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

The Spear Thrust in Matt 27:49 v.l.

Expand Messages
  • feeite_christian
    Allison and Davies in the ICC commentary on Matthew write, We are almost moved to think the line original (III.626). They were referring to the line just
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 29, 2008

      Allison and Davies in the ICC commentary on Matthew write, "We are almost moved to think the line original" (III.626).

      They were referring to the line just prior to Jesus death which reads, "Another taking a lance stabbed [Jesus'] side and out came water and blood."

      The line actually was included in W-H's editions in [[double brackets]].

      The discussion in the TCG is outstanding--as thorough as anywhere else.

      I have five questions.

      First, would anyone care to disagree or elaborate on the discussion in TCG in which the matter was left undecided? 

      Second, isn't the evidence strong enough for the long reading to lower the UBS rating to a C?

      Third, does it matter that the recently emergent Codex Schoyen (1999, see the Files) which is purported by some to be the oldest substantial witness to Matthew's Gospel supports the long reading?

      Fourth, if the long reading were original, would it advance any of Matthew's theological emphases?  In regard to John's theological concerns, Stephen Pannell gave a pretty good case as to why the spear thrust needed to placed post-mortem rather than pre-mortem.  However, having read what little is available regarding the v.l., I've found nothing regarding the exegetical conclusions of a pre-mortem spear thrust in light of Matthew's theology.

      Fifth, is there any speculation why Codex Schoyen would pluralize side?  The lance pierced Jesus' sides (plural).

       

      Thanks

    • mjriii2003
      Mr. Leonard, I will try to respond as I am able. Forgive me if I am stating the obvious. 1. The purpose of a piercing by a Roman soldier just like the
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 30, 2008
        Mr. Leonard,

        I will try to respond as I am able. Forgive me if I am stating the
        obvious.

        1. The purpose of a piercing by a Roman soldier just like the
        breaking of the legs at a crucifixion was necessitated only if the
        crucifixion itself failed to render its proper results in a timely
        fashion or in the biblical narrative's case, induced to hasten the
        end result, i.e. death and ensure that the condemned did not walk
        away. One crucified could not be removed from the tree until such a
        result was accomplished. In the case of Jesus acccording to St
        John's testimony, the breaking of his bones(legs) was unnecesssary
        because He was already dead and could not somehow walk away from His
        transfixed lifeless state. The measure of a Roman soldier piercing a
        prolonged and unduely drawn out death sentenced was hastened thereby
        by a piercing, again according to St John. In John the piercing was
        post mortem, but the measure was taken to insure that the
        responsibility of the Roman soldier's duty was accomplished properly.

        I view the pre-mortem piercing in St. Matthew as an ahistorical,
        inept attempt at harmonization. An ALLOS (presumeably a Jew - not a
        Roman soldier) takes upon himself the prerogative to pierce a
        condemned criminal in spite of the presence of Roman soldiers. A pre
        mortem piercing contradicts the immediate context of waiting to see
        if Elijah would come and save Him (or perhaps they were afraid that
        he just might come to do just that and better hurry up and kill
        Him!)

        2. The fact that a later Coptic manuscript and even the normally
        superior witnesses of Aleph/01 and B/03 cannot dissuade me from
        viewing with W-H this reading as spurious.

        http://treasuresoldandnewbiblicaltexts.blogspot.com/2007/11/phd-
        proposal-codex-schoyen.html

        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Mt-mae-2.pdf

        3. As far as Matthaean theology goes as well as Johannine, the
        historical veracity and emphasis upon the human nature aspect of
        Jesus is compatiable with either reading. The physiological nature
        of hUDWR KAI hAIMA is of course non problematic. The ahistorical
        harmonization in St. Matthew is the main issue for none acceptance of
        this.

        4. I can only speculate about the plural form for sides that the
        thrust into Jesus' side may have penetrated clear through His body
        thus exposing two sides. This act would be consistant with rage and
        the encompetance of a zealous Jewish layman, but hardly the demeanor
        of a skilled Roman solder.

        5. I personally would upgrade UBS grade rating from C to D against
        this varia lectio in Matthew 27:49.

        Malcolm
        _______________

        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "feeite_christian"
        <jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Allison and Davies in the ICC commentary on Matthew write, "We are
        > almost moved to think the line original" (III.626).
        >
        > They were referring to the line just prior to Jesus death which
        reads,
        > "Another taking a lance stabbed [Jesus'] side and out came water and
        > blood."
        >
        > The line actually was included in W-H's editions in [[double
        brackets]].
        >
        > The discussion in the TCG is outstanding--as thorough as anywhere
        else.
        >
        > I have five questions.
        >
        > First, would anyone care to disagree or elaborate on the discussion
        in
        > TCG in which the matter was left undecided?
        >
        > Second, isn't the evidence strong enough for the long reading to
        lower
        > the UBS rating to a C?
        >
        > Third, does it matter that the recently emergent Codex Schoyen
        (1999,
        > see the Files) which is purported by some to be the oldest
        substantial
        > witness to Matthew's Gospel supports the long reading?
        >
        > Fourth, if the long reading were original, would it advance any of
        > Matthew's theological emphases? In regard to John's theological
        > concerns, Stephen Pannell gave a pretty good case as to why the
        spear
        > thrust needed to placed post-mortem rather than pre-mortem.
        However,
        > having read what little is available regarding the v.l., I've found
        > nothing regarding the exegetical conclusions of a pre-mortem spear
        > thrust in light of Matthew's theology.
        >
        > Fifth, is there any speculation why Codex Schoyen would pluralize
        side?
        > The lance pierced Jesus' sides (plural).
        >
        >
        >
        > Thanks
        >
      • feeite_christian
        Thanks Malcolm. Just a few points of clarification. The spear thrust may have been more of an exploratory jab either to see if a victim were still alive or to
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 31, 2008
          Thanks Malcolm. Just a few points of clarification.

          The spear thrust may have been more of an exploratory jab either to
          see if a victim were still alive or to prompt him to say further
          bemusing comments. In fact, Codex Schoyen uses a second verb which
          may indeed suggest as much. If so, then the jab--from the point of a
          long unwieldy spear which could hardly be used with pinpoint accuracy
          or sensitivity--may have pentrated further than the intention. This
          would allow the notion that the spear thrust was not designed to
          hasten death. In terms of historical reality, I would think that a
          crucified person's breathing or lack thereof could hardly be
          mistaken; in the tortured manner of his hanging, it should have been
          obvious whether he was still breathing. This being the case, a jab
          could have served to prompt him to consciousness or to say other
          bemusing comments. All this said, I'm not sure if this information
          actually advances the text critical issue.

          In regard to the comment about inept harmonization:

          > I view the pre-mortem piercing in St. Matthew as an ahistorical,
          > inept attempt at harmonization. An ALLOS (presumeably a Jew - not
          a
          > Roman soldier) takes upon himself the prerogative to pierce a
          > condemned criminal in spite of the presence of Roman soldiers. A
          pre
          > mortem piercing contradicts the immediate context of waiting to see
          > if Elijah would come and save Him (or perhaps they were afraid that
          > he just might come to do just that and better hurry up and kill
          > Him!)

          Surely, if the long reading were harmonised, it would have been done
          with better results. The fact that it produces the most obvious and
          grievous historical incongruity with John would seem to argue against
          harmonisation.

          Let me also clarify the external support. Not only is the long
          reading supported by Aleph and Vaticanus, but also Codex Regius (L)
          which also has an excellent text in Matthew (at least from chapter 18
          onward), and by C along with a good number of leading fully Byzantine
          texts. Moreover, the two Coptic manuscripts are not "later"
          manuscripts, but represent some of the very earliest extant witnesses
          to Matthew's Gospel.

          Note also that the UBS4 rating is a B, and that Westcott and Hort
          actually included the reading in their text, albeit in double
          brackets.

          Thanks.
        • mjriii2003
          Mr. Leonard, 1. According to M. Hengel in his book about Crucifixion, the suffocation of the condemned was part and parcel to the means of death imposed. The
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 31, 2008
            Mr. Leonard,

            1. According to M. Hengel in his book about Crucifixion, the
            suffocation of the condemned was part and parcel to the means of
            death imposed. The ability to detect whether an individual
            was "breathing" would be dependant upon the stage of his execution.
            The latter stages of his excruciating agony would be barely (if at
            all detectable). In fact, one's state of consciousness in the latter
            stages would be highly unlikely. This is why Jesus' cry with a loud
            voice before He gave up the spirit (died/expired) is noteworthy and
            unusual. Finally, in light of what we do know of the abuse and
            torture that Jesus endured and at this late stage in His condemnation
            and execution, it is even more unlikely that benumbed senses would
            even register a jab as you understand it.

            2. The value of any translation is secondary. It is not a primary
            document and it's importance is limited. The Coptic manuscript is
            mid fourth century. My Coptic knowledge is now limited and unused as
            well as my knowledge of Syriac. Perhaps Peter Head could aid you in
            this respect further.

            3. Within the context of Matthew, the ALLOS can not be construed as
            a Roman soldier and the idea that the soldiers guarding the condemned
            would permit the audience to interfer is highly unlikely and wholly
            contrary to their purpose in the first place. Remember, permission
            had to be sought to remove the bodies before the start of the Sabbath
            observance.

            4. I don't share you view that a spear would be so unwieldy in the
            hands of a Roman soldier.

            5. I still think UBS rating should be a D and the double brackets i
            W-H indicate spuriousness.

            Malcolm
            ___________

            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "feeite_christian"
            <jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:
            >
            > Thanks Malcolm. Just a few points of clarification.
            >
            > The spear thrust may have been more of an exploratory jab either to
            > see if a victim were still alive or to prompt him to say further
            > bemusing comments. In fact, Codex Schoyen uses a second verb which
            > may indeed suggest as much. If so, then the jab--from the point of
            a
            > long unwieldy spear which could hardly be used with pinpoint
            accuracy
            > or sensitivity--may have pentrated further than the intention.
            This
            > would allow the notion that the spear thrust was not designed to
            > hasten death. In terms of historical reality, I would think that a
            > crucified person's breathing or lack thereof could hardly be
            > mistaken; in the tortured manner of his hanging, it should have
            been
            > obvious whether he was still breathing. This being the case, a jab
            > could have served to prompt him to consciousness or to say other
            > bemusing comments. All this said, I'm not sure if this information
            > actually advances the text critical issue.
            >
            > In regard to the comment about inept harmonization:
            >
            > > I view the pre-mortem piercing in St. Matthew as an ahistorical,
            > > inept attempt at harmonization. An ALLOS (presumeably a Jew -
            not
            > a
            > > Roman soldier) takes upon himself the prerogative to pierce a
            > > condemned criminal in spite of the presence of Roman soldiers. A
            > pre
            > > mortem piercing contradicts the immediate context of waiting to
            see
            > > if Elijah would come and save Him (or perhaps they were afraid
            that
            > > he just might come to do just that and better hurry up and kill
            > > Him!)
            >
            > Surely, if the long reading were harmonised, it would have been
            done
            > with better results. The fact that it produces the most obvious
            and
            > grievous historical incongruity with John would seem to argue
            against
            > harmonisation.
            >
            > Let me also clarify the external support. Not only is the long
            > reading supported by Aleph and Vaticanus, but also Codex Regius (L)
            > which also has an excellent text in Matthew (at least from chapter
            18
            > onward), and by C along with a good number of leading fully
            Byzantine
            > texts. Moreover, the two Coptic manuscripts are not "later"
            > manuscripts, but represent some of the very earliest extant
            witnesses
            > to Matthew's Gospel.
            >
            > Note also that the UBS4 rating is a B, and that Westcott and Hort
            > actually included the reading in their text, albeit in double
            > brackets.
            >
            > Thanks.
            >
          • Jack Kilmon
            There was a team consisting of four legionnaires, called the Quatemio, headed by an Exactor Mortis, responsible for crucifixions. They had it down to an art.
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 31, 2008
              There was a team consisting of four legionnaires, called the Quatemio,
              headed by an Exactor Mortis, responsible for crucifixions. They had it down
              to an art. The purpose of the piercing with a pila irlancea was simply to
              make sure the victim wasdead. If he/she flinched or reacted, even while
              unconscious or comatose, his/her legs were broken, the crurifragium, to
              hasten suffocation and death. Nice guys them Romans.

              Jack Kilmon


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "mjriii2003" <mjriii2003@...>
              To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:34 PM
              Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: The Spear Thrust in Matt 27:49 v.l.


              > Mr. Leonard,
              >
              > I will try to respond as I am able. Forgive me if I am stating the
              > obvious.
              >
              > 1. The purpose of a piercing by a Roman soldier just like the
              > breaking of the legs at a crucifixion was necessitated only if the
              > crucifixion itself failed to render its proper results in a timely
              > fashion or in the biblical narrative's case, induced to hasten the
              > end result, i.e. death and ensure that the condemned did not walk
              > away. One crucified could not be removed from the tree until such a
              > result was accomplished. In the case of Jesus acccording to St
              > John's testimony, the breaking of his bones(legs) was unnecesssary
              > because He was already dead and could not somehow walk away from His
              > transfixed lifeless state. The measure of a Roman soldier piercing a
              > prolonged and unduely drawn out death sentenced was hastened thereby
              > by a piercing, again according to St John. In John the piercing was
              > post mortem, but the measure was taken to insure that the
              > responsibility of the Roman soldier's duty was accomplished properly.
            • feeite_christian
              Thanks, Malcolm for your thoughtful reply. For the sake of sticking to tc issues, I ll avoid replying to your points about the historical realities of
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 3, 2008
                Thanks, Malcolm for your thoughtful reply.

                For the sake of sticking to tc issues, I'll avoid replying to your
                points about the historical realities of crucifion, all of which were
                instructive, but still leave room for questions and doubt in mind.

                In terms of the secondary witness of translations, yes I agree with
                you to the extent that there are limitations on their value due to
                their being a mere reflection of the original. However, in the case
                of tc issues dealing with a long or shortened texts, a translation is
                as good as a Greek manuscript. In such a case, when there is no
                question at all whether a manuscript of a version attests a shorter
                or longer reading, then the versional manuscript proves that a Greek
                manuscript did indeed exist which had either the shorter or longer
                reading.

                In regard to the specific case of the Middle Egytian Codex Schoyen,
                its date has hitherto only been conjectured without any concrete
                evidence offered in conjunction with the conjecture. Its editor, H-M
                Schenke pronounced it as being vermutlich ("probably, presumably")
                from the first half of the fourth century. I see that the Schoyen
                Collection has recently revised its webpage so that they are no
                longer claiming a 325 date for it, but are affirming Schenke's prior
                assessment of 300-350.

                At any rate, the question is whether the reading in the recently
                emerged Codex Schoyen makes a difference:

                If, as has been argued, the group of longer readings which are
                juxtaposed to the shorter readings otherwise known as the Western Non-
                Interpolations (WN-I) arose out of the same provenance, then the long
                reading of Matt 27:49 (if not original) will have been in existence
                for perhaps as early as 120 AD and no later than 200. These dates
                correspond to the breaking away of the Western Text from its source,
                and to the date of P75 which gives attestation to the shorter
                readings.

                All this is difficult to articulate due to the loaded language of
                Western Non-Interpolations. But what I'm saying is that the spear
                thrust in Matthew (the longer reading), if its origin arises part and
                parcel with all the other longer readings opposing the short
                readings known as the WN-I's, then its appearance in Schoyen doesn't
                really matter since the shorter WN-I readings--as a group--are
                attested in P75.

                On the other hand, there are some things which distinguish the Spear
                Thrust in Matthew from the dynamics of the WN-I's: 1) the short text
                (WN-I's) are all otherwise found only in the last two chapters of
                Luke; 2) the attestation of the short form in Matthew is so much
                stronger, involving not just Western texs, but also Alexandrinus and
                nearly 1600 Byzantine witnesses (of varying degrees), not to mention
                Family One and Family 13, 33 et al.

                Consequently, perhaps there is some basis for rejecting the notion
                that the short form of Matt 27:49 really belongs to the class of
                variants known as the Western Non-Interpolations. If so, then the
                early attestation of the long reading of Schoyen (and Scheide--mae)
                does matter--at least a little, proving that it it had spread through
                some segments of the Coptic speaking world, and had done so
                presumably as early as 250-300, even though it is not extant in
                Sahidic and Bohairic.

                By the way, I'm not sure that any variant gets a D rating from UBS.
                The lowest seems to be C.




                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "mjriii2003"
                <mjriii2003@...> wrote:
                >
                > Mr. Leonard,
                >
                > 1. According to M. Hengel in his book about Crucifixion, the
                > suffocation of the condemned was part and parcel to the means of
                > death imposed. The ability to detect whether an individual
                > was "breathing" would be dependant upon the stage of his
                execution.
                > The latter stages of his excruciating agony would be barely (if at
                > all detectable). In fact, one's state of consciousness in the
                latter
                > stages would be highly unlikely. This is why Jesus' cry with a
                loud
                > voice before He gave up the spirit (died/expired) is noteworthy and
                > unusual. Finally, in light of what we do know of the abuse and
                > torture that Jesus endured and at this late stage in His
                condemnation
                > and execution, it is even more unlikely that benumbed senses would
                > even register a jab as you understand it.
                >
                > 2. The value of any translation is secondary. It is not a primary
                > document and it's importance is limited. The Coptic manuscript is
                > mid fourth century. My Coptic knowledge is now limited and unused
                as
                > well as my knowledge of Syriac. Perhaps Peter Head could aid you
                in
                > this respect further.
                >
                > 3. Within the context of Matthew, the ALLOS can not be construed
                as
                > a Roman soldier and the idea that the soldiers guarding the
                condemned
                > would permit the audience to interfer is highly unlikely and wholly
                > contrary to their purpose in the first place. Remember, permission
                > had to be sought to remove the bodies before the start of the
                Sabbath
                > observance.
                >
                > 4. I don't share you view that a spear would be so unwieldy in the
                > hands of a Roman soldier.
                >
                > 5. I still think UBS rating should be a D and the double brackets
                i
                > W-H indicate spuriousness.
                >
                > Malcolm
                > ___________
                >
                > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "feeite_christian"
                > <jmleonardfamily@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Thanks Malcolm. Just a few points of clarification.
                > >
                > > The spear thrust may have been more of an exploratory jab either
                to
                > > see if a victim were still alive or to prompt him to say further
                > > bemusing comments. In fact, Codex Schoyen uses a second verb
                which
                > > may indeed suggest as much. If so, then the jab--from the point
                of
                > a
                > > long unwieldy spear which could hardly be used with pinpoint
                > accuracy
                > > or sensitivity--may have pentrated further than the intention.
                > This
                > > would allow the notion that the spear thrust was not designed to
                > > hasten death. In terms of historical reality, I would think that
                a
                > > crucified person's breathing or lack thereof could hardly be
                > > mistaken; in the tortured manner of his hanging, it should have
                > been
                > > obvious whether he was still breathing. This being the case, a
                jab
                > > could have served to prompt him to consciousness or to say other
                > > bemusing comments. All this said, I'm not sure if this
                information
                > > actually advances the text critical issue.
                > >
                > > In regard to the comment about inept harmonization:
                > >
                > > > I view the pre-mortem piercing in St. Matthew as an
                ahistorical,
                > > > inept attempt at harmonization. An ALLOS (presumeably a Jew -
                > not
                > > a
                > > > Roman soldier) takes upon himself the prerogative to pierce a
                > > > condemned criminal in spite of the presence of Roman soldiers.
                A
                > > pre
                > > > mortem piercing contradicts the immediate context of waiting to
                > see
                > > > if Elijah would come and save Him (or perhaps they were afraid
                > that
                > > > he just might come to do just that and better hurry up and kill
                > > > Him!)
                > >
                > > Surely, if the long reading were harmonised, it would have been
                > done
                > > with better results. The fact that it produces the most obvious
                > and
                > > grievous historical incongruity with John would seem to argue
                > against
                > > harmonisation.
                > >
                > > Let me also clarify the external support. Not only is the long
                > > reading supported by Aleph and Vaticanus, but also Codex Regius
                (L)
                > > which also has an excellent text in Matthew (at least from
                chapter
                > 18
                > > onward), and by C along with a good number of leading fully
                > Byzantine
                > > texts. Moreover, the two Coptic manuscripts are not "later"
                > > manuscripts, but represent some of the very earliest extant
                > witnesses
                > > to Matthew's Gospel.
                > >
                > > Note also that the UBS4 rating is a B, and that Westcott and Hort
                > > actually included the reading in their text, albeit in double
                > > brackets.
                > >
                > > Thanks.
                > >
                >
              • feeite_christian
                We should also note that there is some argument for assuming that the spear thrust in Matthew is original and that John would have had theological reasons for
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 3, 2008
                  We should also note that there is some argument for assuming that the
                  spear thrust in Matthew is original and that John would have had
                  theological reasons for altering its position in his narrative flow.

                  This argument is made by Stephen Pennells who notes that John redacts
                  his account of the crucifixion to portray Jesus as in full control of
                  his situation, in keeping with the theology that it is Jesus who lays
                  down his life, and no one can take it from him. Pennells cites various
                  redactional elements in John vis-a-vis the other gospels to portray
                  Jesus as in control of events; for example, the mocking of Jesus is
                  muted in John.

                  This being the case, then the spear thrust--which seems to end Jesus'
                  life in the longer reading of Matt 27:49--would need to be moved to a
                  post-mortem position. Accordingly, the displacement in John would 1)
                  remove Jesus' seemingly reactionary and out of control scream; 2) allow
                  Jesus to control the timing of his death; and 3) affirm the Johannine
                  theology of the necessity of death by being lifted up on a cross (and
                  not by spearing).
                • feeite_christian
                  Thanks, Malcolm for your thoughtful reply. For the sake of sticking to tc issues, I ll avoid replying to your points about the historical realities of
                  Message 8 of 13 , Apr 3, 2008
                    Thanks, Malcolm for your thoughtful reply.

                    For the sake of sticking to tc issues, I'll avoid replying to your
                    points about the historical realities of crucifion, all of which were
                    instructive, but still leave room for questions and doubt in mind.

                    In terms of the secondary witness of translations, yes I agree with
                    you to the extent that there are limitations on their value due to
                    their being a mere reflection of the original. However, in the case
                    of tc issues dealing with a long or shortened texts, a translation is
                    as good as a Greek manuscript. In such a case, when there is no
                    question at all whether a manuscript of a version attests a shorter
                    or longer reading, then the versional manuscript proves that a Greek
                    manuscript did indeed exist which had either the shorter or longer
                    reading.

                    In regard to the specific case of the Middle Egytian Codex Schoyen,
                    its date has hitherto only been conjectured without any concrete
                    evidence offered in conjunction with the conjecture. Its editor, H-M
                    Schenke pronounced it as being vermutlich ("probably, presumably")
                    from the first half of the fourth century. I see that the Schoyen
                    Collection has recently revised its webpage so that they are no
                    longer claiming a 325 date for it, but are affirming Schenke's prior
                    assessment of 300-350.

                    At any rate, the question is whether the reading in the recently
                    emerged Codex Schoyen makes a difference:

                    If, as has been argued, the group of longer readings which are
                    juxtaposed to the shorter readings otherwise known as the Western Non-
                    Interpolations (WN-I) arose out of the same provenance, then the long
                    reading of Matt 27:49 (if not original) will have been in existence
                    for perhaps as early as 120 AD and no later than 200. These dates
                    correspond to the breaking away of the Western Text from its source,
                    and to the date of P75 which gives attestation to the shorter
                    readings.

                    All this is difficult to articulate due to the loaded language of
                    Western Non-Interpolations. But what I'm saying is that the spear
                    thrust in Matthew (the longer reading), if its origin arises part and
                    parcel with all the other longer readings opposing the short
                    readings known as the WN-I's, then its appearance in Schoyen doesn't
                    really matter since the shorter WN-I readings--as a group--are
                    attested in P75.

                    On the other hand, there are some things which distinguish the Spear
                    Thrust in Matthew from the dynamics of the WN-I's: 1) the short text
                    (WN-I's) are all otherwise found only in the last two chapters of
                    Luke; 2) the attestation of the short form in Matthew is so much
                    stronger, involving not just Western texs, but also Alexandrinus and
                    nearly 1600 Byzantine witnesses (of varying degrees), not to mention
                    Family One and Family 13, 33 et al.

                    Consequently, perhaps there is some basis for rejecting the notion
                    that the short form of Matt 27:49 really belongs to the class of
                    variants known as the Western Non-Interpolations. If so, then the
                    early attestation of the long reading of Schoyen (and Scheide--mae)
                    does matter--at least a little, proving that it it had spread through
                    some segments of the Coptic speaking world, and had done so
                    presumably as early as 250-300, even though it is not extant in
                    Sahidic and Bohairic.

                    By the way, I'm not sure that any variant gets a D rating from UBS.
                    The lowest seems to be C.
                  • Tony Zbaraschuk
                    ... I am afraid I have to disagree with this point: a longer or a shorter reading in a version may or may not be evidence of the state of the Greek text; it
                    Message 9 of 13 , Apr 3, 2008
                      On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:06:56AM -0000, feeite_christian wrote:
                      > In terms of the secondary witness of translations, yes I agree with
                      > you to the extent that there are limitations on their value due to
                      > their being a mere reflection of the original. However, in the case
                      > of tc issues dealing with a long or shortened texts, a translation is
                      > as good as a Greek manuscript. In such a case, when there is no
                      > question at all whether a manuscript of a version attests a shorter
                      > or longer reading, then the versional manuscript proves that a Greek
                      > manuscript did indeed exist which had either the shorter or longer
                      > reading.

