Sun Jan 5 08:25:24 1997
From owner-tc-list Sun Jan 5 08:25:24 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id IAA16863; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:24:14 -0500
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:20:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Compound Reply (Was: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus)
In-Reply-To:
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: 5625
On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> 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.
For that then, I would simply suggest Scrivener's or Hoskier's collations
of those earlier editions, and keeping it handy when comparing against
modern editions.
> 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!
You obviously need Kraft or Freddy Krueger (Friedrich Krueger -- I just
couldn't help myself :-)....however, Von Soden will generally list only
the group designators, and you have to painstakingly use Kraft or Krueger
to figure out which MSS remain under the group designator after removing
all the exceptions Von Soden lists. It is a very time-consuming task, and
the errors in Von Soden tend to be in cases where he fails to list a MS as
being an exception to the group designator by accident or oversight; more
so errors of this type than simply citing an individual MS wrongly.
> 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 would offer a strong caution about misuse of Von Soden in this regard:
Soden did _not_ consider the "K" symbol to mean "majority" but the "Koine"
or Byzantine Textform. Whether that text was in the majority or not (and
here 52% is a total toss-up anyway on the basis of number) was not
relevant to Von Soden's classification -- only the matter of the
K-archetype.
> I think I found one other instance of this, but I can't recall
> what it was.
There definitely are other cases where Von Soden gives a bold K to what
should be a divided Byzantine testimony, but I don't have a list
conveniently at hand. Most of the time of course Von Soden does not do
that, but lists K in non-bold type or cites it as divided.
> I think Robinson's points should be amplified.
If time were available, I would be happy to type in the relevant portions
of that 80pp paper, but this is unlikely under the current academic
circumstances with syllabi etc to prepare for the coming semester. Maybe
if I can get someone to run it through a scanner and upload the results to
Jimmy....
> 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.
I concur that it is primarily in regard to the minuscules where Von Soden
is inaccurate. However, I also wonder whether the errors in regard to
1739 are by simply not mentioning the MS directly, or subsuming it into a
group where it should have been an exception, or what. I also am leery of
Bover and Merk if Von Soden's original edition is not being consulted,
since it is very easy for editors to err when trying to extract data from
Von Soden (I know -- I have done it myself, and corrected the error only
much later). Does Von Soden directly cite 1739 for a wrong reading at
certain points? Are you including also his apparatus #3, which lists
minor readings of MSS which will override the citation of that same MS in
apparatus #1 or #2 ? There are a number of factors here, and I would
simply urge caution rather than overreaction.
> His collation of 424** is incomplete.
Did he claim this to be complete? Many MSS were cited only "cursorilich"
which are not designated as such. With minuscules especially I would not
be surprised to see incomplete data.
> 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.
Again is this from Merk and Bover, or from Von Soden directly?
> 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.
I would suggest further that if someone wants complete or extensive
information for a particular MS, a critical apparatus is _not_ the place
to find or expect it. Seek out the published collation data directly when
available or a facsimile edition of the complete text and make your own
collation when not. J.K.Elliott's volume giving resources for such is
invaluable in this regard, and the data from collations is far superior to
that found in any critical apparatus when studying particular MSS.
_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back