Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Von Soden Text or just revised UBS Text?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4

    Question Von Soden Text or just revised UBS Text?

    If the text compiled by Von Soden is supposed to be close to the Byzantine readings, why does it so often agree with the Nestle's/UBS-based BibleWorks Text?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Fink View Post
    If the text compiled by Von Soden is supposed to be close to the Byzantine readings, why does it so often agree with the Nestle's/UBS-based BibleWorks Text?
    Von Soden's text, as Hoskier and others of his generation noted, is Alexandrian, not Byzantine. Von Soden classified so-called Byzantine and other "families", but his text is an Alexandrian slant, and his work is overflowing with errors, partial citations, and ommissions. Additionally, the so-called "Majority Text" is based on a grand total of approximately 414 manuscripts from Von Soden's apparatus, and only a partial representation of that 414, which means that the so-called "Majority Text" is not only based on an extremely erroneous apparatus, but that the so-called "Majority Text" is likewise based on only about 5%-7% of the extant Greek witnesses, and that base is accordingly likewise erroneous throughout.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 07-23-2008 at 07:41 PM.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Von Soden's text, as Hoskier and others of his generation noted, is Alexandrian, not Byzantine. Von Soden classified so-called Byzantine and other "families", but his text is an Alexandrian slant, and his work is overflowing with errors, partial citations, and ommissions.
    Do you have any bibliographic references for further investigation into your assertions? That would be helpful.
    Michael H. Burer
    Assistant Professor of New Testament Studies
    Dallas Theological Seminary

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Burer View Post
    Do you have any bibliographic references for further investigation into your assertions? That would be helpful.
    You mean besides Von Soden's appartus itself?

    Von Soden's apparatus speaks for itself, but if you want additional information, you can read Hoskier's Codex B & Its Allies, along with his Text Of The Apocalypse, in addition to Jack Moorman's When The KJV Departs From The Majority Text, as well as the works of Wisse in his Profile Method, and others such as Greenlee and Royce and Elliott who analyzed and wrote on Von Soden's apparatus.

    Here's an example of Hoskier's assessment, who carefully collated more manuscripts than probably any man alive or dead --

    "As to the presentment of the combined critical material, after making every allowance for the division of work among forty people it can only be said that the apparatus is positively honeycombed with errors, and many documents which should have been recollated have not been touched, others only partially, and others again have been incorrectly handled." JTS, 15-1914, p 307, from Moorman.

    "Von Soden's text is so thoroughly Alexandrian that it falls into line with Hort, irrespective of MS evidence. Among other things, it favours the imperfect over the aorist, just as the Alexandrians did, and favours the historic present on countless occassions..." Codex B & Its Allies, p 461.

    And here's an example from Wisse --

    "Once the extent of error is seen, the word "inaccuracy" becomes a euphemism." Profile Method, p 16.

    And of course, as I said at the beginning, Von Soden's most damning critic is his own apparatus, which can easily be checked.

    But then, the apparatuses of Nestle-Aland and UBS are also honeycombed with error, and if you would like to see a comment on that matter by Reuben Swanson, simply check the first footnote in my article, False Citations - 1 Timothy 3:16 Examined at --

    http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/Sco..._citations.htm
    Last edited by Adelphos; 07-23-2008 at 08:05 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Did von Soden use 414 mss. as Moorman states, or about 1400?

    The reason I ask is that I have heard Waite teach that von Soden used 414 mss.(J. Moorman I presume is his source). When attempting to use this in a debate I was rebutted that von Soden used about 1400 mss. and that Moorman is just counting (or taking into account) Kraft and (Kruegers?) lists.

    Reguardless of how many mss. he used does anyone know how many he fully collated with some degree of accuracy?Moorman's camp seems to think about 200?

    Finally on this point, how in depth was/is Hodges and Farstads use of von Sodens notes? meaning wether he used 414 or 1400 (neither one being a Majority of mss.) how much of his collation (sloppy or not) is used and applied in H&F MT?

    p.s. Was von Soden an infidel?
    Last edited by VIGILANTIUS; 12-16-2009 at 10:29 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Moorman is correct in the way he stated it, which is not how you stated it. Moorman was much more exact and descriptive in his categorizations. The 414 is a figure derived from Von Soden's k list, and other manipulations.

    You have to differentiate between Von Soden's raw data and HF's use of Von Soden's conclusions. HF and RP basically accepted Von Soden's conslusions, albeit I believe Robinson has delved into the raw data since the so-called MT came out years ago.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 12-16-2009 at 10:32 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •