Chris Weimer

Firstly, I read the KJV. Secondly, there is nothig wrong with the Codex of Alexandria, thirdly, those are highly, highly subjective websites.

Yuri Kuchinsky

cweb:

Good for you, cweb!

This is a much better text than any of the modern translations.

And how do you know this?

What was so "subjective" about what I wrote? Everything I said in that article is based on solid published references.

Yours,

Yuri.

pierneef

How would one argue that it is an invention of the original author of the gospel rather than a later interpolation. There were strong grounds for the latter, and the motives are simpler than those ascribed earlier to Mark based on his geographical origins, namely that it became very important to conceal Roman culpability in the death of the savior and to emphasise Jewish culpability. Having a Jewish traitor is a great device. There are so many passages of this nature that interpolation seems to have a stronger logical case. So are there any methodological reasons for insisting that Judas is the invention of the original author rather than an interpolation ?

Vorkosigan

The case for Markan invention is here in this paragraph of Weeden's:

The writer of Mark constructed the Gospel by paralleling OT passages. The appearance of Judas as the betrayer is consistent with the larger structure that the writer is using. It seems unlikely that a later interpolator both spotted the structure and found a way to work in Judas. Here are the appearances of Judas in Mark. He appears only three times.

Mark 3:19
and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Mark 14:10
Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them.

Mark 14:43
Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

Mark 14:45
Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him.

if there is an interpolation here, it is probably "Twelve" -- why would Mark repeat it in 14:43? Was the reader expected to forget a betrayal that happened not thirty verses before?

Jacob, I am a member of Kata Markon.

Vorkosigan

pierneef

Thanks; it does make a simple interpolation unlikely, but it doesnt rule out editing and changing the meaning.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Judas is in all 4 NT gospels, and all these 4 versions of the story are likely interpolations. It would be next to impossible to identify the patterns of dependence for this particular narrative without also looking at the wider patterns of dependence among the 4 gospels.

There's no simple all-inclusive solution for the Synoptic problem. If there was one, it would have been found already long ago.

Only complex solutions remain realistic. The simple ones are fantasy land.

Yuri.

Ted Hoffman

Hi Yuri,
I have been reading your Westcott and Hort Fraud article and I dug deeper. Your entire diatribe appears to be based on this passage:

"It will not be out of place to add here a distinct expression of our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes." (Westcott and Hort, "The New Testament in the Original Greek", London: Macmillan and Co., 1881, Vol. 2, p. 282)

It appears a number of scholars find W & H wrong in that respect and we also see from Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius, Irenaeus and other Church fathers who accused the heretics of corrupting the scripture in order to serve varied theological agendas, that there may have been "deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes".

I know you favour the Syrian/Byzantine text but, IMO, when that text is examined for conflation, and its features examined like its lucidity and completeness, apparent simplicity, harmonistic assimilation and being "conspicuously a full text" as Hort put it, we find that the Byzantine text is late thus if any corruption took place, its likely to be more corrupt since it would have passed through the hands of more redactors.

Plus, adding the two major canons of criticism; brevior lectio potior (the shorter reading is preferred - based on the tendency of scribes to add material to the text) and proclivi lectioni (the shorter reading is preferred - based on the tendency of scribes to simplify the text), the Byzantine case is dead in the god-damned water.

But then again Hort wrote that the Syrian text "must in fact be the result of a 'recension' in the proper sense of the word, a work of attempted criticism, performed deliberately by editors and nor merely by scribes"

Hort suggested Lucian as the leader of these editorial efforts.

Since its clear that Hort allowed for recensions, my question to Yuri is, how different is Hort's understanding of recensions (attempted criticism) from "deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes" and how far does it render Hort's method unsecure?

I am reading Wilbur N. Pickering's work on the matter and man, its riveting. I will also be looking at Maurice Robinson's work shortly.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Not really, Ted. There's a lot more stuff in my article. Such as about most of W&H theories loosing credibility by now.

Sure there was!

Actually, "Syrian text" is misleading. By "Syrian text", W&H meant a type of a Greek text. I do not support Greek text, but Aramaic text.

My support of the Byzantine text is provisional. I'm not saying that Byzantine text is the earliest.

All of this stuff is debatable, but it needs to be taken point by point.

Yes, Hort allowed for recensions. But a recension doesn't need to imply theological corruption. So I don't think this is so relevant.

Pickering has answered adequately some of the points you've raised above, such as about "conflation", "completeness", "apparent simplicity", "harmonistic assimilation", etc. in the Byz text.

None of this proves that W&H text is superior to Byz text.

Yours,

Yuri