Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear friends,

After many years of studying early Christian history, I came to the conclusion that our whole New Testament academic industry, as it exists today, is extremely dishonest, as well as very biased politically. Yes, in my view, we're now talking about the whole system that is hopelessly corrupt.

So here's something that I've written on this subject not so long ago. Here's the catalogue of the Six Big Fallacies of New Testament studies. As to the minor fallacies, they'll probably be beyond count...

All constructive comments and criticism are welcome.

All the best,

Yuri.

=======

***The Six Big Fallacies***


1 -- THE 7 AUTHENTIC EPISTLES OF PAUL?

Let's just all agree that all 7 are authentic, and nobody asks any questions about it, OK?


2 -- THESE ARE ALL 1ST CENTURY TEXTS?

Let's just all agree that Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn are all first century texts. And then, we can find a tiny scrap of papyrus somewhere, and all agree that it dates to "exactly 125 CE" (P52). Then our whole dating scheme can have a nice and very secure anchor. And nobody asks any questions about it, OK?


3 -- THE TWO-SOURCE THEORY?

According to the dominant 2 Source Theory, Mt and Lk were written independent of each other, and they were both based on Mk. Fine, so let's just all agree that this is so. Although there's still the small matter of over 1000 (!) close textual agreements between Mt and Lk _against_ Mk... (This is in the triple tradition, i.e. outside of the hypothetical Q.) Only in the Wonderful World of NT studies can such stuff be viewed as realistic by over 90% of the Scholars. And all this surely fills us all with confidence that Mk was indeed the earliest gospel!


4 -- ALEXANDRIAN DELUSION?

NT Textual Criticism is something else -- there's a House of Mirrors for you...

Every single Father of the Church before 200 CE is citing his gospels according to the Western text. All the earliest Semitic-language MSS, the Old Syriac, belong to Western text (as well as the Gospel of Thomas). In fact, in Syria, with its most ancient Christian tradition, it was all Western text until the 5th century!

And yet, by some strange miracle, all the modern Bibles are Alexandrian text -- which, clearly, was just a rather late Egyptian text; a local text that cannot even be found anywhere outside of Egypt. (In contrast, Western text is found very early everywhere in the Christian world.) Conclusion? NT Textual Criticism is all Smoke and Mirrors.


5 -- ALL THE EARLIEST GOSPELS WERE IN GREEK?

Sure they were! But is there any actual evidence for this? Not really, but why do we need any stinking evidence, when everybody already knows that this was so!


6 -- THE HEBREW GOSPEL OF MATTHEW?

In 1987, Howard publishes a completely unknown Hebrew text of Matthew -- obviously a Jewish-Christian text, and obviously quite primitive. But no such text was supposed to be found! So let's just pretend it's not there... If it is a Jewish-Christian text, then, quite clearly, it cannot contain any valid traditions about the Historical Jesus. After all, we all know that the original Christians were all Greeks, and so it was the Jews who later hijacked Christianity, and turned it into Jewish-Christianity!

=============

None of this should really be so surprising, or in need of any sort of an unusual explanation. The explanation for most of these fallacies is quite simple; these are the dogmas that have been bequeathed to our NT scholars as a result of all those many centuries of Catholic apologetics.

The numbers 2 and 5 ("These Are All First Century Texts", and "Greek is King") are really the foundational Catholic dogmas, that have been embraced by our modern NT scholars with unreserved enthusiasm. As well as #1, of course (Pauline authenticity). The others are a little bit different, because this is what our modern NT scholars came up with for themselves, although, fundamentally, of course, they also spring up from the same old roots.

For example, since "Greek is King", and since it's pretty obvious that the Majority Text (the basis of KJV) had been adulterated by the later ecclesiastical editors, in their wisdom, the Scholars decide that the Alexandrian Greek text would have to be the next best thing. Western text, of course, is mostly preserved for us in the Old Syriac and Old Latin. (That's why it's also sometimes called the Syro-Latin text.) But, meanwhile, even Clement of Alexandria, himself, this quintessential Alexandrian Father of the Church, is still citing his gospels according to the Western text! So, I wonder, where was he hiding his trusty copy of that "original Alexandrian NT"? Could it be that there was, as yet, no such thing even in _his_ time (ca 200 CE)?

And so, quite obviously, this is the field of historical inquiry that has not yet evolved to a fully legitimate scientific level. NT studies is where pseudo-science and apologetics still reign supreme. There are egregious logical fallacies under every bush -- just about everywhere one looks -- and woe unto anyone who might wish to call a spade a spade. The knives come out pretty quick, and then soon you'll be declared a persona non grata.

Yes, this is one field of study where those ghosts of ancient past still reign -- the ghosts of intolerance, book-burning, and of ancient racial prejudice. Indeed, that's where all these hallowed Catholic dogmas really come from; the intolerance as sanctified by both time and custom.

Yuri Kuchinsky.

==========

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
-- Voltaire

Jayhawker Soule

In the absence of anything remotely suggestive of evidence, such absurd certainties are, in my opinion, best suited to a different forum.

Ted Hoffman

I would like to know your objections to (a)the two-source theory.
Please.

Skeptical

I'd like to see the evidence and references for your claims/objections. I have more specific criticisms but I will reserve judgement until I can properly evaluate what evidence you have to present.

Yuri Kuchinsky

What sort of evidence in particular are you looking for, friend? I'm here to help...

Yuri.

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices -=O=- William James

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Intensity,

Glad to oblige. And this is also in reply to "Skeptical" who asked for more evidence about these 6 Fallacies. So we can begin from this particular fallacy, since it's so common in today's NT scholarship. (But, to be sure, at this time, 2ST, in its conventional form, is not held universally, either by "conservatives" or by "liberals". For example, Farrer/Goulder Hypothesis rejects Q, and Goulder is an atheist.)

So I guess I will give 3 main objection to the Markan priority, and each one of them should be enough to bury it. Together, it's more than enough.

1. The purely textual argument -- "Minor Agreements".

As I already said before, according to the dominant 2 Source Theory, Mt and Lk were written completely independently of each other, and they were both based on Mk, plus the Q Source (The Synoptic Sayings Source).

But the main objection against 2ST has always been this very uncomfortable fact of the "Minor Agreements". These are the textual agreements between Mt and Lk against Mk. The name itself --"the Minor Agreements" -- is already sort of dishonest, because there are actually over 1000 such agreements! Various authors count them differently, but, in any case, there are hundreds of them for sure. (F. Neirynck has produced a detailed listing of these agreements.)

So these are the textual agreements in the triple tradition, i.e. where Mt, Mk, and Lk have parallel passages, so this of course doesn't include the Q passages.

Of course, in the past, the defenders of 2ST have made a few lame attempts to address this problem, but the mathematical probability of Mk being the source of both Mt and Lk -- as written completely independently of each other -- is, quite simply, close to zero.

So this, alone, is a very powerful argument against Markan priority.

2. Mk is not likely to be a 1st century text

Now, in this case, I don't have to make an argument for this, because I shouldn't have the burden of proof here. The simple fact is that the earliest manuscript of Mk that we possess is dated to the 3rd century (P45, and it's not even anything like our standard Alexandrian text). Our standard Alexandrian text of Mk, as found in most Bibles today, is a 4c text. It's a common sense assumption (also supported by lots of evidence) that the Church was "adjusting" these texts over the centuries every which way as it saw fit.

Thus, it's the people who claim that Mk is a 1st century text that have the burden of proof here. This burden has not been met. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that Mk, as we now see it, is a 4th century text.

3. Mk is the most Gentile of the Synoptics.

This is a generally known fact. So, since the earliest followers of Jesus (assuming there was a Historical Jesus) were all Jews, it's highly unlikely that the first gospel ever produced would have been such a Gentile-oriented gospel.

Indeed, it's widely accepted that the Jerusalem Apostles were all worshipping in the Temple. The Jerusalem Church was clearly a Jewish-Christian Church. So this is the earliest Christianity, and it had the weight of authority everywhere else up to 70 CE (at least). So this type of a movement simply couldn't have produced such a Gentile-oriented gospel as Mk.

The last two points are mostly based on the work of Alfred Loisy. So there's a lot more evidence in his books about all that.

In my own view, Mk, as we now see it, had been completed only around 250 CE. It's the shortest gospel, so, from the formal perspective, it does preserve quite well the shape of the earliest Christian proto-gospel (i.e. lacking the genealogies, the birth stories, extensive post-resurrection appearances, etc.). But from the textual perspective (when each particular passage is considered separately), Mk is often far later than Mt and Lk. To me, it seems to be the most politicised and heavily reworked text of the 3 Synoptic gospels.

All the best,

Yuri.

Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low -=O=- Wallace Sayre

Toto

You say that the earliest Gospels were not in Greek. Are you saying that there is an earlier Gospel than the ones we know, or that the ones we know were translated from Hebrew or Aramaic? If they were translated, why do they use the Septuagint instead of Hebrew scriptures?

