Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, friends,

Here's the second part of my article. The first part is available here,

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?&threadid=74067

I suppose this wasn't controversial enough to elicit any responses?

All the best,

Yuri.

-----------

DID JESUS TELL A LIE? (Jn 7:8) -- Part 2

by Yuri Kuchinsky

In the first part of this article, we have seen that, for no apparent reason, our modern textual scholars have decided to accuse Jesus Christ of lying. Only a very few manuscripts have such a divergent reading, and not even our earliest manuscripts. From the textual point of view, there is really not much of a case there for such a serious accusation, and any appeal to the Lectio Difficilior rule of TC -- the only argument that these modern revisers have left to them -- doesn't help much, since its use doesn't seem legitimate in a case like this, even assuming that the rule itself is legitimate.

Now, in Part 2 of this article, let us look at how the "Western" family of manuscripts really treats this highly controversial passage of John 7:8. As we shall soon see, the idea that Jesus was a deceiver really seems to be there explicitly only in a small minority of these ancient witnesses, contrary to what one may conclude based on our standard modern editions of the NT, such as the Nestle/Aland.


"WESTERN" TEXTUAL FAMILY & JOHN 7:8

And so, anyone who examines the textual apparatus of any of our mainstream editions of the NT will be left with an impression that the "Western" family of manuscripts mostly lends support to the "revised" reading of verse 8, that portrays Jesus as a deceiver. But, in actual fact, the situation is not nearly that simple.

Instead, what we find is that, in the overwhelming majority of what are known as "Western" witnesses, this rather odd idea is nowhere to be found in the stark form in which we see it in our modern editions; perhaps it is only loosely implied there. So it seems like the way in which these modern editions present their textual evidence is heavily slanted towards a pre-determined conclusion.

We have already seen, in Part 1 of this article, how, in these mainstream editions, all our ancient textual witnesses are divided for us into two categories, the ones that feature the word hOUPW (or its equivalents in other languages) vs. the others that feature OUK. One is led to think thereby that, on the basis of our early MSS, either Jesus is portrayed as a deceiver in this passage, or he's not so portrayed -- there doesn't seem to be any middle ground there.

Even in the mainstream UBS editions of THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, which usually have the most detailed listings of witnesses (these editions consider only a limited number of textual variants, but the ones that are considered are typically considered in a greater detail), all our textual evidence is still slotted in the same two categories. But this really creates an erroneous impression of what these manuscripts actually do say.

For example, the ancient Old Syriac Aramaic Curetonian manuscript is listed in all mainstream editions of John as featuring OUK (i.e. the equivalent of this word in Aramaic). So, naturally, any scholar examining the Apparatus will conclude that, in this manuscript, Jesus is portrayed as telling a lie...

Well, here is what this manuscript actually does say (in Dr. Burkitt's translation), and it's not at all clear that Jesus is saying anything in any way inappropriate here,

So let's compare this with the modern RSV translation,

What we can see is that there's a small difference in wording there, that seems to change the meaning of Jesus' reply rather significantly. Instead of saying "I am not going up to _this_ feast", as in the RSV -- which would really constitute a lie, because he did end up going there later anyway -- in the Aramaic manuscript Jesus says, in a less precise way, that he is not going up to "_the_ feast". In other words, "not yet" can naturally be seen as being implied in what he said, since the following phrase "because not yet the time for me is accomplished" seems to be supplying the "not yet" to qualify his previous words.

So what we see here is that, in Aramaic, Jesus' reply is sufficiently ambiguous to remove any solid grounds for an accusation that he might have deceived his relatives... In a manner of speaking, the testimony of this ancient Aramaic manuscript seems to stand somewhere in between the two stark extremes, that the Nestle/Aland edition wants to limit us to.

And here is the Aramaic text. First, the transliteration, then the pronunciation, and then an interlinear translation.

Jn 7:8 Curetonian

)ntwn sqw l(d(d) hn),
)n) l) slq )n) l(d(d),
mTl dl) (dm) lh$) $lm
zbn) dyly,

Antwan sqoo l'Adedao hana;
enay lo sl'q, enay, l'Adedao,
metul d'lo adama l'hasha shlama
zabna diyly

You go up to this Feast;
I go not up, I, to the Feast,
because not yet is accomplished (shlama)
the time for me

(Above, I've modified Dr. Burkitt's translation a little, so that to make it even more literal.)

As for the Old Syriac Sinaitic manuscript, it reads differently here, and stays pretty close to the Greek manuscripts that were chosen by the RSV editors for their main text. (But it's well known already that the OS Sinaitic is in general much closer to Egyptian Greek MSS, so no surprise there.)


THE LATIN VERSIONS -- THE VULGATE

And now, let us look at how various Latin manuscripts are treating this text. Again, we will find all sorts of ambiguities in these ancient Latin witnesses, that seem to remove any solid grounds for an accusation that Jesus was a liar.

When we look at how the Editorial Committee summarised the evidence of the Latin witnesses, as cited in Part 1 of this article, they indicate that most Old Latin MSS, as well as the Vulgate, feature the equivalent of OUK in this passage (while two OL MSS, "f" and "q", do feature /nondum/, the Latin equivalent of hOUPW). Well, while this may be technically correct, yet this tends, once again, to create a somewhat false impression as to what the majority of Latin witnesses actually do say here.

So let us begin with the Latin Vulgate. This is how it presents this verse,

http://www.servi.org/latin/John.pdf

And here's a somewhat loose translation of this, from the same website,

(Actually, it's not at all clear that the word "but" is really implied in the Latin text.)

What this translation has completely missed, unfortunately, is the ambiguity that is inherent in the Latin expression /dies festus/. Because, in actual fact, /dies festus/ can mean both "the feast" in general, but also "any particular day of the feast". The Feast of Tabernacles, of course, goes on for a whole week, so this would allow a somewhat broader interpretation of this Vulgate passage.

In other words, the Latin text allows us to interpret the words of Jesus as "I'm not going up to the feast on this particular day", i.e. his reply can be understood as "I may be going later".

Now, some people might think that I've just come up with this explanation all by myself, and that nobody has interpreted these Latin words before in such a way? Well, not quite... In fact, this is an explanation that had already been offered way back 1600 years ago! And it was none other than St. Augustine who offered it.

So here's St. Augustine, himself, both in English and Latin.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-06/npnf1-06-100.htm

Sermon CXXXIII

On the words of the gospel of
John vii. 6, etc., Where Jesus said
that He was not going up unto the
feast, and notwithstanding went up.

The words themselves solve the difficulty.
That feast was kept for many days. "On
this", that is, this present "feast day", saith He,
this day, that is, when they [his brothers]
hoped, He went not up; but when He
Himself resolved to go. Now mark what
follows, "When He had said these words,
He Himself stayed in Galilee." So then
He did not go up "on that feast day". ...

... He said, "I go not up," that He might be
hid; He added "this," that He might not
lie. Something He expressed, something
He suppressed, something He
repressed; yet said He nothing false, for
"nothing false proceedeth out of His
Mouth."

http://www.augustinus.it/latino/disc..._170_testo.htm

(Underlines below reflect the direct citations from John, following the presentation at this website.)

Ipsa verba solvunt quaestionem.
Multis diebus agebatur ille dies festus. _Ad
istum_, utique hodiernum _diem_, inquit,
_festum_, istum utique hodiernum quando illi
sperabant, non ascendit; sed quando ipse
disponebat. Denique attende quod sequitur:
_Haec cum dixisset, ipse mansit in Galilaea._
Ergo non ascendit _ad istum diem festum._ ...

... Non ascendo, inquit, ad diem
festum. Dixit: Non ascendo, ut occultaretur;
addidit: istum, ne mentiretur. Aliquid
intulit, aliquid abstulit, aliquid distulit; nihil
tamen falsi dixit, quia nihil falsi de eius ore
procedit.


THE OLD LATIN MSS

And now, here's what the Latin side of Codex Bezae, this very famous old manuscript, has for this passage; it seems to allow a very similar interpretation, but even more so, in my humble opinion,

I would translate this as follows,

While my translation may be challenged perhaps, yet the key point here is not that this is the only translation possible, but that this Latin text seems ambiguous enough to allow such a translation.

As to the other surviving Old Latin manuscripts of John, the important divergence in two of them ("f" and "q") has already been noted, and this is even listed in our mainstream UBS editions.

Generally speaking, there's some considerable variability in this verse among our Old Latin MSS, but these differences are mostly minor in character (with some important exceptions), and they only affect the degree to which Jesus' words might be misinterpreted to lend support to a negative accusation such as this.

And so, in summary, it sure looks to me like _none_ of our Latin manuscripts of John really support an explicit accusation that Jesus was trying to deceive anyone... Plus, we can add to this the witness of the Old Syriac Curetonian manuscript, that basically falls in the same category.

In a manner of speaking, these Latin and Aramaic manuscripts seem to form a very large "grey area" that doesn't really fit in into the narrow picture, as presented for us by our mainstream editions of the NT, where only two alternative readings are indicated for this passage... In reality, most "Western" witnesses seem to read somewhere in between these two alternatives, but hardly any of them really go so far as to provide any solid grounds for an accusation that Jesus deceived anyone at all.

To be sure, in a standard textual apparatus, such as the Nestle/Aland's, it is very difficult to summarise in a short form all the ambiguities of a difficult passage such as this... But, still, in my opinion, the way Nestle/Aland's slots the Curetonian Aramaic MS together with all the witnesses that contain OUK -- as if this Aramaic MS fully supported Jesus being untruthful in this verse -- comes pretty close to a misrepresentation of textual evidence.

END OF PART 2


In the third and final part of this article, I will bring in even more textual evidence (from both the Old Latin and Greek MSS) that seems to cast some considerable light on the history of this passage. None of this is listed in our recent mainstream editions of the Greek NT, unfortunately... So I will suggest that _neither_ of the two readings, as presented in our mainstream editions, may have been the earliest. Because there actually exist yet some other important variant readings for this verse that may be more original -- the readings that are not even mentioned by Aland et al.! (Still, one of these readings had been discussed by the late great Rudolf Bultmann.)

Also, my analysis of John 7:5, which seems quite relevant to the problems that we've been considering, will also be included in Part 3.

All the best,

Yuri.

gridleyjason

I don't have time right now deal in any depth with all of Yuri's latest attempt to portray modern NT text critics as inept.

However, there are a couple of remarks that cry out for immediate comment.

Here's the first;

"As for the Old Syriac Sinaitic manuscript, it reads differently here, and stays pretty close to the Greek manuscripts that were chosen by
the RSV editors for their main text. (But it's well known already that the OS Sinaitic is in general much closer to Egyptian Greek MSS, so no
surprise there.)"

Hoo boy. What a clunker.

Its first claim -- about how close the wording of the Sin S text of Jn 7:8 is to certain Greek MSS – is both too vague to be of any use (how close is "pretty" close?, on what criteria is it judged to be so) and it is very sloppily stated.

No Greek MSS were chosen by the RSV "editors" (translation committee?) for _anything_, let alone for their "main" text (main text of what?).

The RSV translator(s) of John worked with particular _editions_ of _the text of John_ that appeared in a number of _critical texts_ of the GNT as the basis for _their translation_ of John. See F.C. Grant, _An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament_ (1946, p. 41)

It also conveniently makes no mention of the fact that the reading of Jn 7:8 in the Diatessaron Syr agrees with reading of that verse that is found in Syr S .

And its second claim -- the claim concerning what it is that's "well know" about Syr S -- is just DEAD WRONG, at least if by "well known" Yuri means it is the view held by the majority of people who are familiar with both Syr S and "Egyptian" Greek MSS.

It is not held by Metzger, who notes that Syr S contains a text that appears to all who compare the two MSS as earlier than Syr C.

Nor is it held by Agnes Smith Lewis, who was Syr S's discoverer and who produced an early comparative study of the two Syriac MSS with each other and with "Egyptian" Greek MSS,. It is not held by E. Nestle (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible), nor by A. Hejelt, nor by Baethgen (Enageliengragmente), or W. Wright (History of Syriac Literature) or Zahn (TL) or Turner (HINT) or Baumstark (Geschichte syrischen Lit) or Dobschutz (ENEGNT) or Vogels ((Die alsyryischen Evangelein) or Lagrange (Critique Texxtuelle) or Burkitt (Evangelion da-M)or Voobius (Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac) nor M. Black (Syriac Versional Tradition) or Sebastian Brock (the Old Syriac Version). Nor was it held by one of the principle Semitic priorists, C.C. Torey, who noted that of the tow MSS Syr S preserves words and idions that are more typical of Palestinian Aramaic than Syr C does.

So what's the verdict on the claims made in the first remark. Is that they are horse hockey too kind?

Now for the second remark:

This is the one about how the Latin witnesses to Jn 7:8 contain, as the Greek witnesses that testify to OUK over against OUPW do not, "... all sorts of ambiguities in these ancient Latin witnesses, that seem to remove any solid grounds for an accusation that Jesus was a liar".

It begins like this:

*******
"So let us begin with the Latin Vulgate. This is how it presents this verse,

http://www.servi.org/latin/John.pdf

John 7:8) Vos ascendite ad diem festum hunc. Ego non ascendo ad diem festum istum, quia meum tempus nondum impletum est.

And here's a somewhat loose translation of this, from the same website,

"Go you up to this festival day: but I go not up to this festival day, because my time is not accomplished."

(Actually, it's not at all clear that the word "but" is really implied in the Latin text.)

What this translation has completely missed, unfortunately, is the ambiguity that is inherent in the Latin expression /dies festus/. Because, in actual fact, /dies festus/ can mean both "the feast" in general, but also "any particular day of the feast". The Feast of
Tabernacles, of course, goes on for a whole week, so this would allow a somewhat broader interpretation of this Vulgate passage.

In other words, the Latin text allows us to interpret the words of Jesus as "I'm not going up to the feast on this particular day", i.e. his reply can be understood as "I may be going later"."

+++++++

And it ends with this:

++++++

Now, some people might think that I've just come up with this explanation all by myself, and that nobody has interpreted these Latin words before in such a way...

+++++++


I'll resist dwelling upon this last statement too much because I think it quite clear that we'd be hard pressed to find _anybody_ who would think that Yuri could come up with anything, never mind an original thought, all by himself,

Instead I'll move on to what is most problematic about the rest of what he says here.

And what's that?

Apart from the facts:

(a) that _festus_ is an adjective, not a noun as Yuir avers, and does _not_ mean "feast" as Yuri claims it does

(c) that it is a form of the noun "festum" that is being used in the Latin text in question

(B) that what Yuri should have written is "dies festum"

(d) that _diem_ is the accusative sg form of the Latin word for "day" and is _not_ a definite article, and therefore

(e) that the expression "diem festum" cannot mean "the feast";

(f) that istum (from the demonstrative pronoun iste, the Latin equivalent of TOUTOS/H/O) is what here signifies the idea of "particularity";

(g) that the only thing here that could possible mean "this (or "any") particular day of the feast" is _ not_ "dies festum" (let alone "dies festus"!), but the entire expression "dies festus iste/diem festum istum", and

(f) that once again Yuri has shown us just how good his vaunted language skills are (they are execrable) and how seriously we should take his claims (made several times elsewhere on other discussion forums) that he has read more NT MSS in their original languages than Metzger has and is better at understanding and interpreting them than almost anyone in the field of NT studies.

Apart from all this, there's the interesting observation that

(A) IF both

(1)what Yuri says about the meaning of "dies festus" (sic) (i.e., that "it" can mean both "the feast" in general, but also "any particular day of the feast"); and (2) the conclusion that he draws from it -- i.e., that.the meaning of "dies festus" (sic) allows us to take Ego non ascendo ad diem festum istum to be read as "I'm not going up to the feast on this particular day" and to have carried with it the implication "(but) I may be going later".

are is true, then

(B) he _cannot_ legitimately claim that the Greek text of Sinaticus etc. presents Jesus as telling a lie.

Why? Because, in the first place, the Latin text he, using all of his glorious Latin skills, exegetes so finely for us here is _as Jerome himself testifies_ an exact translation into Latin of the Greek that Sinaiticus and Syr S and other MSS witness to.

And secondly, there's the facts, overlooked by Yuri (or more likely not known to him), not only that in Koine OUK does not mean "never", and therefore does not function as he claims it does as the complete negation of what follows it in the Siniaticus etc reading of Jn 7:8;

but that, as early Greek commentators on John stated, the expression tHn eortEn tautEn has the same ambiguity and contingency about it as does diem festum istum.

In other words, Yuri cannot legitimately claim that when the Jesus of the Vulgate says Ego non (=OUK) ascendo ad diem festum istum he is uttering a contingent statement and then deny that the Jesus of Sinaticus etc is _also_ doing so when he says ego ouk anabainw eis tEn eortEn tautEn.

And to parrot Yuri, lest anyone think that this is only the opinion of -- what was it now? -- an "Internet freak", I point you to the fact that Jerome (who knew both the Sinaticus version of Jn 7:8 as well as [duh] its Vulgate form and Epiphanius and Chrysostom among others, say the same thing.

Jason

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, friends,

All this is from a rather notorious heresy-hunter by the name of Jeffrey Gibson. When he adopts one of his Net aliases, his presentation usually becomes even more incoherent and error-laden than usual.

Since Mr. Gibson knows no Aramaic, his opinions on this subject, or on the subject of Aramaic MSS, are quite worthless. He also knows next to nothing about NT textual criticism in general, as he repeatedly demonstrated... And more recently he demonstrated his abysmal ignorance of Latin. (Those interested can see our recent discussions on Loisy List, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loisy/messages)

So I don't really see any big need for me now to try and disentangle his tortured prose, and to itemise his myriad of errors. Placing him on my ignore list seems like a far better idea.

All the best,

Yuri.

gridleyjason

Bless me for a fool, but I fail to see how who the message comes from, even if it were from a "heresy hunter", has anything to do with the truth or falsity of what is said. And bless me to for thinking that he's taken the coward's way out here.

Be that as it may, here's something from a friend of mine that calls into question the truth of some of the other claims that Yuri makes in his pt 2. Since it's not from me, perhaps he'll avoid the ad hominems and actually show where and how and why he thinks the statements contained within this message are wrong.

Jason

******
Yuri wrote:

Now, in Part 2 of this article, let us look at how the "Western"family of manuscripts really treats this highly controversial passage of John 7:8. As we shall soon see, the idea that Jesus was a eceiver really seems to be there explicitly only in a small minority of these ancient witnesses, contrary to what one may conclude based on our
standard modern editions of the NT, such as the Nestle/Aland.


"WESTERN" TEXTUAL FAMILY & JOHN 7:8

And so, anyone who examines the textual apparatus of any of our mainstream editions of the NT will be left with an impression that the "Western" family of manuscripts mostly lends support to the "revised" reading of verse 8, that portrays Jesus as a deceiver. But, in actual fact, the situation is not nearly that simple.

Instead, what we find is that, in the overwhelming majority of what are known as "Western" witnesses, this rather odd idea is nowhere to be found in the stark form in which we see it in our modern editions; perhaps it is only loosely implied there. So it seems like the way in which these modern editions present their textual evidence is heavily slanted towards a pre-determined conclusion.

My response:

Really?

Just how many "western witnesses" to the text of John 7:8 do we have?

By my count it's 22.

D, Syr S, Syr C, the Syric Diatesseron, the OL witnesses aur a b c d e (ff2), f, q, Augustine (Tractates, s.l. (XXVIII), Jerome (Against the Pelagians), Cyril, Ambrosaister, Chrysostom, Ps. Augustinian _Quaestiones ex Novo Testamento_35:2272), the Liber Responsialis in the Gregory the Great, perhaps Bede in his commentary on John, and, notably something apparently wholly unknown to Yuri, _Siniaticus_ . (Siniaticus only becomes Alexandrine from chapter 8 onwards.)

And how many of them do _not_ present Jn 7:8 in what Yuri calls "the stark form" of that text which is found in "our modern editions" (with Jesus saying "I am not [ouk/non] going up" rather than "I am not yet [oupw/nondum] going up") and which, according to Yuri, in having it, make Jesus out to be a liar?

Wait for it ......

Two. Two out of twenty two.

So then, what becomes of Yuri's claim that "the stark form" of Jn 7:8 "which we see ... in our modern editions" does _not_ appear in the overwhelming majority of what are known as "Western" witnesses"?

Well, it's consigned to the rubbish pile.

And what does the fact that Yuri has made this claim show about the nature and depth of his scholarship, not to mention his claims to being an _objective scholars? That it beongs in the same rubbish pile.

Frederick Weller

Amos

The message here is that Jesus was expecting the feast of Tabernacles as a real event in his own life and therefore "his time had not yet come."

Apart from that he just went to the celebration as a Jew and this would be for the last time as Jew.

gridleyjason

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
[B]Hello, friends,

And more recently he demonstrated his abysmal ignorance of Latin. (Those interested can see our recent discussions on Loisy List, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/loisy/messages)

It's a bit disingenious for Yuri to claim that I'm deficient in Latin by pointing to "our recent discussions" on Loisy as evidence of this -- since, right after I sent in my message detailing his misreadings and understandings of the Vulgate of Jn 7:8, Yuri _banned_ me from posting to Loisy and therefore has not allowed me to rebut the post which supposedly reveals the ignorance he charges me with.

In any case, I'm posting here what he has not allowed me to post on Loisy. I hope what I say is sufficeint to show that I am not quite as deficient in matters Latin as Yuri claims.

Jason

+++++++
--- In loisy@yahoogroups.com, "maerki_didier" <maerki_didier@y...> wrote:
>
> >(John 7:8) Vos ascendite ad diem festum hunc. Ego non ascendo
> >ad diem festum istum, quia meum tempus nondum impletum est.
> >
> >And here's a somewhat loose translation of this, from the same
> >website,
> >"Go you up to this festival day: but I go not up to this
> >festival day, because my time is not accomplished."
>
> Go (you) to this day of feast. (What about me) I do not go up on that
> day of feast, because...
>
> [...]
>
> > And what's that?
> > Apart from the facts
> > (a) that festus is an adjective not a noun and does _not_
> mean "feast"
>
> It means "of feast".
>
Umm, no it doesn't, _especially_ if it is an adjective as you say below, and certainly_ not_ in the Latin of Jerome's time.

As Lewis and Short show, the adjective means "solemn, festive, festal, joyful, merry" but not "of feast" -- which, BTW is a genitive noun construction, not an adjectival one -- even at its etymological root.

> > (c) that it is the noun "festum" that is being used in the Latin
> text in question
>
> No, it is the adjective. Like in Cicero.

And if it is, then as Cicero's usage shows, in say,

Scr. in Tusculano xvii K. Quint a. 708 (46). CICERO ATTICO SAL.(O gratas tuas mihi iucundasque litteras! quid quaeris? restitutus est mihi dies festus) or DE INVENTIONE 1.40 (P u b l i c u m est, quod civitas universa aliqua de causa frequentat, ut ludi, dies festus, bellum.) or Verr. 2, 4, 67 (dies festus ludorum celeberrimus et sanctissimus) or Verr. 2, 4, 48 #107 ( "Syracusani festos dies anniversarios agunt") [a full listing of the instances of dies festum are below]

the festum in the Vulgate of Jn 7:8 does NOT mean "of feast", since Cirero never uses it with the sense of "of feast" but with the meaning "festal" (note that the Verr 2, 4, 48 text would make no sense whatsoever if it did; and see the Glossary of Cicreonian expression available at www.hindsholm.dk/soeren/filer/verivglo.pdf ).

(I've appended a complete list of the instances of the expression below)

Gloser til Cicero, In Verremdoes not mean "of feast". shows
>
> > (d) that diem is the feminine accusative sg form of the Latin word
> for "day" and is not a definite article, and therefore
>
> Dies is both m. and f. and only m. in the plural form. Cicero is
> always using "dies festus", and non "dies festa".
>
> > (e) that the expression diem festum cannot mean "the feast";
>
> It means exactly "day of feast".

No it doesn't. See above. And even if it did, it is not, and cannot adduced as any kind of evidence in support of the claim that "dies festum" alone is syntactically and grammatically a a deictic expression, let alone the deictic expression that Yuri claims it represents

As you yourself note, the sense of particularity that the expression has in Jn. 7:8 does _not_ arise out of any syntactical, lexical, or etymological features inherent in either the noun "dies" or the adjective "festum or in their being joined together in the particular way we find them joined in Jerome's translation of Jn. 7:8. It comes from the demonstrative pronoun that _follows_ these words.

> And "diem festum hunc" means THIS day of feast, the nearest day,
> today.

Yes, but that's not in dispute. Nor is it a claim Yuri made.


> > (f) that istum (from the demonstrative pronoun iste, the Latin
> equivalent of TOUTOS/H/O) is what here signifies the idea of
> > "particularity";
>
> It means THAT day referring to the HUNC day, "your" day. The day YOU
> will go up.

OK. But do you deny that TAUTHN means the same thing as istum and therefore has the same referent as istum does? If not, then note that Jesus says exactly in the Sinaticus et all version of Jn 7:8 what you say he is saying in the Vulgate version of that verse. And if THAT is the case, then, quite contrary to what Yuri has been claiming, there are no grounds for saying that the Sinaticus et alll version of Jn 7:9 makes Jesus out to be a liar. He is, after all, NOT saying "I'm not going at all". Rather he is saying "I'm not going up the day you will go up"..

Jason

+++++++

M. Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, actio 2, book 2, section 51, line 3

Per eosdem istius furtorum iniuriarum uxorumque socios
istius imperio Syracusis Marcellia tolluntur maximo gemitu
luctuque civitatis, quem illi diem festum cum recentibus
beneficiis C. Marcelli debitum reddebant, tum generi no- @1
5


M. Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, actio 2, book 2, section 51, line 10

deorum religione consecratum violare noluit: tu Syracu-
10
sanos unum diem festum Marcellis impertire noluisti, per
quos illi adepti sunt ut ceteros dies festos agitare possent?
52 1


M. Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, actio 2, book 2, section 51, line 11

10
sanos unum diem festum Marcellis impertire noluisti, per
quos illi adepti sunt ut ceteros dies festos agitare possent?
52 1
At vero praeclarum diem illis reposuisti Verria ut agerent,


M. Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, actio 2, book 2, section 52, line 7

ne omnia cum dolore agere videamur. Nam me dies vox
latera deficiant, si hoc nunc vociferari velim, quam miserum
indignumque sit istius nomine apud eos diem festum esse
qui se istius opera funditus exstinctos esse arbitrentur. O
Verria praeclara! quo accessisti, quaeso, quo non attuleris


M. Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, actio 2, book 2, section 114, line 2

114 1
clara et tu omnia concupisses? Denique nunc vide quid
inter te, cuius nomine apud Siculos dies festi aguntur et
praeclara illa Verria celebrantur, cui statuae Romae stant
inauratae a communi Siciliae, quem ad modum inscriptum


M. Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, actio 2, book 2, section 154, line 10

ut Latine uno verbo exprimi non possit. Is est nimirum
10
soter qui salutem dedit. Huius nomine etiam dies festi
agitantur, pulchra illa Verria, non quasi Marcellia, sed
pro Marcelliis, quae illi istius iussu sustulerunt; huius


M. Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, actio 2, book 4, section 32, line 7

statem abstulisset, se sane tristem et conturbatum domum
revertisse, quod vas eius modi, quod sibi a patre et a mai-
oribus esset relictum, quo solitus esset uti ad festos dies,
ad hospitum adventus, a se esset ablatum. 'Cum sederem,'
inquit, 'domi tristis, accurrit Venerius; iubet me scyphos


M. Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, actio 2, book 4, section 107, line 13

non longe a Syracusis penetrasse sub terras, lacumque in eo
loco repente exstitisse, ubi usque ad hoc tempus Syracusani
festos dies anniversarios agunt celeberrimo virorum mulie-
rumque conventu. Propter huius opinionis vetustatem,
15


M. Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, actio 2, book 4, section 151, line 7

veniebat ei deorum honores haberi qui simulacra deorum
abstulisset. Etiam hercule illud in Syracusanis merito
reprehenderetur, si, cum diem festum ludorum de fastis
suis sustulissent celeberrimum et sanctissimum, quod eo
ipso die Syracusae a Marcello captae esse dicuntur, idem


M. Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, actio 2, book 4, section 151, line 10

ipso die Syracusae a Marcello captae esse dicuntur, idem
10
diem festum Verris nomine agerent, cum iste a Syracusanis
quae ille calamitosus dies reliquerat ademisset. At videte
hominis impudentiam atque adrogantiam, iudices, qui non


M. Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, actio 2, book 4, section 151, line 17

sacra facerent quotannis cuius opera omnium annorum
sacra deosque patrios amiserant, eius autem familiae dies
festos tollerent per quam ceteros quoque festos dies
recuperarant. @1
5 t 1


M. Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, actio 2, book 4, section 151, line 17

sacra facerent quotannis cuius opera omnium annorum
sacra deosque patrios amiserant, eius autem familiae dies
festos tollerent per quam ceteros quoque festos dies
recuperarant. @1
5 t 1


M. Tullius Cicero, Pro Cluentio, section 27, line 12

ab Larino xviii milia passuum, apud matrem educaretur, @1
arcessit subito sine causa puerum Teano, quod facere nisi
ludis publicis aut festis diebus antea non solebat. Mater
misera nihil mali suspicans mittit. Ille se Tarentum pro-
ficisci cum simulasset, eo ipso die puer, cum hora undecima


M. Tullius Cicero, Pro Cluentio, section 28, line 5

sibi non solum filium sed etiam exsequiarum munus ere-
5
ptum, Larinum confestim exanimata venit et ibi de integro
funus iam sepulto filio fecit. Dies nondum decem interces-
serant cum ille alter filius infans necatur. Itaque nubit


M. Tullius Cicero, De Lege Agraria, oration 2, section 71, line 3

genere loqueretur. Vos vero, Quirites, si me audire voltis,
retinete istam possessionem gratiae, libertatis, suffragiorum,
dignitatis, urbis, fori, ludorum, festorum dierum, ceterorum
omnium commodorum, nisi forte mavoltis relictis his rebus
5


M. Tullius Cicero, Pro Archia, section 13, line 3

darit? Qua re quis tandem me reprehendat, aut quis mihi
iure suscenseat, si, quantum ceteris ad suas res obeundas,
quantum ad festos dies ludorum celebrandos, quantum ad
alias voluptates et ad ipsam requiem animi et corporis
5


M. Tullius Cicero, Pro Flacco, section 55, line 10

'dicimus.' Quid igitur? 'Delatam ad nos, creditam no-
10
bis L. Flacci patris nomine ad eius dies festos atque ludos.'
56 1
Quid tum? 'Hanc te,' inquit, 'capere non licuit.' Iam id


M. Tullius Cicero, Post Reditum ad Populum, section 3, line 8

voluptatis adferunt quam tum incolumes adferebant. Ami-
citiae, consuetudines, vicinitates, clientelae, ludi denique et
dies festi quid haberent voluptatis carendo magis intellexi
4 1
quam fruendo. Iam vero honos, dignitas, locus, ordo, bene-


M. Tullius Cicero, De Haruspicum Responso, section 23, line 9

metum traducti, si non intermissi sed perempti atque sublati
sunt, si civitati universae, scelere eius qui ludos ad luctum
conferre voluit, exstiterunt dies illi pro festis paene funesti,
10
dubitabimus quos ille fremitus nuntiet ludos esse pollutos?


M. Tullius Cicero, Pro Sestio, section 131, line 16

15
receperat et suo praesidio periculoque defenderat. Cunctae
itinere toto urbes Italiae festos dies agere adventus mei vide-
bantur, viae multitudine legatorum undique missorum
celebrabantur, ad urbem accessus incredibili hominum @1


M. Tullius Cicero, In Vatinium, section 31, line 1

est funebre ut munus sit funeris, epulae quidem ipsae digni-
31 1
tatis. Sed omitto epulum populi Romani, festum diem
argento, veste, omni apparatu ornatuque visendo: quis um-
quam in luctu domestico, quis in funere familiari cenavit


M. Tullius Cicero, Pro Caelio, section 1, line 3

Si quis, iudices, forte nunc adsit ignarus legum iudi-
ciorum consuetudinisque nostrae, miretur profecto quae sit
tanta atrocitas huiusce causae, quod diebus festis ludisque
publicis, omnibus forensibus negotiis intermissis, unum hoc
5


M. Tullius Cicero, In Pisonem, section 51, line 11

10
patrum familias cum coniugibus ac liberis, quid eos dies
qui quasi deorum immortalium festi atque sollemnes apud
52 1
omnis sunt adventu meo redituque celebrati? Vnus ille


M. Tullius Cicero, Pro Milone, section 3, line 11

10
suis, de patria, de fortunis hodierno die decertari putat.
Vnum genus est adversum infestumque nobis eorum quos
P. Clodi furor rapinis et incendiis et omnibus exitiis publicis
pavit; qui hesterna etiam contione incitati sunt ut vobis


M. Tullius Cicero, Pro Milone, section 98, line 7

omni in hominum coetu gratiis agendis et gratulationibus
habendis et omni sermone celebramur. Omitto Etruriae
festos et actos et institutos dies. Centesima lux est haec ab
interitu P. Clodi et, opinor, altera. Qua fines imperi
populi Romani sunt, ea non solum fama iam de illo sed


M. Tullius Cicero, De Inventione, book 1, section 40, line 13

distribuitur in tria genera: publicum, commune, sin-
gulare. publicum est, quod civitas universa aliqua de @1
causa frequentat, ut ludi, dies festus, bellum. commune,
quod accidit omnibus eodem fere tempore, ut messis,
15


M. Tullius Cicero, De Partitione Oratoria, section 38, line 1

pestas] quae sunt naturalia: fortuita autem sacri-
38 1
ficia, festi dies, nuptiae. Iam facta et eventus aut
consilii sunt aut imprudentiae, quae est aut in casu
aut in quadam animi permotione: casu cum aliter


M. Tullius Cicero, De Legibus, book 2, section 29, line 1

. . .
29 1
Cum est feriarum festorumque dierum
ratio, in liberis requietem habet litium et iurgiorum,
in seruis operum et laborum; quas compositio anni


M. Tullius Cicero, De Finibus, book 5, section 70, line 6

5
posteriorem Karthagine eversa? quem Tiberina descen-
sio festo illo die tanto gaudio affecit, quanto L. Pau-
lum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem
flumine invectio?


M. Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad F..., book 2, letter 10, section 3, line 6
(incastrisadPindenissum; a.d.xviiKal.Dec.51)

5
audivi, Clitarchus tibi narravit Dareum ab Alexandro esse
superatum, abduxi exercitum ad infestissimam Ciliciae
partem. ibi quintum et vicensimum iam diem aggeribus,
vineis, turribus oppugnabam oppidum munitissimum, Pin-


M. Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, book 10, letter 33, section 5, line 14 (Cordubae;
parteprioreIun.43)

in villis sunt. itaque proximis litteris consilium meum
expedietur. nam neque deesse neque superesse rei publicae
volo. maxime tamen doleo adeo et longo et infesto itinere ad
15
me veniri ut die quadragensimo post aut ultra etiam quam


M. Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum, book 12, letter 4, section 1, line 2 (inTusculano;
Mai.46(?))

1 1
O gratas tuas mihi iucundasque litteras! quid quaeris? resti-
tutus est mihi dies festus. angebar enim quod Tiro §nereu-
y°steron te sibi esse visum dixerat. addam igitur, ut censes,
unum diem.


M. Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem, book 2, letter 1, section 1, line 5 (Romae;
pauloantexviKal.Ian.57)

Senatus fuit frequentior quam putabamus esse posse mense
5
Decembri sub dies festos. consulares nos fuimus et duo con-
sules designati, P. Servilius, M. Lucullus, Lepidus, Volcacius,
Glabrio; praetorii sane frequentes. fuimus omnino ad cc.

Godless Wonder

Well, I'm purely an amateur, and make no pretense of trying to understand the original languages, etc. . . .

But: Doesn't it say later than Jesus went to the feast later in secret? That agrees with the idea that Jesus lied when he said he wasn't going to the feast (yet). If the words are technically true, yet the intent, and the effect was to make those who heard what he said think that he was not going, it is still a lie, even if, due to the precise wording, the statement is technically true. If the intent, and effect is to deceive, then it is a lie. Or so it seems to me.

Anyhow, I don't see how it is a problem if Jesus lies. The LORD lies several times in the OT, and admits to it. Jesus should be expected to lie.

For example: Ezekiel 14:9 (KJV) "And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel."

Sensei Meela

His being there in secret is hardly a shocker, either, what with Him being omnipresent yet undetectable, and all...

...but please don't let my smart-ass remark detract from the tussle which appears to have broken into here from off the streets (so to speak); I'm quite amused.

Yuri Kuchinsky

The main question here is, What was the earliest version of this passage?

Was Jesus portrayed as untruthful in the earliest version of this passage, or was that detail added later?

