Doctor X

On the contrary, let us review what was asked of the individual:

since this request has been ignor'd by the individual now twice, I will leave it to the Noble Readership to evaluate whether or not the individual can defend his "sudbstance" with more decorum than your standard temper tantrum.

Apparently not:

unfortunately, it is an opinion echo'd by other posters. The individual is free, of course, to pretend that fallacy, evasion, and when that fails, invective constitutes an argument. It does rather explain why he is not taken seriously.

OH MY WHISKERS!!

Apparently it is unreasonable to ask him to behave reasonably.

Apparently it is unreasonable to ask him to defend his position with something more substantial than fallacy and personal attack.

Apparently, to show him a mirror is animosity.

Most singular definitions which, however, a gentleman does not have to share. [Edited by moderator --Celsus]

[Cue Pomp and Circumstances.--Ed.]

Thus does a kind and caring attempt to raise the individual to the ranks of those worthy consideration have been cast down, ridiculed and petulently ignored by [He cannot "cast down" and "ridicule" that which he "ignored."--Ed.] Hush! by an appeal to his "injur'd merit." [No Shakespeare!--Ed.]

Nevertheless, all this detracts from The Critical Point:

I gather we are to conclude he cannot do it? He cannot compile his evidence in a reasonable manner and submit it for proper review?

Obviously not, for peer review literature actually requires evidence and analysis not argumentum ad hominem and other tools of the tyro.

--J.D.

Haran

In defense of Yuri... It is difficult and time-consuming to present all the information necessary (if that is even possible) to defend any particular case in textual criticism. It's kind of hard to desire to get into the nitty-gritty details unless someone else really knows and can appreciate what you are talking about. Regardless, he knows his stuff and has presented a defense of some of his ideas on his website. However, I personally think he has gone overboard with respect to his opinions about modern textual critics, and I think he overvalues the Old Syriac (possibly placing its origin earlier than it should be and giving too much credence to it being original rather than a translation of the Greek).

spin

Yuri is rerunning a position he has tried to get past a number of lists.

Here's a window into one of them:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johann...e/message/3103

(There are some other posts with the same subject.)


spin

Celsus

Whatever the merits or demerits to Yuri's position, let's keep it civil. Doctor X, there is no reason for calling your opponent names.

Joel

Haran

Just to clarify, I think Yuri knows more than most here about textual criticism. I do not, however, think he is right in his theories.

I (and probably others) do wish that he would occasionally try a topic other than Old Syriac priority (or "conservativism" if that is what he prefers) on the many scholarly lists in which he participates.

Haran

If anyone is interested, they can read the Introduction to the 1881 Westcott and Hort New Testament in the Original Greek (an admittedly presumptuous title) for themselves, looking for information about the Syriac Versions (or whatever other information you might be interested in with respect to their Greek NT), to see if they seem like "frauds".

Select quotes among many:
"With rare exceptions they [i.e. the Syrian texts] run smoothly and easily in form, and yield at once to even a careless reader a passable sense, [page 116] free from surprises and seemingly transparent. But when distinctively Syrian readings are minutely compared one after the other with the rival variants, their claim to be regarded as the original readings is found gradually to diminish, and at last to disappear."

"Taking these facts in conjunction with the absence of distinctively Syrian readings from the patristic evidence of the Origenian and Ante-Origenian periods, while nevertheless distinctive readings of all the texts known to have been used in the production of distinctively Syrian readings abound in the Origenian period, as also, with the possible exception of distinctively Alexandrian readings, in the Ante-Origenian period, we are led to conclude that the hypothesis provisionally allowed must now be definitively rejected, and to regard the Syrian text as not only partly but wholly derived from the other known ancient texts. It follows that all distinctively Syrian readings may be set aside at once as certainly originating after the middle of the third century, and therefore, as far as transmission is concerned, corruptions of the apostolic text."

Yuri Kuchinsky

That's for sure, Haran!

Quote:

for themselves, looking for information about the Syriac Versions (or whatever other information you might be interested in with respect to their Greek NT), to see if they seem like "frauds". Select quotes among many: [snip]

Well, it sure seems like the good ol' W&H got you confused here! In fact, what _they_ meant by "the Syriac Versions" was the Greek Byzantine text! (W&H believed that Byzantine text originated in Syria, a view that AFAIK has been since completely abandoned by all...)

So welcome to the strange and wonderful field of NT Textual Criticism, my friend! (Warning: it seems to be booby-trapped!)

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, this just about does it for me... my remaining doubts have been removed. I don't know what was all that negative stuff that the Esteemed Moderator has cleaned up in JD's reply, but I'm sure it wasn't very nice...

So welcome to my ignore list, Doctor JD. I have little time for mindless bickering recently, because there's just so much positive and productive stuff that can be discussed with those who are really interested in these issues.

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

My reply to Carlson (and others on the John-Lit list),
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johann...e/message/3129

I'm still waiting for even one substantial criticism from that blinkered crowd on anything I've said. My citation from Black was perfectly OK. Carlson didn't like the citation, so instead he tried to twist and misrepresent what I said.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thanks, Haran.

Quote:

I do not, however, think he is right in his theories.

As is your right!

Quote:

I (and probably others) do wish that he would occasionally try a topic other than Old Syriac priority (or "conservativism" if that is what he prefers) on the many scholarly lists in which he participates.

Well, the problem is that they wouldn't let me participate on many scholarly lists nowadays... (Which is part of the reason why I'm here.)

Best,

Yuri.