Are you assuming that 1st C. Jews of the disaspora did not speak Greek? I have read that many Jews did in fact speak Greek, and adopt Hellenistic customs.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Toto,

What I'm actually saying is that there's a very good probability that at least one, or maybe two of the earliest gospels were in Hebrew and/or Aramaic. And the ancient Aramaic (Old Syriac) gospels still happen to preserve some of that primitive text.

But, unfortunately, these ancient Aramaic gospels have been virtually ignored in recent scholarship. Their last edition was in 1910! So I see a bit of a cover-up there. I'm sure that my interest in these Aramaic texts had something to do with my recent expulsion from TC-List.

The standard gospels that we do know at this time are all Greek-based, and their relationship with the earliest texts is a matter of dispute.

Well, you see, these ancient Aramaic gospels that I'm talking about actually do use the Hebrew scriptures, rather than the Septuagint.

No, 1c Jews of the diaspora certainly did speak Greek. But in Israel and Syria there was a lot of Aramaic-speaking Jews. So what I'm saying is that their textual traditions are very valuable, and happen to preserve a lot of primitive stuff.

I'm the first one to admit that all these things are extremely complex. In my view, very early Greek and Aramaic gospels may have existed side-by-side in bilingual environments. In such environments, it's not even realistic to say which textual tradition came first.

All the best,

Yuri.

Kosh

OK, I'm confused. First you say:

Which seems to indicate simply that you believe these Gospels exist.

Then you say:

Which seems to indicate that they are a fact.

So what am I missing here? Do these Gospels actually exist and are they confirmed? Or do you believe that they're existence is what's being covered up?

Thanks.

Skeptical

Well, I would say right off the bat your overstating your case. The arguments of Streeter and others can not simply be dismissed because you personally don't find them convincing. You'll have to give a more detailed argument than that. I know your aware of the arguments, but for those that aren't they can be found <a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/2sh/index.htm" target="_blank">here</a>

Your argument also seems to rest on the idea that the forms that the gospels are currently in is what they were in during the first few centuries. I think its likely or at least plausible they are not the same as their original form.

But hardly conclusive. You would also have to account for the _positive_ evidence in favor of Markan priority. IMO, if we assume for the sake of argument that Mark is _not_ prime, we run into just as many, if not more, problems than if Mark is prime.

So your argument is that a text cannot be dated any earlier than an existing copy can be dated? Our most current copy of Josephus dates (I believe) from the 4th century, do you think Josephus lived and wrote in the 4th century? Do you choose to completely ignore the external evidence we have regarding an awareness of the gospels prior to the 4th century? Have I misunderstood you?

I don't find it unlikely at all, much less "highly unlikely". The first followers probably didn't write anything because they expected Jesus to return any day. It was only after the destruction of the Jeruselem temple and the prosyletizing of the decidedly gentile-leaning Paul that written documents began to be seen as necessary. The earliest followers in Judea had a small fledgingly movement that was almost certainly based on an oral tradition. The primary force actively recruiting for christianity seems to have been Paul. Paul traveled in many gentile circles. I don't see why its hard to imagine the first documents starting from this tradition.

I find it more likely that the Mark tradition came from gentiles indoctrinated in the traditions by Paul, not the original followers of Jesus. The picture we have is terrifically incomplete, but it seems clear that Paul was a primary force, and he considered himself on a par with Peter, so it's not unlikely that the churches he visited saw him in this light as well.

Your point only stands if we believe the followers in Judea were the primary force in early christianity. I think based on the scant evidence we do have that the primary force was clearly Paul. Granted we no doubt have a limited view based on lack of evidence, but Paul cannot simply be ignored. Once the Pauline tradition is placed into the picture, this point carries little, if any, weight.

There would have to be a _lot_ more than what you have presented for me to warrant squeezing Loisy into my limited reading time given the large number of books already on my list.

Your talking about different things here. If your saying that Mark _as we currently have it_ has been reworked and has material dating later than Mt. and Luke, that is possible. That is totally different than saying that Mark is not prime though, which is what I thought you were arguing.

I'd be interested in seeing some examples of passages in Mark that are "far later" than Mat. and Luke and your explanations. I think you also have to explain why, if Mark is the most reworked that Mark leaves out two of the most crucial events in Mat. and Luke; namely, the birth account and the post-resurrection accounts. (laying aside the small additional reworking of the end of Mark that we already know of)

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>