Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Matthew 27:49 (Greek):
οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἔλεγον· ἄφες, ἴδωμεν εἰ ἔρχεται Ἠλίας σώσων αὐτόν.

John 19:34 (Greek):
ἀλλ᾽ εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ.

Now, let's break down the parallels between these passages:

Piercing (λόγχῃ / λαβὼν λόγχην): Both passages mention the act of piercing with a spear. In Matthew, it uses the word "λαβὼν λόγχην," which means "taking a spear." In John, it uses the word "λόγχῃ," which means "with a spear."

His Side (τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῦ): Both passages refer to the area of the body that was pierced as "his side."

Outcome (ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ): Both passages describe the result of the piercing. In both, it mentions that blood and water came out. The phrases are very similar, with only slight word order differences.

These parallels indicate a strong similarity between the two accounts, suggesting that Matthew 27:49 may have been influenced by John 19:34, as the language and details align closely. However, as mentioned earlier, scholars debate whether this addition in Matthew is original or a later insertion influenced by the Gospel of John.

The best argument for the inclusion of the addition in Matthew 27:49 as an original part of the Gospel of Matthew is based on the examination of manuscript evidence, early Christian traditions, and theological considerations.

Here are some key points that proponents of its originality might argue:

Manuscript Evidence: While many manuscripts omit the addition in Matthew 27:49, some significant manuscripts, including ℵ (Codex Sinaiticus), B (Codex Vaticanus), C (Ephraemi Rescriptus), and others, do include it. These manuscripts are among the oldest and most respected witnesses to the New Testament text. Proponents argue that the presence of the addition in these early manuscripts suggests its originality.

Consistency with Matthew's Style: Advocates for its originality might argue that the language and style of the addition are consistent with the Gospel of Matthew. The addition uses phrases and vocabulary that are in line with Matthew's writing style and narrative structure, which suggests that it could be original.

Theological Significance: Some scholars argue that the addition serves a theological purpose in the context of Matthew's Gospel. It highlights the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, specifically the anticipation of Elijah's coming. In Matthew's Gospel, there is a recurring theme of Jesus fulfilling Old Testament prophetic expectations, and this addition could be seen as part of that broader theological agenda.

Harmonization with John: Proponents of its originality might argue that Matthew may have had access to John's Gospel or had knowledge of its content, and he chose to include a similar event to harmonize with John's account. This would demonstrate Matthew's intention to provide a complete and harmonious account of the crucifixion.

If Matthew was influenced by John, that would be a very late Gospel of Matthew, and that would be yet another point in favor of Matthean posteriority vis-a-vis Luke.

gryan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 11:57 am Manuscript Evidence: While many manuscripts omit the addition in Matthew 27:49, some significant manuscripts, including ℵ (Codex Sinaiticus), B (Codex Vaticanus), C (Ephraemi Rescriptus), and others, do include it. These manuscripts are among the oldest and most respected witnesses to the New Testament text. Proponents argue that the presence of the addition in these early manuscripts suggests its originality.

gryan,

The obvious question here is why many manuscripts would omit it if it were originally in Matthew. I think transcriptional probability is the major reason for not including the addition in Matt 27.49. Can you give a credible reason for why scribes would have excluded it from the text of Matthew?

Best,

Ken

I think there are several problems to address. For one, the Gospel of John is surely not a unity. So at what point was what layer of John written? How does Matthew potentially relate to various layers of John?

@Ken there is quite a simple answer here, and that is independent versions of Matthew vs those in the New Testament collection. We see something similar with Mark, where clearly there was a version of Mark put into a collection in the middle of the 2nd century that had the long ending of Mark. Irenaeus attests to the long ending in his collection of four Gospels. Yet others were aware of a version of Mark without the long ending, and thus some copies were made with the short ending. The short ending must come from versions of Mark that were outside the four Gospel collection.

But I do think also that all of the Gospels were revised in the presence of one another in the mid-2nd century when they were put into the four Gospel collection. Obviously this is true because that's when John 21 was written as well as the long ending of Mark, both of which reflect knowledge of not just the other Gospels, but the entire NT. What we don't know is the extent to which they were harmonized in each other's presence because there appear to be very few witnesses to independent copies of the Gospels, and maybe no witnesses to independent versions of John or Luke. It appears that all the proto-orthodox readers were reading from the four Gospel collection and only seldom did they see a Gospel that was not from the collection. And even when they did, they didn't necessarily scrutinize it for differences and make notes of it all.

textually this is part of the issue of western non interpolations

Andrew Criddle