Haran

Well... I thought so anyway.

I see no informed basis for calling Hort a "fraud", so justified criticism seems out of place here and speculation on Hort's motives the actual result. In what way did he commit fraud? How do you know that he did not believe what he was doing was as methodologically sound as what others had done in the past?

How is what Hort did really much different than, say, what Erasmus did? After all, didn't Erasmus use the oldest MSS he could find and make choices on what to include when a particular MS was defective? What about how he treated Revelation? There's probably much more of an argument to be made here, but I don't really care to get into it.

Perhaps the WH text is wrong, but this is not the way to go about proving it. You must show methodologically why the Alexandrian Text is not the precursor of the Byzantine Text, even though it appears so by the methodology of modern textual critics. You must show why older and seemingly less theological MSS than the Byzantine would be more original and correct, in spite of the fact that Alexandria was a known ancient center for preserving ancient texts. And this is just to begin.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Haran,

As I said in my article, "This quote alone shows quite well that Hort really was a Fraud."

My current case is based on that quote alone, because what he said in it is extremely revealing.

Quote:

How is what Hort did really much different than, say, what Erasmus did? After all, didn't Erasmus use the oldest MSS he could find and make choices on what to include when a particular MS was defective? What about how he treated Revelation? There's probably much more of an argument to be made here, but I don't really care to get into it. Perhaps the WH text is wrong, but this is not the way to go about proving it. You must show methodologically why the Alexandrian Text is not the precursor of the Byzantine Text, even though it appears so by the methodology of modern textual critics. You must show why older and seemingly less theological MSS than the Byzantine would be more original and correct, in spite of the fact that Alexandria was a known ancient center for preserving ancient texts. And this is just to begin.

You probably meant to say, "You must show why older and seemingly less theological MSS than the Byzantine would NOT be more original and correct..."

The date when a MS was produced needs not to have a direct bearing on the quality of the text that it contains. Older isn't always better. This is Textual Criticism 101.

It's a fallacy to claim that an older MS is always the better MS. But this obvious fallacy is just about the only argument still going for Hort.

As to Alexandria being known as "ancient center for preserving ancient texts", this argument is really very weak. Some commentators also say that Alexandria was the #1 hotbed of Christian heresy. So is this the center that you'd like to trust to preserve the true text of the gospels?

And how is Egyptian text supposed to be any "less theological" than the Byz text? Seems like a nonsensical claim to me...

Yours,

Yuri.

Gawen

Yuri...What you're saying is that Westcott & Hort used 4 or 5, 4th or 5th century Egyptian MSS to rewrite the KJV. And that by doing so, knowingly created 6000 inconsistencies (?) or differences in the first 4 Gospels. Other than pointing out that the NT fairy tale has a modern rewrite/alteration, I can't see any other point you try to make.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, that's about right, Gawen...

Quote:

Other than pointing out that the NT fairy tale has a modern rewrite/alteration, I can't see any other point you try to make.

My dear friend, I'm a historian. As such, it is my job to investigate early Christianity, and its texts.

Even if Christianity were seen as a fairy tale, still, this tale has strongly affected 1900+ years of history that came after.

Even fairy tales and myths are studied by scholars in relevant fields. So are you saying that such things shouldn't be studied at all?

Yeah, right, so just turn on your TV and be happy! What you see there is ALL TRUE!

Best,

Yuri.

Doctor X

Yuri:

For what it is worth invective detracts from argument. With the "infamous quote" you cite you have not shown that the creators of the text you presummably prefer did not do the same thing.

--J.D.

Yuri Kuchinsky

What you call the "invective" accurately reflects my feelings about these issues.

Quote:

With the "infamous quote" you cite you have not shown that the creators of the text you presummably prefer did not do the same thing. --J.D.

But I have no need to show any such thing. In fact, your objection is irrelevant.

In Hort's "infamous quote" he basically admits his utter incompetence as a textual critic, and/or his complete ideological blindness, which amounts to the same thing, in any case. Hence the Greek text that he and Westcott created was a failure.

