From: wes.williams@twcable.com
Date: Fri Jul 12 1996 - 16:48:41 EDT
Dear Kevin,
<<Henry Baclay Swete comments on this passage:
...the Body which 'saw no corruption' is not elsewhere called 'a corpse' (cf
6:29; Rev 11:8ff) but to Pilate, it would appear merely in that light. TO
SWMA is substituted in Matthew, Luke and John. ptwma is used of the carcases
of animals e.g Judges 14:8; when employed for the dead body of a human being
it carries a tone of contempt. The Majority of uncial manuscripts avoid the
word here and borrow SWMA from Matthew, Luke and John. and the Latin
versions similarily prefer _corpus- to _ cadaver_>>
Thanks so much for your helpful research. It validates the thought that
there is/was a hesitancy in applying the word "corpse" to Jesus' body. When
Swete says that "it carries a tone of contempt" when referring to humans, I
would think that it would not *necessarily* be true on Pilate's part
(although it could, grammatically). John's disciples removed the ptwma
(corpse) of their beloved John (Mt 14:12). Certainly no contempt is implied
there. Therefore, I would conclude that contempt is not *required* by
referencing a human "ptwma," even though some later scribes (and perhaps
Swete?) felt that way.
Thank you again for the reference.
>At 10:22 AM 7/12/96 MST, you wrote:
> While researching this verse this week, I noticed that the KJV renders
> this word as "body." What is strange is the fact that even Strong's
> number on the word references SWMA (body) instead of PTWMA (corpse)!
>
> Can anyone please supply the history behind this confusion? My
> assumption is that at one time some thought it disrespectful to call
> Jesus' dead body a "corpse," but I don't know why Strong got this
> incorrect. Is this just a mistake on his part? Or is there more to it?
>
> Thanks,
> Wes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT