tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post2194846384961511697..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Matthew 27:49 Was Jesus Pierced before His Death?P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1521757674115029372018-12-17T08:02:44.784+00:002018-12-17T08:02:44.784+00:00Well, problem is you won't get "blood and...Well, problem is you won't get "blood and water" coming out of a live person. The victim has to be dead for about an hour for the blood to separate into plasma and red blood cells. The passage in John is proof of an eye witness account, and in fact you can see the plasma stain around the wound image on the Shroud.<br /><br />The line in Matthew is borrowed from John, reason unknown. If Jesus had been stabbed while alive only whole blood would have gushed out.<br /><br />If the Gospel had been made up, it also would probably have said only blood gushed out, as only modern forensics knows about blood separating.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14957711599326991106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-19604183831489614772018-07-27T08:12:01.568+01:002018-07-27T08:12:01.568+01:00It is interesting to note among Irish insular Vetu...It is interesting to note among Irish insular Vetus Latina mss. VL28 Garland of Howth and VL35 Book of Mulling that the longer version of Mt 27:49 exists, but I have not found it in any others.<br /><br />Andrew Sperlin agsper@frontier.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-61331307168522065042018-03-02T12:57:45.001+00:002018-03-02T12:57:45.001+00:00Perhaps attempts at reconciliation (like the Heno...Perhaps attempts at reconciliation (like the Henotican) stimulated interest in such traditions. I think it's fair to characterize the Byzantine literary overall as having an above average interest in antiquity as such, so it could also think it's quite possible that one or more ancient MSS with this reading were discovered and esteemed. In this latter scenario, the readings adopted were likely only the most striking ones.Stephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-83051740899622338692018-03-01T20:33:18.020+00:002018-03-01T20:33:18.020+00:00As far as I know the insertion is NOT in printed l...As far as I know the insertion is NOT in printed lectionaries. I did not see about it in Matthaei.<br /><br />Kemper's data from Latin, Syrian and other Eastern (not Byzantine) traditions are maybe of interest. Are they the source of the insertion of the (late) Greek mss?Teunis van Lopikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04688392583243276804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1554628714068882092018-03-01T20:10:20.832+00:002018-03-01T20:10:20.832+00:00This is correct as to the portions read on Good Fr...This is correct as to the portions read on Good Friday and 16 October, but do any lectionary manuscripts have the insertion?<br /><br />Certainly, the printed AD edition does not, and the UBS apparatus says <i>Lect</i> in general do not include such.Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-69306640973990027962018-03-01T17:17:56.976+00:002018-03-01T17:17:56.976+00:00There is some discussion of the traditions alluded...There is some discussion of the traditions alluded to in any essay in the Festschrift for MAR. I don't know if MAR agrees with all of the reasoning there, but it sounds like he agrees at least in part.Stephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-84174553705282149612018-03-01T15:50:35.180+00:002018-03-01T15:50:35.180+00:00The anomymous .... The anomymous .... Teunis van Lopikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04688392583243276804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-39232372876572203772018-03-01T15:32:14.364+00:002018-03-01T15:32:14.364+00:00Addition to Gurnter's article( https://www.aca...Addition to Gurnter's article( https://www.academia.edu/19088291/ ), mentioned in the bibliography at the end of Dirk's post:<br />Tobias A. Kemper "in escam meam fel dederunt et in latus lanceam - Zur Darstellung des Lanzenstichs im Frühmittelalter". ( https://www.academia.edu/28889349/ )<br />Matthew 27:33-54 is read in the Byzantine liturgy as gospel lesson nr 7 of Good Friday and on 16 October, the feast of the holy martyr Longinus. <br /><br />Teunis van Lopik, Leidschendam, NLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-12427404859777774402018-02-28T22:07:03.465+00:002018-02-28T22:07:03.465+00:00How? Most obviously by intent of those responsible...How? Most obviously by intent of those responsible for the Alexandrian archetype (I obviously don't consider the passage of autograph originality). <br /><br />As to <i>why</i> they chose to include it at this point, this might have more to do with Matthean popularity and particular ecclesiastical traditions regarding the grouping together of events surrounding the crucifixion than anything else.<br /><br />Interestingly, S. W. Whitney, in his commentary, <i>The Revisers' Greek Text</i>, 2:164-168, actually considers the Matthean reading <i>original</i>, suggesting that it is the account in <i>John's</i> Gospel that is out of chronological order (!).Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-89906993905838074692018-02-27T22:03:37.190+00:002018-02-27T22:03:37.190+00:00MAR, how do you think it got there?MAR, how do you think it got there?Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-16256261323802054502018-02-27T21:58:57.435+00:002018-02-27T21:58:57.435+00:00Some "Byzantinists" do not claim the Mt ...Some "Byzantinists" do not claim the Mt 27:49 expansion to be harmonizing as opposed to having been present in the Alexandrian archetype (as noted earlier). If it were mere harmonizing, not only would the wording be much closer to that found in the Johannine parallel, but the contradictory placement location within Matthew would be even more problematic. Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-85822690313680943332018-02-27T14:59:19.012+00:002018-02-27T14:59:19.012+00:00We ought to include in the list 1293 too: It has t...We ought to include in the list 1293 too: It has the variant ending with "water and blood".Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03768264208772041380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-40239500068933916942018-02-26T00:07:49.917+00:002018-02-26T00:07:49.917+00:00Peter G.: "[I]t it surely inconsistent for By...Peter G.: "[I]t it surely inconsistent for Byzantinists to reject this longer reading as harmonization but not the longer reading at Matt 18.11 on the same grounds."<br /><br />Not really, as Robinson and most "Byzantinists" would say, to borrow phraseology from Hort, that those documents should be preferred here which have been found habitually to contain those morally certain or at least strongly preferred readings elsewhere, and those should be rejected which habitually have been found elsewhere to contain their rejected rivals, since the text of the first has been transmitted in comparative purity, and the text of the second has suffered comparatively large corruption.Jonathan C. Borlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49833179531338653412018-02-24T10:21:59.201+00:002018-02-24T10:21:59.201+00:00This passage is a good one for pondering the balan...This passage is a good one for pondering the balance between prefer the more difficult reading and prefer the less harmonised reading. In this case the less harmonised reading is not at all difficult; the harmonised reading appears to be the (way) more difficult reading. But would it really have been that difficult to an early copyist? How many examples of deletion to solve a harmonising difficulty do we have?Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-64742594829764513872018-02-23T22:47:25.552+00:002018-02-23T22:47:25.552+00:00Regarding the comparison with Mat 18:11: To insist...Regarding the comparison with Mat 18:11: To insist that one cannot suppose Matthew originally to have read in a manner quite similar to a non-parallel passage in Like and then posit that some other reading to be a harmonization would seem to require the person making this supposition nowhere to accept a reading that verbally resembles a parallel where an alternative reading is available. If he responds that other factors, whether internal or external, should be allowed to modify the assessment of an apparently harmonizing reading in some cases, why should Byzantine priority theorists not be allowed the same luxury? Second, BP theorists do not necessarily see harmonization as the primary motivation for the long reading here.<br /><br />Regarding the miniscule support, I am not particularly surprised. The miniscules are not, to borrow an adverb from the present post, slavishly homogeneous. Moreover, they are more tolerant of difficult readings than they are often made out to be.Stephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-56740077204978503952018-02-23T21:16:27.930+00:002018-02-23T21:16:27.930+00:00I was also surprised to see how much support the a...I was also surprised to see how much support the addition has among minuscules. This certainly makes the reading more compelling on external grounds than it would have been otherwise, but I agree with Dirk that the internal evidence presented in this post still makes a stronger case. I'll admit that the apparent inconsistency with John might have inspired multiple scribes not to propagate the reading (as 7 corrections in the minuscules listed above attest), but I don't think that it's problematic enough for the omission to have caught on so widely. The fact that we can point to so many other apparent inconsistencies between the gospels is evidence that most scribes weren't bent on eliminating them entirely. Besides, the preference to harmonize, even superficially, was clearly more important to some scribes (e.g., the corrector of 1300, and if you're correct about Matthew 18:11, plenty of other scribes).