The posted article above seems to have been stimulated by magazine activity 2 months prior. In the Mar/Apr 1982 issue, the following Q&A was printed, calling attention to the previous work on the Matt.27 graves issue, in a small footnote in JCOP.
*/*/*/*/*
Q Someone recently asked me about Matthew 27:52 and 53:
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
He wanted to know why the dead got up when Jesus Christ was crucified. How do I best answer this question?
A That question is handled in Jesus Christ Our Passover in the footnote on pages 257-58. Let me quote it here:
“Matthew 27:52 and 53 are clearly added by scribes. Manuscript 354 in Venice, Italy, omits these verses. Though other textual documentation for this has not yet been found, it must be realized that the earliest manuscript including this section of Matthew 27 dates from the fourth century A.D. These verses must be an addition since they are contradictory to other scriptures which teach us that the dead are dead and will remain so until Christ returns. Until that time, only Christ has been raised bodily from death unto everlasting life. Textual critics as well as marginal notes in other old manuscripts have recognized these verses as later interpolations. The phrase ‘after his resurrection’ in Matthew 27:53 demonstrates the passage is totally out of context, obviously a scribal addition.”
The posted article above seems to have been stimulated by magazine activity 2 months prior. In the Mar/Apr 1982 issue, the following Q&A was printed, calling attention to the previous work on the Matt.27 graves issue, in a small footnote in JCOP.
*/*/*/*/*
Q Someone recently asked me about Matthew 27:52 and 53:
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
He wanted to know why the dead got up when Jesus Christ was crucified. How do I best answer this question?
A That question is handled in Jesus Christ Our Passover in the footnote on pages 257-58. Let me quote it here:
“Matthew 27:52 and 53 are clearly added by scribes. Manuscript 354 in Venice, Italy, omits these verses. Though other textual documentation for this has not yet been found, it must be realized that the earliest manuscript including this section of Matthew 27 dates from the fourth century A.D. These verses must be an addition since they are contradictory to other scriptures which teach us that the dead are dead and will remain so until Christ returns. Until that time, only Christ has been raised bodily from death unto everlasting life. Textual critics as well as marginal notes in other old manuscripts have recognized these verses as later interpolations. The phrase ‘after his resurrection’ in Matthew 27:53 demonstrates the passage is totally out of context, obviously a scribal addition.”
Im inclined to agree with the article for the following reasons:
1) There is no other reference to an otherwise significant event, had it occured.
2) The concept does not fit from the point of view that Jesus Christ is the first fruits to rise from the dead. Jesus Christ is pre-eminant in all things because that's the way God ordained it.
3) While there are clear records in scripture of Jesus, et. al. raising people from the dead who died prematurely, there are three distinct events where the dead shall be made alive a) Gathering together, b) resurection of the just, c) resurection of the unjust.
4) What happened to them after they supposedly rose? They go back and die again? (Illustrating common sense that doesnt fit with the narrative presented in scripture.)
5) Church history, Fathers, and writings as quoted in the GMIR article are all incongruent. Such a significant event surely would not be contradictory from a historical perspective.
One thing I will note though, the oldest manuscripts are not the best manuscripts. If one manuscript, or text as the case may be, omits a verse that in itself should cause alarm on account of the omission which leads to the question why was it omitted? In this case perhaps the omission is valid. However, as a rule of thumb, oldest does not equal better. The Westcott/Hort greek text was supposedly older and supposedly more authoritative due to it's age. But God appearantly did not choose one text to rule them all, but many texts in agreement to safeguard what was written. I leave you guys with tables showing deletions and omissions by Westcott and Hort texts (Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaticus) from the Textus receptus or Received Texts. Westcott and Hort utilized Alexandrian texts whereas theTextus Receptus is from the Byzantine line of texts. The Textus Receptus agrees with the majority of the 5000 odd texts in existance today. Alexandria was a hotbed of Gnostiscism, where the Byzantine texts trace to Antioch of Syria and ultimately the first century Church who were careful to steward the scriptures they received.
Not directed specifically at anyone, but I actually thought we were gonna have an intelligint discussion based on GMIR and the topic at hand. Is this all GSC is anymore?
I was going to say that you are an idiot, but didn't
Thank you very much for helping me laugh. With regard to the subject of Matthew 27:52-53. Instead of calling someone that this is the author of a biblical teaching book "not very smart" or "an idiot". I recommend that we address this subject, instead of criticizing a follower of Jesus Christ. Using my biblical study software program, here is a commentary on these two verses with legitimate copy right information at the end of this quote.
Matthew 27:52
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
[And the graves were opened] By the earthquake; and many bodies of saints which slept, i.e. were dead, sleep being a common expression for death in the Scriptures.
Not directed specifically at anyone, but I actually thought we were gonna have an intelligint discussion based on GMIR and the topic at hand. Is this all GSC is anymore?
We ARE having an intelligent discussion on those.
However, the GSC has always had problems of such discussions being interrupted by impertinence.
It's hardly unique in that respect- on the day of Pentecost, there were scoffers saying the men were drunk on "new wine" (arguably not alcoholic.)
I once was trying to have a discussion on a subject specifically omitting what vpw and twi taught- just what we saw from the verses or found from OTHER sources. I requested that specifically, a few times. I gave up because one of the busier posters on the thread (nobody who's posting on this thread, but I forget who it was) kept replying by consistently invoking vpw and generally disagreeing with him- in each and every post. Eventually, I just got tired of making the effort. (Not that I minded someone disagreeing with vpw, but that was specifically off-topic for the thread.)
Thank you very much for helping me laugh. With regard to the subject of Matthew 27:52-53. Instead of calling someone that this is the author of a biblical teaching book "not very smart" or "an idiot". I recommend that we address this subject, instead of criticizing a follower of Jesus Christ. Using my biblical study software program, here is a commentary on these two verses with legitimate copy right information at the end of this quote.
Matthew 27:52
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
[And the graves were opened] By the earthquake; and many bodies of saints which slept, i.e. were dead, sleep being a common expression for death in the Scriptures.
I think most of us can agree with those ideas without necessarily needing a heavy-handed textual insertion to hammer the points home.
As for the veil being rent, and the earthquake happening, nobody's claiming those didn't happen, nobody's claiming those were insertions. The non-Christian, Roman soldier who commented saw those- probably specifically focusing on the earthquake- and came to his conclusion. He had to see SOMETHING, which was in the verses all agree on- an earthquake, the veil of the temple torn, and so on. There was no need to enhance the events by out-doing Julius Caesar. I'm certain the man who did so did not do so out of a desire to be disrespectful- I think his heart was in the right place. Nevertheless, I find it an unconscionable thing to do, and completely unnecessary, as well as counter to the purposes of the Christian seeking to understand Scripture. There's no REAL benefit to FAKE verses, no matter how well-intentioned they were who inserted them.
If it is a later editorial insertion, what’s the point? What might have motivated the redactor to add these verses? Why?
Can anyone steel man the argument from the redactor’s POV?
I don't understand what you're asking here. Generally, a "redaction" is a REMOVAL of text- like blacking out classified information and things along those lines.
I THINK you're asking why someone would add those verses-if they were added. So, I'll answer with that in mind. (If that's not what you meant, please rephrase yourself and ask again, and I'll try again.)
What would an inserter think to gain from inserting those verses? I'll imagine up someone like that.
First of all, he would not have a view similar to the Jews who formed the Masoretic Text. Their view of the content of the verses was so sacrosanct that the only acceptable thing was to reproduce the text EXACTLY and the one UNacceptable thing to do was to make ANY change, no matter how slight. When making a scribal copy of a book (like Jonah), at the end, they would count all the appearances of each letter and of each punctuation mark (the tittles.) If the count was not exact for the book (it was off from the official list by even ONE single letter,) then they TRASHED the copy as unacceptable.
So, this would be someone whose worldview was OPPOSITE that, but still believing. He would, in all likelihood, NOT be a scholar (the more scholarly types would sound more like the rabbis working on the Masoretic texts.) He would be enthusiastic, and he would feel he was IN COMPETITION with the Roman religion- which included worship of dead emperors as gods. He would feel a NEED to OUTDO the Roman religion.
The biggest obstacle for him would be something I'd almost forgotten could BE an obstacle- his religious environment was largely SECULAR. If he were around people like those in Acts, he would see lots of miracles and things, and feel no need to compete with the Roman mythos- he would feel they were unable to compete with Christianity. So, his Christian experience was bereft of miracles as a whole. In his case, what replaced them? Well, to have a supposed Christian experience with no miracles, one has to have a substitute. The most prevalent one at the time was GNOSTICISM- where miracles are claimed to be real only in some sort of SPIRITUAL manner and NOT in a physical manner. So, no miracles of healings, no casting out of demons, no angels opening chains or door locks.
In fact, this was the type of thing that happened A LOT in the early centuries AD in the Christian church. From about 350 on, we can still find entire "books of the Bible" that contradict the Bible, and push some odd Gnostic doctrine or another, supposed "lost books of the Bible" that were never taken to be such, since they failed to measure up rather obviously- until some modern people decided to toss them into the same category as the Gospels and Epistles despite the Christian church historically refusing to respect them and elevate them as actual Scripture. Some of them were so poorly written that it's humorous and sad to think someone could read them and think that was of the same caliber as the Book of Acts. There's one that claims that Joseph (Mary's husband) was rubbish as a carpenter, and Jesus as a kid used to make miracles all the time to fix his work and even it out. Another time, kids were playing with clay and making clay animal figures, and some kids teased Jesus for making poor depictions of animals....so he brought one to life and fed it from his hand. Then he made a miracle and killed one of the kids who made fun of him instantly. How about the one where Satan and the Devil were having an argument while they waited for Jesus to break the gates of hell open and release the dead souls trapped there?
In fact, this dovetails nicely with that OldSchool pointed out about Gnostic influences and Gnostics adding their own writings and trying to get them included in Scripture- largely to advance some obscure doctrinal position of their own.
So, the writer would mean well, and would think it was the right thing to do - it certainly was common enough that he wouldn't think it was UNUSUAL.
However, the GSC has always had problems of such discussions being interrupted by impertinence.
It's hardly unique in that respect- on the day of Pentecost, there were scoffers saying the men were drunk on "new wine" (arguably not alcoholic.)
I once was trying to have a discussion on a subject specifically omitting what vpw and twi taught- just what we saw from the verses or found from OTHER sources. I requested that specifically, a few times. I gave up because one of the busier posters on the thread (nobody who's posting on this thread, but I forget who it was) kept replying by consistently invoking vpw and generally disagreeing with him- in each and every post. Eventually, I just got tired of making the effort. (Not that I minded someone disagreeing with vpw, but that was specifically off-topic for the thread.)
Fair enough, and thanks, and Ive certainly derailed a ton of threads my self so not trying to point fingers with three pointing back at me. Ill post later today after work.
I don't understand what you're asking here. Generally, a "redaction" is a REMOVAL of text- like blacking out classified information and things along those lines.
I THINK you're asking why someone would add those verses-if they were added. So, I'll answer with that in mind. (If that's not what you meant, please rephrase yourself and ask again, and I'll try again.)
What would an inserter think to gain from inserting those verses? I'll imagine up someone like that.
First of all, he would not have a view similar to the Jews who formed the Masoretic Text. Their view of the content of the verses was so sacrosanct that the only acceptable thing was to reproduce the text EXACTLY and the one UNacceptable thing to do was to make ANY change, no matter how slight. When making a scribal copy of a book (like Jonah), at the end, they would count all the appearances of each letter and of each punctuation mark (the tittles.) If the count was not exact for the book (it was off from the official list by even ONE single letter,) then they TRASHED the copy as unacceptable.
So, this would be someone whose worldview was OPPOSITE that, but still believing. He would, in all likelihood, NOT be a scholar (the more scholarly types would sound more like the rabbis working on the Masoretic texts.) He would be enthusiastic, and he would feel he was IN COMPETITION with the Roman religion- which included worship of dead emperors as gods. He would feel a NEED to OUTDO the Roman religion.
The biggest obstacle for him would be something I'd almost forgotten could BE an obstacle- his religious environment was largely SECULAR. If he were around people like those in Acts, he would see lots of miracles and things, and feel no need to compete with the Roman mythos- he would feel they were unable to compete with Christianity. So, his Christian experience was bereft of miracles as a whole. In his case, what replaced them? Well, to have a supposed Christian experience with no miracles, one has to have a substitute. The most prevalent one at the time was GNOSTICISM- where miracles are claimed to be real only in some sort of SPIRITUAL manner and NOT in a physical manner. So, no miracles of healings, no casting out of demons, no angels opening chains or door locks.
In fact, this was the type of thing that happened A LOT in the early centuries AD in the Christian church. From about 350 on, we can still find entire "books of the Bible" that contradict the Bible, and push some odd Gnostic doctrine or another, supposed "lost books of the Bible" that were never taken to be such, since they failed to measure up rather obviously- until some modern people decided to toss them into the same category as the Gospels and Epistles despite the Christian church historically refusing to respect them and elevate them as actual Scripture. Some of them were so poorly written that it's humorous and sad to think someone could read them and think that was of the same caliber as the Book of Acts. There's one that claims that Joseph (Mary's husband) was rubbish as a carpenter, and Jesus as a kid used to make miracles all the time to fix his work and even it out. Another time, kids were playing with clay and making clay animal figures, and some kids teased Jesus for making poor depictions of animals....so he brought one to life and fed it from his hand. Then he made a miracle and killed one of the kids who made fun of him instantly. How about the one where Satan and the Devil were having an argument while they waited for Jesus to break the gates of hell open and release the dead souls trapped there?
In fact, this dovetails nicely with that OldSchool pointed out about Gnostic influences and Gnostics adding their own writings and trying to get them included in Scripture- largely to advance some obscure doctrinal position of their own.
So, the writer would mean well, and would think it was the right thing to do - it certainly was common enough that he wouldn't think it was UNUSUAL.
Right. Generally, we understand a redaction as a removal of text, but a redactor is, broadly, an editor, a reviser. I should have been more precise: an interpolator.
I don't think these verses sound gnostic, and I'm aware of lots of silly literature that claims to be scripture. None of that answers my question, so I'll rephrase.
Was there a theological point the editor was trying to make? What was the reason for the insertion? What was the interpolator trying to suggest or prove to his audience? That this event further showed that Jesus was, indeed, the Christ? Did he think this would make sense to some believers or to Jews?
The editor must have thought it made sense to add these lines. I'm not at all saying that it DOES make sense.
In fact, this dovetails nicely with that OldSchool pointed out about Gnostic influences and Gnostics adding their own writings and trying to get them included in Scripture- largely to advance some obscure doctrinal position of their own.
So, the writer would mean well, and would think it was the right thing to do - it certainly was common enough that he wouldn't think it was UNUSUAL.
Its interesting to consider these points because it's histrorically accurate to say that almost as soon as an authentic epistle from the Apostles was circulated it was also rewritten. Paul addresses this in part with everybody has a psalm and everybody has a doctrice. So there's the point that WordWolf makes that I do agree with.
And to add to the equation there are people who purposefully rewrite and change scripture to further satans designs to obscure the gospel.
Romans 1:18 - AV1611
For the wrath of God is reueiled from heauen against all vngodlinesse, and vnrighteousnesse of men, who hold the trueth in vnrighteousnesse.
Hold can also be stated as supress. So there are those who purposfully supress scripture as well. It's accomplished in many baby steps...boil the frog slowly as they say...for example there are:
- deletions
- insertions
- changed pronouns
- changed nouns
- confused and inaccurate Koine Greek definitions that give a false sense of whats actually written
- There's books that should be included in the Bible that aren't that are hidden amongst the garbage texts that WordWolf mentioned. Book of Jubilees, Jasher, and 1 Enoch come to mind. I cite them since they are all heavily quoted in scripture or cross referenced in scripture. Jude directly quotes the first chapter of The Book of Enoch verbatim and the phrase Son of Man used by Jesus Christ himself is from Enoch. Jubilees and Jasher are also cross referenced in the Old Testament...yet they are stashed amongst the so called Pseudepigrapha, or falsely attributed works.
- Altered concepts that do not mean what scripture actually teaches but are altered to suit someone's specific agenda and/or narrative.
I could continue but figured this is enough for you guys to start poking holes in my Pinata, as I expect and desire. Peace!
Thank you very much for helping me laugh. With regard to the subject of Matthew 27:52-53. Instead of calling someone that this is the author of a biblical teaching book "not very smart" or "an idiot". I recommend that we address this subject, instead of criticizing a follower of Jesus Christ. Using my biblical study software program, here is a commentary on these two verses with legitimate copy right information at the end of this quote.
Matthew 27:52
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
[And the graves were opened] By the earthquake; and many bodies of saints which slept, i.e. were dead, sleep being a common expression for death in the Scriptures.
Hi Mark, I may be reading ambiguity into your post that isnt there...do you feel that the verses in question are true? And if so why...not trying to pick a fight either...Im on board with the GMIR article that Mike posted by Daniel L. McConaughy, however, I am interested in considering reasons why the verses may also be accurate...thanks!
- confused and inaccurate Koine Greek definitions that give a false sense of whats actually written
- There's books that should be included in the Bible that aren't that are hidden amongst the garbage texts that WordWolf mentioned. Book of Jubilees, Jasher, and 1 Enoch come to mind. I cite them since they are all heavily quoted in scripture or cross referenced in scripture. Jude directly quotes the first chapter of The Book of Enoch verbatim and the phrase Son of Man used by Jesus Christ himself is from Enoch. Jubilees and Jasher are also cross referenced in the Old Testament...yet they are stashed amongst the so called Pseudepigrapha, or falsely attributed works.
- Altered concepts that do not mean what scripture actually teaches but are altered to suit someone's specific agenda and/or narrative.
With regard to the definitions of Koine Greek words for the New Testament. I use references to the actual definitions of Koine Greek words often in my biblical book. especially in two chapters named:
Chapter 6: Page 65
Age and the Greek Words That Begin with Aioon
Chapter 14: Page 171
The Mythology of Hell That Contradicts Scriptures
The basics of this chapter is that the word hell should be translated "the grave or the place of the dead", instead of hell which involves torment with pain, especially eternally. This belief began with Egyptian, Greek and Roman gods.
Yes, other books should also be considered, if they are quoted from in the bible. Yes, bible text could be altered, especially if they contradict other scriptures. Regarding Matthew 27:52-53 "and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many." (NKJV). This would obviously be a miracle. Why was this miracle only mentioned in two verses and not the other gospels and other New Testament scriptures?
Right. Generally, we understand a redaction as a removal of text, but a redactor is, broadly, an editor, a reviser. I should have been more precise: an interpolator.
I don't think these verses sound gnostic, and I'm aware of lots of silly literature that claims to be scripture. None of that answers my question, so I'll rephrase.
Was there a theological point the editor was trying to make? What was the reason for the insertion? What was the interpolator trying to suggest or prove to his audience? That this event further showed that Jesus was, indeed, the Christ? Did he think this would make sense to some believers or to Jews?
The editor must have thought it made sense to add these lines. I'm not at all saying that it DOES make sense.
IF there was such an interpolator, it would do us well to consider who he was trying to convince, and what he was trying to convince them OF.
AFAIK, this addition would do NOTHING to convince a Jew to believe Jesus was the Son of God/the Christ/ etc.
In the first few centuries following Pentecost, we don't see Christianity continuing to expand primarily as a Jewish group. Initially, it was seen as so by the Roman empire, but Judaism as a whole was only so big. When Christianity increased by sizeable numbers (after Pentecost itself and a few years thereafter), it was generally among Gentile nations, among those who were NOT Jews or converts to Judaism. Among the Roman empire, the obstacles were different than among the Jews. With the Jews, the idea of A Son of God was shocking. Among the Romans, the idea of a god having a mortal son, and the son becoming immortal/some sort of god was COMMON. One of the criticisms of the early church has been that they adopted pagan beliefs all too readily and interpolated them into Christianity (an underworld of the dead, a son of god becoming a god, the mother of a god becoming a god and receiving prayers, etc.) You're quite familiar with any number of those.
So, for someone who saw Christianity as another religion competing in the Roman marketplace among all the others, he might see ANYTHING as some sort of "competition" of religions, and try to "OUTDO" the other religions. Remember, we aren't talking someone who said "We have actual miracles every week, the others do not, so that's plenty of proof," we are talking about someone whose ideas of Divine Intervention are secular- not in power, not with angels, etc. So, if he's going to try to outdo the Roman pantheon, he will have to do it on paper, and by outdoing their accounts. With Julius Caesar a dead emperor and thus an object of worship, the interpolator would see direct competition with Jesus, especially as a man who died and became some sort of god. So, if they claimed Caesar's death was accompanied by the dead rising and walking among the streets, then he'd at least claim the same was true of Jesus, whose death was FAR more important and supernatural.
This would have been nonsense to Jews, as it would be to me, but he wasn't trying to advertise to Jews nor to me. He was advertising to the average Roman who was used to a temple to Julius Caesar, and so on.
IF there was such an interpolator, it would do us well to consider who he was trying to convince, and what he was trying to convince them OF.
AFAIK, this addition would do NOTHING to convince a Jew to believe Jesus was the Son of God/the Christ/ etc.
In the first few centuries following Pentecost, we don't see Christianity continuing to expand primarily as a Jewish group. Initially, it was seen as so by the Roman empire, but Judaism as a whole was only so big. When Christianity increased by sizeable numbers (after Pentecost itself and a few years thereafter), it was generally among Gentile nations, among those who were NOT Jews or converts to Judaism. Among the Roman empire, the obstacles were different than among the Jews. With the Jews, the idea of A Son of God was shocking. Among the Romans, the idea of a god having a mortal son, and the son becoming immortal/some sort of god was COMMON. One of the criticisms of the early church has been that they adopted pagan beliefs all too readily and interpolated them into Christianity (an underworld of the dead, a son of god becoming a god, the mother of a god becoming a god and receiving prayers, etc.) You're quite familiar with any number of those.
So, for someone who saw Christianity as another religion competing in the Roman marketplace among all the others, he might see ANYTHING as some sort of "competition" of religions, and try to "OUTDO" the other religions. Remember, we aren't talking someone who said "We have actual miracles every week, the others do not, so that's plenty of proof," we are talking about someone whose ideas of Divine Intervention are secular- not in power, not with angels, etc. So, if he's going to try to outdo the Roman pantheon, he will have to do it on paper, and by outdoing their accounts. With Julius Caesar a dead emperor and thus an object of worship, the interpolator would see direct competition with Jesus, especially as a man who died and became some sort of god. So, if they claimed Caesar's death was accompanied by the dead rising and walking among the streets, then he'd at least claim the same was true of Jesus, whose death was FAR more important and supernatural.
This would have been nonsense to Jews, as it would be to me, but he wasn't trying to advertise to Jews nor to me. He was advertising to the average Roman who was used to a temple to Julius Caesar, and so on.
IF there was such an interpolator, it would do us well to consider who he was trying to convince, and what he was trying to convince them OF.
AFAIK, this addition would do NOTHING to convince a Jew to believe Jesus was the Son of God/the Christ/ etc.
In the first few centuries following Pentecost, we don't see Christianity continuing to expand primarily as a Jewish group. Initially, it was seen as so by the Roman empire, but Judaism as a whole was only so big. When Christianity increased by sizeable numbers (after Pentecost itself and a few years thereafter), it was generally among Gentile nations, among those who were NOT Jews or converts to Judaism. Among the Roman empire, the obstacles were different than among the Jews. With the Jews, the idea of A Son of God was shocking. Among the Romans, the idea of a god having a mortal son, and the son becoming immortal/some sort of god was COMMON. One of the criticisms of the early church has been that they adopted pagan beliefs all too readily and interpolated them into Christianity (an underworld of the dead, a son of god becoming a god, the mother of a god becoming a god and receiving prayers, etc.) You're quite familiar with any number of those.
So, for someone who saw Christianity as another religion competing in the Roman marketplace among all the others, he might see ANYTHING as some sort of "competition" of religions, and try to "OUTDO" the other religions. Remember, we aren't talking someone who said "We have actual miracles every week, the others do not, so that's plenty of proof," we are talking about someone whose ideas of Divine Intervention are secular- not in power, not with angels, etc. So, if he's going to try to outdo the Roman pantheon, he will have to do it on paper, and by outdoing their accounts. With Julius Caesar a dead emperor and thus an object of worship, the interpolator would see direct competition with Jesus, especially as a man who died and became some sort of god. So, if they claimed Caesar's death was accompanied by the dead rising and walking among the streets, then he'd at least claim the same was true of Jesus, whose death was FAR more important and supernatural.
This would have been nonsense to Jews, as it would be to me, but he wasn't trying to advertise to Jews nor to me. He was advertising to the average Roman who was used to a temple to Julius Caesar, and so on.
Perhaps the verses were added/inserted into scriptural narrative to discredit the event surrounding Christ's death. There were certainly enough Pharisees around at the time to pull that one off. In the epistles we frequently read of false brethren and such...
This would have been nonsense to Jews, as it would be to me, but he wasn't trying to advertise to Jews nor to me. He was advertising to the average Roman who was used to a temple to Julius Caesar, and so on.
WW it sounds like you nailed it on WHY the forgery is there.
