Sun Jan 5 13:35:29 1997

From owner-tc-list  Sun Jan  5 13:35:29 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA17870; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 13:34:02 -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: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 12:06:42 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: 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: 4939

On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Maurice Robinson  wrote
in part:

>> 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.

Note that I was merely pointing out a place where different editions
cite M differently -- and where von Soden and H&F were more correct
than Nestle.

But the warning is useful.

[ ... ]

>> 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.

I will admit that I have *not* verified the inaccuracies in von Soden
(though, as I recall, Lake also complained about that particular
collation). I must admit that I *don't* have von Soden; I have to
consult it at the seminary. And even the seminary only has the
text volume; either they never had the introduction or someone
walked off with it. Since I don't have any of the keys, the only
way I can check von Soden is to work backward from the Kurzgefasste
Liste -- which seems certain to create more errors than Merk or Bover
ever did.

>> 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.

I don't know (see above).

>> 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?

>From Merk and Bover.

The strange thing is, 330 sits right in the middle of the Ia3 group,
and the other collations in that area that I've checked (462, in
particular) seem to be fairly good.

>> 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.

Obviously a direct collation is the way to go where possible. That is
what allowed me to check the errors in 330 and 1739. On the other hand,
a lot of very important manuscripts (1506 springs to mind) have never
been published. We work with what comes to hand. Especially at the
first stage of the work, when we're trying to decide what is important.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                  Robert B. Waltz
               waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn

Back