Yuri Kuchinsky

Haran,

But this was my _reaction_ to the way I was censored! Surely, I'm allowed to complain about censorship? Or would you rather suggest that I should welcome all censorship with open arms?

I assure you that I haven't posted to TC-List any such "harsh polemic" _before_ I was censored. Had I done so, there can be no doubt that this would have been given as grounds for my expulsion, rather than my doubting.

Quote:

I don't really understand why "expressing doubts" would get you banned... I have a problem believing that the people on TC-List were that narrow-minded.

I'm just giving you the facts.

I agree that the excuse, as given for my expulsion, was ridiculous. But, after all, it only seems like an excuse; the real reasons were probably somewhat different.

Quote:

Oh well, I'm not trying to lecture you. I'm just trying to point out some language that I see as a problem (I've been guilty of it at times as well). Ad Rem... You're probably right that many scholars aren't real familiar with the Syriac though. As a matter of fact, I think I vaguely remember reading something about this by Metzger or the Alands or somebody.

Their unfamiliarity with the Syriac seems like only a small part of the problem.

Quote:

[Re: Hugoye-L] Wow! Thanks! I didn't know about that list. I'll have to sign up! I have to say that I thought J.Gibson made excellent points (although they could have been a little friendlier possibly). In the end, he seemed to try to analyze things from your position... Jack Kilmon also made some excellent points. I noticed the moderators ended the traffic, but what was your response to Gibson's final question (1/10)?

Which "final question"? Was this his claim that other scholars don't agree with me? But I've already pointed out to him that great many TC scholars accept the priority of the Syro-Latin tradition.

Or maybe you mean something else? Please clarify.

Frankly, I don't think that Gibson made even one "excellent point". Please cite to me even one such point.

For example, he spends a lot of time bickering about which NT edition is supposed to be seen as a "standard edition". Is this supposed to be "an excellent point"? Seems like a reversal to childhood to me...

Quote:

What do you think of Matthew Black's work?

I've read it. It's quite a good book, but it seems to suffer from numerous blind spots.

Quote:

[Re: the Aramaic Gospels] I'm interested. Are they online?

Well, actually they are, but only in Aramaic. There's no English translation online. Something that I've been thinking about is making Burkitt's 1904 translation available online.

Quote:

I read French fairly well, so French recommendations are ok with me. I can probably find references in some of my TC books...

Well, then you should read Boismard. Boismard, M-E, LE DIATESSARON: De Tatien a Justin, Gabalda, Paris, 1992.

This is a very important book. See my summary at,

Boismard on the Magdalene Gospel
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/boismard.htm

Quote:

By the way, Yuri, I'm not very familiar with Syriac yet or when/how it split off of Aramaic. Is it virtually the same as Aramaic?

It's a dialect of Aramaic. It's pretty close to the Palestinian Aramaic of 1c.

Quote:

What grammars do you use for each? I use Rosenthal and Johns, but I know of Stevenson and Greenspahn.

Nöldeke's Grammar is generally seen as quite authoritative.

VAN ROMPAY: Book Review - Nöldeke, Compandious Syriac Grammar
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol4No2...VanRompay.html

All the best,

Yuri.

BTW, the discussion of Mk 9:39 has now moved to Heb-Aram-NT List,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Heb-Aram-NT/messages

I've already sent there my reply to Kilmon's post. Gibson also has a post there that contains numerous personal attacks against me. I'm not planning to reply in kind.

CX

Schnelle's intro text was published in 1994 in the original German and 1998 in English translation. If you checked his site and his C.V. you'll note the many publications his work has appeared in. He is listed on Dr. Mark Goodacre's list of NT scholars at NTGateway. I was actually referred to his intro by Jeffrey Gibson. I've never really gone to the trouble of finding references to Schnelle in other works. Personally I think his C.V. and his own work speaks for itself. HTNTW is one of the best intro's I've come across.

Haran

I misread Vinnie's post...overlooked the "7" somehow. You're right.

Haran

I've been reading a little more about him. He does seem like a relative new-comer but a good one. He comes from a great school for biblical studies, that's for sure. I may have to break down and get yet another book.