This same idea of merging religions for unity was later taken up by the Catholic church in all their missionary work over the centuries.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
26
49
33
Popular Days
Sep 5
30
Aug 25
30
Aug 26
26
Aug 24
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 20 posts
CM 26 posts
Mike 49 posts
irisheyes 33 posts
Popular Days
Sep 5 2005
30 posts
Aug 25 2005
30 posts
Aug 26 2005
26 posts
Aug 24 2005
21 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
Film at 11:00! The suspense is killing me./s
Oakspear
if you don't believe that the bible is godbreathed, then there's no problem
Mike
Here is a rough OCR version of the article: Early Patristic Evidence for the Forgery of Matthew 27:52b and 53 Daniel L. McConaughy Seventh Way Corps Way Magazine May
Posted Images
Mike
Thanks for those additional insights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The posted article above seems to have been stimulated by magazine activity 2 months prior. In the Mar/Apr 1982 issue, the following Q&A was printed, calling attention to the previous work on the Matt.27 graves issue, in a small footnote in JCOP.
*/*/*/*/*
Q Someone recently asked me about Matthew 27:52 and 53:
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
He wanted to know why the dead got up when Jesus Christ was crucified. How do I best answer this question?
A That question is handled in Jesus Christ Our Passover in the footnote on pages 257-58. Let me quote it here:
“Matthew 27:52 and 53 are clearly added by scribes. Manuscript 354 in Venice, Italy, omits these verses. Though other textual documentation for this has not yet been found, it must be realized that the earliest manuscript including this section of Matthew 27 dates from the fourth century A.D. These verses must be an addition since they are contradictory to other scriptures which teach us that the dead are dead and will remain so until Christ returns. Until that time, only Christ has been raised bodily from death unto everlasting life. Textual critics as well as marginal notes in other old manuscripts have recognized these verses as later interpolations. The phrase ‘after his resurrection’ in Matthew 27:53 demonstrates the passage is totally out of context, obviously a scribal addition.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
not true, this is a theory
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Im inclined to agree with the article for the following reasons:
1) There is no other reference to an otherwise significant event, had it occured.
2) The concept does not fit from the point of view that Jesus Christ is the first fruits to rise from the dead. Jesus Christ is pre-eminant in all things because that's the way God ordained it.
3) While there are clear records in scripture of Jesus, et. al. raising people from the dead who died prematurely, there are three distinct events where the dead shall be made alive a) Gathering together, b) resurection of the just, c) resurection of the unjust.
4) What happened to them after they supposedly rose? They go back and die again? (Illustrating common sense that doesnt fit with the narrative presented in scripture.)
5) Church history, Fathers, and writings as quoted in the GMIR article are all incongruent. Such a significant event surely would not be contradictory from a historical perspective.
One thing I will note though, the oldest manuscripts are not the best manuscripts. If one manuscript, or text as the case may be, omits a verse that in itself should cause alarm on account of the omission which leads to the question why was it omitted? In this case perhaps the omission is valid. However, as a rule of thumb, oldest does not equal better. The Westcott/Hort greek text was supposedly older and supposedly more authoritative due to it's age. But God appearantly did not choose one text to rule them all, but many texts in agreement to safeguard what was written. I leave you guys with tables showing deletions and omissions by Westcott and Hort texts (Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaticus) from the Textus receptus or Received Texts. Westcott and Hort utilized Alexandrian texts whereas theTextus Receptus is from the Byzantine line of texts. The Textus Receptus agrees with the majority of the 5000 odd texts in existance today. Alexandria was a hotbed of Gnostiscism, where the Byzantine texts trace to Antioch of Syria and ultimately the first century Church who were careful to steward the scriptures they received.
https://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
And how do you support your theory
that this (the dead being asleep)
is just a theory?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
you have to die to find out
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
WOW, it reads like you are promoting death, perhaps even as a cheer leader for death.
Sorry, but I am not a cheer leader for death or the grave.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
not very smart are you Mark
I was going to say that you are an idiot, but didn't
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Not directed specifically at anyone, but I actually thought we were gonna have an intelligint discussion based on GMIR and the topic at hand. Is this all GSC is anymore?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Thank you very much for helping me laugh.
With regard to the subject of Matthew 27:52-53. Instead of calling someone that this is the author of a biblical teaching book "not very smart" or "an idiot". I recommend that we address this subject, instead of criticizing a follower of Jesus Christ. Using my biblical study software program, here is a commentary on these two verses with legitimate copy right information at the end of this quote.
Matthew 27:52
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
[And the graves were opened] By the earthquake; and many bodies of saints which slept, i.e. were dead, sleep being a common expression for death in the Scriptures.
Matthew 27:53
Edited by Mark SanguinettiAnd came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
[And came out of the graves after his resurrection] Not BEFORE, as some have thought, for Christ was himself the FIRST FRUITS of them who slept, 1 Corinthians 15:20. The graves were opened at his death, by the earthquake, and the bodies came out at his resurrection.
[And appeared unto many.] Thus establishing the truth of our Lord's resurrection in particular, and of the resurrection of the body in general, by many witnesses. Quesnel's reflections on these passages may be very useful:
1. The veil being rent shows that his death is to put an end to the figurative worship, and to establish the true religion.
2. The earthquake, that this dispensation of the Gospel is to make known through the earth the judgments of God against sin and sinners.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If it is a later editorial insertion, what’s the point? What might have motivated the redactor to add these verses? Why?
Can anyone steel man the argument from the redactor’s POV?
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We ARE having an intelligent discussion on those.
However, the GSC has always had problems of such discussions being interrupted by impertinence.
It's hardly unique in that respect- on the day of Pentecost, there were scoffers saying the men were drunk on "new wine" (arguably not alcoholic.)
I once was trying to have a discussion on a subject specifically omitting what vpw and twi taught- just what we saw from the verses or found from OTHER sources. I requested that specifically, a few times. I gave up because one of the busier posters on the thread (nobody who's posting on this thread, but I forget who it was) kept replying by consistently invoking vpw and generally disagreeing with him- in each and every post. Eventually, I just got tired of making the effort. (Not that I minded someone disagreeing with vpw, but that was specifically off-topic for the thread.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think most of us can agree with those ideas without necessarily needing a heavy-handed textual insertion to hammer the points home.
As for the veil being rent, and the earthquake happening, nobody's claiming those didn't happen, nobody's claiming those were insertions. The non-Christian, Roman soldier who commented saw those- probably specifically focusing on the earthquake- and came to his conclusion. He had to see SOMETHING, which was in the verses all agree on- an earthquake, the veil of the temple torn, and so on. There was no need to enhance the events by out-doing Julius Caesar. I'm certain the man who did so did not do so out of a desire to be disrespectful- I think his heart was in the right place. Nevertheless, I find it an unconscionable thing to do, and completely unnecessary, as well as counter to the purposes of the Christian seeking to understand Scripture. There's no REAL benefit to FAKE verses, no matter how well-intentioned they were who inserted them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I don't understand what you're asking here. Generally, a "redaction" is a REMOVAL of text- like blacking out classified information and things along those lines.
I THINK you're asking why someone would add those verses-if they were added. So, I'll answer with that in mind. (If that's not what you meant, please rephrase yourself and ask again, and I'll try again.)
What would an inserter think to gain from inserting those verses? I'll imagine up someone like that.
First of all, he would not have a view similar to the Jews who formed the Masoretic Text. Their view of the content of the verses was so sacrosanct that the only acceptable thing was to reproduce the text EXACTLY and the one UNacceptable thing to do was to make ANY change, no matter how slight. When making a scribal copy of a book (like Jonah), at the end, they would count all the appearances of each letter and of each punctuation mark (the tittles.) If the count was not exact for the book (it was off from the official list by even ONE single letter,) then they TRASHED the copy as unacceptable.
So, this would be someone whose worldview was OPPOSITE that, but still believing. He would, in all likelihood, NOT be a scholar (the more scholarly types would sound more like the rabbis working on the Masoretic texts.) He would be enthusiastic, and he would feel he was IN COMPETITION with the Roman religion- which included worship of dead emperors as gods. He would feel a NEED to OUTDO the Roman religion.
The biggest obstacle for him would be something I'd almost forgotten could BE an obstacle- his religious environment was largely SECULAR. If he were around people like those in Acts, he would see lots of miracles and things, and feel no need to compete with the Roman mythos- he would feel they were unable to compete with Christianity. So, his Christian experience was bereft of miracles as a whole. In his case, what replaced them? Well, to have a supposed Christian experience with no miracles, one has to have a substitute. The most prevalent one at the time was GNOSTICISM- where miracles are claimed to be real only in some sort of SPIRITUAL manner and NOT in a physical manner. So, no miracles of healings, no casting out of demons, no angels opening chains or door locks.
In fact, this was the type of thing that happened A LOT in the early centuries AD in the Christian church. From about 350 on, we can still find entire "books of the Bible" that contradict the Bible, and push some odd Gnostic doctrine or another, supposed "lost books of the Bible" that were never taken to be such, since they failed to measure up rather obviously- until some modern people decided to toss them into the same category as the Gospels and Epistles despite the Christian church historically refusing to respect them and elevate them as actual Scripture. Some of them were so poorly written that it's humorous and sad to think someone could read them and think that was of the same caliber as the Book of Acts. There's one that claims that Joseph (Mary's husband) was rubbish as a carpenter, and Jesus as a kid used to make miracles all the time to fix his work and even it out. Another time, kids were playing with clay and making clay animal figures, and some kids teased Jesus for making poor depictions of animals....so he brought one to life and fed it from his hand. Then he made a miracle and killed one of the kids who made fun of him instantly. How about the one where Satan and the Devil were having an argument while they waited for Jesus to break the gates of hell open and release the dead souls trapped there?
In fact, this dovetails nicely with that OldSchool pointed out about Gnostic influences and Gnostics adding their own writings and trying to get them included in Scripture- largely to advance some obscure doctrinal position of their own.
So, the writer would mean well, and would think it was the right thing to do - it certainly was common enough that he wouldn't think it was UNUSUAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Fair enough, and thanks, and Ive certainly derailed a ton of threads my self so not trying to point fingers with three pointing back at me. Ill post later today after work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Right. Generally, we understand a redaction as a removal of text, but a redactor is, broadly, an editor, a reviser. I should have been more precise: an interpolator.
I don't think these verses sound gnostic, and I'm aware of lots of silly literature that claims to be scripture. None of that answers my question, so I'll rephrase.
Was there a theological point the editor was trying to make? What was the reason for the insertion? What was the interpolator trying to suggest or prove to his audience? That this event further showed that Jesus was, indeed, the Christ? Did he think this would make sense to some believers or to Jews?
