Sat Jan 4 20:36:45 1997

From owner-tc-list  Sat Jan  4 20:36:45 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA14570; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:35:41 -0500
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:31:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970105010119.0068c0d0@mail.teleport.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2715



On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:

> I asked Zane Hodges about that and he referred me to 
> an article on that issue (J.R.Royse, "Von Soden's 
> Accuracy," JTS 30/1 [Apr, 1979]:166-71). I'm not 
> claiming that either Royse or von Soden is accurate; just
> thought a bit of historical trivia might be found interesting
> in the midst of the discussion...

As Wisse noted, Von Soden's accuracy in the matter of group designations
is far superior to his accuracy with individual MS citations.  I have a
lengthy doctoral seminar paper on Von Soden in which I examined the
original claims regarding his accuracy or lack of it, and it turns out
that the key review by Hoskier which claimed the work was "positively
honeycombed with errors" was a statement made due to Hoskier's failure to
understand Von Soden's system.  E.g., Hoskier complained that a certain MS
had "ffff" after it, and Hoskier mistakenly thought that meant that MS
number (say, a4 or the like), and the four MSS in direct numerical
sequence following (i.e. a5 a6 a7 a8), when such was not Von Soden's
intent at all, as anyone who understands Von Soden's system should know.

A later review by Souter also was wrong when it claimed error in a passage
in Ephesians as presented in Von Soden's apparatus, mainly because Souter
also was unable properly to understand Von Soden's curious symbolic
designations and manuscript nomenclature.  

I tested Von Soden's accuracy in regard to Codex Vaticanus by collating
that MS for a single Pauline Epistle and comparing that collation with Von
Soden's text and apparatus, and found his data unimpeachable, though
easily subject to misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

This is not to say that there are not any errors in Von Soden's apparatus
-- indeed, with as complex a system as he had (and considering that the
material all had to be hand-typeset or use a very complex linotype), it is
small wonder that there are not far more errors in Von Soden's apparatus
than actually appear.  I personally find almost all of Von Soden's group
designations regarding the Byzantine Textform (K) and the Alexandrian
texttype (H) to be quite accurate.  The greatest weakness is the mish-mash
of the "western" (I) group, which mixes quite disparate elements from the
western, Caesarean, and other groups under one head.  But even then, the
small sub-family groups even within (I) remain generally accurate. 


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

Back