In looking over archives of this board, I was curious about this comment that brianrw made about the von Soden collation. He quotes a Trinitarian Bible Society pamphlet as if it were an authority.
I haven't been able to find any of brianrw's postings or evidence that he still posts here after about 2003, so I cannot ask him directly. Are there any long-timers who can recap his position for me (strengths, weaknesses, etc.)?
Thanks.
http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/33315/t/Mark-s-Gospel-Ending.html#reply-33315
Why do you keep accusing me of being a priori when you're the one always generalizing and assuming? Since anything I say seems to have no value to you, I'll provide a response to you in the words of Frederick Wisse who notes, "In order to make and independent judgment of the matter, a test was run to measure the extent of von Soden's inaccuracy. Luke 1 was chosen, since it is one of the sample chapters of the Profile Method, an, more importantly, hundreds of twice-checked collations were available with microfilms through the office of the IGNTP in Claremont.
A careful count revealed that von Soden claims to use 120 MSS in the apparatus to Luke 1. It should be borne in mind that von Soden does not always usa a MS throughout. A significant number of MSS were only partially collated. Why these MSS were not used <i>in toto</i> is not clear, but time and opportunity must have been the determining factor...." He proceeds to note, "Through the good offices of the IGNTP, 99 of the 120 MSS could be checked," and states how those 99 MSS were checked against Luke chapter 1, and arrives at the following conclusion, "Once the extent of error is seen, the word 'inaccuracy' becomes a euphemism. Of the 99 checked MSS, 76 were missing one or more times when they should have been cited, or were listed when they should not have been. This breaks down into 59 MSS which were missing in von Soden's apparatus from 1 to 4 times, and 39 which were added incorrectly from 1 to 6 times." In conclusion, he notes, "von Soden's inaccuracies cannot be tolerated for any purpos. His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the text of the MSS he used." (<i>Profile Method</i>, pp.16, 17).
Moreover, Andrew Brown notes, "One can rarely be sure whether von Soden consulted all his manuscripts at the passage in question...And even where he does give figures, the resulting total does not constitute a majority of all the manuscripts which are now available. For these reasons the Hodges-Farstad edition should not be regarded as a definitive majority text until the necessary further collation work has been carried out." (<i>Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record</i>, January 1983, pp. 14-16). Consult also the statments of the MT editors (<i>Majority Text</i>, xxii, iii).
I haven't been able to find any of brianrw's postings or evidence that he still posts here after about 2003, so I cannot ask him directly. Are there any long-timers who can recap his position for me (strengths, weaknesses, etc.)?
Thanks.
http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/33315/t/Mark-s-Gospel-Ending.html#reply-33315
Why do you keep accusing me of being a priori when you're the one always generalizing and assuming? Since anything I say seems to have no value to you, I'll provide a response to you in the words of Frederick Wisse who notes, "In order to make and independent judgment of the matter, a test was run to measure the extent of von Soden's inaccuracy. Luke 1 was chosen, since it is one of the sample chapters of the Profile Method, an, more importantly, hundreds of twice-checked collations were available with microfilms through the office of the IGNTP in Claremont.
A careful count revealed that von Soden claims to use 120 MSS in the apparatus to Luke 1. It should be borne in mind that von Soden does not always usa a MS throughout. A significant number of MSS were only partially collated. Why these MSS were not used <i>in toto</i> is not clear, but time and opportunity must have been the determining factor...." He proceeds to note, "Through the good offices of the IGNTP, 99 of the 120 MSS could be checked," and states how those 99 MSS were checked against Luke chapter 1, and arrives at the following conclusion, "Once the extent of error is seen, the word 'inaccuracy' becomes a euphemism. Of the 99 checked MSS, 76 were missing one or more times when they should have been cited, or were listed when they should not have been. This breaks down into 59 MSS which were missing in von Soden's apparatus from 1 to 4 times, and 39 which were added incorrectly from 1 to 6 times." In conclusion, he notes, "von Soden's inaccuracies cannot be tolerated for any purpos. His apparatus is useless for a reconstruction of the text of the MSS he used." (<i>Profile Method</i>, pp.16, 17).
Moreover, Andrew Brown notes, "One can rarely be sure whether von Soden consulted all his manuscripts at the passage in question...And even where he does give figures, the resulting total does not constitute a majority of all the manuscripts which are now available. For these reasons the Hodges-Farstad edition should not be regarded as a definitive majority text until the necessary further collation work has been carried out." (<i>Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record</i>, January 1983, pp. 14-16). Consult also the statments of the MT editors (<i>Majority Text</i>, xxii, iii).
