There doesn't seem to be a decent translation of Von Soden's work from the German into English, so I am going to try to take on the task myself here.
Von Soden's work is critically important in assessing and understanding the evidence concerning John 7:53-8:11, because he was the only textual critic who could and did hand-collate the thousands of manuscripts available that are extant for this passage. From this massive project, which he took on in order to accurately reproduce the gospel of John for his critical edition of the New Testament, he reconstructed a very detailed genealogical tree for the manuscripts,which allowed him to evaluate the variants using a very fine and subtle scale.
No one has duplicated this feat since. Early on, John Burgon, Dean of Chichester had hand collated several thousand manuscripts and fragments, and later Scrivener, who produced a fantastic and detailed two-volume Introduction to the New Testament describing the major manuscript evidence. This was to be followed by another careful researcher, Colwell, on a more modest scale.
But only Von Soden really knew the manuscript evidence concerning John so intimately. Textual critics studying the Byzantine text-type rely heavily upon Von Soden's work, and in spite of minor complaints about it being out of date, even those publishing modern critical editions,like the Hodges-Farstadd text, find his exhaustive collations essential.
Of course, being able to read Von Soden in English would make his work available to a wide audience. The basic problem is that it is not just 'German' but a very technical German in a specialized field, and so requires special care and expert knowledge to properly translate.
I am offering a preliminary translation here, without claiming it to be definitive. Just to open up Von Soden's work to English researchers.
Update: Just to avoid any more questions of translation quality or 'bending', I am starting a separate thread here in which both the German and English (preliminary base translation) can be presented side by side. This will allow others to inspect and add critical notes to the translation here.
Anyone whose native language is German and is fluent in English should feel free to comment upon and improve the translation. Remember that this is 'older' German, loaded with key technical words that have special meanings in the context of the textual criticism of the New Testament. The vocabulary and experience of the translator is important, and translation and interpretation is not automatic.
The Textual History of the Percope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11)
Section 49.
For Orientation: The majority of the mss that contain John exhibit after 7:52 a pericope which interrupts the connection of 7:52 with 8:12, having Jesus' judgment over an accused adulterer as the subject. I name it "Adultery"(in Greek) and designate it with the Siglum "M"(Gk mu). This pericope is of great importance for the textual criticism of the gospel. For the text form it appears in, the measure of acknowledgement in which it becomes a part, is very often a recognition sign for the affiliation of the Codex concerned to a family, a type, a version. Not always, since, as will be it shown, it was at no part neutral. The text is frequently corrected by subsequent readers in all ages, and this evaluation varies much in the course of time, although sometimes individually is clear. But yet usually. Regarding the changing fate of the Pericope as such, its appearance in types and versions will have to be shown. Here, where it only concerns the changing wording of the form, some provisionary orienting words are sufficient.
In a significant number of mss among the oldest which we possess, the pericope is missing completely. In other mss it is sometimes of the hand of the writers, sometimes of a later hand, sometimes at the margin by 7:52, sometimes joined at the end of John's gospel, and in one group of texts inserted even in Luke after 21:38. Frequently it is accompanied by a text-critical remark, whose different style becomes likewise its date. But in the vast majority of the mss however it stands between 7:53 and 8:12 in the text, except half of those are provided with critical marks in in the margin at least. These marks sometimes start themselves on 8:3-11.
Occasionally or in reverse only 7:53-8:2 are missing or 8:3-11. This therefore suggests that in later times the narration was inserted from a Lectionary. The Lection however began only at 8:3. So if a scribe restoring the pericope in a mss should correct with the Lectionary, either by memory or by the Lectionary itself, he would only begin with the insertion at 8:3. Turned around, for the same reason if it should be erased using the Lectionary, in the copy only the lection portion will be removed, so that 7:53-8:2 remained standing. When a manuscript then containing 7:53-8:2 was corrected by a copy containing mss "moix" again, then the beginning of 8:12 will often be found before 3, that is at "legon ego emi"
For all the neutral texts, existing transcripts of the pericope were collated exactly. There was very close to a thousand. At first the picture became ever more nebulous. But bit by bit lines met, and, and by pursuing them, certain forms stood apart. Among those marking themselves most sharply were two forms of the pericope which strove for supremacy primarily in the Middle Ages, also soon mingling with one another, then displacing each other. Against them the other types then stood out ever more clearly.
(end of section 49, pg 486-487)
There are about 35 pages to Von Soden's analysis, so I'll be posting section by section, periodically as I have time to translate and post.
peace.
Von Soden's work is critically important in assessing and understanding the evidence concerning John 7:53-8:11, because he was the only textual critic who could and did hand-collate the thousands of manuscripts available that are extant for this passage. From this massive project, which he took on in order to accurately reproduce the gospel of John for his critical edition of the New Testament, he reconstructed a very detailed genealogical tree for the manuscripts,which allowed him to evaluate the variants using a very fine and subtle scale.
