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.
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.