Metacrock

Meta: Yes, I know that. I didn't make myself clear. That was the major thing they had to go on. That was the big find of their day. That in itself is not enought for them to really appreciate the problem the way scholars today can.




Meta: Yes, but that's the whole point, to work out the errant readings. They didn't just look at those two and no others either. They boiled it downt to those two.

But let's get real about what we are talking about. you made it sound like the lid is blwon off the whle "bible scam." IN reality we are talking about difference no greater than one finds between the JKV and NAS.




Meta: O obviously I just go around talking to Bible scholars in person because I like to see their taste in clothing. I have a theory that scholars are fashion plates and I like to my tips form them in person. I couldn't care less about their scholarship.


[
Not at all. My claim is very well based.



Meta: may be well based, but trivial in the over all scheme of things.





This is not true. It was the traditional view of the Church that Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue. And this was also pretty much the scholarly consensus before Westcott & Hort.



Meta: So bleeding what? What does that get us in the long run one way or the other? Even if you take the whole Syriac verion it doesn't change a single doctrine!






Yes, tell me about the Diatessaron... something I don't know...

I actually wrote the whole long book about the Diatessaron!



Meta: O you wrote teh Diatesseraron? Your real name is Titian?



So what makes you think that I really wanted to blow the whole Christian doctrine wide open?




Meta:hmmmm, i don't know...unless it could be the term.. Fraud! you think that might be it?





All I want to do is simply to expose the fraud in today's NT scholarship... a much more modest goal.




Meta: But instead of fraud all you've expossed is a prejudice. It looks like you don't know how serious the term "fruad" is in this field. This is a good indication why peer review is important.




I'm more than willing to debate this whole issue formally with any professional NT scholar.




Meta: Maybe if you wouldn't call them frauds just for things that really amount to nothing more than prejudice or sloppy thinking, they might debate with you.




What I've said is that nearly 99% of the professional NT scholars today study the Greek text only. This refers, of course, to the Greek text of the NT.



Meta: I don't think that's true of the major ones. I know the Sryac is overlooked.





I believe that this estimate is substantially accurate. Some of them may also study Coptic, but they wouldn't really study the Coptic NT (rather, they would study the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, for instance). While many of them also know Latin, as a rule, they don't really study the Latin NT.



Meta: My friend studies coptic NT.




You really don't know enough about this whole area of scholarship, and it shows...





Meta: I'm a real no good nick. I'm just a bad boy! I'm just no damn good!


Westcott & Hort were guilty of fraud, because the "Alexandrian Greek text" that they first pioneered, and that later had taken the world by storm, didn't really exist in real life.




Meta:see this is what bothered me about your original post, you keep saying this. this makes it sound like you think they really passed it off as an ancient ms instead of a reconstructed reading, which is all they ever said it was. That's what makes you come accross as as though you don't see the difference. You sound like you don't understand what they were doing. Now I know you probably do, but you just sound that way.




I didn't yet say anything about the Christian doctrine in this discussion. But it would be a safe assumption that falsifying the text of the gospels would also have very substantial implications for the Christian doctrine.

Meta: see, now there you go again. It's not falsified just because their method may have some slip shod aspects. But I don't think it does, I think their text is probably pretty good. This is why you sound like you don't know what you are talking about, because you blow it out of proportion and turn just a possibly prejudicial view into a "big scam."

Madkins007

Odd. The reference I have on hand ('The Essential Guide to Bible Versions' by Philip Comfort, Ph.D.) describes the Codex Bezae thusly...

"This is a Greek-Latin digilot [two languages used] containing Matthew-Acts and 3 John. with lacunae [missing portions of a manuscript]. Most schoars date it to the late fourth or fifth century (ca. 400). Some scholars think this codex was produced in either Egypt or North Africa by a scribe whose mother tongue was Latin. [A description of it's known history is deleted].
This codex is probably the most controversial of the New Testament uncials because of its marked independence. Its many additions, omissions, and alterations (especially in Luke and Acts) are the work of a significant theologian. [A discussion of precursors is deleted]. Thus, the Codex Bezae could be a copy of an earlier edition. The redactor must have been a scholar who had a propensity for adding hisotrical, biographical, and geographical details. More than anything, he was intent on filling gaps in the narrative by adding circumstantial details."


This does not sound like a pivotal document to base any radical changes on, with all of the addendums and annotations.

And, no disrespect intended, all we have to base YOUR claim of scholarship on is your own claim.

Haran

Yuri, I have always thought that you have some interesting points. However, the thing about all modern biblical scholars perpetrating fraud just makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist...

I doubt that much of anyone can buy that even the most liberal of biblical scholars are knowingly perpetrating a fraud. I truly think you destroy your case with this type of comments.

Common Yuri! I know you know better than this. I have always been able to tell from your information that you're well-read on the subject, so I know you know better than this... (i.e. all mainstream biblical scholars are not involved in a 'big fraud' and do not believe that the 19th century W&H text is the original first century text - first, they are attempting to recreate a first century text and use some of the same texts for a base as W&H did which is the reason for the similarity).

As Meta mentioned, there is some bias at worst. If your theory holds water, then I think it is more likely that the problem lies in the fact that many learn and work with the Greek and find little time or interest for the Aramaic/Syriac. I also find this sad because I too feel it is an important language for biblical studies.

Why not point to some of the European scholars who fall closer in line with your theories and show where you feel they diverge from your own theory?

Yuri Kuchinsky

I see, Meta... So you're saying that the difference between the JKV and NAS isn't big enough to merit your attention?

Well, in such a case, obviously we have nothing further to discuss here. I'm sure your extremely valuable time has been entirely wasted on such trivial matters... Why would you even bother to pay any attention to an idiot like me, and my silly concerns? :notworthy

There are about 6000 differences between the JKV and NAS, and lots of people think they are important enough to discuss. You're not one of them, fine...

Clearly, you're bringing in a lot of your own private presuppositions here, that are not my presuppositions, or IMHO not most people's presuppositions. What is bound to result will be rather similar to a dialogue of the deaf.

And further on, you even state that it makes no difference if Matthew was written originally in a Hebraic tongue???

But it matters to me, and IMHO it matters to lots of other people.

Obviously, what you see as "unimportant" is coloured too much by your own private preferences. Your attitude seems rather negative on the whole.

Quote:

Meta: But instead of fraud all you've expossed is a prejudice.

Well, I guess this means that I've done something important, after all!

Sorry again for wasting your valuable time.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Madkins,

Please keep in mind who Philip Comfort, Ph.D. is. He's a very conservative Christian commentator, and his views on these matters cannot really be considered as entirely objective...

Quote:

"This is a Greek-Latin digilot [should be "diglot" -- Y.] [two languages used] containing Matthew-Acts and 3 John. with lacunae [missing portions of a manuscript]. Most schoars date it to the late fourth or fifth century (ca. 400). Some scholars think this codex was produced in either Egypt or North Africa by a scribe whose mother tongue was Latin. [A description of it's known history is deleted]. This codex is probably the most controversial of the New Testament uncials

For sure it is!

Quote:

because of its marked independence.

This evaluation is clearly biased. In fact, as I already wrote, the Codex Bezae is _not_ independent from the Aramaic and Old Latin textual traditions. It falls right in there with the Aramaic and Old Latin textual traditions of the gospels.

Quote:

Its many additions, omissions, and alterations (especially in Luke and Acts) are the work of a significant theologian. [A discussion of precursors is deleted].

Or else, perhaps we can say that _the changes that were later introduced to the Egyptian MSS_ were the work of significant theologians, with special biases of their own...

Quote:

Thus, the Codex Bezae could be a copy of an earlier edition.

This is obviously so...

Quote:

The redactor must have been a scholar who had a propensity for adding hisotrical, biographical, and geographical details. More than anything, he was intent on filling gaps in the narrative by adding circumstantial details."

Again, all this is completely reversible. In other words, I can easily say that it was the later Egyptian redactors who must have been the scholars who had a propensity for removing certain historical, biographical, and geographical details!

More than anything, they were intent on omitting stuff in the narrative by removing circumstantial details...

Quote:

This does not sound like a pivotal document to base any radical changes on, with all of the addendums and annotations.

But there are also lots of establishment scholars (especially in France) who think that Bezae represents the earliest text of the gospels...

Quote:

And, no disrespect intended, all we have to base YOUR claim of scholarship on is your own claim.

Not quite. I have lots of backing for everything I say from legitimate published sources.

For example, someone asked me about those 3000 differences between the Sinaiticus and the Alexandrinus MSS. Here's the goods.

