Editing Textual criticism (section)

== Eclecticism ==
[[Eclecticism]] refers to the practice of consulting a wide diversity of witnesses to a particular original. The practice is based on the principle that the more independent transmission histories there are, the less likely they will be to reproduce the same errors. What one omits, the others may retain; what one adds, the others are unlikely to add. Eclecticism allows inferences to be drawn regarding the original text, based on the evidence of contrasts between witnesses.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}

Eclectic readings also normally give an impression of the number of witnesses to each available reading. Although a reading supported by the majority of witnesses is frequently preferred, this does not follow automatically. For example, a second edition of a Shakespeare play may include an addition alluding to an event known to have happened between the two editions. Although nearly all subsequent manuscripts may have included the addition, textual critics may reconstruct the original without the addition.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}

The result of the process is a text with readings drawn from many witnesses. It is not a copy of any particular manuscript, and may deviate from the majority of existing manuscripts. In a purely eclectic approach, no single witness is theoretically favored. Instead, the critic forms opinions about individual witnesses, relying on both external and internal evidence.<ref>Comfort, Comfort 2005, p. 383</ref>

Since the mid-19th century, eclecticism, in which there is no ''a priori'' bias to a single manuscript, has been the dominant method of editing the Greek text of the New Testament (currently, the United Bible Society, 5th ed. and Nestle-Åland, 28th ed.). Even so, the oldest manuscripts, being of the [[Alexandrian text-type]], are the most favored, and the critical text has an Alexandrian disposition.<ref name="ISBN9039001057">Aland, B. 1994, p. 138</ref>

=== External evidence ===
External evidence is evidence of each physical witness, its date, source, and relationship to other known witnesses. Critics{{who|date=March 2020}} will often prefer the readings supported by the oldest witnesses. Since errors tend to accumulate, older manuscripts should have fewer errors. Readings supported by a majority of witnesses are also usually preferred, since these are less likely to reflect accidents or individual biases. For the same reasons, the most geographically diverse witnesses are preferred. Some manuscripts{{which|date=March 2020}} show evidence that particular care was taken in their composition, for example, by including alternative readings in their margins, demonstrating that more than one prior copy (exemplar) was consulted in producing the current one. Other factors being equal, these are the ''best'' witnesses. The role of the textual critic is necessary when these basic criteria are in conflict. For instance, there will typically be fewer early copies, and a larger number of later copies. The textual critic will attempt to balance these criteria, to determine the original text.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}

There are many other more sophisticated considerations. For example, readings that depart from the known practice of a scribe or a given period may be deemed more reliable, since a scribe is unlikely on his own initiative to have departed from the usual practice.<ref name="textandinterpretation">Hartin, Petzer, Mannig 2001, pp. 47–53</ref>

=== Internal evidence ===
Internal evidence is evidence that comes from the text itself, independent of the physical characteristics of the document. Various considerations can be used to decide which reading is the most likely to be original. Sometimes these considerations can be in conflict.<ref name=textandinterpretation />

Two common considerations have the Latin names ''[[lectio brevior]]'' (shorter reading) and ''lectio difficilior'' (more difficult reading). The first is the general observation that scribes tended to add words, for clarification or out of habit, more often than they removed them. The second, ''[[lectio difficilior potior]]'' (the harder reading is stronger), recognizes the tendency for harmonization—resolving apparent inconsistencies in the text. Applying this principle leads to taking the more difficult (unharmonized) reading as being more likely to be the original. Such cases also include scribes simplifying and smoothing texts they did not fully understand.<ref>Aland K., Aland, B. 1987, p. 276</ref>

Another scribal tendency is called [[homoioteleuton]], meaning "similar endings". Homoioteleuton occurs when two words/phrases/lines end with the similar sequence of letters. The scribe, having finished copying the first, skips to the second, omitting all intervening words. ''Homoioarche'' refers to eye-skip when the ''beginnings'' of two lines are similar.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ualberta.ca/~sreimer/ms-course/course/scbl-err.htm|title=Manuscript Studies: Textual analysis (Scribal error)|website=www.ualberta.ca|access-date=2 May 2018|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160404214516/http://www.ualberta.ca/~sreimer/ms-course/course/scbl-err.htm|archive-date=4 April 2016}}</ref>

