Peter Gurry discusses “a shorter Byzantine reading in the parable of the Prodigal Son”—particularly Luke 15:21. Along the way, he makes some insightful methodological comments along the way.
In addition to its good external evidence, the shorter reading has a very obvious transcriptional explanation in parablepsis.
I imagine many will reject parablepsis as less likely than harmonization (so Metzger’s Commentary). But why should such an intentional change be more likely than the equally obvious but unintentional one? Certainly, scribes harmonize to the context. But, from my experience, they accidentally omit by parablepsis even more. Any look at a large apparatus bears this out on page after page. (italics original)
For the balance of Gurry’s discussion and a substantial thread of comments to go along with and provide differing evaluations of it, see the original post.If you've found this content helpful, take a couple seconds to subscribe to receive all the new free content and resources I release. While you're at it, be sure to grab my free e-book on SBL style and summary of open access International Critical Commentary volumes.
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any other person(s) or institution(s).
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the content above may be “affiliate links.” I only recommend products or services I genuinely believe will add value to you as a reader. But if you click one of these links and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission from the seller at no additional cost to you. Consequently, I am disclosing this affiliate status in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”