Subject: Re: MS 565

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 97 22:07:33 +0100

On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Michael Holmes wrote:

>> 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.

>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.

Hope this helps:

At fol 359 verso John 7,53-8,11 is absent from MS 565 within the context of 
chapters 7 and 8. fol 405 verso provides two and a half lines from John 21,25 
(KAQhEN...AMHN) followed by a slim decoration line. Then we find the explicit 
EUAGGELION KA(TA) IWANNHN written in uncial script (similar to the endings of 
Matthew and Mark in 565).
The rest of fol 405 verso is covered with a text written in uncial script 
(probably 10 lines) but faded or deliberately wiped out. From the photographs 
stored in the Muenster Institut one can hardly read the text.
However, having spent some time on this text I may safely conclude that it reads 
...PERITHS.OIXALID...E...
...ALAION....KATA.....
In Line three I can hardly identify more than two subsequent letters. The last 
line on fol 405 verso reads
GALILAIAS OUK EGEIRETAI
This is sufficient evidence to assume that the uncial text on fol 405 verso 
might be virtually identical with family 1's text. Unfortunately the rest of the 
text is lacking. After fol 405 there is an additional leave appended, presumably 
stemming from a later binding, for it looks like paper, not like parchment. This 
leave is covered with John 1.1-17 and John 20.19-25 from a very late hand.
It seems impossible for me 
(a) to decide whether the pericope's text originally was added completely then 
partly dropped (and/or wiped out) or only up to the end of fol 405 verso; and
(b) to decide at what point in time the uncial script was added to fol 405 verso 
and at what point in time it almost completely dissapeared.
All I can say is that Metzger apparently had some hints for his statement, 
though it might be partly conjectured partly misleading. 

BTW-- Belsheim does not say a word on fol 405 verso?

BTW-- Swanson apparently does not address the ending of MS 565 in his edition. 
Is he relying on Belsheim? Was the reproduction of MS 565 he used even worse 
than the photographs at the Muenster Institut? 

(I will deeply miss the opportunity to just get hold of microfilms, photographs, 
facsimiles of virtually every known Greek NT MS, for I'm about to leave this 
place heading to Wassenaar, Netherlands for the next months.)

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster