judge

Thanks Yuri,
Can you explain how it is clear?

Quote:

Burkitt said that the OS gospels originated some time in the 2nd century.

What were his reasons?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Many passages in the OS Sinaiticus and OS Curetonianus are identical word-for-word. This indicates that they share a common OS archetype.

But great many passages in these two MSS are also quite different, so this indicates a substantial editorial activity for each MS -- independently of each other. Such extensive editorial activity must have taken lots of time.

Hence, I conclude that they both depend on a shared archetype, and that this archetype can probably be placed some time in the 2nd century, at least.

Quote:

What were his reasons?

Probably the same that I gave?

Best,

Yuri.

Amaleq13

Is there any pattern to the shared passages? How about the variations?

Why?

Johann_Kaspar

Hi Yuri,

Thanks for the link! It look quite interesting! Give me time to read it all (i will be checking the links you are providing there) and I will come back.
May I ask you what languages you are mastering?
Do you know French and do you know of the work by French researchers? Especially about the Cercle Ernest-Renan?

Best Wishes,
Johann

Yuri Kuchinsky

Don't know exactly what you mean.

Quote:

YURI: Such extensive editorial activity must have taken lots of time. Why?

Because it's so extensive.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

You're welcome, Johann.

Quote:

It look quite interesting! Give me time to read it all (i will be checking the links you are providing there) and I will come back. May I ask you what languages you are mastering?

Oh, I've lost count by now.

Quote:

Do you know French and do you know of the work by French researchers? Especially about the Cercle Ernest-Renan? Best Wishes, Johann

Yes, French is one of my stronger languages. In fact, I think that the French biblical scholarship is the best in the world right now!

Especially I like Loisy, who was of course strongly influenced by Renan.

Best,

Yuri.

Johann_Kaspar

Hi Yuri,

Hey, I did not ask how many! Just which ones...!?
And in that case, you know Massé and Roy!?

Wow, it is 10 years I studied all this. Time to come back.

Best Wishes,
Johann

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, all the usual ones, plus some more...

Quote:

And in that case, you know Massé and Roy!?

Actually, I don't really know much about them. I've heard about Daniel Massé, but not about Roy.

All the best,

Yuri.

Johann_Kaspar

Massé was thinking/writing about Yeshua being the son of Yehudda the Galilean (and not of Galilea!) and as such a independance fighter.

Raoul Roy is a Canadian who wrote "Jésus guerrier de l'indépendance." Quote: "Jésus n'a rien fait d'autre que mener une guérilla contre l'impérialisme romain pour la libération de la Palestine". [Jesus did nothing else but lead a guerilla against the Roman imperialism for the freedom of Palestine.] Editions Parti Pris, Montréal, 1975, 415 pages.

Still I do not know if Yeshua has any historicity as a man (and I do not care very much), but the core of the gospels supports those ideas very well. My main interest is the ideology and how it fits into the historical period.

Best Wishes,
Johann

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, Johann, I don't think these ideas are too unusual even in the context of N American scholarship. For example, Richard A. Horsley argues that Jesus was some sort of a social revolutionary...

Quote:

Still I do not know if Yeshua has any historicity as a man (and I do not care very much), but the core of the gospels supports those ideas very well. My main interest is the ideology and how it fits into the historical period. Best Wishes, Johann

The whole N American NT scholarship today is basically a fraud. And especially the Historical Jesus scholarship...

1. The first step should be to describe honestly the early history of the Church.

2. Then, the history of early Christian writings must be outlined. What were the earliest texts? They were obviously very different from what we have now.

Of course, these two projects must go hand-in-hand, because they are related projects.

3. Then, on this basis, the third step is to describe the real teachings of the earliest Christian missionaries (some of whom presumably were the eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus).

4. And only then should come the final step -- determining who was the real Historical Jesus.

But our modern NT scholars want to ignore these preliminary 3 steps completely, and so they jump directly to the most difficult question of them all!

That's why the whole thing is a FRAUD!

Loisy, OTOH has basically answered the first question conclusively, and he also advanced significantly in answering the second... That's why nobody reads him today! He's like Gulliver among the Lilliputians.

All the best,

Yuri.