Editorial decisions can fundamentally alter a scholarly work's philosophical foundations, as evidenced in the case of a critical analysis comparing David Halivni and Shamma Friedman's Talmudic methodologies. When viewed through Imre Lakatos's philosophy of science framework, these scholars' competing approaches reveal distinct patterns of knowledge development beyond mere empirical validation. By applying Lakatosian concepts of hard core assumptions and progressive research programs, the analysis demonstrates that Friedman's literary strata theory exhibits superior scientific characteristics - particularly in neutrality, falsifiability, and replicability - compared to Halivni's critical methods. Though Jacob Neusner and others challenge Friedman's geological metaphor for Talmudic textual layers as lacking historical evidence, its explanatory power in resolving textual difficulties justifies its continued use. However, editorial modifications to the original manuscript, including title changes and removal of methodological discussions, undermined the intended positive assessment of Friedman's approach. This analysis advances Talmudic scholarship by evaluating competing methodologies through contemporary philosophy of science frameworks, while demonstrating how editorial decisions can impact scholarly discourse.