<br /><br />My guess is that the extra support for the addition among later minuscules is due to a combination of contamination and a series of dueling additions and omissions among the scribes. The addition is demonstrably early, so it had more time to spread out than most later harmonizations had.Joey McCollumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352192479713307345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-5065557051959613002018-02-23T20:13:45.095+00:002018-02-23T20:13:45.095+00:00Thanks, Dirk. Thinking of my recent comments on Ma...Thanks, Dirk. Thinking of <a href="http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/02/matt-1811-as-test-of-internal.html" rel="nofollow">my recent comments</a> on Matt 18.11, it it surely inconsistent for Byzantinists to reject this longer reading as harmonization but not the longer reading at Matt 18.11 on the same grounds given how much more similar that text is to its parallel then this on is to its parallel.<br /><br />On another note, is anyone else surprised at the number of minuscules that have the longer reading in Matt 27.49? It seems that if the apparent inconsistency with John were the cause of removing it, we would not find so many minuscules that include it.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-22344410684196576232018-02-23T20:01:01.840+00:002018-02-23T20:01:01.840+00:00Dirk,
It is not unusual to encounter, in apologet...Dirk, <br />It is not unusual to encounter, in apologetic works, the claim that no significant textual variant brings any major Christian doctrine into question. However, regarding specifically the doctrine of inerrancy -- which is described as an "essential" at the Dallas Theological Seminary's website -- if the Alexandrian reading at Mt. 27:49 were original, wouldn't this require the concession that a statement of error exists in either the text of Matthew or the text of John?James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-33563730395494967932018-02-23T19:43:16.599+00:002018-02-23T19:43:16.599+00:00I don't see deception at work in such footnote...I don't see deception at work in such footnotes, but rather simplistic attempts to bolster the position which modern scholarship is seen as supporting.Stephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-65526356077992979582018-02-23T19:31:01.689+00:002018-02-23T19:31:01.689+00:00Good post Dirk. I never thought of the correlation...Good post Dirk. I never thought of the correlation between these two interpolations being an adaptation of Johannine language to Matthean. It's as if some sinister scribes had asked, "What can I do to this to make future textual critics think it has internal evidence in its favor?" But you also have to factor in the complication of the earliest and best Byzantine manuscripts not having ευθυσ or ευθεως in John 19:34.<br />If the THGNT had printed Mark 16:9-20 without comment, then yeah, it would be okay to ignore this variant too. But when we are solemnly informed in the footnotes of every English Bible without K and J in its name that the "oldest and best," or at the very least, the "earliest" manuscripts omit it, then it is the height of deception not to admit that these same two manuscripts add something untenable to Matthew 27:49--and that with the support of dozens of other manuscripts, and several versions. <br />Deceptive, because there is no question that it would come as a big surprise to your basic reader of English Bibles without K and J in their names, filled as they are with such highly selective footnotes, that these manuscripts may often be the oldest, but are far from always being the best. <br />Is the truth really that dangerous?Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-56983517645385172922018-02-23T19:14:35.458+00:002018-02-23T19:14:35.458+00:00Dirk: "The ‘best and earliest manuscripts’ do...Dirk: "The ‘best and earliest manuscripts’ do not always present us with the ‘best and earliest readings’.<br /><br />True indeed. However, one should not neglect the strong evidence that the longer and secondary addition in this instance actually represents the original Alexandrian archetype, with later minuscule support reflecting certain aspects of Orthodox tradition dealing with or depicting the combined events surrounding the crucifixion. Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-73347659471979858922018-02-23T13:48:16.045+00:002018-02-23T13:48:16.045+00:00Thanks Dirk, I think you are right that this readi...Thanks Dirk, I think you are right that this reading ought at least to be in the apparatus. Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.com