No one has duplicated this feat since. Early on, John Burgon, Dean of Chichester had hand collated several thousand manuscripts and fragments, and later Scrivener, who produced a fantastic and detailed two-volume Introduction to the New Testament describing the major manuscript evidence. This was to be followed by another careful researcher, Colwell, on a more modest scale.
But only Von Soden really knew the manuscript evidence concerning John so intimately. Textual critics studying the Byzantine text-type rely heavily upon Von Soden's work, and in spite of minor complaints about it being out of date, even those publishing modern critical editions,like the Hodges-Farstadd text, find his exhaustive collations essential.
Of course, being able to read Von Soden in English would make his work available to a wide audience. The basic problem is that it is not just 'German' but a very technical German in a specialized field, and so requires special care and expert knowledge to properly translate.
I am offering a preliminary translation here, without claiming it to be definitive. Just to open up Von Soden's work to English researchers.
Update: Just to avoid any more questions of translation quality or 'bending', I am starting a separate thread here in which both the German and English (preliminary base translation) can be presented side by side. This will allow others to inspect and add critical notes to the translation here.
Anyone whose native language is German and is fluent in English should feel free to comment upon and improve the translation. Remember that this is 'older' German, loaded with key technical words that have special meanings in the context of the textual criticism of the New Testament. The vocabulary and experience of the translator is important, and translation and interpretation is not automatic.
Von Soden (translated from the German by Nazaroo);
The Textual History of the Percope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11)
Section 49.
For Orientation: The majority of the mss that contain John exhibit after 7:52 a pericope which interrupts the connection of 7:52 with 8:12, having Jesus' judgment over an accused adulterer as the subject. I name it "Adultery"(in Greek) and designate it with the Siglum "M"(Gk mu). This pericope is of great importance for the textual criticism of the gospel. For the text form it appears in, the measure of acknowledgement in which it becomes a part, is very often a recognition sign for the affiliation of the Codex concerned to a family, a type, a version. Not always, since, as will be it shown, it was at no part neutral. The text is frequently corrected by subsequent readers in all ages, and this evaluation varies much in the course of time, although sometimes individually is clear. But yet usually. Regarding the changing fate of the Pericope as such, its appearance in types and versions will have to be shown. Here, where it only concerns the changing wording of the form, some provisionary orienting words are sufficient.
In a significant number of mss among the oldest which we possess, the pericope is missing completely. In other mss it is sometimes of the hand of the writers, sometimes of a later hand, sometimes at the margin by 7:52, sometimes joined at the end of John's gospel, and in one group of texts inserted even in Luke after 21:38. Frequently it is accompanied by a text-critical remark, whose different style becomes likewise its date. But in the vast majority of the mss however it stands between 7:53 and 8:12 in the text, except half of those are provided with critical marks in in the margin at least. These marks sometimes start themselves on 8:3-11.
Occasionally or in reverse only 7:53-8:2 are missing or 8:3-11. This therefore suggests that in later times the narration was inserted from a Lectionary. The Lection however began only at 8:3. So if a scribe restoring the pericope in a mss should correct with the Lectionary, either by memory or by the Lectionary itself, he would only begin with the insertion at 8:3. Turned around, for the same reason if it should be erased using the Lectionary, in the copy only the lection portion will be removed, so that 7:53-8:2 remained standing. When a manuscript then containing 7:53-8:2 was corrected by a copy containing mss "moix" again, then the beginning of 8:12 will often be found before 3, that is at "legon ego emi"
The text of this homeless pericope, now picked up, now dropped again in the swing of mood, has experienced a measure of variants like no other part of the NT. And this isn't just with every new text revision. But also in individual mss as noted above, particulars have been taken from circulating revisions as versions were brought together over and over again. Dispelling the confusion nowhere seems as hopeless as with this 'vagrant', evolving through all the conceivable phases thought possible to repair a witness by addition or ommision. The fact we've still succeeded in illuminating her original form again and her colorful, confused past, holds up a promise: that she herself will also allow us to pursue the history of the text of the whole written collection around which she is merely fluttering like a scarf, to approach her origin.
For all the neutral texts, existing transcripts of the pericope were collated exactly. There was very close to a thousand. At first the picture became ever more nebulous. But bit by bit lines met, and, and by pursuing them, certain forms stood apart. Among those marking themselves most sharply were two forms of the pericope which strove for supremacy primarily in the Middle Ages, also soon mingling with one another, then displacing each other. Against them the other types then stood out ever more clearly.
(end of section 49, pg 486-487)
There are about 35 pages to Von Soden's analysis, so I'll be posting section by section, periodically as I have time to translate and post.
peace.
