Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

So here's some more evidence to demonstrate just how dishonest our modern New Testament scholarship is, and the NT Textual Criticism in particular.

Dr. Bruce Metzger is considered as one of the leading lights of modern Textual Criticism of the New Testament. He's one of the members of the United Bible Societies Editorial Committee, the elite group of Textual Critics who actually determine how the standard gospel text should read in Greek... Yes, these are the folks who actually define what your Bible will say to you.

And this man is a deceiver!

So this is how he deceives the public,

[quote from Metzger]

http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa023.htm

"We have no records in manuscript form of the gospels in Aramaic. There are no Aramaic documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John left. All we have are Greek documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. "

[end quote]

So here we have it in black and white, straight from the horse's mouth... And it is all a straight misrepresentation!

Metzger made these comments in 1992, during a question and answer period after a lecture that he delivered for The Foundation for Biblical Research in Charlestown, NH (now known as the "Center for Scriptural Studies"). It is safe to assume that his audience mostly consisted of non-academics, pastors and lay-people. So, no doubt, they believed everything he said without further question... After all, he's the Big Expert, isn't he?

No doubt, Metzger knows very well what the real situation with ancient Aramaic manuscripts is -- didn't he describe them in detail in some of his many books? But very few of that audience that he was addressing that day probably read his books, especially the more technical ones... so he felt free to deceive them, it seems!

In actual fact, of course, our oldest Aramaic manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are just as old as our best Greek MSS of the gospels. (Here's some more info about them,

The Old Syriac Aramaic Gospels
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/aramgosp.htm )

So Metzger knew about it, and yet he knowingly deceived the public... He lied!

So this is how this "Jesus the Greek" Cult operates... Yes, dear friends, what I'm saying is that our whole mainstream New Testament academic establishment is nothing other than a weird cult of "Jesus the Greek"!

In the last 100 years or so, they all but suppressed the precious witness of the ancient Aramaic manuscripts of the gospels, written as they were in the language that is very close to what Jesus, himself, spoke.

Make no mistake, these ancient Aramaic texts are very different from their Greek counterparts. What they say is quite simply _very different_ in many particulars -- in hundreds and thousands of passages... Only an out and out deceiver will claim that these ancient Aramaic texts were the straight translations from our canonical Greek texts. They are as different from our canonical Greek texts as can be, so how can they be "translations"?

So, I'd like to ask, Why are these mainstream scholars like Metzger still covering up those ancient Aramaic gospels? And I suggest it's because of a deep-seated and systemic racism in our University system. They really _want_ to see Yeshua the Greek at the bottom of that well! So this is what they see, and the hard textual evidence be damned.

So this is the Great Aramaic Cover-up, folks! And the professional deceivers like Dr. Bruce Metzger have certainly done plenty of work to put it into place.

Sincerely,

Yuri.

Bernard Muller

From your own website, Yuri:
>> 1. Old Syriac Codex Sinaiticus, dated to the mid- or late-fourth century.
2. Old Syriac Codex Curetonianus, dated to the early fifth century. <<

My question: do we have partial NT manuscripts in Old Syriac dated earlier, that is before the mid-fourth century?

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Yuri wrote:
So this is how this "Jesus the Greek" Cult operates... Yes, dear friends, what I'm saying is that our whole mainstream New Testament academic establishment is nothing other than a weird cult of "Jesus the Greek"!

You are very polemical again Yuri.
I am an advocate for "Jesus the Aramaic speaking" myself. But that would not prevent the NT (& other early Christian texts) to be written first in Greek, more so because its letters & books were intended for a Greek speaking audience mostly.
Do you think the people of Corinth or Macedonia would understand Aramaic or Old Syriac?
And even if I am originally French-speaking, there is is nothing preventing people to write about me in English, now or after my death, more so if they are addressing an English-speaking audience.
Greek was the common language for educated people (and most uneducated ones in the cities of the eastern part of the Roman empire) in the whole Eastern Mediterranean basin & Rome, with a few exceptions (as in the heartlands of Galilee & Judea).
That would not prevent the NT to be translated in Old Syriac later, for a regional audience who preferred (or knew only) the OS. The same can be said about early translations to Coptic, Latin, etc.

Yuri wrote:
In the last 100 years or so, they all but suppressed the precious witness of the ancient Aramaic manuscripts of the gospels, written as they were in the language that is very close to what Jesus, himself, spoke.

Old Syriac is not Aramaic, despite the similarities. So the OS (as koine Greek) was not the language that Jesus spoke.

Yuri wrote:
Make no mistake, these ancient Aramaic texts are very different from their Greek counterparts. What they say is quite simply _very different_ in many particulars -- in hundreds and thousands of passages... Only an out and out deceiver will claim that these ancient Aramaic texts were the straight translations from our canonical Greek texts. They are as different from our canonical Greek texts as can be, so how can they be "translations"?

"Aramaic texts"? Aren't you a bit misleading here? Old Syriac would be accurate.
Sure, translations can introduce many differences from the original text, more so if the translators are either dishonest or "loose" or incompetent.
But if you think these OS texts came first, then the same can be said (NOT straight translations) for the alleged OS to Greek translators. So either way, we have the same problem, OS to Greek or Greek to OS. Which means for me you do not have a valid argument here.

Best regards, Bernard

DrJim

I don't know anything about the topic, and maybe everyone knows of these links, so I maybe wasting your time. But what the heck... I'm in the process of editing a list of academic Journals (well, most are pretty academic) on Religious Studies, I'm going to post online sometime soon, so here are some links folks interested in this topic might find useful.

Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies

It may add some serious fuel to the debate, maybe not...

Also, you could check out:

TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism

JRL

judge

We still have word for word copies of the gospels and the letters of paul.
They were preserved in the Aramaic peshitta, used in the liturgy of the Church of the East, who to this day still conduct their services in aramaic.

Here is what William Cureton had to say about the dialect of the peshitta.


"Generally it may be observed that the language used by our Saviour and his apostles beingthat ordinarily employed by the Hebrews in Palestine at the time, and called by St. Luke (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 1), Papias, and Irenaeus, the Hebrew Dialect, is so very similar and closely allied with the Syriac of the New Testament, called the Peshitto, that the two may be considered identical, with the exception, perhaps, of some very slight dialectical peculiarities. These facts are so well known to all who have given attention to this subject, that it is not necessary for me to enter into any proof of them in this place."

from here....

http://www.srr.axbridge.org.uk/syriac_language.html

Pauls letters were written in aramaic. Some evidence of this is that Aramaic words remain in the letters.

This idea has never been thouroughly examined by western scholars.

Anyone interested in the extensive evidence of this can go to www.peshitta.org

p.s. the peshitta should not be confused with the Old Syriac.

Yuri Kuchinsky

No, Bernard. But we have early patristic citations of such a type.

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Oh, well, Bernard... But when I see an obvious misrepresentation coming from one of the major stalwarts of the Greek priority dogma, it does bother me a bit...

Quote:

I am an advocate for "Jesus the Aramaic speaking" myself. But that would not prevent the NT (& other early Christian texts) to be written first in Greek, more so because its letters & books were intended for a Greek speaking audience mostly.

But how do you know that? How do you know that at least some of the gospels weren't written for an Aramaic speaking audience mostly?

Quote:

Do you think the people of Corinth or Macedonia would understand Aramaic or Old Syriac?

But I've said nothing so far about the people of Corinth or Macedonia...

I'm talking about the earliest Aramaic speaking followers of Jesus in Israel and Syria, and the faith tradition that they preserved and passed on.

Quote:

And even if I am originally French-speaking, there is is nothing preventing people to write about me in English, now or after my death, more so if they are addressing an English-speaking audience. Greek was the common language for educated people (and most uneducated ones in the cities of the eastern part of the Roman empire) in the whole Eastern Mediterranean basin & Rome, with a few exceptions (as in the heartlands of Galilee & Judea). That would not prevent the NT to be translated in Old Syriac later, for a regional audience who preferred (or knew only) the OS. The same can be said about early translations to Coptic, Latin, etc.

All the early patristic sources are telling us that Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue.

Quote:

Yuri wrote: In the last 100 years or so, they all but suppressed the precious witness of the ancient Aramaic manuscripts of the gospels, written as they were in the language that is very close to what Jesus, himself, spoke. Old Syriac is not Aramaic, despite the similarities. So the OS (as koine Greek) was not the language that Jesus spoke.

Old Syriac Aramaic is Aramaic. The Aramaic dialects as spoken in Galilee and in Syria, just across the border from Galilee, were mutually intelligible. These are the basic facts on the ground. Please get yourself informed.

Quote:

Yuri wrote: Make no mistake, these ancient Aramaic texts are very different from their Greek counterparts. What they say is quite simply _very different_ in many particulars -- in hundreds and thousands of passages... Only an out and out deceiver will claim that these ancient Aramaic texts were the straight translations from our canonical Greek texts. They are as different from our canonical Greek texts as can be, so how can they be "translations"? "Aramaic texts"? Aren't you a bit misleading here?

No.

Quote:

Old Syriac would be accurate.

See above.

Quote:

Sure, translations can introduce many differences from the original text, more so if the translators are either dishonest or "loose" or incompetent. But if you think these OS texts came first, then the same can be said (NOT straight translations) for the alleged OS to Greek translators. So either way, we have the same problem, OS to Greek or Greek to OS. Which means for me you do not have a valid argument here. Best regards, Bernard

Even the most cursory examination of these texts reveals that none of them is a translation of the other. Again, this is the basic reality. Thus, any claim that these ancient OS gospels were the straight translations from our canonical Greek gospels would, quite simply, amount to a misrepresentation of textual evidence.

Best,

Yuri.

Roger Pearse

I was wondering which of the fathers wrote in Syriac before 350, whose works are now extant?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yuri Kuchinsky

Tatian?

Yuri.

Roger Pearse

Are any of his works extant in Syriac? You'd probably know better than I, but I thought the Diatessaron was composed in Greek. The exhortation to the Greeks is extant in Greek, is it not? And what other works exist?

All the best,

Roger Pearse