Subject: Re: A question about the "cesarean text"

From: Michael Holmes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 09:10:12 -0500 (CDT)

J. Belsheim in 1885 published an article on Mark in manuscript 565 which
includes a collation of John.  That collation notes at 7.52 that 7.53-8.11
are omitted in their entirety. The collation of ch. 21 gives no indication
at all that the passage has been added at that point.

Mike Holmes

At 06:33 AM 8/26/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Dr. Hurtado's mention of the Caesarean text and the MSS involved prompts a
>question which the resources available to me cannot answer:
>
>MS 565 is cited in UBS 3/4 and Nestle 26/27 as omitting the Pericope
>Adultera entirely.  
>
>Metzger in his _Textual Commentary_ (either edition) says that MS 565
>transposes the Pericope Adultera to the end of John, along with MS 1 of
>Family 1.
>
>I don't have access to the microfilm or collation of 565, so which
>statement is correct? 
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
>Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 11:41:33 -0400 (EDT)

> at all that the passage has been added at that point.

That was what I had heard, but could not verify it for myself.  If so,
then Metzger is incorrect in both editions of his _Textual Commentary_ on
that point, unless in fact Belsheim erred.  Perhaps only the microfilm
will tell, but I did suspect that UBS 3/4 and Nestle 26/27 were correct
here.

Now the next question is where Metzger obtained any information suggesting
that MS 565 transposed the pericope adultera to the end of John. Any help
will be appreciated.

---

From: Andrew Kulikovsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:12:01 +0900

> will tell, but I did suspect that UBS 3/4 and Nestle 26/27 were correct

On several occasions now I have seen comments made by scholars on this
list and others concerning the validity and accuracy of Metzger's
comments in his Textual Commentary. I always thought of Metzger as an
outstanding and careful scholar so I wonder what everyone else thought
about his work. Just how useful and reliable is his textual commentary?
Are his errors only few and far between?

cheers,
Andrew

+---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS                   
|                                              
| Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia)
| & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College)
| Adelaide, Australia
| ph: +618 8281 0919  fax: +618 8281 6231
| email: [email-masked]
| 
| Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page:
| http://www.cryogen.com/hermeneutics
|                                                            
| What's the point of gaining everything this world has  
| to offer, if you lose your own life in the end?          
|                                                          
|                                   ...Look to Jesus Christ
|                                                           
|                           hO IHSOUS KURIOS!                  
+---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:00:19 -0500 (CDT)

>Are his errors only few and far between?

Let's distinguish between *accuracy of data* and *accuracy of logic.*

In most of the readings in the _Textual_Commentary_, Metzger is not
describing the textual data but opinions of the committee about
readings. As far as his own opinions are concerned, presumably
Metzger describes them accurately. :-) Based on what I have read,
he does not describe the opinions of the other Committee members
quite as accurately, but even so, the _Commentary_ describes their
overall reasoning well.

The textual data is another matter. There are, of course, many
readings in the _Commentary_ for which there is no apparatus in
the text volume. For these, Metzger had to gather data on manuscripts
from other sources. As the list of witnesses cited shows, he usually
cited, at least partly, from Von Soden or one of his followers
(Merk, Bover). Inaccuracies in Metzger's data are, therefore,
presumably to be laid at the door of Von Soden.

Does that help?

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)