                      I am afraid I have to disagree with this point: a longer or a shorter
                      reading in a version may or may not be evidence of the state of the
                      Greek text; it may be a longer or a shorter reading either as a
                      result of the translation, or a result of textual corruption in
                      that version.

                      (I concede that if the same lengthening or shortening shows up in
                      multiple versions, the case for that variant coming from the Greek
                      is considerably strengthened.)


                      Tony Zbaraschuk

                      --
                      The power of any data-capture tool is its ability to exclude
                      extraneous information, not its power to capture relevant information.
                      --Steven den Beste
                    • mjriii2003
                      Mr. Leonard, 1. The Gospel narrative is an historical/theological one. We don t meet one without the other. The dichotomy between history and theological
                      Message 10 of 13 , Apr 3, 2008
                        Mr. Leonard,

                        1. The Gospel narrative is an historical/theological one. We don't
                        meet one without the other. The dichotomy between history and
                        theological interpretation/significance made by Stephen Pennells who
                        has St John allegedly redacting the piercing/spear thrust into an
                        ahistorical post-mortem theological explanation is based upon his own
                        presuppositional predelections which are wholly contrary to the
                        nature and scope of the NT corpus as a whole and St John in
                        particular.

                        2. The "lifting up" significance in St John is contradicted by any
                        interpretive attempt to make Christ's crucifixion a death as a result
                        of any other means than just that - crucifixion. The spear thrust
                        was not the death blow.

                        3. Doubtless Jesus was in control of events in that throughout the
                        Gospel narratives indications are given that He himself is fully
                        conscious of His mission's purpose. In short and to borrow a phrase
                        from St Mark, KAQWS GEGRAPTAI 1:1.

                        4. I don't view the motifs as you have presented them of Mr.
                        Pennells as very strong in any respect.

                        Malcolm
                        __________________


                        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "feeite_christian"
                        <jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > We should also note that there is some argument for assuming that
                        the
                        > spear thrust in Matthew is original and that John would have had
                        > theological reasons for altering its position in his narrative flow.
                        >
                        > This argument is made by Stephen Pennells who notes that John
                        redacts
                        > his account of the crucifixion to portray Jesus as in full control
                        of
                        > his situation, in keeping with the theology that it is Jesus who
                        lays
                        > down his life, and no one can take it from him. Pennells cites
                        various
                        > redactional elements in John vis-a-vis the other gospels to portray
                        > Jesus as in control of events; for example, the mocking of Jesus is
                        > muted in John.
                        >
                        > This being the case, then the spear thrust--which seems to end
                        Jesus'
                        > life in the longer reading of Matt 27:49--would need to be moved to
                        a
                        > post-mortem position. Accordingly, the displacement in John would
                        1)
                        > remove Jesus' seemingly reactionary and out of control scream; 2)
                        allow
                        > Jesus to control the timing of his death; and 3) affirm the
                        Johannine
                        > theology of the necessity of death by being lifted up on a cross
                        (and
                        > not by spearing).
                        >
                      • mjriii2003
                        Mr. Leonard, 1. Since in St Matthew the varia lectio at 27:49 cannot reasonably interpret ALLOS as another/different (soldier) and the fact that no layman
                        Message 11 of 13 , Apr 3, 2008
                          Mr. Leonard,

                          1. Since in St Matthew the varia lectio at 27:49 cannot reasonably
                          interpret ALLOS as another/different (soldier) and the fact that no
                          layman would have been permitted to bring his own spear to this
                          crucifixion coupled with the high improbability that a layman took
                          one from a Roman soldier, the historical discontinuity that this
                          harmonization evidences within St Matthew's narrative is a glaring
                          mark of its spuriousness.

                          2. The value of this particular Coptic manuscript remains a
                          secondary source since we possess Greek witnesses to this variam
                          lectionem.

                          3. The rating of D is in fact found in the UBS. It refers and is
                          reflected in those readings that don't even gain a hearing in the
                          apparatus. I used to use the UBS 3rd when I used to use the NA26,
                          but now I use the NA27 and various other GNT editions. The D rating
                          for this reading is my own.

                          4. I speak fluent German and English and have no problem
                          understanding you. Neither are my mother tongue.

                          5. I have had a one time competence in but Coptic and Syriac, but
                          nowadays seldom use either, hense my referring you to Mr. Head.

                          6. Finally, I would caution you and Mr. Pennells to consider more
                          seriously the place of historical research in text-critical matters.