As to the text that I personally prefer, it is Old Syriac Aramaic. But the creators of this text are not being evaluated as textual critics, and their ideology isn't at issue at all.

The only reason I'm defending the KJV/Byzantine text is because it is demonstrably a lot closer to the Aramaic gospels than W & H.

Yours,

Yuri.

Haran

Yuri, you're talking about 19th century scholars. His beliefs probably did not seem as far out of line at the time. There are a lot of successes who were said to have failed by their peers, so what?

As I read more, I am finding that it seems unlikely that the OS or Peshitta were closer to the autographs than the Greek, with the possible exception of Matthew. There are borrowed words and sentence structures in the Aramaic/Syriac that simply seem like wooden translations of Greek. There are probably some isolated incidents where the Aramaic texts preserve something older, but this doesn't seem to generally be the case.

In Metzger's Early Versions of the NT, there is an article, by a scholar obviously familiar with Syriac and Greek, that demonstrates quite clearly through grammar and word usage how the OS and Peshitta are translations of the Greek and not the other way around. It seems to me that there are more and more substantial examples that indicate Greek to Aramaic/Syriac, than the piecemeal, one or two word examples that are used to promote a Aramaic/Syriac to Greek translation.

This is just not true. As long ago as Westcott and Hort, when some of the Aramaic/Syriac texts were newly discovered, they saw the importance of including Burkitt's information about them. Metzger obviously knows or is at least familiar with the Aramaic/Syriac and includes references to such as Matthew Black. As I am beginning to find out, it is just not the case that the Aramaic/Syriac is being ignored. Why, even on the TC Bible Manuscripts Project, one can pull up the Curetonian and Sinaitic Old Syriac (OS) texts...

Reading through Swanson's Mark, I am really having a hard time agreeing that the Byzantine texts are not "improved" and slightly "theologically enhanced" texts... Perhaps it would be a good exercise to do some textual criticism here? It might be kind of fun to go through and look at the variants... Then, you could point out where you feel this problem of perception lies. We could start with Mark? The thing I want to make sure of is that you are focusing on the whole picture and not just on little tidbits. In other words you have to show that the Aramaic/Syriac as a whole seems to have been translated into Greek rather than the other way around. I believe the preponderance of evidence should go in your direction if that is the case...

Doctor X

Yuri:

Gentlemen learn to contain their passions and argue rationally.

You raised the objection. You apparently cannnot demonstrate it does not apply to your view point. It proved quite relevant and revealing.

Ipse dixit with argumetum ad hominem--see suggestion to contain passions above--and note you have thus far failed to demostrate that your side has not engaged in the same practice you accuse Hort of engaging in.

Actually does not follow even if we accept the first part. Again I can only recommnd you do not make connections based on emotion.

others have reminded you of the problem with that preference; I shall merely remind you that you have been asked to compile your evidence--preferably sans invective and other fallacy--and submit it to the peer-reviewed literature.

Yet Hort's apparently is? For those who believe that, I have this very innexpensive bridge they may wish to obtain a controlling interest in. . . .

As if that matters. You have yet to demonstrate, despite the invective and passion, that the gospels were written in Aramaic, and/or the Aramaic preserves a better reading than the Greek--since it is conceivable that they were written in Greek, translated into Aramaic and . . . puff of smoke . . . somehow preserved a better reading than later Greek witnesses . . . but . . . wait . . . the Aramaic witnesses are not all that early.

Of course, if you think you can establish any of that and provide a foundation for your passion, I eagerly await your submission of a paper.

Otherwise your passion and invective remain most ironically irrelevant.

--J.D.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Haran,

So then why are we still stuck with this highly deficient 19th century Greek text, and why is everybody still treating it with kid gloves?

And as to his beliefs not being too far out of line for the time, do you know when Griesbach and Hug, the scholars I cited in my article, did their work? (Hint: before W&H.)

Quote:

As I read more, I am finding that it seems unlikely that the OS or Peshitta were closer to the autographs than the Greek, with the possible exception of Matthew. There are borrowed words and sentence structures in the Aramaic/Syriac that simply seem like wooden translations of Greek.