(quote)

"The Identity of the New Testament Text II", by Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM PhD, Chapter 4,

http://www.revisedstandardversion.ne.../WNP/id_4.html

Hoskier, after filling 450 pages with a
detailed and careful discussion of the
errors in Codex B and another 400 on
the idiosyncrasies of Codex Aleph, affirms
that in the Gospels alone these two
MSS differ well over 3,000 times,
which number does not include minor
errors such as spelling, nor variants
between certain synonyms which might
be due to "provincial exchange." [H.C.
Hoskier, Codex B and its Allies (2 vols.;
London: Bernard Quaritch, 1914), II, 1.]
In fact, on the basis of Colwell's
suggestion that a 70% agreement be
required so as to assign two MSS to the
same text-type, Aleph and B do not
qualify. The UBS and Nestle texts no
longer use a cover symbol for the
"Alexandrian" text-type.

(unquote)

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Haran,

There's no need for a conspiracy. The whole situation can be explained just as well by the institutionalised racism within our NT studies establishment. This is how I explain the very curious reluctance on the part of mainstream scholars to pay any attention to ancient Aramaic manuscripts.

Quote:

Common Yuri! I know you know better than this. I have always been able to tell from your information that you're well-read on the subject, so I know you know better than this... (i.e. all mainstream biblical scholars are not involved in a 'big fraud' and do not believe that the 19th century W&H text is the original first century text - first, they are attempting to recreate a first century text and use some of the same texts for a base as W&H did which is the reason for the similarity).

Maybe so. There's no real need to claim that all mainstream biblical scholars are involved in a 'big fraud'. Rather, they seem to me more like a bunch of sleep-walking zombies who are determined to disregard reality at all cost...

As to the 19th century W&H text, these sleep-walking savants have simply been brainwashed that this is the closest to the "original first century text" that we can get. But, alas, this is a sad delusion.

Quote:

As Meta mentioned, there is some bias at worst. If your theory holds water, then I think it is more likely that the problem lies in the fact that many learn and work with the Greek and find little time or interest for the Aramaic/Syriac. I also find this sad because I too feel it is an important language for biblical studies. Why not point to some of the European scholars who fall closer in line with your theories and show where you feel they diverge from your own theory?

This is a good general reference that I've already mentioned before.

Vaganay and Amphoux, INTRODUCTION TO NT TEXTUAL CRITICISM, Cambridge, 1991

This basic intro by the two French scholars is the only recent publication in the area that pays attention to Western/Peripheral texts.

Also, anything you can find on the Net on this subject by WL Petersen is worth a read (although I sometimes disagree with him).

Best,

Yuri.

Doctor X

Why not just add in the appropriate references and submit it for publication?

--J.D.

Vinnie

Hell yeah! What psuedo-historians need to realize is that "better textual attestation than other classical works" is not equivalent to "good attestation".

The most prudent course of action on a huge portion of early Christian writings is agnosticism since the manuscript attestation is lacking. 100 years is a veyr LONG time for developments and textual alteration especially given that a text of this nature is most fluid in its early years! Let's not pretend that the NT actually has good attestation. It might have better attestation than a lot of other works but this just means its better attested than other works. If those works themselves have piss-poor attestation than the better attestation of the NT says absolutely nothing. its apologetical special pleading.

On the flip sides several instances of fidelity to the text could be cited (usually occuring later on ) whereas many early instances of corruption are easily detectable and demonstrable!

Instance:

Redaction of John, five verions of Mark--a missing ending, layers of Thomas and Q (if you subsribe to this), the fact that all the earliest witnesses of the 2d ALREADY! already seem to use a "mixed text", the fact that letters like 2 Cor is a compisite of more than one Pauline letter, numerous instances of redactions and scribal erros and so on.

Lack of autographs and lack of assurance of the evolution of various gospels. Maybe John was composed in stages (which I believe it was). This means that to speak of an autographical text of GJohn is ridiculous.

You are absoutely right Yuri. Not only textual criticism, but ALL NT research is bullshit and a fraud. I don't what the original texts said and neither do scholars! I am a militant agnostic!

Out of curiousity, you seem to be disgruntled with the field like I am now, so why do you keep studying? What keeps you going? Surely you can find something better and more productive to do? Old habits die hard?

Vinnie

Haran

...misanthropy...

Vinnie

NT scholars are evidence of the veracity of the Biblical doctrine of original sin

Actually, I think that charge was a bit harsh....

"a hatred or distrust of mankind "???

Thinking NT bafoons are bafoons and not trusting their competing scholarship is not misanthropy since its predicated on demonstrable facts.

To show an counter example:

A person might trust another person---a doctor--- to deliver their baby. That is trusting mankind a lot!

This same person may think NT studies is silly.

This is not misanthropy.

Thinking people go to hell for all eternity probably is though!

Vinnie

edited some junk...blah blah wwoof woof.