Christianity QA

Question:

: So, in your opinion, which rule have I broken? : That of not crossposting your religious bickering to an NG that has : nothing to do with it. No, friend, you got it all confused. I’m the one who defends the objective study of history here. Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto "Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure." — Reinhold Niebuhr

Response:

So, in your opinion, which rule have I broken?

That of not crossposting your religious bickering to an NG that has nothing to do with it.

Response:

:I certainly didn’t break any rules of TC-List. I’ve been an active :member there for over 4 years, so why would I start breaking the rules :now? : Good question, why woul you? So, in your opinion, which rule have I broken?

It is not my opinion. It is the opinion of the moderators. MessiahTruth: http://www.messiahtruth.com Outreach Judaism  http://www.outreachjudaism.org/

Response:

: Since I’ve been expelled or censored on just about every academic : mailing list to which I’ve belonged, what else am I supposed to do? : My experience with scholarly lists is that if you know your subject : and play by the rules, you haev no problems. :I certainly didn’t break any rules of TC-List. I’ve been an active :member there for over 4 years, so why would I start breaking the rules :now? : Good question, why woul you? So, in your opinion, which rule have I broken? Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road. -=- Voltaire

Response:

: Why do you go to people who are ignorant of the issues to push your : theory? Since I’ve been expelled or censored on just about every academic mailing list to which I’ve belonged, what else am I supposed to do? My experience with scholarly lists is that if you know your subject and play by the rules, you haev no problems.

Moshe, I certainly didn’t break any rules of TC-List. I’ve been an active member there for over 4 years, so why would I start breaking the rules now? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So now, these miserable TC-List censors leave me no choice but to go and address the general public. But perhaps this isn’t really such a bad thing as all that… Because I think that today’s NT Textual Criticism is really nothing else but a weird cult of Jesus the Greek — and it’s about time that the wider public should learn about it. They really do try to conceal the keys of knowledge, which should be available to all, with a thousand equivocations and obfuscations… But, actually, the truth of the matter is clear and obvious. The simple truth is that Western text is the earliest gospel text. And, deep down below, these pathetic TC weasels know it too — otherwise they would have tried to reason with me, rather than expelling me as they did, on a patently bogus excuse. Now, in your experience, is it such a usual thing that, in a modern academic "secular" environment, people would be expelled from a discussion forum… for doubting? And moreover, expelled without any warning? No they do not get expelled for ‘doubting’.

Well, and I was expelled for ‘doubting’… They get expelled for makign a fool of themselves and not having the sense to see that.

Yes, I agree that typically people get expelled for such things, as well as for using inappropriate language, personal attacks, etc. But in my case, none of this applies. AFAIAC, the best explanation for my expulsion is that I was interested in exploring ancient Aramaic gospels.   So this was clearly a political expulsion, because of the bias, and the general belief that the Greek text is the only one that matters. Regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto "Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure." — Reinhold Niebuhr

Response:

Since I’ve been expelled or censored on just about every academic mailing list to which I’ve belonged, what else am I supposed to do? My experience with scholarly lists is that if you know your subject and play by the rules, you haev no problems. I certainly didn’t break any rules of TC-List. I’ve been an active member there for over 4 years, so why would I start breaking the rules now?

Good question, why woul you? Now, in your experience, is it such a usual thing that, in a modern academic "secular" environment, people would be expelled from a discussion forum… for doubting? And moreover, expelled without any warning? No they do not get expelled for ‘doubting’. Well, and I was expelled for ‘doubting’…

IYO. MessiahTruth: http://www.messiahtruth.com Outreach Judaism  http://www.outreachjudaism.org/

Response:

:Hello, friends, : Yuri, you know your theories have been discussed on scholarly lists : and those who are more familiar with the texts available seem to : think you are wrong. Well, Moshe, what they might think is one thing, but what they can show as valid or invalid based on hard evidence is another. : Why do you go to people who are ignorant of the issues to push your : theory? Since I’ve been expelled or censored on just about every academic mailing list to which I’ve belonged, what else am I supposed to do? So now, these miserable TC-List censors leave me no choice but to go and address the general public. But perhaps this isn’t really such a bad thing as all that… Because I think that today’s NT Textual Criticism is really nothing else but a weird cult of Jesus the Greek — and it’s about time that the wider public should learn about it. They really do try to conceal the keys of knowledge, which should be available to all, with a thousand equivocations and obfuscations… But, actually, the truth of the matter is clear and obvious. The simple truth is that Western text is the earliest gospel text. And, deep down below, these pathetic TC weasels know it too — otherwise they would have tried to reason with me, rather than expelling me as they did, on a patently bogus excuse. Now, in your experience, is it such a usual thing that, in a modern academic "secular" environment, people would be expelled from a discussion forum… for doubting? And moreover, expelled without any warning? Regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto "One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea" –Walter Bagehot (1826-1877)

Response:

: Why do you go to people who are ignorant of the issues to push your : theory? Since I’ve been expelled or censored on just about every academic mailing list to which I’ve belonged, what else am I supposed to do?

My experience with scholarly lists is that if you know your subject and play by the rules, you haev no problems. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -So now, these miserable TC-List censors leave me no choice but to go and address the general public. But perhaps this isn’t really such a bad thing as all that… Because I think that today’s NT Textual Criticism is really nothing else but a weird cult of Jesus the Greek — and it’s about time that the wider public should learn about it. They really do try to conceal the keys of knowledge, which should be available to all, with a thousand equivocations and obfuscations… But, actually, the truth of the matter is clear and obvious. The simple truth is that Western text is the earliest gospel text. And, deep down below, these pathetic TC weasels know it too — otherwise they would have tried to reason with me, rather than expelling me as they did, on a patently bogus excuse. Now, in your experience, is it such a usual thing that, in a modern academic "secular" environment, people would be expelled from a discussion forum… for doubting? And moreover, expelled without any warning?

No they do not get expelled for ‘doubting’. They get expelled for makign a fool of themselves and not having the sense to see that. MessiahTruth: http://www.messiahtruth.com Outreach Judaism  http://www.outreachjudaism.org/

Response:

[Many good things] Thanks for your note Yuri, and I agree with much of it.  I can’t really deal with it tonight, and must vanish for a couple of nights, but I didn’t want to leave you thinking I’d ignored it. The only point that I couldn’t not enquire about – what’s the thinking on priority of the Western text?  (I know it’s early, and about the other recension of Acts).  <interested All the best, Roger Pearse

Response:

: : : I don’t know if this is what you’re looking for, but at : : http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tr.htm there is a comparison of : : how the Scripture quotes of the earlier Christian writings agree more : : with the Alexandrian texts, but as time went on, more with the MT, : : it’s broken down by writer. (i.e. Clement, Marcion, etc.) : : Hello, Sarah, : : Yes, that webpage is quite useful, because it examines patristic : citations in relation to text-types. But also, the context of that : discussion is a bit too narrow, because it mostly neglects Western text, : which many scholars believe was the earliest text. : : As it is, to discuss only Alexandrian text vs. the Majority text limits : our focus quite a bit. : ===One interesting element in the Western Text (e.g. the Codex Bezae) : is the divine declaration made at the baptism/anointing of Jesus. ( SEE: : Luke 3:22) : "You are my my beloved son; this day have I begotten you" : This is a clear indication of an early Messianist belief that Jesus BECAME : the son of God at his baptism, just as Jewish kings became "begotten" : of Yahweh when they were anointed kings. : Bible scholars have theorize the text was altered to establish the divine : sonship of Jesus. :     In fact the Western Text clearly shows a relationship among Jesus, : Joseph and "God" as the exact opposite of what "orthodox" Christianity : teaches, i.e. the Western Text shows Joseph to be the NATURAL and : "God" the ADOPTIVE "father" of Jesus, a belief labeled by the Church : as the "Adoptionist" heresy. Hello, Libertarius, I agree with you that the "Adoptionist" beliefs were very early indeed. Since you’re interested, here’s the Greek text of Luke 3:22 according to the Codex Bezae, "uios mou ei su, egw shmeron gegennhka se" And here’s the Latin text of the Codex Bezae, which is equivalent to its Greek column, "filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te" All the best, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick

Response:

Hello, friends, Yuri, you know your theories have been discussed on scholarly lists and those who are more familiar with the texts available seem to think you are wrong. Why do you go to people who are ignorant of the issues to push your theory? MessiahTruth: http://www.messiahtruth.com Outreach Judaism  http://www.outreachjudaism.org/

===Why not, Moshe? This is a "BIBLE" forum, after all. BTW, your referenced sites are very interesting, especially the one about the conversion epidemic. The author (Rabbi Singer) touches on, but never quite reaches the point that a major motivation behind efforts at converting Jews is what in Psychology is called "Cognitive Dissonance", i.e. the survival of Judaism without a belief in Jesus as the "Messiah" is a never-ending source of disconfirmation for Christians.     Libertarius

Response:

Hello, friends,

Yuri, you know your theories have been discussed on scholarly lists and those who are more familiar with the texts available seem to think you are wrong. Why do you go to people who are ignorant of the issues to push your theory? MessiahTruth: http://www.messiahtruth.com Outreach Judaism  http://www.outreachjudaism.org/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : I don’t know if this is what you’re looking for, but at : http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tr.htm there is a comparison of : how the Scripture quotes of the earlier Christian writings agree more : with the Alexandrian texts, but as time went on, more with the MT, : it’s broken down by writer. (i.e. Clement, Marcion, etc.) Hello, Sarah, Yes, that webpage is quite useful, because it examines patristic citations in relation to text-types. But also, the context of that discussion is a bit too narrow, because it mostly neglects Western text, which many scholars believe was the earliest text. As it is, to discuss only Alexandrian text vs. the Majority text limits our focus quite a bit. Regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead to where there is no path and leave a trail." -=O=- Ralph Waldo Emerson

===One interesting element in the Western Text (e.g. the Codex Bezae) is the divine declaration made at the baptism/anointing of Jesus. ( SEE: Luke 3:22) "You are my my beloved son; this day have I begotten you" This is a clear indication of an early Messianist belief that Jesus BECAME the son of God at his baptism, just as Jewish kings became "begotten" of Yahweh when they were anointed kings. Bible scholars have theorize the text was altered to establish the divine sonship of Jesus.     In fact the Western Text clearly shows a relationship among Jesus, Joseph and "God" as the exact opposite of what "orthodox" Christianity teaches, i.e. the Western Text shows Joseph to be the NATURAL and "God" the ADOPTIVE "father" of Jesus, a belief labeled by the Church as the "Adoptionist" heresy.     Libertarius

Response:

: I don’t know if this is what you’re looking for, but at : http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tr.htm there is a comparison of : how the Scripture quotes of the earlier Christian writings agree more : with the Alexandrian texts, but as time went on, more with the MT, : it’s broken down by writer. (i.e. Clement, Marcion, etc.) Hello, Sarah, Yes, that webpage is quite useful, because it examines patristic citations in relation to text-types. But also, the context of that discussion is a bit too narrow, because it mostly neglects Western text, which many scholars believe was the earliest text. As it is, to discuss only Alexandrian text vs. the Majority text limits our focus quite a bit. Regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead to where there is no path and leave a trail." -=O=- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Response:

Hello, friends, There’s one more thing that can be added to my analysis of this passage in various MSS. In my previous analysis, I’ve neglected the rather obvious fact that, in our canonical Luke, this passage is broken down into two parts by a Chapter break: the end of Ch. 11, and the beginning of Ch. 12. But in the Aramaic version of Luke, the whole passage that I’ve cited (Lk 11:52-12:1) is just one paragraph, without any breaks. (The Aramaic text of Luke does not feature Chapter breaks, but rather paragraph breaks that often agree with the modern division into paragraphs and Chapters.) Thus, if I’m correct in regard to the Greek version of this text having been heavily re-edited at a later date, then it’s possible that whoever re-edited it also added the Chapter break there — the break that happens to interfere with the natural flow of this passage. I haven’t really done a lot of research on this matter, but it seems like the earliest system of chapter divisions in the gospels is preserved for us in the Codex Vaticanus, a fourth century Alexandrian text. According to some scholars, the system of divisions that is found there seems to antedate the codex in which it appears. So it’s possible that the current system of chapter/paragraph divisions in Luke would have been introduced by a later editor who was also heavily re-editing the gospel of Luke. It seems like the end result of this editor’s work was to confuse the natural meaning of quite a few passages, and to make them more difficult to understand. Also, curiously enough, when we look at the KJV version of this passage, it’s only broken in two parts by a Chapter break. But the RSV version of this passage is actually broken into 3 parts! Because, for some reason, RSV also adds a paragraph break after v. 52, which KJV does not do. Thus, it looks like RSV is continuing the work of that ancient ecclesiastical editor, who was trying to make this passage more difficult to follow… Best regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead to where there is no path and leave a trail." -=O=- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Response:

