The embarrassing ignoring of the embarrassment of riches

In a reply to an ETC blog on the embarrassment of riches, James Snapp, Jr. wrote the following. He makes an excellent point, despite the naysayers pretending it is not so.

“Looking over those particular textual contests where Byz and Alex disagree, it looks to me like the NA28-editors adopted an Alexandrian reading 92% of the time. Which is to say, 92% of the time, when the editors faced a choice between an Alexandrian reading, and the reading found in the vast majority of manuscripts – the bulk of that ‘embarrassment of riches’ – they adopted the Alexandrian reading, and the reading supported by 85% (or more) of that ‘embarrassment of riches’ was rejected.

“What conclusion can be drawn from this, if not that the editors of NA28 very heavily favor the testimony of a relatively small cluster of Alexandrian MSS, and reject the Byzantine readings, when they disagree with the Alexandrian readings, at 92 out of a 100 opportunities?”

Is it not somewhat hypocritical of those text critics who praise and extol the so-called “embarrassment of riches,” then turn around and ignore most of these riches? I say, “Yea.”