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. Even if it were original, 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.
***
Updated January 19, 2025:
Nick Sayers was kind of enough to send comments regarding this blog post:
Nick wrote:
I was mentioning that he did die on the cross but not from the effects of the cross but from a stab wound, but I didn't mention that in every place.
Nick then provided a link to his recent video: (Final) Examining: Cultish - Part 2: Answering KJVO With Wes Huff by Nick Sayers Are We Cultists?
I offer the following cleaned-up transcription:
1:52:05-43sometimes it's just these scribes were just bad: having Jesus die from being stabbed in Codex Vaticanus and not dying on the cross -- not dying from you know the crucifixion but dying from being stabbed -- is -- it's bizarre -- it's strange but I don't actually think that the devil was there behind the Scribe. I think the Scribe just made an error, inserted something in there that made that so, and then you're just left with this dumb manuscript that has this dumb reading in it. That's all.
While I appreciate the nuance that Nick is offering here, he's still wrong because Codex Vaticanus does not say that the spear thrust was the cause of death, nor that it was the cause of death to the exclusion of being crucified. Moreover, even if something accelerated death on the cross, the person was still considered to have been crucified (recall that the thieves' legs were broken to hasten their death). And we know that Jesus died unusually quickly for a crucified person, even if the variant reading is not original.
Even if the variant were original, and even assuming that the variant were to be understood as recording an event chronologically in order, Jesus still cries and gives up the ghost in verse 50, thereby surviving for at least a short while.
Recall:
Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Mark 15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Notice that there are some differences amongst these accounts, but they are not contradictions.
More specifically:
- Co-crucified Thieves mock (vs. 44)
- Three hours of darkness (vs. 45)
- Jesus quotes Psalm 22 after the darkness (vss. 46-47)
- Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 48)
- Jesus cries and gives up the ghost (vs. 50)
- Centurion sees Jesus die and the earthquake (vs. 54)
- Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate and Pilate commands it (vs. 58)
- (No test of death or request for confirmation of death)
- Co-crucified Thieves mock (vs. 32)
- Three hours of darkness (vs. 33)
- Jesus quotes Psalm 22 after the darkness ( vs. 34)
- Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 36)
- Jesus cries and gives up the ghost (vs. 37)
- Centurion sees Jesus die, no mention of earthquake (vs. 39)
- Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate (vs. 43)
- Pilate questions whether Jesus is dead so soon (vs. 44)
- Centurion confirms (vs. 45)
- Co-crucified malefactors mentioned (vs. 33)
- Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 36)
- One malefactor mocks, the other believes (vss. 39-43)
- Three hours of darkness (vs. 44)
- Jesus cries "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" and gives up the ghost (vs. 46)
- Centurion sees Jesus die, no mention of earthquake (vs. 46)
- Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate (vs. 52) (Pilate's response is not provided, but impliedly request is granted)
- Malefactors mentioned (vs. 18)
- Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 28-30)
- Jesus says "It is finished" and gives up the ghost (vs. 30)
- Pilate orders legs to be broken to make the crucifixion faster (vs. 31)
- Soldier sees Jesus is already dead (vs. 33)
- Soldier pierces Jesus' side (vs. 34)
- Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate and Pilate grants (vs. 38)
- Matthew was not recording the spear thrust in chronological order of the overall narrative, but rather as a section on the soldiers' actions (i.e. one soldier offered Jesus vinegar, another speared him).
- John is not implying that spearing took place when the soldiers came to Jesus to break His legs, but instead that the effects of the previous spearing were visible, both water and blood having exuded from the wound.
Likewise, Matthew's account does not mention any posthumous test of death, just that the centurion saw it (link). Mark mentions that Pilate asked the centurion whether Jesus was already dead and that the centurion confirmed it, but does not describe any further test (link).
Nick also linked to a second point in the same video. My cleaned-up transcript of that section reads:
3:06:06-22
If you've got a reading like in Vaticanus that says Jesus died from being stabbed, not that he died from the effects of being on the cross like all the other Bibles say, then that's just wrong.
I reiterate my points above. Additionally, Vaticanus is not all alone in this reading, as also set forth above.
Nick also pointed to his first video in the response to Cultish:
16:20-43
Now for me, I see Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as just as bad as this. They're old documents but they're very corrupted. Say with Vaticanus, Jesus doesn't die on the cross. He dies by getting a spear in his side: that's how he dies. So - but they don't put that in the modern Bibles do they!
And a second place in the same video:
3:47:32-49
When Vaticanus says that Jesus didn't die on the cross, he died from a spear wound, or he didn't die from the cross, he died from a spear wound, couldn't that be someone putting some sort of bizarre weird thing into the text
A couple of thoughts:
First, I think Nick is right that no major English translations have adopted the reading in this variant as the main text. On the other hand, I believe the quotations above demonstrate that the RV mentioned the variant in the margin. It was something that definitely angered Burgon.
Second, Vaticanus does not say that Jesus didn't die from the cross.
Third, the text itself of the variant is not some "bizarre weird thing" - it is quite similar to what is found in John's gospel.
Nick added: "Burgon would have been annoyed at the footnote because he was saying unnecessary marginal notes in the RV like 616 were causing doubt and not faith." I think I've addressed this above.
Nick also raised the good point that Codex Alexandrinus is Byzantine in the gospels, which has led me to remove a sentence from the post above.
Thanks to Nick for his interaction with the post.
