Subject: H&F Maj Text apparatus

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:06:01 -0500

Dear TC colleagues:

I have recently been in discussion with a previous Greek professor of mine
who is still using the Hodges and Farstad Majority Text.  I was arguing how
the apparatus is insufficient at best.  I would appreciate any comments from
any of you either pro or con in respect to this work so as to give further
reference and maybe even learn something from some of you out there (as I
usually do).  I am mainly arguing that the apparatus of either the UBS or NA
contains much more information as to the textual nature of the variants.
 This is not a discussion of the text itself.

Thank you for your input

In His Service
Rich Elliott ([email-masked])

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:24:00 -0700

> This is not a discussion of the text itself.

It depends on your purpose. If you want to reconstruct a text -- then,
yes, the H&F apparatus is inadequate. It is inadequate even for the
purpose of determining the true majority text, because it doesn't
include the readings of any manuscripts, and does not even give the
readings of textual groupings consistently (that is, it will sometimes
list Kr or Kc or whatnot, but where it lists an Mpart reading, you
can't tell which groups go which way).

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).
But that's not the point. The point is to show how a text constructed
on H&F's principles would appear. Most of us don't accept that
principle -- but if we did, the apparatus would be acceptable if
not ideal.

But you see why I keep calling out for a Majority Text edition with
a *real* critical apparatus. :-)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 16:33:36 -0500 (EST)

> can't tell which groups go which way).

Bob and I would concur on this point.  The H/F text probably should never
have included an apparatus if the intent were somehow to demonstrate how a
"majority text" might be constructed or evaluated.  H/F themselves refer
their readers to Von Soden as the primary apparatus (which obviously
everyone does not possess, but it is available in most seminary libraries
or by interlibrary loan if its use is required).  

All the data in the H/F apparatus is intended to do is to (a) clearly show
where their "majority text" differs from Nestle 26/27 (and this probably
should have been done solely by printing "N26" instead of attempting to
give the "E" for "Egyptian text" symbol along with the supposed leading
representatives of that Egyptian text in each book etc., as well as
selected papyrus readings.  There is obviously some attempt in that
portion of the apparatus to reflect the H/F view that there are but two
texttypes, the "majority" and the "Egyptian", but I fail to see how their
apparatus as presented really demonstrates that aspect.  Better simply to
list the N26/27 variants, and refer readers to the Nestle edition for
their apparatus data. 

The other portion of the H/F apparatus is more valuable, since it attempts
to show some (but not all) Byzantine sub-variants as listed in the Von
Soden apparatus, reflecting the Ka K1 Kc Kr etc. sub-groups.  Even here,
however, the H/F apparatus fails, since it does not list all the various
K-group sub-variants cited by Von Soden, but only those considered most
significant.  Once more, the reader is forced to use Von Soden to
understand the whole scope of the Byzantine (K) Textform and its
sub-variant groups.

So all in all, while the H/F text could and probably should stand alone as
the result of their process of critical editing, their apparatus is not
and, under the circumstances, could not be adequate for further textual
study of the "majority" or Byzantine Textform.  I would have preferred
that the apparatus had either been left out entirely, or else had been
totally restricted only to showing variation from N26/27 and the various
K-subgroup readings in their entirety. 

The R/P text included no apparatus for this very reason, though I do agree
that there is a place for a solely continuous text edition such as R/P for
the general reader, as well as for the scholarly reader an apparatus which
lists at least the N26/27 differences and K-subgroup readings, which
perhaps may be included in a later edition, electronic or printed. Part of
the problem was that in the publisher's rush to print, there was no time
left to prepare an apparatus of that type before publication, even though
we had all the data completely listed within the margins of a master copy
of the TR which had been adjusted to reflect the Byzantine Textform.

As it stands, the only indication of variant readings in the R/P edition
is the enclosure of certain words in square brackets [ ], which indicates
only a divided Byzantine text regarding inclusion or omission of the words
so bracketed.  These bracketed cases do not, however, reflect all the
divided Byzantine readings, and many instances where transposition or
substitution occur are simply not noted; only the editors' choice is
printed in such cases. 

> 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.

> 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.  The only remaining item of
significance is the K-subgroup testimony and the decisions made when the
main "K" groups is itself divided.  Constructing a Byzantine Textform
edition is (on the surface at least) far easier than the creation of an
eclectic text -- what is difficult is determining the entire theory of
textual transmission which will explain both the favored Byzantine
Textform as well as explain the other texttypes, sub-types, families, and
other remaining readings as found in our extant manuscript resources.
That is why I have consistently addressed the issue of the underlying
history of transmission rather than the matter of determining the
Byzantine readings in most cases.  There is a world of difference between
that methodology and that which underlies that of the modern eclectics.

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:52:06 -0700

Responses to selected snippets....

>text as a whole differs from that in current use by eclectic scholars.

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.

>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
[email-masked]

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 23:58:49 -0600 (CST)

Maurice wrote a good explanation of things, but the HF text has the 
advantage of coming last.  Thus, it is my text of choice for casual 
reading and textual items.  One immediately knows what the others said.  
No one supposes it is the best for detailed work.  However, it lists some 
variants that are in neither UBS or NA.

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:20:11 -0500 (EST)

> 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.

> I don't have Kraft) is much better for groups than manuscripts. But I

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.

> 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

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....

> Soden nor any of his followers (Bover, Merk) should *ever* be trusted

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.

> not appear in the manuscript, while ignoring 330's legitimate

Again is this from Merk and Bover, or from Von Soden directly?

> 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.

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 08:33:01 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 4 Jan 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:

> advantage of coming last.  

How so? Or what do you mean?  The R/P text came out in 1991, whereas H/F
came out in 1982/1985.  However, whether first or last, the matter is not
based on time but on content and methodology, and the H/F and R/P
methodologies are themselves significantly different, even if they tend to
produce a similar resultant text.  I specifically mentioned in my
introduction the anomaly of H/F claiming their text to be "majority" when
in Revelation there are at least 30 places where they choose to follow
readings which have only 19%-30% support due to their stemmatic
principles, whereas the R/P text almost never abandons a reading with 70%
or more support on general principles of establishing a Byzantine
archetype (how "Byzantine" is a reading when it possesses less than 30%
support anyway?).  

> Thus, it is my text of choice for casual 

This is true, since there are a number of Byz/majority readings which are
established from Von Soden which are considered insignificant by the UBS
or Nestle editors. H/F's apparatus is helpful in that regard, as well as
in knowing the differences from the current critical text.  The listing of
the MSS themselves and the "E" text in H/F is less than helpful,
and sometimes inaccurate, however.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 12:06:42 -0700

On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]> wrote

>relevant to Von Soden's classification -- only the matter of the

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.

[ ... ]

>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.

>be surprised to see incomplete data.

I don't know (see above).

>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.

>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
               [email-masked]

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

---

From: Vincent Broman <[email-masked]>
Date: 6 Jan 1997 16:38:20 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[email-masked] wrote:
> you don't even need H/F or R/P for that purpose.

A slight corrective:  in my study of byzantine/alexandrian variants,
I found that 30% of the text type differences were undocumented
in the NA26 apparatus.

Vincent Broman             Email: [email-masked]                    =   o     
2224 33d St.               Phone: +1 619 284 3775                  =  _ /- _   
San Diego, CA  92104-5605  Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W     =  (_)> (_)  
___ PGP protected mail preferred.  For public key finger [email-masked] ___