Scribal Habits in Greek New Testament Manuscripts 109 It ignores the possibility of readings created sub-consciously, that is, as a result of a wandering mind46, a lapse in concentration, haste or fatigue. The many singular harmonisations in our manuscripts are evi- dence of scribes operating on “auto-pilot”, the mind drifting back to or anticipating events in the immediate context, or wandering off to paral- lel accounts in different books altogether. David Parker, criticising the distinction between “intentional” and “unintentional” errors, writes that “in the ‘Freudian slip’, we have learned to recognise how the unconscious can control our spoken words”; he argues that “only the production of complete nonsense can safely be called accidental”47. The familiar argument also ignores readings created in more than one stage, as salvage readings of earlier errors, as imperfect corrections or due to the confused interpretation of corrections in a Vorlage. The present study found literally hundreds of harder readings among the singulars. The simplistic nature of the “common sense” argument seems either to ignore or to lack acquaintance with the complexities of scribal behaviour and the realities of scribal corruption. Science has two components: theory and observation (or research). Theory without research is mere speculation; observation without theory is mere stamp-collecting. The idea that we may dismiss the best line of research we possess (singular readings) in favour of “common sense” is a rejection of evidence-based approaches altogether in favour of theoretical speculation. It is on a par with insisting that a particular folk remedy is able to cure ailments, despite clinical trials showing no evidence of this happening. A canon based on “common sense” is little more than an article of speculative faith. Secondly, methodologically, it might perhaps be argued that singular readings are ill-suited for investigating the harder reading canon. For example, it could be argued that later copyists would tend to preferen- tially perpetuate easier readings or readings with less difficulties with the result that easier readings would no longer show up among singulars, but instead attract other documentary support. To test this objection, sub-singular readings (readings only found in two or three MSS) were also catalogued in this study in the same chap- ters, to see whether there was any increase in the percentages of easier readings. The results are shown in the table below (with the percentages in parentheses): 46 Silva describes the scribe of Vaticanus’ error at Gal. 1,11 as due to “daydreaming”, Galatians, 20. 47 D. C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge 1997) 37.