▁experience ▁and ▁common - s ense . ▁Bib lic al ▁scholar ▁David ▁Cl ines ▁gives ▁the ▁example ▁of ▁Am os ▁ 6 . 1 2 . ▁It ▁reads : ▁" Does ▁one ▁pl ough ▁with ▁ox en ? ▁The ▁obvious ▁answer ▁is ▁' yes ', ▁but ▁the ▁context ▁of ▁the ▁passage ▁seems ▁to ▁demand ▁a ▁' no '; ▁the ▁usual ▁reading ▁therefore ▁is ▁to ▁am end ▁this ▁to , ▁' Does ▁one ▁pl ough ▁the ▁sea ▁with ▁ox en ?' ▁The ▁am end ment ▁has ▁a ▁basis ▁in ▁the ▁text , ▁which ▁is ▁believed ▁to ▁be ▁cor rupted , ▁but ▁is ▁never theless ▁a ▁matter ▁of ▁personal ▁judgment ." ▁ ▁All ▁of ▁this ▁cont ributes ▁to ▁text ual ▁criticism ▁being ▁one ▁of ▁the ▁most ▁content ious ▁areas ▁of ▁bib lic al ▁criticism ▁as ▁well ▁as ▁the ▁largest . ▁It ▁uses ▁special ized ▁method ologies , ▁enough ▁special ized ▁terms ▁to ▁create ▁its ▁own ▁lex icon , ▁and ▁is ▁gu ided ▁by ▁a ▁number ▁of ▁principles . ▁Yet ▁any ▁of ▁these ▁can ▁be ▁cont ested , ▁as ▁well ▁as ▁any ▁conclus ions ▁based ▁on ▁them , ▁and ▁they ▁often ▁are . ▁For ▁example , ▁in ▁the ▁late ▁ 1 7 0 0 s , ▁text ual ▁critic ▁Johann ▁Jacob ▁G ries bach ▁developed ▁fifteen ▁critical ▁principles ▁for ▁determ ining ▁which ▁texts ▁are ▁likely ▁the ▁oldest ▁and ▁closest ▁to ▁the ▁original . ▁ ▁One ▁of ▁G ries bach ' s ▁rules ▁is ▁lect io ▁bre vi or ▁pra e fer enda : ▁" the ▁shorter