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

RE: [textualcriticism] Matthew 27:52, 53

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    The round brackets are not a sign for insecurity. They are used to indicate extra information in the text. Compare 27:33 They came to a place called Golgotha
    Message 1 of 24 , Oct 11, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      The round brackets are not a sign for insecurity.
      They are used to indicate extra information in the text.

      Compare 27:33
      They came to a place called Golgotha (which means “Place of the Skull”)

      One could also use commas instead.

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      --------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

      Please check out the TC forum:
      http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
    • George F Somsel
      Stephen Carlson explained this for you.  The paretheses are not an indication of any textual judgment but set off a parenthetical statement. george gfsomsel
      Message 2 of 24 , Oct 11, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephen Carlson explained this for you.  The paretheses are not an indication of any textual judgment but set off a parenthetical statement.
         
        george
        gfsomsel

        … search for truth, hear truth,
        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        defend the truth till death.


        - Jan Hus
        _________
        From: Atef Wagih <atef_wagih@...>
        To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:15 PM
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Matthew 27:52, 53

         
        Thanks everyone for the help and information presented so far.
         
        I'm still strugelling to understand why the NET Bible then puts  Matt 27:53 in *parenthesis* !
         
        I tried to search in the preface or so but could not find an answer.
         
        I am basically trying to put together an answer to a claim that both verses Matt 27:52 & 53, and especially 53 are not original in the text.
         
         
        Sorry if this topic was previously discussed or so.
         
        In Christ,
        Atef Raouf
         

        From: Stephen Carlson <stemmatic@...>
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2011 11:31 PM
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Matthew 27:52, 53

         
        On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Atef Wagih <atef_wagih@...> wrote:
        Sorry if my question seems novice, but i can't understand why the NET Bible puts the entire Matthew 27:53 between brackets.

        The NET Bible puts the entire Matt 27:53 in *parenthesis* (called "round brackets" outside the US).  Those are not the *square* brackets that indicate a textually uncertain passage.

        Stephen
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson
        Graduate Program in Religion
        Duke University




      • Greg Crawford
        Most scholars appear to attribute this verse to Matthew, as a point where he departs from following Mark and inserts his own material. His own material
        Message 3 of 24 , Oct 12, 2011
        • 0 Attachment

          Most scholars appear to attribute this verse to Matthew, as a point where he departs from following Mark and inserts his own material. His own material provides even more eschatological stage props than Mark. His own material also appears to suggest a dialectical interpretation of the cross in which “it is in dying that we are born to life”, to borrow a phrase from someone else. The moment of Jesus’ death is the moment of resurrection. However, this kind of theological thinking presents an historical problem, as it might appear that some of the saints were raised before Jesus; a bit of a problem when Jesus is supposed to be “the first-born from the dead”. So we have the saints lounging in their tombs, like people lying in a bath, from Friday to Sunday morning so they don’t steal Jesus’ thunder. Could Matthew have written this awkward passage? One person who decides not is Eduard Schweizer1. He suggest that “Either the original reading was “after they rose from death”, [not “after Jesus rose from death”], as attested by certain individual late manuscripts, or the comment is a later addition”. [My bolding.] Unfortunately Schweizer does not state which “individual late manuscripts” he had in mind, nor is the hand of a corrector identified by him.

           

          Greg Crawford

           

          1: Eduard Schweizer. The Good News according to Matthew.SPCK.London.1975. p.516.

           

          From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Carlson
          Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011 12:31 AM
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Matthew 27:52, 53

           

           

          On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Atef Wagih <atef_wagih@...> wrote:

          Sorry if my question seems novice, but i can't understand why the NET Bible puts the entire Matthew 27:53 between brackets.

           

          The NET Bible puts the entire Matt 27:53 in *parenthesis* (called "round brackets" outside the US).  Those are not the *square* brackets that indicate a textually uncertain passage.

           

          Stephen
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson
          Graduate Program in Religion
          Duke University

        • Barry H.
          ... From: Atef Wagih To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Matthew 27:52, 53 ... It s
          Message 4 of 24 , Oct 12, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Atef Wagih
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:15 PM
            Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Matthew 27:52, 53



            >Thanks everyone for the help and information presented so far.

            >I'm still strugelling to understand why the NET Bible then puts Matt 27:53
            >in *parenthesis* !

            It's simply a matter of punctuation decided upon by the editors of the text.
            the parentheses indicate that the editors feel that the passage is adding
            information that is not directly related to the main flow of discourse. I
            disagree with those editors.

            >I tried to search in the preface or so but could not find an answer.

            This is because rounded parentheses have no text critical value, though they
            do express an interpretive judgment on the part of the editors.

            >I am basically trying to put together an answer to a claim that both verses
            >Matt 27:52 & 53, and especially 53 are not original in the text.

            I wrote my Th.M. thesis on this passage. While that work is juvenile in
            many ways, I still agree with my conclusion then, that passage makes
            internal sense as part of Matthew's discourse, both what he is doing
            theologically in his description of the passion, and with regard to his
            themes throughout Matthew.

            >Sorry if this topic was previously discussed or so.

            Since there are no significant text critical issues (that I'm aware of)
            concerning this text, it probably hasn't been discussed, though I've only
            been on this list about 6 months.

            N.E. Barry Hofstetter, semper melius Latine sonat...
            The American Academy
            http://www.theamericanacademy.net
            (2010 Salvatori Excellence in Education Winner)

            The North American Reformed Seminary
            http://www.tnars.net

            http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog
            http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry
          • Mike Holmes
            The parentheses around Matt 27:53 in the English translation are strictly a matter of English grammar and punctuation--they have nothing to do with the textual
            Message 5 of 24 , Oct 12, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              The parentheses around Matt 27:53 in the English translation are strictly a matter of English grammar and punctuation--they have nothing to do with the textual criticism of the verse. You will note that there are no marks, either brackets or parentheses, around this verse on the Greek side of the NET Bible. The NET Bible presents this verse as part of the text; in the English translation, it puts them in parentheses to indicate the view of the translators that the sentence is a "parenthetical comment" in the flow of the passage.
              hope this helps,
              Michael

              On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Atef Wagih <atef_wagih@...> wrote:
               

              Thanks everyone for the help and information presented so far.
               
              I'm still strugelling to understand why the NET Bible then puts  Matt 27:53 in *parenthesis* !
               
              I tried to search in the preface or so but could not find an answer.
               
              I am basically trying to put together an answer to a claim that both verses Matt 27:52 & 53, and especially 53 are not original in the text.
               
               
              Sorry if this topic was previously discussed or so.
               
              In Christ,
              Atef Raouf
               

              From: Stephen Carlson <stemmatic@...>
              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2011 11:31 PM
              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Matthew 27:52, 53

               
              On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Atef Wagih <atef_wagih@...> wrote:
              Sorry if my question seems novice, but i can't understand why the NET Bible puts the entire Matthew 27:53 between brackets.

              The NET Bible puts the entire Matt 27:53 in *parenthesis* (called "round brackets" outside the US).  Those are not the *square* brackets that indicate a textually uncertain passage.

              Stephen
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson
              Graduate Program in Religion
              Duke University



            • james_snapp_jr
              Dear Atef, We here in Indiana are praying for the Coptic Christians, and for Youcef Nadarkhani in Iran. In the NET, when normal parentheses (the shapes at the
              Message 6 of 24 , Oct 12, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Atef,

                We here in Indiana are praying for the Coptic Christians, and for Youcef Nadarkhani in Iran.

                In the NET, when normal parentheses
                (the shapes at the beginning and end of this line)
                surround a sentence or phrase, this does not mean that there is any doubt about the passage. Their presence in the NET is due to the translators' decision to represent Mt. 27:53 as a sort of interruption, because it refers to a future point in time instead of the scene of Christ's crucifixion.

                The use of square brackets
                [the shapes at the beginning and end of this line]
                is intended to convey doubt about the genuineness of the passage which they surround. But this is not what was meant by the parentheses in the NET at Mt. 27:53.

                By the way, your question may illustrate something about MS 2427, "Archaic Mark," a forgery which was consistently cited in the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland GNT in Mark. Whoever made 2427 was, as Stephen Carlson has shown, basing his work on a printed Greek text published by Phillip Buttmann. In Buttmann's printed Greek NT, Mark 7:3-4 is within parentheses, and at Mark 13:14, the words "let the reader understand" are within round parentheses. The person who made 2427 misinterpreted those round parentheses as if they were intended to convey doubt about the passage. As a result, in 2427, Mark 7:3-4 and the parenthetical phrase in Mark 13:14 are missing.

                Yours in Christ,

                James Snapp, Jr.
              • Peter Streitenberger
                For all friends here on this list, I d like to announce that the Hoksier book concerning the Apocalypse is online now. Hoskier collated many of the MSS of
                Message 7 of 24 , Oct 12, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  For all friends here on this list, I'd like to announce that the Hoksier book concerning the Apocalypse is online now. Hoskier collated many of the MSS of Revelation and his results are written in this book. Please visit my homepage: ttp://www.bingo-ev.de/~ps2866/conc-text.pdf (ca. 65 MB)
                  Yours
                  Peter, Germany

                   
                • David Palmer
                  Ah, that may be a reason for the parentheses: they would eliminate the sequential order of the statement about the saints being raised, so that it does not
                  Message 8 of 24 , Oct 12, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ah, that may be a reason for the parentheses: they would eliminate the sequential order of the statement about the saints being raised, so that it does not sound as much like they rose before Jesus himself.
                     
                    David Robert Palmer
                    http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
                  • Atef Wagih
                    Hi All,   Thank you for all the information regarding Matthew 27.   One of the claims i am trying to prepare a reply to is that the words Let the reader
                    Message 9 of 24 , Oct 12, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi All,
                       
                      Thank you for all the information regarding Matthew 27.
                       
                      One of the claims i am trying to prepare a reply to is that the words " Let the reader understand" in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13: 14 were "added later by the scribes to refer the readers to incidents that happened in history" and that these words were not an original part of the verses !
                       
                      However, i have searched in all the textual variants lists, whether in Greek or English, and have not find any scientific reference to these claims.
                       
                      All what i found in regards to these verses is related to Daniel the prophet and whether there is a harmonization or not.
                       
                      My question is: are there any scientific grounds for such a claim? or is it just an explanatory part (like Matthew 27:53) in my previous post.
                       
                      Thank you
                       
                      in Christ,
                      Atef Raouf.
                    • George F Somsel
                      I see nothing to indicate that ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω should be considered a gloss. george gfsomsel … search for truth, hear truth, learn
                      Message 10 of 24 , Oct 12, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I see nothing to indicate that ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω should be considered a gloss.
                         
                        george
                        gfsomsel

                        … search for truth, hear truth,
                        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                        defend the truth till death.


                        - Jan Hus
                        _________
                        From: Atef Wagih <atef_wagih@...>
                        To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 8:00 PM
                        Subject: [textualcriticism] Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13: 14

                         
                        Hi All,
                         
                        Thank you for all the information regarding Matthew 27.
                         
                        One of the claims i am trying to prepare a reply to is that the words " Let the reader understand" in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13: 14 were "added later by the scribes to refer the readers to incidents that happened in history" and that these words were not an original part of the verses !
                         
                        However, i have searched in all the textual variants lists, whether in Greek or English, and have not find any scientific reference to these claims.
                         
                        All what i found in regards to these verses is related to Daniel the prophet and whether there is a harmonization or not.
                         
                        My question is: are there any scientific grounds for such a claim? or is it just an explanatory part (like Matthew 27:53) in my previous post.
                         
                        Thank you
                         
                        in Christ,
                        Atef Raouf.


                      • Wieland Willker
                        The books are now also on archive.org:
                        Message 11 of 24 , Oct 18, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment

                          The books are now also on archive.org:

                           

                          http://www.archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse

                           

                          Hermann C. Hoskier

                          "Concerning the Text of the Apokalypse"

                          Collations of all existing available Greek documents, plus versions, commentaries and fathers

                          Both volumes in one PDF

                          1465 pages, 1929

                           

                          Best wishes

                              Wieland

                              <><

                          --------------------------

                          Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

                          http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

                          Textcritical commentary:

                          http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

                           

                          Please check out the TC forum:

                          http://tcg.iphpbb3.com

                           

                           

                          From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Streitenberger
                          Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:21 PM
                          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [textualcriticism] Hoskier online

                           




                          For all friends here on this list, I'd like to announce that the Hoksier book concerning the Apocalypse is online now. Hoskier collated many of the MSS of Revelation and his results are written in this book. Please visit my homepage: ttp://www.bingo-ev.de/~ps2866/conc-text.pdf (ca. 65 MB)

                          Yours

                          Peter, Germany


                           




                        • Daniel Buck
                          For those who struggle to follow Hoskier s manuscript numbering system and wish someone would translate it all to GA numbers, the good news from Christian
                          Message 12 of 24 , Oct 19, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            For those who struggle to follow Hoskier's manuscript numbering system and wish someone would translate it all to GA numbers, the good news from Christian Askeland at the ETC blog is that a team based at the Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal-Bethel has started work on an Editio Critica Major of the book of Revelation in partnership with the International Greek New Testament Project. The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Fund) has funded the initiative.

                            Daniel Buck


                            ________________________________
                            From: Wieland Willker <wie@...>
                            The books are now also on archive.org:


                            http://www.archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse

                            Hermann C. Hoskier
                            "Concerning the Text of the Apokalypse"
                            Collations of all existing available Greek documents, plus versions, commentaries and fathers
                            Both volumes in one PDF
                            1465 pages, 1929  
                          • David Palmer
                            Ahem, my table of ms. number conversions is accurate as far as I know.  And it s free.  If there is an error, I d like to hear about it.
                            Message 13 of 24 , Oct 19, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ahem, my table of ms. number conversions is accurate as far as I know.  And it's free.  If there is an error, I'd like to hear about it.
                              http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf

                              Hoskier's Vol. 2 is also available in print inexpensively from Lulu ($21.55):

                              http://bit.ly/ptecDg
                               
                              David Robert Palmer
                              http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
                               
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.