Well, let's see some examples of that...

Quote:

There are probably some isolated incidents where the Aramaic texts preserve something older, but this doesn't seem to generally be the case. In Metzger's Early Versions of the NT, there is an article, by a scholar obviously familiar with Syriac and Greek, that demonstrates quite clearly through grammar and word usage how the OS and Peshitta are translations of the Greek and not the other way around.

Well, I'm really interested in discussing this. So please present here a couple of examples that _you_ found persuasive, and we'll look at them together. (And I even promise not to slam Metzger any more! )

I've read all that stuff before, and looked at some such cases in detail. But my general conclusion was that they are very weak and easily reversible. Some of these cases are so abstruse, that they don't really make any sort of a persuasive case.

Quote:

It seems to me that there are more and more substantial examples that indicate Greek to Aramaic/Syriac, than the piecemeal, one or two word examples that are used to promote a Aramaic/Syriac to Greek translation.

Fine, let's examine some specific passages...

Quote:

Yuri: "But the creators of this text are not being evaluated as textual critics, and their ideology isn't at issue at all." Haran: This is just not true. As long ago as Westcott and Hort, when some of the Aramaic/Syriac texts were newly discovered, they saw the importance of including Burkitt's information about them. Metzger obviously knows or is at least familiar with the Aramaic/Syriac and includes references to such as Matthew Black. As I am beginning to find out, it is just not the case that the Aramaic/Syriac is being ignored. Why, even on the TC Bible Manuscripts Project, one can pull up the Curetonian and Sinaitic Old Syriac (OS) texts...

I don't think your response quite follows from what I said.

It's all a matter of degree... I say that the ancient OS Aramaic gospels are being ignored by mainstream scholarship. I'm yet to meet even one professional NT scholar who has read them, even in translation...

Quote:

Reading through Swanson's Mark, I am really having a hard time agreeing that the Byzantine texts are not "improved" and slightly "theologically enhanced" texts... Perhaps it would be a good exercise to do some textual criticism here?

Excellent idea!

Quote:

It might be kind of fun to go through and look at the variants... Then, you could point out where you feel this problem of perception lies. We could start with Mark? The thing I want to make sure of is that you are focusing on the whole picture and not just on little tidbits. In other words you have to show that the Aramaic/Syriac as a whole seems to have been translated into Greek rather than the other way around. I believe the preponderance of evidence should go in your direction if that is the case...

Let me now state my position on this clearly. I'm actually not an Aramaic prioritist as such... Rather, I consider myself as an Aramaic _conservative_! (Or perhaps even more broadly as a "Semitic conservative".)

You see, while I'm quite willing to accept that some parts of the NT _were_ originally written in Greek, at the same time, I also think that the Semitic textual tradition (including the Old Syriac, the Diatessaron, the Hebrew Mt, and the Peshitta) still preserves the text that is overall more original, compared to the Greek text. In my view -- regardless of the original language of composition of any given book or passage in the NT -- the Semitic texts almost always preserve a more pure text overall, simply because Semitic textual tradition is overall more _conservative_, and thus closer to the earliest teachings of Jesus and his disciples.

Thus, I would generally describe myself as a Semitic conservative, rather than as a Semitic prioritist.

For example, I'm quite willing to accept that most of the Pauline letters were originally written in Greek (regardless of who wrote them, or whether or not it was Paul himself). And yet, when I compare the Peshitta and the Greek versions of these letters, I get a feeling that the Peshitta version is often closer to the original.

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

The only thing that J.D. offered so far are comments about my style, rather than about the substance of what I wrote in my article. But his evaluation of my style is necessarily subjective, and I don't accept it.

In the past, I've noticed that many of his replies seemed unreasonable, and loaded with animosity. He's now very close to being placed on my ignore list.

Quote:

I shall merely remind you that you have been asked to compile your evidence--preferably sans invective and other fallacy--and submit it to the peer-reviewed literature.

I don't think this makes much difference.

Yuri.