Why did scholars sometimes reject authentic passages through excessive athetesis?

In the context of textual criticism, scholars sometimes rejected authentic passages through excessive athetesis due to a rigid, overconfident application of critical methods that emerged in the 19th century.1

Following the development of systematic recension techniques—most notably associated with Karl Lachmann—many scholars adopted a "critical orthodoxy" that prioritized a perceived scientific approach over nuanced judgment. This led to a climate where less gifted researchers applied these methods with blind confidence, often failing to account for the natural irregularities, anomalies, and stylistic variations inherent in an author's work.1

Driven by an exuberant belief in their own analytical powers, these scholars frequently dismissed passages as spurious based solely on perceived inconsistencies within a text. This practice ignored warnings from more experienced critics, such as J.N. Madvig, who emphasized the importance of allowing for stylistic diversity, and ultimately resulted in the erroneous rejection of authentic material.1