proof translations and find I have inadvertently skipped a line or a sentence. I have never inadvertently added a sentence.
I’ve experienced this, too. We are focused to the point of missing continuity. Easy to jump ahead.
 
The idea behind the “shorter is better” axiom is typically tied to “orthodox corruption”. If the original text was varied and messy (which if it wasn’t inspired by God of course it was), then the “orthodox” were constantly “cleaning up the text” to harmonize, remove difficulties, and establish a unified religion. This would be mostly done by adding, not subtracting, from the text.

Maurice Robinson argues that typically the medium-length reading would be better because scribes trying to faithful would most frequently make accidental omissions, and rarely accidental additions as they may be from memory inserting familiar lines from another text they were well acquainted with. These would give rise to the traditionally categorized “Western” readings.
 
The idea behind the “shorter is better” axiom is typically tied to “orthodox corruption”. If the original text was varied and messy (which if it wasn’t inspired by God of course it was), then the “orthodox” were constantly “cleaning up the text” to harmonize, remove difficulties, and establish a unified religion. This would be mostly done by adding, not subtracting, from the text.

Maurice Robinson argues that typically the medium-length reading would be better because scribes trying to faithful would most frequently make accidental omissions, and rarely accidental additions as they may be from memory inserting familiar lines from another text they were well acquainted with. These would give rise to the traditionally categorized “Western” readings.
I think we went wrong as soon as we tried to determine the correct text based on our own imaginative ideas of what an ancient scribe might do, rather than actual textual data.
 
I realize that the focus of discussion is NT manuscripts, but we should realize that the readings in the Masoretic Text in the OT are in many cases shorter than the LXX. So if you are going to toss completely the argument that the shorter is better then, you will have to follow the LXX rather than the MT, which would mean departing not merely from the KJV but from most modern English translations as well.
In reality no competent text critic simply says "shorter is better"; it all depends what kind of omission/expansion you are dealing with. Where it is a difficult text, such as 1 Sam 1:24, which literally reads "the boy was a boy" in the MT and the LXX has a much fuller and easier text, it is possible that the MT scribe has omitted something, but also possible (perhaps more likely) that the LXX scribe has tried to make sense out of a difficult piece of Hebrew. So one argument one might use, if one wished to defend the KJV rendering here, is that the shorter, more difficult text is to be preferred. Of course, that shouldn't be the only argument, but not all text critical issues are the same.

Similarly, the shorter ending of Mark is unlikely to have been caused by a scribe's eye missing that section, in the way that omission of a single word or phrase might be. Moreover, because it comes at the end of a document, the possibility that it might be caused to damage to the copy would be more likely than in the case of most omissions. On the other hand, very similar phrases are more likely to lead to omissions, and so on. All that to say that text criticism is sometimes remarkably difficult, and should never be the wooden application of arbitrary principles
 
I realize that the focus of discussion is NT manuscripts, but we should realize that the readings in the Masoretic Text in the OT are in many cases shorter than the LXX. So if you are going to toss completely the argument that the shorter is better then, you will have to follow the LXX rather than the MT, which would mean departing not merely from the KJV but from most modern English translations as well.
In reality no competent text critic simply says "shorter is better"; it all depends what kind of omission/expansion you are dealing with. Where it is a difficult text, such as 1 Sam 1:24, which literally reads "the boy was a boy" in the MT and the LXX has a much fuller and easier text, it is possible that the MT scribe has omitted something, but also possible (perhaps more likely) that the LXX scribe has tried to make sense out of a difficult piece of Hebrew. So one argument one might use, if one wished to defend the KJV rendering here, is that the shorter, more difficult text is to be preferred. Of course, that shouldn't be the only argument, but not all text critical issues are the same.

Similarly, the shorter ending of Mark is unlikely to have been caused by a scribe's eye missing that section, in the way that omission of a single word or phrase might be. Moreover, because it comes at the end of a document, the possibility that it might be caused to damage to the copy would be more likely than in the case of most omissions. On the other hand, very similar phrases are more likely to lead to omissions, and so on. All that to say that text criticism is sometimes remarkably difficult, and should never be the wooden application of arbitrary principles
The Septuagint is a very different matter from NT textual transmission, in my opinion, because it is no longer a discussion of the transmission of a document in its original language. The fact of translation, and the historically difficult provenance of the LXX, introduces a whole other set of issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top