Yuri Kuchinsky

No, you first. You've agreed that stuff was added to Mt over the years, but you claim "it's minor and irrelevant".

So please provide some evidence of that.

Yuri.

Chris Weimer

Why soitantly. Although I am less sure of it now, I still think that Mt. 1.22-23 is an interpolation - a duplication to add in a prophecy. If you notice, the prophecy is mentioned as an aside actually disturbing the narrative. The rest of Matthew's prophecies do not interrupt the narrative. However, the author of Matthew could have written it as well. It's on shaky grounds.

Another passage which seems to have been corrupted is 1.16, evidenced by the odd manuscript tradition and the blotchy reading. But like the above, it could hardly matter to the story at hand.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Chris,

Don't you see the circularity in your argument?

According to you, these particular additions were minor and irrelevant, and therefore _all_ later additions to Mt are minor and irrelevant?

So it looks like you've already excluded a priori all other potential additions that could have been both major and relevant.

Yours,

Yuri.

Chris Weimer

Yuri - I said the ones that I've stumbled upon so far are minor and irrelevant. If you believe that you have an interpolation that greatly affects the whole of the gospel of Matthew, then why don't you say so?

Yuri Kuchinsky

So then how can you make such sweeping assertions as you've been making of late?

Could it perhaps be that you simply haven't studied this matter enough?

One obvious interpolation, the one that is in fact accepted by many professional NT scholars, is that the whole nativity story in Mt was a later addition.

So how about that, my dear friend?

I guess you've missed this one, didn't you?

Regards,

Yuri.

Chris Weimer

Because it's true until I find more evidence of interpolations that would greatly affect the overall story of the gospel.

Perhaps you could quit accusing people and actually bring the evidence to the table.

Still using argument from authority, are you?

Well, besides that you didn't bring any evidence along with your assertion, there's really nothing to miss, now is there?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, my argument did show that you're ill-informed about the subject...

Yuri.

Chris Weimer

Au contraire. If you can't even list one argument, that shows that you are not well-informed. Come on, Yuri, this is just pathetic.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Chris,

Obviously you were unaware of the theories that Mt 1-2 was a later addition. I'm just trying to help you with your education.

Best regards,

Yuri.

Chris Weimer

Yuri,

If you were to do so, you would list sources, books, journal articles, especially ones dealing with a large majority consensus which you claim. Instead, you have offered up nothing. Thanks, but no thanks. I don't need any education from someone who is entirely uninformed with the source material. Let me ask you a question, Yuri: What specifically about the birth narrative that appears to be an interpolation? Please, in your own words, describe the linguistic pecularities and any external evidence such as church fathers or omission from manuscripts. The emphasis, however, should probably focus on the internal factors, since I can already tell you that the manuscripts won't be of much help.

I'm looking forward to your assessment.

Until then,

Chris Weimer