Subject: Re: H&F Maj Text apparatus

From: "Dale M. Wheeler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 17:01:19 -0800

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...

***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages        Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                               Portland, OR  97220
Voice: 503-251-6416    FAX:503-254-1268     E-Mail: [email-masked] 
***********************************************************************

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:31:29 -0500 (EST)

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

> I asked Zane Hodges about that and he referred me to 

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~