The critic may also examine the other writings of the author to decide what words and grammatical constructions match his style. The evaluation of internal evidence also provides the critic with information that helps him evaluate the reliability of individual manuscripts. Thus, the consideration of internal and external evidence is related.{{Citation needed|date=August 2009}}

After considering all relevant factors, the textual critic seeks the reading that best explains how the other readings would arise. That reading is then the most likely candidate to have been original.{{Citation needed|date=August 2009}}

=== Canons of textual criticism ===
[[Image:Codex Sinaiticus-small.jpg|thumb|200px|[[Gospel of Luke|Luke]] 11:2 in [[Codex Sinaiticus]]]]
Various scholars have developed guidelines, or ''canons'' of textual criticism, to guide the exercise of the critic's judgment in determining the best readings of a text. One of the earliest was [[Johann Albrecht Bengel]] (1687–1752), who in 1734 produced an edition of the [[Textus Receptus|Greek New Testament]]. In his commentary, he established the rule ''Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua'', ("the harder reading is to be preferred").<ref name="bengelrules">{{cite web|url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/rules.html#Bengel|title=Critical Rules of Johann Albrecht Bengel|publisher=Bible-researcher.com|access-date=2008-05-24|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100213010108/http://www.bible-researcher.com/rules.html#Bengel|archive-date=2010-02-13}}</ref>

[[Johann Jakob Griesbach]] (1745–1812) published several editions of the New Testament. In his 1796 edition,<ref>J.J. Griesbach, [https://books.google.com/books?id=BLk9AAAAIAAJ&q=novum+testamentum+graece ''Novum Testamentum Graece'']</ref> he established fifteen critical rules. Among them was a variant of Bengel's rule, ''Lectio difficilior potior'', "the harder reading is better." Another was ''Lectio brevior praeferenda'', "the shorter reading is better", based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/rules.html#Griesbach|title=Critical Rules of Johann Albrecht Bengel|publisher=Bible-researcher.com|access-date=2008-05-24|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100213010108/http://www.bible-researcher.com/rules.html#Griesbach|archive-date=2010-02-13}}<br /> "Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Librarii enim multo proniores ad addendum fuerunt, quam ad omittendum."</ref> This rule cannot be applied uncritically, as scribes may omit material inadvertently.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}

[[Brooke Foss Westcott]] (1825–1901) and [[Fenton Hort]] (1828–1892) published an edition of the [[The New Testament in the Original Greek|New Testament in Greek in 1881]]. They proposed nine critical rules, including a version of Bengel's rule, "The reading is less likely to be original that shows a disposition to smooth away difficulties." They also argued that "Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the number, of their supporting witnesses", and that "The reading is to be preferred that most fitly explains the existence of the others."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/rules.html#Hort|title=Theories of Westcott and Hort|publisher=Bible-researcher.com|access-date=2008-05-24|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100213010108/http://www.bible-researcher.com/rules.html#Hort|archive-date=2010-02-13}}<br />"The reading is to be preferred that makes the best sense, that is, that best conforms to the grammar and is most congruous with the purport of the rest of the sentence and of the larger context." (2.20)</ref>

Many of these rules, although originally developed for biblical textual criticism, have wide applicability to any text susceptible to errors of transmission.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}

=== Limitations of eclecticism ===

Since the canons of criticism are highly susceptible to interpretation, and at times even contradict each other, they may be employed to justify a result that fits the textual critic's aesthetic or theological agenda. Starting in the 19th century, scholars sought more rigorous methods to guide editorial judgment. Stemmatics and copy-text editing&nbsp;– while both eclectic, in that they permit the editor to select readings from multiple sources&nbsp;– sought to reduce subjectivity by establishing one or a few witnesses presumably as being favored by "objective" criteria.{{Citation needed|date=August 2009}} The citing of sources used, and alternate readings, and the use of original text and images helps readers and other critics determine to an extent the depth of research of the critic, and to independently verify their work.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}