Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1707Re: [textualcriticism] Mat 27:49 the piercing

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    Mar 8 10:51 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Wieland Willker" <willker@...-bremen.de>
      To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:21 AM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Mat 27:49 the piercing

      > For example, he joins me in pulling the piercing incident back on the
      table. He argues for the strong possibility that the words reported by 01,
      B, C, L et al. after Mt 27:49 are original, compare pages 299-300.
      > 49 But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save
      > [[But another took his spear and pierced his side, and out came water and
      > 50 But Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last.
      > Either this is a very unskillful secondary insertion or it is original and
      has been eliminated to improve style and remove a difficulty.
      > It is very difficult to explain the diversity of witnesses supporting this
      verse. The best Alexandrian witnesses (01, B, L) group with mixed MSS (C,
      2680) and fully Byzantine MSS (U, Gamma, 34 minuscules). Versional evidence:
      vg-mss, Sy-Pal-mss, mae-1+2
      > So far I have not found a convincing explanation for a secondary addition
      of this kind.
      Westcott and Hort argued that apart from the omission of this
      passage by the main Byzantine tradition, the evidence supporting
      omission and inclusion is very similar to the so-called 'Western
      non-interpolations' in Luke particularly Luke 24.

      If one accept their positions as to the secondary nature of the
      Byzantine tradition then on external evidence either one includes
      the piercing in Matthew and the longer Alexandrian readings in
      Luke or one omits them all.

      Andrew Criddle
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic