Matt 27:49b contains an unusual textual variant that is found in manuscripts 01, 03, 04, 019, 67, 1780, 2586, 2680, 2766. In at least two of these (1780 and 2766) a later corrector tried to remove the variant reading. The variant reading is the addition of the following: "αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα" (67, 1780, 2586, and 2680 have αιμα και υδωρ rather than the reverse). The literal meaning of the Greek is "another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood" (or blood and water, if you change the order of the words).
We know that Jesus' side was pierced with spear from John 19:34, which states:
ἀλλ᾽ εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
The issue that arises is that in John's account, this takes place after Jesus was already dead, whereas at Matthew 27:49b, the event appears to come right before Jesus dies. This would create a synoptic problem.
Unfortunately, some King James Version advocates have started to make claims like this (link to start of quotation): "There are really hard readings in Vaticanus, where Jesus didn't die on the cross. He died from a spear in Vaticanus."
It's hard to take this kind of claim seriously. Even assuming that the variant reading of Matthew 27:49b were original, the text would only seem to imply that Jesus was killed by the spear thrust while on the cross. Moreover, the blood and water (or water and blood) was an indication that Jesus was already dead when he speared.
Moreover, each of 01, 03, 019, 2680, and 2766 (namely all of the manuscripts that have the variant at Matthew 27:49b and have John 19:34 transcribed in INTF in any form) have "αλλ εις των στρατιωτων λογχη αυτου την πλευραν ενυξεν και εξηλθεν ευθυς αιμα και υδωρ" (or something very similar) at John 19:34.
So, while Vaticanus (aka 01) has an unusual variant at Matthew 27:49b, Vaticanus in John 19:34 affirms that the spear thrust was after Jesus' death. Indeed, none of the witnesses to this unusual variant alter John 19:34. Manuscript 04 (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus) lacks John 18:36–20:25. Manuscript 67 lacks John 6:65 to 21:25). I have not determined why 1780 and 2586 are not transcribed at John 19:34. Both manuscripts are available online.
Other KJV advocates have made similar claims. Peter S. Ruckman, "The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars?" p. 275 (endnote at p. 438 - caps and italics are Ruckman's):
Who really "slew" Christ? Com'on? Never mind what some deceived dunce thinks is a "problem" in the AV text. Who killed Jesus Christ? His death is attributed (by Stephen) to the Jews (Acts 7:52). Simon Peter blames it on the Jews (Acts 3:15). On some level they must have slain him, for Paul says the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 2:15; but fact it, I mean like a full-grown, adult male, the Romans tried Him, the Romans whipped Him, the Romans nailed him, and the Romans stuck the spear in his side after he was dead--INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT SINAITICUS (א) AND VATICANUS (B) have the Roman soldier piercing Christ's side WHILE HE IS STILL ALIVE?[EN12]
(There are those two "great" uncials that White says are "vilified." Go sit on a tack, kid).
[12. Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 33-34 and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, p. 80.]
Rather than address Ruckman's assertions, better to go to his source for this particular matter, Burgon.
Burgon writes (The Revision Revised ..., pp. 33-34):
We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of א B C D hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting that heretical depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena. That (we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say, 'This came from Tatian's Diatessaron ; and that from Marcion's mutilated recension of the Gospel according to S. Luke.' The piercing of our Saviour's side, transplanted by codices א B C from S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii. 49, is an instance of the former, — which it may reasonably create astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (alone among Editors) have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with the last 12 verses of S. Mark's Gospel. But it occasions a stronger sentiment than surprise to discover that this, ' the gravest interpolation yet laid to the charge of B,' — this 'sentence which neither they nor any other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever wrote,' [fn1] — has been actually foisted into the margin of the Revised Version of S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work ? For whose benefit is the information volunteered that ' many ancient authorities ' are thus grossly interpolated ?
[FN1 Scrivener, Plain Introd. p. 472.]
Burgon further writes (The Last Twelve Verses ..., p. 80:
2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of B or of א, or of both, has clearly been interpolated. There does not exist in the whole compass of the New Testament a more monstrous instance of this than is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our Redeemer’s side from S. John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and Cod. א, where it is introduced at the end of ver. 49,— in defiance of reason as well as of authority [fn t] “This interpolation” (remarks Mr. Scrivener) “which would represent the Saviour as pierced while yet living, is a good example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false [fn u].”
[FN t "αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this!]
[FN u Coll. of the Cod. Sin., p. xlvii.]
The characterization of the text appearing in Matthew being "transfer" or being "transplanted" is an erroneous characterization, when the same manuscripts maintain John's reading in John. On the other hand, one can understand why Burgon, agreeing with Scrivener that the reading is "unquestionably false," would be upset that it would be listed in the margin.
Likewise, James Snapp, Jr. wrote:
When Snapp says, "In real life, if the Alexandrian variant in Matthew 27:49 were adopted, you can kiss the doctrine of inerrancy good-bye," one wonders what Snapp is thinking. Codex Alexandrinus does not have the reading, although obviously Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Ephrem Rescriptus do (along with a number of others). Even if it were original, however, one could easily resolve the apparent conflict without discarding the doctrine of inerrancy. There are more challenging synoptic problems than this.
Burgon goes on to write at length on the variant in The Last Twelve Verses... at Appendix (H)(p. 313-18). I won't reproduce the entirety of the Appendix, but suffice to say that Burgon goes on to mention that Matthaei explains this as possibly an interpolation based on Lectionary practice (TLTV, p. 313). However, Burgon goes on to explain that based on finding a manuscript that has the variant reading in a marginal reading and ascribes it to Tatian, Burgon is convinced and suggests that Tatian's Diatessaron is the source of this parallel corruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment