Subject: Re: Von Soden

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 17:50:22 -0500

On April 5, Jim West asked:

>In an earlier posting it was mentioned that one should look at von Soden and
>Tischendorf first, and then the "handbooks".  Are these still available
>somewhere?  If so, where?
>

The earlier post was mine.

>From your question, it is unclear if your "these" references von Soden and
Tischendorf, or the "pocket editions" (in German "Handausgaben";  this is
the expression I used, not "handbooks"...).  By "pocket editions," I meant
any of the editions of the NT which have abbreviated apparatuses:  this
would include all editions of Nestle-Aland, all the UBS editions, Souter,
Bover, Merk, etc., etc.  These all have wretchedly incomplete
apparatuses--understadably, however, because they are the "Reader's Digest"
version of the apparatus.

One should ALWAYS consult an "editio maior"--full/large edition--of the NT,
which has a full/complete apparatus (that is, as full or as complete as
is/was available at the time of publication;  NO edition gives ALL the
evidence, for it has not yet been assembled...).  The three most useful and
complete are:

1) C. von Tischendorf, _Novum Testamentum Graece_;  the 8th edition ("editio
octava critica maior") of 1894 is the best, with the fullest apparatus and
fewest printing errors.  The _Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church_
describes it as "by reason of the abundance of its data a standard book of
reference for the text of the NT."

2) H.F. von Soden, __Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer aeltesten
erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte_ (in two
part [three volumes]).  The dates of publication vary slightly, as the first
part went through two editions (the second in 1911);  the text, in part 2,
appeared in 1913.  Of it Metzger says, "The most monumental edition of the
Greek New Testament that has appeared thus far in the twentieth century is
von Soden's [title as above]...."

3) The three parts (in four volumes) of the _New Testament in Greek_,
published by the British and American committees of the International Greek
NT Project.  Vol. 1, _Nouum Testamentum Graece_, edited by SCE Legg (Oxford
1935), was followed by Legg's edition of Matthew (Oxford 1940).  The text of
Luke appeared in two volumes (Oxford 1984 and 1987).  On the Luke volumes,
you can see my review in the _Journal of Biblical Literature_ 107 (1988),
758-762.

All of these should be available in any serious (= major) university
library;  I have them all two feet behind me in my office--within arm's
reach.  All are OP (out of print), although Tischendorf's 8th was reprinted
in Graz (?) in 1972 or so.  All are described in any handbook (_sic_!) of
textual criticism:  Metzger, etc.

One additional note:  If one is REALLY serious, one should also always check
A. Juelicher's edition of the gospels in the Vetus Latina version (4
volumes), and one of the editions of the Old Syriac gospels (F.C. Burkitt's
is probably most useful, for it combines both Syr-s and Syr-c, and offers an
English translation--which is usually pretty accurate).  The reason for this
is three-fold:  (1) UBS4 dates the two MSS of the "Old Syriac" to the
"third/fourth century" (see p. 26*).  This would make Syr-s, the older of
these MSS, the OLDEST FULL TEXT OF THE GOSPELS, antedating both Vaticanus
(B) and Sinaiticus (alaph).  (2) Even Westcott (followed by Eberhard Nestle,
Alexander Souter, FC Burkitt, Voeoebus, etc.) admitted that the combination
of _k_ [afra from the Vetus Latina] and the Old Syriac offers a text which
is superior to that of alaph+B.  (The actual quotations are all presented in
my _Tatian's Diatessaron_ [1994], pp. 20-22;  the Westcott citation is from
the second edition of the Intro to Westcott & Hort's _NT in the original
Greek_ [1896], p. 328.)  (3) Most importantly, all of the "pocket editions"
cite these versions only occasionally, not consistently.  Therefore, one can
easily be misled about the true depth and breadth of evidence by assuming
that "since they cited _d_ and _a_ and the Old Syriac two verses ago, but
not in this verse, there must not be any evidence from these versions in
this verse..."  You will be surprised what you find if you look at the
actual editions of these versions.

N.B.:  The "e"s in Juelich- and Voeoebus are the German umlaut.

Petersen--Penn State University

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:27:59 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, William L. Petersen wrote:

> Greek_ [1896], p. 328.)  

In regard to assuming that sy-s + it-k or any other combination of
versions presents a superior text -- whatever happened to the principle
that the _Greek_ MSS are or should be the primary witnesses to the _Greek_
NT text?  

Versional and patristic evidence certainly can be of significance, and
appeal can be made to their testimony, but such should never become
primary evidence or even suggested to be such, in view of the quantity and
quality of the Greek MS evidence we possess. 

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