                          Malcolm
                          ______________

                          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "feeite_christian"
                          <jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Thanks, Malcolm for your thoughtful reply.
                          >
                          > For the sake of sticking to tc issues, I'll avoid replying to your
                          > points about the historical realities of crucifion, all of which
                          were
                          > instructive, but still leave room for questions and doubt in mind.
                          >
                          > In terms of the secondary witness of translations, yes I agree with
                          > you to the extent that there are limitations on their value due to
                          > their being a mere reflection of the original. However, in the
                          case
                          > of tc issues dealing with a long or shortened texts, a translation
                          is
                          > as good as a Greek manuscript. In such a case, when there is no
                          > question at all whether a manuscript of a version attests a shorter
                          > or longer reading, then the versional manuscript proves that a
                          Greek
                          > manuscript did indeed exist which had either the shorter or longer
                          > reading.
                          >
                          > In regard to the specific case of the Middle Egytian Codex Schoyen,
                          > its date has hitherto only been conjectured without any concrete
                          > evidence offered in conjunction with the conjecture. Its editor, H-
                          M
                          > Schenke pronounced it as being vermutlich ("probably, presumably")
                          > from the first half of the fourth century. I see that the Schoyen
                          > Collection has recently revised its webpage so that they are no
                          > longer claiming a 325 date for it, but are affirming Schenke's
                          prior
                          > assessment of 300-350.
                          >
                          > At any rate, the question is whether the reading in the recently
                          > emerged Codex Schoyen makes a difference:
                          >
                          > If, as has been argued, the group of longer readings which are
                          > juxtaposed to the shorter readings otherwise known as the Western
                          Non-
                          > Interpolations (WN-I) arose out of the same provenance, then the
                          long
                          > reading of Matt 27:49 (if not original) will have been in existence
                          > for perhaps as early as 120 AD and no later than 200. These dates
                          > correspond to the breaking away of the Western Text from its
                          source,
                          > and to the date of P75 which gives attestation to the shorter
                          > readings.
                          >
                          > All this is difficult to articulate due to the loaded language of
                          > Western Non-Interpolations. But what I'm saying is that the spear
                          > thrust in Matthew (the longer reading), if its origin arises part
                          and
                          > parcel with all the other longer readings opposing the short
                          > readings known as the WN-I's, then its appearance in Schoyen
                          doesn't
                          > really matter since the shorter WN-I readings--as a group--are
                          > attested in P75.
                          >
                          > On the other hand, there are some things which distinguish the
                          Spear
                          > Thrust in Matthew from the dynamics of the WN-I's: 1) the short
                          text
                          > (WN-I's) are all otherwise found only in the last two chapters of
                          > Luke; 2) the attestation of the short form in Matthew is so much
                          > stronger, involving not just Western texs, but also Alexandrinus
                          and
                          > nearly 1600 Byzantine witnesses (of varying degrees), not to
                          mention
                          > Family One and Family 13, 33 et al.
                          >
                          > Consequently, perhaps there is some basis for rejecting the notion
                          > that the short form of Matt 27:49 really belongs to the class of
                          > variants known as the Western Non-Interpolations. If so, then the
                          > early attestation of the long reading of Schoyen (and Scheide--mae)
                          > does matter--at least a little, proving that it it had spread
                          through
                          > some segments of the Coptic speaking world, and had done so
                          > presumably as early as 250-300, even though it is not extant in
                          > Sahidic and Bohairic.
                          >
                          > By the way, I'm not sure that any variant gets a D rating from
                          UBS.
                          > The lowest seems to be C.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "mjriii2003"
                          > <mjriii2003@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Mr. Leonard,
                          > >
                          > > 1. According to M. Hengel in his book about Crucifixion, the
                          > > suffocation of the condemned was part and parcel to the means of
                          > > death imposed. The ability to detect whether an individual
                          > > was "breathing" would be dependant upon the stage of his
                          > execution.
                          > > The latter stages of his excruciating agony would be barely (if
                          at
                          > > all detectable). In fact, one's state of consciousness in the
                          > latter
                          > > stages would be highly unlikely. This is why Jesus' cry with a
                          > loud
                          > > voice before He gave up the spirit (died/expired) is noteworthy
                          and
                          > > unusual. Finally, in light of what we do know of the abuse and
                          > > torture that Jesus endured and at this late stage in His
                          > condemnation
                          > > and execution, it is even more unlikely that benumbed senses
                          would
                          > > even register a jab as you understand it.
                          > >
                          > > 2. The value of any translation is secondary. It is not a
                          primary
                          > > document and it's importance is limited. The Coptic manuscript
                          is
                          > > mid fourth century. My Coptic knowledge is now limited and
                          unused
                          > as
                          > > well as my knowledge of Syriac. Perhaps Peter Head could aid you
                          > in
                          > > this respect further.
                          > >
                          > > 3. Within the context of Matthew, the ALLOS can not be construed
                          > as
                          > > a Roman soldier and the idea that the soldiers guarding the
                          > condemned
                          > > would permit the audience to interfer is highly unlikely and
                          wholly
                          > > contrary to their purpose in the first place. Remember,
                          permission
                          > > had to be sought to remove the bodies before the start of the
                          > Sabbath
                          > > observance.
                          > >
                          > > 4. I don't share you view that a spear would be so unwieldy in
                          the
                          > > hands of a Roman soldier.
                          > >
                          > > 5. I still think UBS rating should be a D and the double
                          brackets
                          > i
                          > > W-H indicate spuriousness.
                          > >
                          > > Malcolm
                          > > ___________
                          > >
                          > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "feeite_christian"
                          > > <jmleonardfamily@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > Thanks Malcolm. Just a few points of clarification.
                          > > >
                          > > > The spear thrust may have been more of an exploratory jab
                          either
                          > to
                          > > > see if a victim were still alive or to prompt him to say
                          further
                          > > > bemusing comments. In fact, Codex Schoyen uses a second verb
                          > which
                          > > > may indeed suggest as much. If so, then the jab--from the
                          point
                          > of
                          > > a
                          > > > long unwieldy spear which could hardly be used with pinpoint
                          > > accuracy
                          > > > or sensitivity--may have pentrated further than the intention.
                          > > This
                          > > > would allow the notion that the spear thrust was not designed
                          to
                          > > > hasten death. In terms of historical reality, I would think
                          that
                          > a
                          > > > crucified person's breathing or lack thereof could hardly be
                          > > > mistaken; in the tortured manner of his hanging, it should have
                          > > been
                          > > > obvious whether he was still breathing. This being the case, a
                          > jab
                          > > > could have served to prompt him to consciousness or to say
                          other
                          > > > bemusing comments. All this said, I'm not sure if this
                          > information
                          > > > actually advances the text critical issue.
                          > > >
                          > > > In regard to the comment about inept harmonization:
                          > > >
                          > > > > I view the pre-mortem piercing in St. Matthew as an
                          > ahistorical,
                          > > > > inept attempt at harmonization. An ALLOS (presumeably a Jew -