: Unfortunately, as I’ve said before, textual criticism is quite : obviously in a big state of decline at this time, compared to how : things were only a few generations ago. All too many professional NT : scholars today write their books and papers as if Nestle/Aland Greek : text was the Final Word on textual criticism — as if no further : efforts were needed to examine the ancient manuscripts for alternative : readings. What we see as having emerged now, it seems, is a "new : Alexandrian Textus Receptus"! : : But this is all just nonsense. The earliest gospels certainly didn’t : belong to Alexandrian text-type — of this I’m quite certain. : Well, I don’t know myself.  What makes me nervous is that, if I : understand correctly, the majority of manuscripts are simply : unanalysed, on the basis that they belong to the Byzantine text form, : and so are ‘derivative’.  Well, perhaps so, although if they haven’t : been analysed, how do people know for sure?  But I’d prefer to see : some proper data crunching, and some adequate statistics. Hi, Roger, You’re right that a lot of Greek MSS still remain unanalysed. And this is even more true for the Latin MSS, especially for the Latin harmonistic gospel MSS. One example is the medieval gospel harmony of Clement of Llanthony, that still remains unedited, and the contents of which is still basically unknown, in spite of the fact that there are quite a few MSS of it around. And of course there’s also quite a lot of stuff in various vernacular gospel MSS that’s still completely unknown. My basic feeling is that the Greek MSS tradition is the least interesting, because it’s so heavily homogenised. OTOH, various non-Greek MSS seem to be more valuable, because they preserve a lot of uncensored stuff. : That the support for the Alexandrian text can have religious : implications – although I don’t know that in the UK Christians see it : that way – is apparent from the ‘net; and in those circumstances, I : always get a little nervous. Yes, quite clearly, support for Alexandrian text has some religious implications. But a lot of this support also has big political implications, as well as various other implications. : One problem we always have with a : non-trivial text tradition is handling the bulk of the data.  Call me : suspicious, but it is a fact that it is simply sheerly easier to write : on the handful of early codices of Alexandrian type, than to deal with : the rest. I don’t know if you’ve read Thomas Kuhn, but one thing that he says pretty clearly is that, with well established scientific paradigms, usually, the main reason why scientists still adhere to some mainstream Paradigm X — in spite of the fact that lots of hard evidence happens to contradict it — is that this Paradigm X is mainstream. So there’s really no need to look too hard for other possible reasons; the main reason just happens to lie on the surface of things… But, still, I basically agree with you. You see, I support the priority of Western text, but it’s certainly a very complex and multi-stranded textual tradition. So, yes, it’s quite clear that dealing with all the complexities of Western text can be quite intimidating. It’s certainly much easier to simply fall in with the Alexandrian herd, and have no further worries about anything. : But I am very ignorant on whether these issues have been adequately : addressed, so I make no polemical point of any kind here. Don’t worry. If you feel that you know very little about this subject, this merely puts you on a par with just about any professional NT scholar today. : So textual criticism is certainly not all done and finished with, as : so many NT scholars would like to pretend. : Probably not.  Actually I think that the subject is overdue for a : great leap forward.  When all is said and done, the methods in use : today really are only a refinement of those developed in Lachmann’s : time.  Can we really not take a step forward somehow, if only using : statistic analysis of some sort? Yes, a big step forward is certainly overdue. And I think a careful study of the Old Syriac gospels, of the Magdalene Gospel, as well as of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew will certainly provide a sincere seeker plenty of new evidence needed for making such a step. But unfortunately, all three of these texts mostly remain ignored today by our very biased NT scholarship. And here, political bias is clearly the key. Witness my recent expulsion from TC-List. The circumstances surrounding it are quite bizarre, so political bias clearly played a big role there. It’s only when I started to deal in earnest with the Old Syriac gospels that I was expelled… All the best, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road. -=- Voltaire

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : — The Syriac version is completely straightforward, simple, and : obvious. There are no interpretative difficulties here of any sort. : A fundamental law of textual criticism says that the smoother text is : the later. But, my dear Marlies, all such rules of textual criticism need to be treated as approximations only. These are really nothing more than rules of thumb. This specific rule, in particular (Lectio difficilior potior), has always been meant to have a bearing primarily on the vocabulary and the grammatical constructions. Such as, if one MS has a slightly ungrammatical expression, and the other MS smoothes this into an expression that is more grammatically correct, then the chances are that the second MS is a later one. But what this rule disregards completely is the _deliberate theological corruptions_ that were introduced by later editors. And this is what I think happened with the Alexandrian version of this passage.

I’d like to comment on this, as I feel a misunderstanding is slipping under the wire.  (Yuri is quite right to say that lectio difficilior does not apply to deliberate recensio, of course). The thinking is a little more complex than given here, and while probably I say nothing you don’t know, it should be qualified.  When we have two readings, that reading is to be preferred which explains the existence of the other.  So if we have two readings, one using a strange or local construction, and the other more generic, it is easy to imagine a scribe reading the odd word and mentally substituting the normal one in copying, without even realising he is doing it.  It is much harder to think of an ‘accidental’ way for the odd reading to replace the conventional one.  Hence the ’smoother’/more usual one is more likely to be later. It’s a small point, but accuracy of thought is fairly important here. As Yuri says, the rule is not absolute; it’s a codification of careful common-sense in an area where inexperience can be misled. Of course it is actually possible, by the loss of letters, for a strange form to be created.  The risk with uncritical application of this rule is that only corrupt texts will be considered authentic! That’s the other thing to consider. I’m not sure that this bears either way on the discussion, but I hope it was useful. All the best, Roger Pearse

Response:

Thanks, Roger, this was indeed quite helpful, especially for all those who are unfamiliar with this whole area of textual criticism.