Quote:

If the words are technically true, yet the intent, and the effect was to make those who heard what he said think that he was not going, it is still a lie, even if, due to the precise wording, the statement is technically true. If the intent, and effect is to deceive, then it is a lie. Or so it seems to me. Anyhow, I don't see how it is a problem if Jesus lies. The LORD lies several times in the OT, and admits to it. Jesus should be expected to lie. For example: Ezekiel 14:9 (KJV) "And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel."

That's an interesting way of looking at it...

Regards,

Yuri.

gridleyjason

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
[B]The main question here is, What was the earliest version of this passage?

Was Jesus portrayed as untruthful in the earliest version of this passage, or was that detail added later?

++++++++

Actually the main question here is whether Yuri has begged the question in asserting that Jesus _is_ portrayed as "untruthful" in the reading of Jn 7:8 which has Jesus say "I am not going up to the feast".

And the answer to my eyes is a resounding yes.

It seems to me that it saying what he says Yuri has (willfully? unwittingly?) First of all failed to take into account (a) how well the "stark" version of Jn 7:8 fits hand and glove with, and is a development of, important Johannine themes of when and how Jesus is divinely ordained to manifest himself and of the nature and content of Jesus "hour", (b) how the request to which Jesus' "I am not going up to the feast" contains a call for Jesus to manifest himself in a way and at a time that would make him apostate to his mission, and (c) how the author of John directs us to see that the proper context for understanding the meaning and force of Jesus' answer is this call to apostasy, and not anything Jesus is said to do in Jn 7:10.

It is also clear that Yuri has not come to grips, let alone dealt -- as I and others have asked him to do on more than one occasion -- with the observations of Epiphanius (an early Greek commentator on John) regarding the particular meaning with which John elsewhere employs the language and themes of this verse (particularly the verb anabainw and the verse's theme of "going up to Jerusalem), and how this has a bearing on, and informs, what it is that Jesus is saying when he says "egw ouk anabainw eis tEn eortEn tautHn."

So that everyone here can see for yourselves what Yuri has been missing (or, for whatever reason, refusing to deal with) on this score, here are Epihanius's comments:


mesazousEs gar tEs heortEs Elqe fEsi "kai anebE eis Ierosoluma", "kai elegon: oux outos estin on ezEoun piasai; kai idou en parrEsi lalei: mE ara emaqon oi iereis oi outos estin ho Xristos; alla oidamen outos poqen esti". mustEriwdws gar kai pneumatikws autou dialegomenou tois autou adelfois ouk vdeisan ti elegen. elege gar autois mE anabainein eis ton ouranon en tE eortE ekeinE mEde eis ton stauron, tou teleiwsai tews tEn oikonomian tou paqous autou kai tEs swtErias to mustErion kai ek nekrwn anastEnai kai eis ton ouranon anabEnai: aina eplErou panta en tEn idia autou ecousia.

It seems to me that in the light of these remarks, the premise from which Yuri has been carrying out his latest attack upon the alleged bias of modern text critics -- the premise that the Sinaticus et al. reading of Jn 7:8 makes Jesus out to be a liar -- is unsustainable. Moreover, to have mooted it at all, let alone to continue to maintain it, seems to betray an approach to the text that is wholly agenda driven.

But what really shows that Yuri's premise is unfounded is the conclusion about Jesus that one of the foremost early opponents of Christianity, the Greek philosopher, rhetoritician, historian, commentator, editor, and grammarian Porphyry, came to explicitly on the basis of what, according to Yuri, cannot be read, and certainly would not have been taken by anyone skilled in Greek, let alone as skilled as Porphyry was, except as a portrayal of Jesus as a liar, i.e., the Siniaticus et al reading of Jn 7:8 in the light of what he is said to do in Jn 7:10

This conclusion appears in Fragment 70 of his Contra Christianos [ed. Harnack], a work in which in Porphyry takes great delight in finding and exploiting the "inconsistencies" he finds in the Gospels and especially in the words of Jesus himself to demonstrate that Jesus was morally unworthy of the regard and worship that Christians gave him.

And what is this conclusion? Notably, it was NOT that Jesus was a liar. It was NOT that Jesus had prevaricated or had engaged in deceit of any kind. It was that Jesus was a _vacillator_, someone who was irresolute.

Now I dare say that Porphyry read and understood Greek far better than Yuri does.

And I dare say that Porphyry's desire to show Jesus as someone morally corrupt was even stronger than is Yuri's desire to do so with respect to modern NT text critics (though curiously _not_ with respect to the scribes of Sinaticus, Syrc C and Syr S D, the OL MSS of Jn and church fathers like Chrysostum, Jerome etc., who, on Yuri's grounds for what shows one as full of a desire to make Jesus a liar -- i.e., opting for the reading found in Sinaticus et. all -- would also seem to make them inept and corrupt, since they also opt for the ouk vs, the oupw reading of Jn 7:8).

And I dare say that if the "stark" reading of Jn 7:8 actually _did_ portray Jesus as a liar, Porphyry, being far better equipped by virtue of his birth and his education and his lingustic training than Yuri is to see this, not only _would_ have seen it, but would have been first in line to have said so.

The fact that he does _not_ say so means that Yuri's premise about how the Siniactus reading of Jn 7:8 portrays Jesus as a liar and how it can _only_ be taken in this way, is as groundless and as dead wrong as it is uninformed and question begging. It is an assumption about the text that has no basis whatsoever.

And if his basic premise is wrong, what happens to the rest of his argument?

Jason