Butters

Hello all!
I ran across a Christian that was answering Dan Barkers Easter challenge. One claim he made was, "Matthew 28:2 does not say that the tomb was not open when they arrived. The description of the angel and the rolling away of the stone is merely a "parenthetical" description of an event which occurred earlier, and was intended to explain how the women could see that Jesus' body was not in the tomb. It was not intended "chronologically", in the sequence in which it is found."

What do you know about this "parenthetical" thing? My understanding of parenthetical, reffers to quoting sources when writing a paper. Is the use he puts it to valid? Does anyone know the origin of this idea? I am not involved in the conversation, just curious.

Thanks!
-B

CX

It's made up. The meaning of the passage is perfectly clear in the Greek text as it is in the English.

Butters

Thanks CX, This is my feeling exactly, but I'm wondering how they justify the use of this devise. Is it like the idea that one of the geneologies in the NT reffering to Marys parents? As far as I can see they all pretty much claim this, and claim that it was commonly done in the time the NT was written, but cannot produce another case of it being done outside the bible. Following the "rules" of Christians, any book in the world could be "proved" to be true.

Thanks again, and have a good one!
-B

CX

Because it makes the word of god inerrant. Most inerrantists presuppose the conclusion (i.e. the bible is the infallible and inerrant word of god) and work backwards from there. Such things as "dual fulfillment" of prophecy, "parentheticals" and other ad hoc creations are apologetic edifices built up to defend what is essentially an indefensible position. One need not be non Xian to see this and, in fact, the majority of legitimate biblical scholars readily acknowledge the errors in Xian texts despite the fact that they are predominantly Xian. Ultimately it is rather pointless to argue with such people.

anime

So, are you saying that there is no way at all that parantheticals could have been used or intended by the writers, in spite of what the Xian "sholars" say?

CX

I'm saying I'm not even certain a "paranthetical" [sic] is a valid concept in this context. And in any event the remarks in the passage in question are clearly not parenthetical in nature looking at the original Greek text.

anime

My apologies. I forgot which verse was being discussed.

The Companion Bible, which is very good for answering discrepancies, does not call it a paranthetical either.

The sequence of events following the Lord's resurrection is laid out in App. 166.