Sat Jan 4 21:55:19 1997
From owner-tc-list Sat Jan 4 21:55:19 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id VAA15248; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 21:54:14 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:52:06 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz"
Subject: Compound Reply (Was: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus)
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 7117
Responses to selected snippets....
Maurice Robinson, quoting me:
>> On the other hand, as a starting point for controversial discussions,
>> it's fairly good. Yes, it would be better if it cited more TR editions,
>> and also if it cited at least two other critical editions (I would
>> say it should cite Stephanus, Elzevir, Beza, and -- now -- R&P in
>> the first apparatus, and W&H and NA25 along with UBS in the second).
>
>I differ dramatically from Bob here. The TR is basically totally
>irrelevant, whether the Oxford 1825 used by H/F in their apparatus, or any
>of the other editions. The citation of the TR in any apparatus has no
>bearing on either textual criticism or the establishment of the text,
>majority/Byzantine or otherwise. H/F would have been wiser not to have
>included any TR reference in their apparatus. I most certainly hope that
>they do not similarly decide to include other editions such as W-H and R/P
>in any future editions -- a similar waste of time, no more valuable than
>all the subvariants listed in the Berry interlinear edition which merely
>reflect the choices of editors of that time (Tischendorf, Tregelles,
>Griesbach, Lachmann, etc.) as well as the Elzevir differences from the
>Stephens 1550 base text. What is most important in an apparatus to a
>majority text edition is basically the Byzantine sub-groups and how the
>text as a whole differs from that in current use by eclectic scholars.
>Nothing more.
I suppose I should explain myself. In principle I agree with Robinson;
the various versions of TR and the more modern editions have no
*critical* value in reconstructing the Byzantine or Majority text.
On the other hand, it is useful to know the readings of the modern
editions, just to see where the differences lie. And I'd like the
readings of the various TRs just to be able to use some of the older
editions. :-) I asked for what I did not for the critical value of
the editions, but purely for convenience.
>> But you see why I keep calling out for a Majority Text edition with
>> a *real* critical apparatus. :-)
>
>Simple solution: use Nestle 27 and follow the gothic "M". That will take
>anyone virtually 99% toward a "majority" or Byzantine text edition, and
>you don't even need H/F or R/P for that purpose. Use Von Soden to cover
>the remaining places where "K" differs from N27 but is not cited in the
>N27 apparatus, and you will have it all.
But that's exactly the problem. I want solid detail about the point where
M divides. And von Soden (even if I could decipher it, which is hard since
I don't have Kraft) is much better for groups than manuscripts. But I
want the manuscripts!
Dale M. Wheeler:
>I did some paste-up work on the original H&F Maj text while
>I was a student. One of the tasks I did as part of the
>checking/paste-up was to compare the H&F choices for the M
>reading with the choice found in UBS3/NA26 for the M reading.
>The thing that struck me--its been a while and I didn't do
>the whole of the NT (its been so long that I don't even
>remember which portion I did), so don't take this as gospel--
>was that the H&F choice for the M text matched the M reading
>in NA every single time. The reason that struck me was, as
>others have noted, the original collation was done on the
>basis of von Soden and I had heard all of these terrible
>things about von Soden's errors. Yet the comparison to the
>M reading in NA matched everytime...I came to the
>(tentative !!!!!) conclusion that von Soden (and his
>students) must not have done all that bad of a job after
>all. 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...
I can cite at least one instance where von Soden is right and
NA27 is wrong about M: 2 Cor. 2:17 (one of our favorite controversial
readings). According to T&T, the majority reading is LOIPOI
(supported by something like 52% of the manuscripts). According
to H&F, von Soden reports this as the majority reading. Whereas
NA27 lists POLLOI as the M reading, and gives the support for
LOIPOI as "al." (It will be obvious from the above that the H&F
M also differed from the NA27 M.)
I think I found one other instance of this, but I can't recall
what it was.
Robinson again:
>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.
I think Robinson's points should be amplified.
Now please note that I am not entirely qualified to speak here, as I
am using von Soden mostly as interpreted by Bover and Merk. But I think
the basic observations are sound.
First, von Soden's K groups are basically sound. They are also cited
fairly accurately.
His I groups warrant a separate discussion, but I won't go into that here.
His collations of individual manuscripts, however, can only be called
"so-so." As Robinson notes, he is highly accurate for B. Most of the
other uncials are also good.
The minuscules are another matter. I have, of course, paid particular
attention to 1739. And there von Soden is terribly inaccurate. I
wouldn't be surprised if his error rate exceeds 10%. Neither von
Soden nor any of his followers (Bover, Merk) should *ever* be trusted
for 1739.
His collation of 424** is incomplete.
His collation of 330 seems to have been made out of whole cloth.
At least, it shows any number of non-Byzantine readings which do
not appear in the manuscript, while ignoring 330's legitimate
non-Byzantine readings.
6 is a little better than 1739 or 330, but no prize.
33, if NA27 is accurate, is better than 1739 or 6, but not perfectly
accurate.
Several of the other Alexandrian minuscules (81, 1175) seem to be
accurate when cited individually, but less so when cited by
silence.
I would sum up as follows: If you want to use von Soden's apparatus
for a particular minuscule, *check it first.* If you can't find
a collation, use the data in T&T. Many of von Soden's collations
are good. But a few are very very bad.
Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com
Back