                          > > not
                          > > > a
                          > > > > Roman soldier) takes upon himself the prerogative to pierce a
                          > > > > condemned criminal in spite of the presence of Roman
                          soldiers.
                          > A
                          > > > pre
                          > > > > mortem piercing contradicts the immediate context of waiting
                          to
                          > > see
                          > > > > if Elijah would come and save Him (or perhaps they were
                          afraid
                          > > that
                          > > > > he just might come to do just that and better hurry up and
                          kill
                          > > > > Him!)
                          > > >
                          > > > Surely, if the long reading were harmonised, it would have been
                          > > done
                          > > > with better results. The fact that it produces the most
                          obvious
                          > > and
                          > > > grievous historical incongruity with John would seem to argue
                          > > against
                          > > > harmonisation.
                          > > >
                          > > > Let me also clarify the external support. Not only is the long
                          > > > reading supported by Aleph and Vaticanus, but also Codex Regius
                          > (L)
                          > > > which also has an excellent text in Matthew (at least from
                          > chapter
                          > > 18
                          > > > onward), and by C along with a good number of leading fully
                          > > Byzantine
                          > > > texts. Moreover, the two Coptic manuscripts are not "later"
                          > > > manuscripts, but represent some of the very earliest extant
                          > > witnesses
                          > > > to Matthew's Gospel.
                          > > >
                          > > > Note also that the UBS4 rating is a B, and that Westcott and
                          Hort
                          > > > actually included the reading in their text, albeit in double
                          > > > brackets.
                          > > >
                          > > > Thanks.
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • feeite_christian
                          No doubt the historical consideration is important, but I m not sure one can simply dismiss this variant reading in Matthew solely on the basis that it
                          Message 12 of 13 , Apr 5, 2008
                            No doubt the historical consideration is important, but I'm not sure
                            one can simply dismiss this variant reading in Matthew solely on the
                            basis that it contradicts the narrative sequence presented in John.

                            For example, in Luke, the veil rips in anticipation of Jesus' death,
                            while in Matthew and Luke, the veil rips consequent to Jesus' death.

                            If the contradictory narrative sequence can stand in regard to the
                            ripping of the veil, then why can't you also have a different sequence
                            in regard to the spear thrust?
                          • mjriii2003
                            Mr. Leonard, The problem is one of method. You have posed a question and made an assertion. Neither are exegetically based/presented. If you had replied
                            Message 13 of 13 , Apr 5, 2008
                              Mr. Leonard,

                              The problem is one of method. You have posed a question and made an
                              assertion. Neither are exegetically based/presented. If you had
                              replied with something along the lines of: "Well, in the text of St.
                              Matthew the use of PALIN before KRAXAS...", would have been a
                              sufficient premise to interpret PALIN here within an historical
                              context.

                              So let's ask the question anyway. How many times did Jesus PALIN
                              KRAXAS - throughout His condemnation? The narrative does not say
                              (nor does it attempt to count all of them - whatever the number).
                              Now I will pose a question. Do you think it was only twice?

                              Even PALIN in St Matthew does not support this varia lectio at 27:49.

                              Malcolm

                              ____________________


                              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "feeite_christian"
                              <jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > No doubt the historical consideration is important, but I'm not
                              sure
                              > one can simply dismiss this variant reading in Matthew solely on
                              the
                              > basis that it contradicts the narrative sequence presented in John.
                              >
                              > For example, in Luke, the veil rips in anticipation of Jesus'
                              death,
                              > while in Matthew and Luke, the veil rips consequent to Jesus' death.
                              >
                              > If the contradictory narrative sequence can stand in regard to the
                              > ripping of the veil, then why can't you also have a different
                              sequence
                              > in regard to the spear thrust?
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.