The editor must have thought it made sense to add these lines. I'm not at all saying that it DOES make sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Its interesting to consider these points because it's histrorically accurate to say that almost as soon as an authentic epistle from the Apostles was circulated it was also rewritten. Paul addresses this in part with everybody has a psalm and everybody has a doctrice. So there's the point that WordWolf makes that I do agree with.
And to add to the equation there are people who purposefully rewrite and change scripture to further satans designs to obscure the gospel.
Romans 1:18 - AV1611
For the wrath of God is reueiled from heauen against all vngodlinesse, and vnrighteousnesse of men, who hold the trueth in vnrighteousnesse.
Hold can also be stated as supress. So there are those who purposfully supress scripture as well. It's accomplished in many baby steps...boil the frog slowly as they say...for example there are:
- deletions
- insertions
- changed pronouns
- changed nouns
- confused and inaccurate Koine Greek definitions that give a false sense of whats actually written
- There's books that should be included in the Bible that aren't that are hidden amongst the garbage texts that WordWolf mentioned. Book of Jubilees, Jasher, and 1 Enoch come to mind. I cite them since they are all heavily quoted in scripture or cross referenced in scripture. Jude directly quotes the first chapter of The Book of Enoch verbatim and the phrase Son of Man used by Jesus Christ himself is from Enoch. Jubilees and Jasher are also cross referenced in the Old Testament...yet they are stashed amongst the so called Pseudepigrapha, or falsely attributed works.
- Altered concepts that do not mean what scripture actually teaches but are altered to suit someone's specific agenda and/or narrative.
I could continue but figured this is enough for you guys to start poking holes in my Pinata, as I expect and desire. Peace!
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Hi Mark, I may be reading ambiguity into your post that isnt there...do you feel that the verses in question are true? And if so why...not trying to pick a fight either...Im on board with the GMIR article that Mike posted by Daniel L. McConaughy, however, I am interested in considering reasons why the verses may also be accurate...thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
With regard to the definitions of Koine Greek words for the New Testament. I use references to the actual definitions of Koine Greek words often in my biblical book. especially in two chapters named:
Chapter 6: Page 65
Age and the Greek Words That Begin with Aioon
Chapter 14: Page 171
The Mythology of Hell That Contradicts Scriptures
The basics of this chapter is that the word hell should be translated "the grave or the place of the dead", instead of hell which involves torment with pain, especially eternally. This belief began with Egyptian, Greek and Roman gods.
Yes, other books should also be considered, if they are quoted from in the bible. Yes, bible text could be altered, especially if they contradict other scriptures. Regarding Matthew 27:52-53 "and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many." (NKJV). This would obviously be a miracle. Why was this miracle only mentioned in two verses and not the other gospels and other New Testament scriptures?
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
IF there was such an interpolator, it would do us well to consider who he was trying to convince, and what he was trying to convince them OF.
AFAIK, this addition would do NOTHING to convince a Jew to believe Jesus was the Son of God/the Christ/ etc.
In the first few centuries following Pentecost, we don't see Christianity continuing to expand primarily as a Jewish group. Initially, it was seen as so by the Roman empire, but Judaism as a whole was only so big. When Christianity increased by sizeable numbers (after Pentecost itself and a few years thereafter), it was generally among Gentile nations, among those who were NOT Jews or converts to Judaism. Among the Roman empire, the obstacles were different than among the Jews. With the Jews, the idea of A Son of God was shocking. Among the Romans, the idea of a god having a mortal son, and the son becoming immortal/some sort of god was COMMON. One of the criticisms of the early church has been that they adopted pagan beliefs all too readily and interpolated them into Christianity (an underworld of the dead, a son of god becoming a god, the mother of a god becoming a god and receiving prayers, etc.) You're quite familiar with any number of those.
So, for someone who saw Christianity as another religion competing in the Roman marketplace among all the others, he might see ANYTHING as some sort of "competition" of religions, and try to "OUTDO" the other religions. Remember, we aren't talking someone who said "We have actual miracles every week, the others do not, so that's plenty of proof," we are talking about someone whose ideas of Divine Intervention are secular- not in power, not with angels, etc. So, if he's going to try to outdo the Roman pantheon, he will have to do it on paper, and by outdoing their accounts. With Julius Caesar a dead emperor and thus an object of worship, the interpolator would see direct competition with Jesus, especially as a man who died and became some sort of god. So, if they claimed Caesar's death was accompanied by the dead rising and walking among the streets, then he'd at least claim the same was true of Jesus, whose death was FAR more important and supernatural.
This would have been nonsense to Jews, as it would be to me, but he wasn't trying to advertise to Jews nor to me. He was advertising to the average Roman who was used to a temple to Julius Caesar, and so on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Perfect. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thats the million dollar question...had it actually occured I feel it wouldve been mentioned in other places...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Perhaps the verses were added/inserted into scriptural narrative to discredit the event surrounding Christ's death. There were certainly enough Pharisees around at the time to pull that one off. In the epistles we frequently read of false brethren and such...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WW it sounds like you nailed it on WHY the forgery is there.
This same idea of merging religions for unity was later taken up by the Catholic church in all their missionary work over the centuries.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.