Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear friends,

Here's Part 2a of my article. Previous two instalments are available here,

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

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?&threadid=74853

All the best,

Yuri.

________________


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

Greetings, all,

Here's some additional misrepresentation by the United Bible Societies Editorial Committee, that needs to be pointed out (especially since Jason Gibson has repeated a number of times the accusation that I disregarded the Diatessaronic evidence).

In this case, the misrepresentation has to do with how the recent 4th edition of THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, as published by UBS and the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, lists the textual witnesses for this case.

The problem is with how this passage of John 7:8 is found in the Diatessaron manuscripts, and it's actually a very simple case of misrepresentation. It's an open and shut case!

And so, as I have now confirmed, the great majority of our existing Diatessaronic manuscripts in fact have "not yet" (or something similar) in this verse. Thus, Jesus isn't portrayed as being untruthful in this passage. For example, here's how we find this verse in the Arabic Diatessaron (Section XXVIII),

[quote]

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/....htm#TopOfPage

(7) "As for you, go ye up unto this feast: but I go not up _now_ to this feast; for my time has not yet been completed."

[unquote]

Thus, Jesus isn't saying anything inappropriate here.

And a very similar situation is also found in the Dutch Diatessaron, the Persian Diatessaron, and the Magdalene Gospel (the medieval English Diatessaron).

Well, the strangest thing about this particular misrepresentation on the part of the UBS Editorial Committee is that it's only found in the recent 4th edition of their GREEK NEW TESTAMENT! On the other hand, their previous editions of GNT listed Diatessaronic evidence correctly...

In fact, in this case, the Diatessaronic evidence should be listed as split, and that's how it was listed before. The original 1966 edition of GNT, for example, lists only one Diatessaronic witness (Ephrem) as featuring the "not" reading. As for the "not yet" reading, the Diatessaron was listed in this line-up as well, and quite correctly so... Thus, presumably, the reader could conclude from this that _all the other Diatessaronic witnesses_ feature the "not yet" reading for this passage (or something similar).

So, although, technically, this evidence can be seen as "split", in fact, the overwhelming majority of this evidence seems to be for the reading where Jesus is not being untruthful!

So then how did we get from the overwhelming majority of this evidence going for the "not yet" reading -- as was listed in the earlier editions of GNT -- to all the evidence seemingly going the other way, as we find it now in the latest 4th edition of GNT???

This is a clear case of misrepresentation, or so it seems to me... So this is how far you can trust these dishonest textual critics of the UBS Editorial Committee to accurately present the evidence of our oldest manuscripts...

Now, in so far as the above mentioned passage in Ephrem goes (I have it right here), it seems to me that even this cannot be really cited legitimately for the "not" reading. Because, in this passage, the text has a clear editorial tendency to portray Jesus' brothers in a very negative light. What Ephrem (or perhaps some late interpolator?) says here is that Jesus wanted to deceive his brothers _on purpose_, since they wanted to betray him to the authorities!

Here's what this text says,

"They wanted to betray him, and that is why he deceived them."

So it may well be that this was a later interpolation (addition) to the text of Ephrem. (After all, Prof. Boismard has demonstrated quite competently that Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron likely had more than one author.)

And so, it is clear that the UBS Editorial Committee has chosen this clearly anti-Judaic text as the "only representative" of the Diatessaronic tradition suitable for listing, while ignoring all the other Diatessaronic witnesses that don't have this political orientation.

What a fine performance from these obviously heavily bigoted textual critics... It sure seems like progress is marching backwards with this crew.

Regards,

Yuri.

gridleyjason

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Now, in so far as the above mentioned passage in Ephrem goes (I have it right here), it seems to me that even this cannot be really cited legitimately for the "not" reading.

You have the Chester Beatty Syriac text of Ephraem's commentary on the Diatessaron?

Would you do us the kindness of reproducing this text here as you did the Syr C text of Jn 7:8?

Jason

gridleyjason

It's now been well over a day since I asked Yuri to provide us with the transliterated text of Jn 7:8 that appears in the Chester Beatty MSS of Ephraem's commentary on the Diatessaron.

But he has not complied with my request. This cannot be, I think, because he's been otherwise engaged. He's found the time to post on several usenet groups.

So how do we explain Yuri's not providing what I asked for?

There are severeal explanations:

1. Contrary to what he claimed, he doesn't have the Syriac text, but only a translation of it.

2. He _has_ the Syriac text, but, again contrary to another of his claims, he doesn't actually read Syriac, so he is unable to provided us with a trasliteration of that text.

BTW, the transliteration and vocalization of the Syr C version of Jn 7:8 he provided us in a previous message seems not to be own, but one that was lifted directly from the online versions of Syr C available at
http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/show.browsedialects.cgi.

This also explains why, despite being asked for it, he hasn't provided the Syr S version of that text. It's not available on this [or any] online site.

3. He _has_ the Syric text, and he _can_ read Syriac, but he refuses to post a transliteration of it because _I_ asked for it. He's already declared that, given his claims regarding my character, my allegedly limitedlingusitic abilities, and my purported lack of the extent of my knowledge on matters TC, he feels he is not obliged to answer anything _I_ ask of him.

My money is on the second of these explanations, if indeed, he has the text. But in the off chance that it's the third, perhaps someone else here -- someone against whom Yuri has no grudge, and whose request he therefore has no "grounds" to refuse -- will ask him to provide a transliteration of the text in question.

Jason

gridleyjason

_______________


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

Greetings, all,

Here's some additional misrepresentation by the United Bible Societies Editorial Committee, that needs to be pointed out (especially since Jason Gibson has repeated a number of times the accusation that I disregarded the Diatessaronic evidence).

+++++++++

I've had a chance to looks at what Yuri points to as evidence of misrepresentation on the part of the UBS editorial committee and can say with more than reasonable confidence that the only one who is misrepresenting things here is Yuri.

I'm willing to show this in detail. But I don't want to take the time and effort to do so if most here already feel that the response that Yuri really deserves is a yawn.

So may I ask, that if you do wish to see this thread continued, that you contact me at my e-mail address --gridleyjason@yahoo.co.uk -- to let me know.

Thanks.

Jason