Here's the footnote on pages 257-258 that covers those verses:
"24. Matthew 27:52 and 53 are clearly added by scribes. Manuscript 354 in Venice, Italy, omits these verses.
Any brief cross-reference to this mention in the article indicating the critical volume from whence this helpful snippet of information was acquired? (Nestle-Aland? Tischendorf? Merk? journal article,-personal discovery? etc.).
Any brief cross-reference to this mention in the article indicating the critical volume from whence this helpful snippet of information was acquired? (Nestle-Aland? Tischendorf? Merk? journal article,-personal discovery? etc.).
thanks
Dan, it's an Italian manuscript meant only for Irish eyes; although, beneficial to all Venician blind people. To them, the verses are "clearly" added by scribes.
Hey, Finally! Thanks, Mike. All I really wondered about was what JCOP said. No need to take out time for the magazine article,okay?
And Thomas, your Venician blind remark made me laugh out loud. But, it was your last sentence, and I don't know how to copy it here, will carry me through the day. Awesome!
Thomas, You did give Oliver Wendell Holmes the credit the first time around. Maybe we've all learned our lesson about that, huh? I'm glad you thought about it, though, shows what you are inside. :D-->
are there any patristic citations (e.g.,from the Ante-Nicene Fathers) of those passages provided in this "G'mir" article, attesting to either their presence or absence?
(patristic citations oft prove interesting because the writers had access to versions of NT manuscripts older than those currently available to us).
Danny
Dan -- yes, there are. I still have the gmir article, and got it out to take a look. Interesting reading and McConaughy does cite several sources, including The Anti-Nicene Fathers.
All the citations quoted mention the earthquake and such, but no dead men walking or being raised from the dead.
David, thanks for the heads up. So, in your opinion there is a good chance these verses were added? I'm not being sarcastic, just putting out the fire before it starts.
Dan -- yes, there are [patristic citations]. I still have the gmir article, and got it out to take a look. Interesting reading and McConaughy does cite several sources, including The Anti-Nicene Fathers.
All the citations quoted mention the earthquake and such, but no dead men walking or being raised from the dead.
David
It will be interesting to review these citations first-hand.
If you have a moment to spare, would you be so kind as to provide a couple examples of the writers and the works in which the Matt. citation appears, as mentioned in the article?
(just the title and the patristic author would suffice). Thanks again.
A couple questions to bear in mind when raising the question of a possible interpolation or "forgery"; we must ask ourselves:
If the passage be genuine, what might have compelled the writer to write this?
Or if the passage be an emendation - what was the motivation behind a later editor adding it?
I don't find the assumption, "Because it contradicts the conclusions in 'Are the Dead Alive Now' to be sufficient.
"24. Matthew 27:52 and 53 are clearly added by scribes. Manuscript 354 in Venice, Italy, omits these verses.
It seems Manuscript 354 is quite obscure and infrequently used. I assume it to be Gregory's number 354 which dates to the 5th century. This manuscript is so obscure that it is not even included in most current lists.
But there you have it folks, biblical research at its best. Based upon the omission by one and only one obscure (and not very highly regarded) manuscript, and VPW/TWI had the 'proof' that was needed to decree these verses as a 'forgery' and tidy things up so their theological system "fits like a hand in a glove."
And that's the problem to begin with, isn't it goey? Trying to assemble a flawless theological system. Proceeding with the arrogance that one has the right belief system and then carefully lining up all the toy soldiers in the correct way.
I find that assuming half of what I'm looking will remain a mystery to me takes the onus out of somehow needing to decipher every damned verse, phrase, concept, etc. Mr. Mike, you listening?
And that's the problem to begin with, isn't it goey? Trying to assemble a flawless theological system. Proceeding with the arrogance that one has the right belief system and then carefully lining up all the toy soldiers in the correct way.
And assuming that all early Christians - or supposedly "true" Christians" - let alone the NT writers and editors - were entirely agreed and homogenous in each and every point of their theologies - like the issue of death and afterlife.
Hope you and your family and friends abide safely through the coming storm, Evan.
If you have a moment to spare, would you be so kind as to provide a couple examples of the writers and the works in which the Matt. citation appears, as mentioned in the article?
(just the title and the patristic author would suffice). Thanks again.
These are the sources cited in the gmir article of The Way Magazine/ May-June 1982:
quote:
The following quoted patristic sources can be found in Volumes I-VIII of Robert's Anti-Nicene Fathers.
My preliminary observations; it's a very inconvenient, even unprofessional way in which they cited this material; the proper way to have done it (at the very least) would have been to quote the Ante-Nicene writer with the title of the work (e.g., Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, I.10.4), and then follow it with the volume and page info they had provided above.
Besides the fact that they referred to an English translation of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, if serious about exploring and weighing critical textual issues, it is absolutely necessary to consult the various source language editions (Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, etc.) - I've been led down blind allys more than once because I relied upon a poor English rendering of a particular patristic citation, until consulting the actual Greek or Latin text behind it. The patristic writings are also not without their "variants" among the surviving copies of any given work.
And that's the problem to begin with, isn't it goey? Trying to assemble a flawless theological system. Proceeding with the arrogance that one has the right belief system and then carefully lining up all the toy soldiers in the correct way.
No, assembling a flawless theology is not the problem. What people keep forgetting is there are only two religions - The truth of the Almighty God as expressed in His Word, and every other belief. What people have forgotten is that Babylon is the source of "every other belief" and mixing these two religions together is the source of the problem.
The trinity, the dead are alive (reincarnation), baptism (water worship) etc. etc. etc. - all those doctrines carry the roots and pagan elements of the "Babylon mystery religion".
quote:
what I'm looking will remain a mystery to me
The "mystery" has already been revealed. Those roads will only lead you to Babylon people, not to the flawless Word of God.
is it pagan to believe that God Almighty is powerful enough to defeat death?
to believe that the old testament people were raised from the dead because of of what God's Son did?
o well... let's rather believe that the dead are in some mystery place that noone knows a damn thing about and God is going to send his Son Down from His thrown and in one big swoop grab every "believer" and leave the rest of those He created to fend for thenselves against "the devil" which noone knows a damn thing about either.
yes put all your nickels on that pony-the one that offers no answers, has not gotten anyone closer to God at all-but rather has furthered them away from knowing Him
God is real
His Son is Real
He has defeated death For REAL
is that pagan?
who is powerful enough to take the worst of us on and win? then shall be brought to to pass the saying about the sting of death.
lol...i was just thinking about - you can't take it with you when you go-you know that old saying refering to money usually. well you can't take your bible with you when you go either and say see it was supposed to be like this! lol....
aaawww man why can't we see how powerful God is....what His Son did for all...
And that's the problem to begin with, isn't it goey? Trying to assemble a flawless theological system. Proceeding with the arrogance that one has the right belief system and then carefully lining up all the toy soldiers in the correct way.
No, assembling a flawless theology is not the problem. What people keep forgetting is there are only two religions - The truth of the Almighty God as expressed in His Word, and every other belief. What people have forgotten is that Babylon is the source of "every other belief" and mixing these two religions together is the source of the problem.
Context WTH...."The problem" was not meant by Evan to mean the problem with Christianity as a whole. You missed the point. We were discusing TWI's research efforts, that attempted to make everything fit perfectly -to the end that they we sloppy or deceptive.
quote:
what I'm looking will remain a mystery to me
The "mystery" has already been revealed. Those roads will only lead you to Babylon people, not to the flawless Word of God.
Again you missed the point. Evan was not refering to "THE MYSTERY" as revealed by Paul.
When Evan said, "I find that assuming half of what I'm looking will remain a mystery to me..", I took that to mean that all the word studies and other such tasks designed to make things "fit like a hand in a glove", are mostly unnecessary in the context of 1 Cor 13. Then Evan adds: "That "takes the onus out of somehow needing to decipher every damned verse, phrase, concept, etc."
I think what Evan was saying was that the crux of Christianity (faith and practice) is not dependant upon a theological system where every precept and idea must intellectually "fits like a hand in a glove." - It's ok not to understand every little thing in the bible/scriptures. And it's ok to wonder about some things that don't seem to fit.
By taking that approach, the burden is lifted of trying to have perfect understanding by making/forcing every verse of scripture fit mathematically. We are more free then to understand the Word through "experience" and by way of the spirit of God, rather than by purely intellectual efforts.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
26
49
33
Popular Days
Aug 25
30
Sep 5
30
Aug 26
26
Sep 4
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 20 posts
CM 26 posts
Mike 49 posts
irisheyes 33 posts
Popular Days
Aug 25 2005
30 posts
Sep 5 2005
30 posts
Aug 26 2005
26 posts
Sep 4 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
TheInvisibleDan
Any brief cross-reference to this mention in the article indicating the critical volume from whence this helpful snippet of information was acquired? (Nestle-Aland? Tischendorf? Merk? journal article,-personal discovery? etc.).
thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Dan, it's an Italian manuscript meant only for Irish eyes; although, beneficial to all Venician blind people. To them, the verses are "clearly" added by scribes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Hey, Finally! Thanks, Mike. All I really wondered about was what JCOP said. No need to take out time for the magazine article,okay?
And Thomas, your Venician blind remark made me laugh out loud. But, it was your last sentence, and I don't know how to copy it here, will carry me through the day. Awesome!
And Even, you know me Silly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Irisheyes,
Your husband is right on in his approach to those books.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I'm glad you like it.
The original quote is "What lies ahead of us and what lies behind us are insignificant compared to what lies within us" …Oliver Wendell Holmes.
I suppose I should change it back to the original quote & give credit to Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
think fish
mike. you sound familiar.
no. it could'nt be you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Thomas, You did give Oliver Wendell Holmes the credit the first time around. Maybe we've all learned our lesson about that, huh? I'm glad you thought about it, though, shows what you are inside.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
I love Dennis Leary. His show is real. I do wonder, however, what the NY firemen think of it??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
think fish
i like dennis leary too irisheyes. mainly his dark sense of comic reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
His Jesus stuff was a bit out there, but you still had to laugh. He thinks like most of us used to, I would imagine, huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Dan -- yes, there are. I still have the gmir article, and got it out to take a look. Interesting reading and McConaughy does cite several sources, including The Anti-Nicene Fathers.
All the citations quoted mention the earthquake and such, but no dead men walking or being raised from the dead.
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Woops -- I'm forgetting my manners!
-->
Irisheyes -- Welcome to GreaseSpot!
(btw -- that is Irish green, NOT twi green!)
:D-->
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
David, thanks for the heads up. So, in your opinion there is a good chance these verses were added? I'm not being sarcastic, just putting out the fire before it starts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
It will be interesting to review these citations first-hand.
If you have a moment to spare, would you be so kind as to provide a couple examples of the writers and the works in which the Matt. citation appears, as mentioned in the article?
(just the title and the patristic author would suffice). Thanks again.
A couple questions to bear in mind when raising the question of a possible interpolation or "forgery"; we must ask ourselves:
If the passage be genuine, what might have compelled the writer to write this?
Or if the passage be an emendation - what was the motivation behind a later editor adding it?
I don't find the assumption, "Because it contradicts the conclusions in 'Are the Dead Alive Now' to be sufficient.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
It seems Manuscript 354 is quite obscure and infrequently used. I assume it to be Gregory's number 354 which dates to the 5th century. This manuscript is so obscure that it is not even included in most current lists.
But there you have it folks, biblical research at its best. Based upon the omission by one and only one obscure (and not very highly regarded) manuscript, and VPW/TWI had the 'proof' that was needed to decree these verses as a 'forgery' and tidy things up so their theological system "fits like a hand in a glove."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
And that's the problem to begin with, isn't it goey? Trying to assemble a flawless theological system. Proceeding with the arrogance that one has the right belief system and then carefully lining up all the toy soldiers in the correct way.
I find that assuming half of what I'm looking will remain a mystery to me takes the onus out of somehow needing to decipher every damned verse, phrase, concept, etc. Mr. Mike, you listening?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
All this work has been done for us before in the PFAL writings.
Re-inventing the wheel is hard, especially if it's only 5-senses that are at one's disposal.
If such a senses attempt is a failure, that does not mean the the revelation to Dr can't revolve, as in roll.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
And assuming that all early Christians - or supposedly "true" Christians" - let alone the NT writers and editors - were entirely agreed and homogenous in each and every point of their theologies - like the issue of death and afterlife.
Hope you and your family and friends abide safely through the coming storm, Evan.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
These are the sources cited in the gmir article of The Way Magazine/ May-June 1982:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Whether they were quoted accurately, or deceitfully, I do not know. But that is the list given at the end of the article.
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Thanks David.
My preliminary observations; it's a very inconvenient, even unprofessional way in which they cited this material; the proper way to have done it (at the very least) would have been to quote the Ante-Nicene writer with the title of the work (e.g., Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, I.10.4), and then follow it with the volume and page info they had provided above.
Besides the fact that they referred to an English translation of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, if serious about exploring and weighing critical textual issues, it is absolutely necessary to consult the various source language editions (Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, etc.) - I've been led down blind allys more than once because I relied upon a poor English rendering of a particular patristic citation, until consulting the actual Greek or Latin text behind it. The patristic writings are also not without their "variants" among the surviving copies of any given work.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
No, assembling a flawless theology is not the problem. What people keep forgetting is there are only two religions - The truth of the Almighty God as expressed in His Word, and every other belief. What people have forgotten is that Babylon is the source of "every other belief" and mixing these two religions together is the source of the problem.
The trinity, the dead are alive (reincarnation), baptism (water worship) etc. etc. etc. - all those doctrines carry the roots and pagan elements of the "Babylon mystery religion".
The "mystery" has already been revealed. Those roads will only lead you to Babylon people, not to the flawless Word of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
pagan....hmmmmm
interesting
is it pagan to believe that God Almighty is powerful enough to defeat death?
to believe that the old testament people were raised from the dead because of of what God's Son did?
o well... let's rather believe that the dead are in some mystery place that noone knows a damn thing about and God is going to send his Son Down from His thrown and in one big swoop grab every "believer" and leave the rest of those He created to fend for thenselves against "the devil" which noone knows a damn thing about either.
yes put all your nickels on that pony-the one that offers no answers, has not gotten anyone closer to God at all-but rather has furthered them away from knowing Him
God is real
His Son is Real
He has defeated death For REAL
is that pagan?
who is powerful enough to take the worst of us on and win? then shall be brought to to pass the saying about the sting of death.
lol...i was just thinking about - you can't take it with you when you go-you know that old saying refering to money usually. well you can't take your bible with you when you go either and say see it was supposed to be like this! lol....
aaawww man why can't we see how powerful God is....what His Son did for all...
why can't we see the love...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Context WTH...."The problem" was not meant by Evan to mean the problem with Christianity as a whole. You missed the point. We were discusing TWI's research efforts, that attempted to make everything fit perfectly -to the end that they we sloppy or deceptive.
The "mystery" has already been revealed. Those roads will only lead you to Babylon people, not to the flawless Word of God.
Again you missed the point. Evan was not refering to "THE MYSTERY" as revealed by Paul.
When Evan said, "I find that assuming half of what I'm looking will remain a mystery to me..", I took that to mean that all the word studies and other such tasks designed to make things "fit like a hand in a glove", are mostly unnecessary in the context of 1 Cor 13. Then Evan adds: "That "takes the onus out of somehow needing to decipher every damned verse, phrase, concept, etc."
I think what Evan was saying was that the crux of Christianity (faith and practice) is not dependant upon a theological system where every precept and idea must intellectually "fits like a hand in a glove." - It's ok not to understand every little thing in the bible/scriptures. And it's ok to wonder about some things that don't seem to fit.
By taking that approach, the burden is lifted of trying to have perfect understanding by making/forcing every verse of scripture fit mathematically. We are more free then to understand the Word through "experience" and by way of the spirit of God, rather than by purely intellectual efforts.
Did I get it right Evan?
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.