Sun Apr 7 23:00:41 1996

From majordom  Sun Apr  7 23:00:41 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA08926; Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:00:41 +0500
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 22:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: von Soden
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2768
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Richard K. Moore wrote:

> I have been surprised at the high value placed on the apparatus of Von
> Soden's text by various contributors to this list.  The Alands, with
> abundant resources for checking its accuracy, have claimed it is extremely
> inaccurate.  What is the point of having it a few feet behind you if you
> have no way of verifying the notoriously inaccurate apparatus it contains?

Von Soden remains the largest repository of readings and evidence yet
amassed, and should not be ignored.  Also, the claim that the apparatus is
"positively honeycombed with errors" is not as bad as it sounds, given the
typography and potential for error in its format.  In a seminar paper I
prepared 20 years ago, I did a test evaluation of Von Soden in 1
Thessalonians, and found but two verifiable errors within that book; I
also checked his citation of Vaticanus therein with my own collation data
and found von Soden perfectly correct. 

Most of the claims to error in von Soden stem from Hoskier's and Souter's
bad reviews in the period before 1920 (Lake paraphrased Souter and Metzger
paraphrased Lake).  If anyone will take the time to look up those reviews
and compare the claims of error against what von Soden's text actually
said (being extremely careful to interpret his apparatuses properly) one
will find that Souter simply could not understand von Soden's manner of
presentation (Souter's example in Eph.1 is a case in point, where he
totally misinterprets von Soden, who is precisely correct there), and
Hoskier apparently never read von Soden's introduction, since many of
Hoskier's claims of error stem from a misunderstanding of von Soden's use
of "f" "ff" "fff" etc., where Hoskier positively thinks that MSS in
ascending numerical sequence are intended as opposed to the special order
of presentation von Soden intended. (I have all these documented, of
course). 

Wisse's study shows that, at the very least, von Soden _can_ be trusted in
most of his group evidence, even though there are some errors in
individual MS citation.  I still suspect that many of these are merely
matters of confusion in interpreting von Soden rather than definite error,
but I certainly have found scattered errors in von Soden. 

Bottom line, von Soden as well as Tischendorf should still be consulted,
though corrected where possible against Tischendorf, Legg's Mt. or Mk.,
IGNTP Luke, or the selected readings in the Text und Textwert series. 

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back