Haran

I know you did. I thought he said that they didn't accept it. Or was he just giving other good scholars who disagree? I may have to go back and re-read. I read it very quickly.

Is Black's work the kind you would like to see more scholars do though? I think he takes the idea of Aramaic originals seriously, does he not?

That's ok. Do you have the links?

Thanks for the references.

I'll look up Noldeke's Grammar.

What do you think of Thackston?

Introduction to Syriac by Wheeler Thackston

CX

Surely you're not suggesting you don't have his intro text. Next you'll tell me you don't have Metzger's or the Alands' TC intros.

Haran

Sorry... not sure I got the joke.

Udo Schnelle's book seems to be an Intro to the NT rather than an intro to TC, which I am more interested in.

I'm pretty sure you know I have Metzger, Aland, Black, Greenlee, Finegan, and a couple of others....

I know you're getting into this stuff pretty heavy, too, CX. I'm curious which ones you've read. (That wasn't sarcasm... As one interested in TC also, I'm curious.)

Which ones have you preferred?

CX

Not your fault. It wasn't a funny joke. Remarkably difficult to tell jokes centered around TC, papyrology and similar esoteric disciplines. Like...Westcott & Hort walk into a bar and run into 3 nuns and Eugene Boring and...it just doesn't work.

Quite right. Schnelle's book doesn't deal with TC at all except for a brief discussion of the synoptic problem and related text critical questions. Still it is an outstanding reference for general info related to the NT which I consult on a regular basis.

I've read several of the ones you've mentioned and I currently favor Metzger's and the Alands' books. Those are the only two I've actually purchased. As it stands you are far better informed and better read in TC than I am. My attention never stays to long in one place so I tend to meander around from ANE history to NT Text Criticism to Koine to comparitive religion to mathematics and science. Currently I'm rereading Metzger's book, reading a biography of Nobel Laureate mathematician John Nash, trying to wade through Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" and "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", just finished Elaine Pagels' book "The Origin of Satan" and a fascinating essay on proto-indo-european in the preface to the American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots. Of course there's also work, and a new baby due in 2 weeks and Grad School and the daily work of maintaining my own website and forum as well as moderating this one and well...I am clearly a very sick and compulsive individual.

Haran

Ah, good one!

I think I may have to get it. You wouldn't happen to know his theological stance? Germany's scholars have typically been rather "liberal" as compared to American scholars...

Same here... I'm not quite as into the mathmatics and science end of things, probably because cosmological arguments just aren't of much interest to me. I understand evolution, though, and enjoy an occasional book on physics and the supposed beginnings of our universe.

TC and paleography are probably my favorite subjects though. I love being able to go back and look at and try to read the actual manuscripts for myself.

Cool. Have you read her book on the "Gnostic Paul" or something like that? I'm planning on reading it at some point. When reading Paul's works, I can see the similarity to Gnostic language. I'd like to see what she has to say about the issue.

You sound very busy!

Congrats on the baby! My wife and I are currently trying to adopt. My internet life may go out the window at that point.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Haran,

IMHO, Black only scratches the surface of many of these problems. Yes, his approach seems pretty balanced overall, and he's quite open to the idea of Aramaic originals. But OTOH he still accepts _the Alexandrian Greek text_ as gold standard. This is his (and just about everybody else's) starting point in most comparisons and suggested retroversions into Aramaic. But the problem is that it should actually be quite obvious that Alexandrian Greek text is just a late local text. Alexandrian Greek has been highly overrated.

Thus, what I'm saying is that we should finally begin to take the Western text seriously, which Black doesn't really do. It's Western text that should be the gold standard and the starting point.

So IMHO the order of priorities is that we should first establish the priority of the Western text, and only then try to look for those highly elusive originals.

Quote:

[Yuri: Well, actually they are, but only in Aramaic.] That's ok. Do you have the links?

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/index.html

It's in the database.

Quote:

I'll look up Noldeke's Grammar. What do you think of Thackston? Introduction to Syriac by Wheeler Thackston

I approve of it.

Best regards,

Yuri.