You’re very welcome.  Yes, I think it’s important to think of the lurkers.  I’ve been reading much too much Latin philology lately, so these issues happened to be in my mind. Unfortunately, as I’ve said before, textual criticism is quite obviously in a big state of decline at this time, compared to how things were only a few generations ago. All too many professional NT scholars today write their books and papers as if Nestle/Aland Greek text was the Final Word on textual criticism — as if no further efforts were needed to examine the ancient manuscripts for alternative readings. What we see as having emerged now, it seems, is a "new Alexandrian Textus Receptus"! But this is all just nonsense. The earliest gospels certainly didn’t belong to Alexandrian text-type — of this I’m quite certain.

Well, I don’t know myself.  What makes me nervous is that, if I understand correctly, the majority of manuscripts are simply unanalysed, on the basis that they belong to the Byzantine text form, and so are ‘derivative’.  Well, perhaps so, although if they haven’t been analysed, how do people know for sure?  But I’d prefer to see some proper data crunching, and some adequate statistics. That the support for the Alexandrian text can have religious implications – although I don’t know that in the UK Christians see it that way – is apparent from the ‘net; and in those circumstances, I always get a little nervous.  One problem we always have with a non-trivial text tradition is handling the bulk of the data.  Call me suspicious, but it is a fact that it is simply sheerly easier to write on the handful of early codices of Alexandrian type, than to deal with the rest. But I am very ignorant on whether these issues have been adequately addressed, so I make no polemical point of any kind here. So textual criticism is certainly not all done and finished with, as so many NT scholars would like to pretend.

Probably not.  Actually I think that the subject is overdue for a great leap forward.  When all is said and done, the methods in use today really are only a refinement of those developed in Lachmann’s time.  Can we really not take a step forward somehow, if only using statistic analysis of some sort? All the best, Roger Pearse

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks, Roger, this was indeed quite helpful, especially for all those who are unfamiliar with this whole area of textual criticism. You’re very welcome.  Yes, I think it’s important to think of the lurkers.  I’ve been reading much too much Latin philology lately, so these issues happened to be in my mind. Unfortunately, as I’ve said before, textual criticism is quite obviously in a big state of decline at this time, compared to how things were only a few generations ago. All too many professional NT scholars today write their books and papers as if Nestle/Aland Greek text was the Final Word on textual criticism — as if no further efforts were needed to examine the ancient manuscripts for alternative readings. What we see as having emerged now, it seems, is a "new Alexandrian Textus Receptus"! But this is all just nonsense. The earliest gospels certainly didn’t belong to Alexandrian text-type — of this I’m quite certain. Well, I don’t know myself.  What makes me nervous is that, if I understand correctly, the majority of manuscripts are simply unanalysed, on the basis that they belong to the Byzantine text form, and so are ‘derivative’.  Well, perhaps so, although if they haven’t been analysed, how do people know for sure?  But I’d prefer to see some proper data crunching, and some adequate statistics. That the support for the Alexandrian text can have religious implications – although I don’t know that in the UK Christians see it that way – is apparent from the ‘net; and in those circumstances, I always get a little nervous.  One problem we always have with a non-trivial text tradition is handling the bulk of the data.  Call me suspicious, but it is a fact that it is simply sheerly easier to write on the handful of early codices of Alexandrian type, than to deal with the rest. But I am very ignorant on whether these issues have been adequately addressed, so I make no polemical point of any kind here. So textual criticism is certainly not all done and finished with, as so many NT scholars would like to pretend. Probably not.  Actually I think that the subject is overdue for a great leap forward.  When all is said and done, the methods in use today really are only a refinement of those developed in Lachmann’s time.  Can we really not take a step forward somehow, if only using statistic analysis of some sort?

I don’t know if this is what you’re looking for, but at http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/tr.htm there is a comparison of how the Scripture quotes of the earlier Christian writings agree more with the Alexandrian texts, but as time went on, more with the MT, it’s broken down by writer. (i.e. Clement, Marcion, etc.) Peace. — for humble Christian Bible study: http://www.watchtower.org/

Response:

Why is the last edition of these ancient Aramaic gospels dated 1910? How come you couldn’t get these gospels in any bookstore in the last 50 years or so (at least)? (But of course now there’s a brand-new edition that’s just appeared.)

Are you reffering to the World English Bible ?

Response:

: Why is the last edition of these ancient Aramaic gospels dated 1910? How : come you couldn’t get these gospels in any bookstore in the last 50 : years or so (at least)? (But of course now there’s a brand-new edition : that’s just appeared.) : Are you reffering to the World English Bible ? Not quite, Terry…  Rather, I’m talking about the ancient Aramaic versions of the gospels, and their English translations. The Old Syriac Aramaic versions of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John exist at this time in two ancient manuscripts — the manuscripts that date to about the same time as our best Greek-language manuscripts of the gospels, on which most of the Bibles published today are based. 1. Old Syriac Codex Sinaiticus, dated to the mid- or late-fourth century. 2. Old Syriac Codex Curetonianus, dated to the early fifth century. Both of these manuscripts were first discovered in the 19th century. Codex Curetonianus was the first one to have been discovered by Dr. William Cureton, who then transcribed and published it in 1858. And later on, in 1892, the Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in Egypt by two British scholars, Dr. Agnes Lewis, and her sister Margaret, who were then visiting St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai. After their discovery, both of these manuscripts were studied by a team of eminent scholars, who then published their definitive English translations in 1904 (Curetonianus), and 1910 (Sinaiticus). But since that time, these texts have basically remained ignored by the subsequent generations of NT scholars. No further editions appeared until very recently, in 2002, when Gorgias Press has put out a new translation of these Old Syriac gospels by Dr. Jan Wilson. At this time, there are many disputes among the specialists about how these ancient Aramaic gospels are related to the Greek gospel texts. Although the majority of NT scholars today prefer to think that these Aramaic texts had originally been based on the Greek manuscripts, this opinion is not universal. Some scholars also claim that the Aramaic text is more original than the Greek — or that at least some of these Aramaic texts are more original than their Greek equivalents. The language of these gospels, the Old Syriac Aramaic, is widely believed to be pretty close to what the Historical Jesus, himself, spoke. Best regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead to where there is no path and leave a trail." -=O=- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Response:

Thanks, Roger, this was indeed quite helpful, especially for all those who are unfamiliar with this whole area of textual criticism. Unfortunately, as I’ve said before, textual criticism is quite obviously in a big state of decline at this time, compared to how things were only a few generations ago. All too many professional NT scholars today write their books and papers as if Nestle/Aland Greek text was the Final Word on textual criticism — as if no further efforts were needed to examine the ancient manuscripts for alternative readings. What we see as having emerged now, it seems, is a "new Alexandrian Textus Receptus"! But this is all just nonsense. The earliest gospels certainly didn’t belong to Alexandrian text-type — of this I’m quite certain. So textual criticism is certainly not all done and finished with, as so many NT scholars would like to pretend. All the best, Yuri. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : — The Syriac version is completely straightforward, simple, and : obvious. There are no interpretative difficulties here of any sort. : A fundamental law of textual criticism says that the smoother text is : the later. But, my dear Marlies, all such rules of textual criticism need to be treated as approximations only. These are really nothing more than rules of thumb. This specific rule, in particular (Lectio difficilior potior), has always been meant to have a bearing primarily on the vocabulary and the grammatical constructions. Such as, if one MS has a slightly ungrammatical expression, and the other MS smoothes this into an expression that is more grammatically correct, then the chances are that the second MS is a later one. But what this rule disregards completely is the _deliberate theological corruptions_ that were introduced by later editors. And this is what I think happened with the Alexandrian version of this passage. I’d like to comment on this, as I feel a misunderstanding is slipping under the wire.  (Yuri is quite right to say that lectio difficilior does not apply to deliberate recensio, of course). The thinking is a little more complex than given here, and while probably I say nothing you don’t know, it should be qualified.  When we have two readings, that reading is to be preferred which explains the existence of the other.  So if we have two readings, one using a strange or local construction, and the other more generic, it is easy to imagine a scribe reading the odd word and mentally substituting the normal one in copying, without even realising he is doing it.  It is much harder to think of an ‘accidental’ way for the odd reading to replace the conventional one.  Hence the ’smoother’/more usual one is more likely to be later. It’s a small point, but accuracy of thought is fairly important here. As Yuri says, the rule is not absolute; it’s a codification of careful common-sense in an area where inexperience can be misled. Of course it is actually possible, by the loss of letters, for a strange form to be created.  The risk with uncritical application of this rule is that only corrupt texts will be considered authentic! That’s the other thing to consider. I’m not sure that this bears either way on the discussion, but I hope it was useful. All the best, Roger Pearse

Response:

— The Syriac version is completely straightforward, simple, and obvious. There are no interpretative difficulties here of any sort.

A fundamental law of textual criticism says that the smoother text is the later. So is this the stuff that the Moderators of TC-List have judged to be too dangerous for them? Was I really expelled from this list because of my special interest in these Aramaic gospel texts? I sure think so myself… Because these folks are really nothing other than a "Jesus the Greek" Cult!

There is a really evil conspiracy going on. Is the Vatican involved?

Response:

: — The Syriac version is completely straightforward, simple, and : obvious. There are no interpretative difficulties here of any sort. : A fundamental law of textual criticism says that the smoother text is : the later. But, my dear Marlies, all such rules of textual criticism need to be treated as approximations only. These are really nothing more than rules of thumb. This specific rule, in particular (Lectio difficilior potior), has always been meant to have a bearing primarily on the vocabulary and the grammatical constructions. Such as, if one MS has a slightly ungrammatical expression, and the other MS smoothes this into an expression that is more grammatically correct, then the chances are that the second MS is a later one. But what this rule disregards completely is the _deliberate theological corruptions_ that were introduced by later editors. And this is what I think happened with the Alexandrian version of this passage. : So is this the stuff that the Moderators of TC-List have judged to be : too dangerous for them? Was I really expelled from this list because of : my special interest in these Aramaic gospel texts? I sure think so : myself… Because these folks are really nothing other than a "Jesus the : Greek" Cult! : There is a really evil conspiracy going on. Is the Vatican involved? Well, I have no idea if the Vatican is involved, although perhaps it’s a bit of a stretch… But maybe you can answer me just a few questions. Why is the last edition of these ancient Aramaic gospels dated 1910? How come you couldn’t get these gospels in any bookstore in the last 50 years or so (at least)? (But of course now there’s a brand-new edition that’s just appeared.) How come I’ve been an active member of TC-List for at least 4 years, and never had any trouble with Moderators… and now I’ve been expelled, all of a sudden? Do you think that it is such a usual thing that, in a modern academic "secular" environment, people would be expelled from a discussion forum… for doubting? And moreover, expelled without any warning? Regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick

Response:

Greetings, friends, Here’s a good example of how the Old Syriac Aramaic text of Luke appears to be more original that our canonical Greek Luke. As you can see below, the Aramaic text of Lk 11:52-12:1 is obviously more logical and straightforward, whereas the standard Greek version suffers from various internal inconsistencies that really seem like later corruptions. So here’s this passage as it’s found in the ancient Old Syriac Curetonian MS, Lk 11:52-12:1 (Old Syriac Curetonian; 1904 Burkitt translation) (Luke 11:52) "Woe to you, scribes, that have concealed the keys of knowledge! You yourself have not entered, and them that are entering you have hindered." (53) And when he was saying these things against them in the sight of all the people, it began to be displeasing to the scribes and Pharisees, and they were disputing with him about many things, (54) and were seeking to take hold of a pretext against him, that they might be able to accuse him. (Luke 12:1) And when a great multitude was gathered unto him, so as to trample one on the other, he had begun to say to his disciples: "First beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is respect of persons." So, as we can see, the scene above is all happening in one and the same place. And now, let’s compare this with the standard Greek-based canonical text, as it’s printed in most Bibles today. This is how we find this passage in the Revised Standard Version, (Lk 11:52 RSV) "Woe to you lawyers! for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering." (53) As he went away from there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to press him hard, and to provoke him to speak of many things, (54) lying in wait for him, to catch at something he might say. (Luke 12:1 RSV) In the meantime, when so many thousands of the multitude had gathered together that they trod upon one another, he began to say to his disciples first, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." So let’s now focus in particular on the verses starting with 11:53. 1. For some reason, in the Greek-based version of verse 53, Jesus is portrayed as "going away from there". But the general logic of this passage indicates that we’re still talking about one and the same scene. 2. The Old Syriac makes it very clear that the scribes and Pharisees were publicly embarrassed by what Jesus said about them, so then, as a result, they start to provoke him with questions. But in Greek, the reason why they are trying to provoke him isn’t quite as clear. 3. In the Greek text, the scribes and Pharisees are "lying in wait for him" (enedreuonteV auton). This implies that they are engaging in some sort of a conspiracy, which is not at all apparent in the Syriac text. In the Syriac version, their actions are more spontaneous; thus, no conspiracy is implied. 4. In the Syriac, a great multitude of people is said to have gathered around Jesus. So the reason why the people are so crowded together is because they want to hear Jesus. But this is not made directly obvious in the Greek text. 5. In the Syriac text of Lk 12:1, Jesus is quite clearly addressing his disciples within hearing of the rest of the crowd. And so he says, "First beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, etc." It’s obvious that, in saying what he’s saying, he’s still primarily targeting his religious opponents. But in the Greek text, on the other hand, the placement of the word "first" (prwton) is very ambiguous. All the standard Greek-based English translations include this word as part of the introductory remarks, and not as part of Jesus’ speech — but this tends to confuse considerably the whole meaning of what Jesus is saying. So the Syriac text makes a lot more sense here, because its meaning is very simple and straightforward. But what we find in the Greek version really seems like a nonsense reading. Indeed, how can Jesus be saying "first to his disciples" something that, according the general logic of this passage, is heard by everybody else at the same time? Thus, what we see in the Syriac text is the following, — The Syriac version is completely straightforward, simple, and obvious. There are no interpretative difficulties here of any sort. — The people of Israel show more interest in Jesus’ teachings, compared to the Greek text. In contrast, the Greek version seems to have been heavily reworked by a later editor. — In the Greek version, the natural sequence of events has been confused in various ways. — The scribes and Pharisees are being portrayed as cunning and conspiratorial. — The people of Israel are distanced from Jesus to a certain extent. And the Old Syriac Curetonian MS also happens to be supported in this passage by the Codex Bezae, in both its Greek and Latin versions. Here’s the Greek Bezae version, for those who might know Greek. In fact, verse 12:1 reads almost exactly like the Syriac text, (Lk 12:1) pollwn de oclwn sunperiecontwn kuklw, wste allhlouV sunpnigein hrxato legein proV touV maqhtaV * prwton prosecete eautoiV apo thV zumhV twn farisaiwn htiV estin upokrisiV Also, this Syriac text is supported to some extent by many other Old Latin Luke MSS, and by numerous other ancient texts as well. So this surely indicates that the text of this Old Syriac MS is a lot closer to the original text of Luke. "THE KEYS OF KNOWLEDGE" IN LUKE 11:52 And now, we can also take a look at the difference between the Aramaic and the Greek texts of Lk 11:52. Here, the difference is quite subtle, and yet it seems rather important. According to the Aramaic text, the scribes "have concealed (d’tashytown) the keys of knowledge", while, in the Greek, they have "taken away (hrate) the key". But in the Western text of the Greek Bezae, the word that is used instead of /hrate/ is /ekripsate/, which is equivalent to the Syriac /d’tashytown/. And this reading is also supported by numerous Old Latin MSS. As a result, in these Western text, we see that the Pharisees are not really accused of deliberately preventing the common people from obtaining the knowledge necessary for enlightenment. Rather, it seems like Jesus is accusing them of standing in the way unintentionally, because they have made too many subtle qualifications about the correct observance of the laws. And here, for reference, is the King James Version of these verses. What we can see there is that KJV actually happens to agree with the Syriac text in one very important detail. Namely, according to KJV verse 53, Jesus is not really going anywhere from that place, like he’s in the typical Alexandrian Greek text. Instead, according to KJV, he’s still saying "these things" just where he was before. (Luke 11:52 KJV) Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. (53) And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things: (54) Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him. (Luke 12:1) In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Here are the relevant verses again, (Lk 11:53 KJV) "And as he said these things unto them" = legontos de autou tauta pros autous (Lk 11:53 RSV) "As he went away from there" = kakeiqen exelqontos autou Thus, in both the Aramaic and KJV/Byzantine texts, the continuity of the whole action is still being preserved, which makes the narrative more logical and straightforward. Quite clearly, in this passage KJV version is superior to what we find in our "modern" Alexandrian text, and in all those popular English translations that are based on it. And here’s how we find this passages in the Magdalene Gospel, (MG 42:1) "And then it came to pass that there were great crowds of people around Jesus. (2) And then, [speaking] openly, he began to warn his disciples to beware of hypocrisy, so that they keep themselves from it." Thus, just like with the Old Syriac, the Magdalene version is also completely straightforward. And here, as well, we see that the people of Israel show more interest in Jesus’ teachings, compared to the Greek text. So is this the stuff that the Moderators of TC-List have judged to be too dangerous for them? Was I really expelled from this list because of my special interest in these Aramaic gospel texts? I sure think so myself… Because these folks are really nothing other than a "Jesus the Greek" Cult! Best regards, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road. -=- Voltaire

Response:

Related Posts