Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear friends,

The following post was rejected by the Moderators of the John-Lit List.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/

When I was writing it, I was trying to make sure that it doesn't violate any protocols. And yet, it was still rejected. Can anyone suggest why it was rejected?

Here's that whole post.

[quote]

"NRSV switch re Jn 1:3-4"

Greetings, all,

It looks like the New Revised Standard Version Bible has switched from the older RSV reading of this passage. In doing so, NRSV now basically agrees with Burkitt's translation of the Curetonian John that I've posted here.

And so, NRSV authors now place the period before hO GEGONEN in v. 3.

(Jn 1:3 NRSV) All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being (4) in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

(Jn 1:3 RSV) All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. (4) In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

NEW PUNCTUATION (as used by NRSV):
(Jn 1:3) panta di autou egeneto kai cwriV autou egeneto oude en. o gegonen (4) en autw zwh hn kai h zwh hn to fwV twn anqrwpwn

OLD PUNCTUATION (as used by RSV):
(Jn 1:3) panta di autou egeneto kai cwriV autou egeneto oude en o gegonen. (4) en autw zwh hn kai h zwh hn to fwV twn anqrwpwn

This decision by NRSV translators is based on the updated UBS Greek text. This is how Bruce Metzger explains the decision by the UBS Textual Committee to place the period before hO GEGONEN.

"A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took hO GEGONEN with what follows. When, however, in the fourth century Arians and the Macedonian heretics began to appeal to the passage to prove that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things, orthodox writers preferred to take hO GEGONEN with the preceding sentence, thus removing the possibility of heretical use of the passage. The punctuation adopted for the text is in accord with what a majority regarded as the rhythmical balance of the opening verses of the Prologue, where the climactic or "staircase" parallelism seems to demand that the end of one line should match the beginning of the next." (Bruce Metzger, A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, United Bible Societies, p. 195)

So in this case I actually agree with Bruce Metzger and with the authors of NRSV. It was very wise of them to take into account abundant early patristic testimony that takes hO GEGONEN with what follows.

Indeed, in the fourth century, The Church fathers' reading of this passage seems to have switched gradually, primarily for theological reasons; from this eventually derived the reading of the KJV, and still later, of our RSV version.

Clearly, in coming to this decision, the UBS Textual Committee took into account the Old Syriac Aramaic version of this passage. Potentially, this is no doubt a very fruitful course. The Committee needs to pay more attention both to the early patristic testimony, and to the Aramaic John.

Best regards,

Yuri.

[end quote]

And here's some more background. This post was in regard to the following Aramaic John passage that I had posted to the John-Lit List previously.

"Aramaic John 1:1-10"

Greetings, all,

Here's the opening of John as found in the Old Syriac Aramaic Curetonian MS of the gospel. This is F. C. Burkitt's 1904 translation of the Curetonian MS.

(John 1:1 Old Syriac Aramaic Curetonian MS) In the beginning He was the Word; and He, the Word, was with God; and He, the Word, was God.
2 This same was in the beginning with God;
3 Everything came to pass in Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came to pass.
4 Now life is that which came to pass in Him, and life is the light of men;
5 and He, the light, in the darkness was shining, and the darkness apprehended it not.

6 There was a man that was sent from God -- his name was John.
7 This same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, and that everyone might believe through him;
8 he was not the light, but a witness of the light.
9 Now He is the light of truth, that shineth for every man that hath come into the world.
10 In the world He was, and the world itself was in Him, and the world knew Him not.

(Burkitt, F. Crawford, ed., 1904. Evangelion da-Mepharreshe: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the Early Syriac Patristic Evidence. 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

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

So can you suggest some reason why my post was censored?

Here are some suggestions.

This post was rejected because,

1. Bruce Metzger is a very radical revolutionary, and his views are too subversive.

2. These Old Syriac Aramaic gospels are too subversive.

3. Any suggestion that Old Syriac Aramaic gospels should be taken seriously is too subversive.

4. The List Moderators couldn't care less about any ancient Aramaic gospels. "Jesus the Greek" is just fine for them.

So what do you think?

Please give me some of your opinions, so that we can clarify this mystery together.

Yuri.