Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, everybody,

The question of biblical contradictions is often raised in various forums. As any serious student of the Bible should know, there seem to be thousands of contradictions there of all sorts.

The apologists, of course, try to minimise these contradictions, or even to deny that they exist. On the other side of the spectrum are the secularists, who are always eager to point out the flaws in the apologists' arguments, and to list even more biblical contradictions that seem self-evident.

For the apologists, of course, the Bible is the Word of God, and cannot be wrong. Secularists, on the other hand, charge that since the Scripture so often contradicts itself, it cannot be trusted. Thus, the argument usually boils down to the question of True or False -- is the Bible reliable or not? Is its message true, now and forever? Or is it just a set of obsolete moral guidelines that no longer have much relevance in our age of computers and space travel?

Well, I must confess that, as a biblical historian, I often find these debates as rather sterile and quite superficial. Of course, there are thousands of self-evident contradictions in the Bible. Some of them are the contradictions between one book and another one, and some are even within one and the same book. Those who refuse to admit that these contradictions exist simply do so for doctrinal reasons. These are the True Believers, and no rational debate can be possible with such people.

But, for an objective historian, of course, these contradictions are very important to investigate. Because behind every each one of them there lies some important historical event or development.

Usually, these contradictions represent the places in the text where the "official story" was changed at some later point -- for whatever reasons. So the question comes up immediately, Which of the two versions was early, and which was introduced later? Clearly, this can tell us a lot about the circumstances under which various biblical passages were written. These types of contradictions are quite common between the Books of Kings and the Books of Chronicles, for example, and it seems like the Chronicles generally represent a later version of the same events.

Also, the contradictions may represent different accounts that were originally produced by rival factions within the movement. Then, at some point, both versions were included as Official Scripture -- representing some sort of a compromise that was eventually reached. Such contradictions are quite common, for example, between the New Testament gospels. One specific example is the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and in Luke, that are irreconcilable. Quite obviously, they represent the two versions of a mythological ancestry of Jesus, as seen by two rival factions within Christianity ca 100 CE.

As for the Old Testament, a similar picture can be found with the two accounts of creation in Genesis. Which one of them was the earliest? This is an important question, and it seems like it was the account of a simultaneous creation of man and woman. Thus, the creation of Eve from Adam's rib seems to have been added later, as a sort of a patriarchal add-on.


EASTER = PASSOVER?

And now for something topical, seeing that now is the Passover/Easter season. One of the thorniest sets of contradictions is represented by the differing accounts of exactly when Jesus had his Last Supper, and was arrested and crucified. The differences here are between John and the three Synoptic gospels, as well as within the individual gospels. A whole book can be written about these differences, how they came about, and the controversies that they occasioned for nearly 20 centuries of Christian history. Officially, the problem still remains without a resolutions, as scholars still argue about all these things till blue in the face without any consensus being reached.

My own solution here is that the earliest Christian tradition was clearly to observe the Passover. It looks like, originally, Jesus primarily symbolised the Passover Lamb, slaughtered just before Passover began. Thus, his Last Supper could have hardly been a traditional Passover meal (seder).

So the right way to approach the biblical contradictions is to ask, What do they mean? What can they tell us about biblical history? And, indeed, they usually do tell us a lot about the historical circumstances under which these particular texts were written.

But what I all too often observe in various Internet debates are the superficial arguments about "the truth of the Scripture", or otherwise. It seems like on both sides there are people whose objective is primarily to prove their opponents wrong, rather than to establish the historical truth from an objective point of view.

There are the Apologists, and then there are the "anti-Apologists". Both of them have non-so-hidden agendas, and often, sad to say, each side merely seems like the mirror reflection of the other. And, I'm afraid, none of it has anything to do with the real study of history.

Typically, the Apologists are the "harmonisers" of biblical text. Their strategy is to try to harmonise the differing passages, so that all differences will vanish. Their skill in this task is the measure of their success as Apologists. And the Sceptics, on the other hand, do all they can to zero in on the contradictions, and to lay them out for all the world to see. But if they don't pursue these contradictions further in order to understand their origin, then their task will forever remain purely negative, and somewhat lacking in substance.


THE HIDDEN APOLOGISTS

And there are also lots of biblical Apologists who will refuse to admit who they are. These are the mainstream NT scholars who, in their reading of the text, will very often show complete disinterest in some of the most glaring contradictions there that stare right at them. Oh, yes, they will skirt the whole thing very gingerly, and will proceed in their analysis as if there was nothing there to worry about.

While reading various mainstream biblical commentaries, I'm constantly amazed at such wilful blindness -- how their authors constantly try to avoid various glaring inconsistencies within the gospel story. The examples of this are all over the place. All too often we find in various gospel texts a lack of a smooth juncture between verses, that obviously hides something important that was either changed or omitted there at some later point in time.

Let's take as an example the story of the Canaanite woman in Mt 15:21-24. According to this account, Jesus' disciples want to see the woman sent away, because she was annoying them, or something. Sounds pretty heartless, doesn't it? But then, why does Jesus reply to their request with the following phrase,

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel"?

Obviously, his reply does not correspond logically to what the disciples asked him to do. For his reply to be logically congruous, the disciples should have in fact asked Jesus _to help_ the woman, rather than to send her away.

So here we have a clear self-contradiction within this short passage. How is it to be explained? A simple answer may suggest itself here; could it be that, in the earliest version of this text, the disciples were asking Jesus to actually help the woman, rather than to get rid of her? So this suggestion can easily explain why, in the canonical Greek text, Jesus' reply seems so discrepant and incompatible with what the disciples asked him to do.

This is what the internal evidence of the text, itself, seems to be saying to us. But would there also be some external evidence for this, i.e. some hard evidence coming from ancient biblical manuscripts? Sure there is! -- although you would never suspect this if you limit your search only to the standard reference books that NT scholars typically use. Aland's Synopsis, for example, gives no indication of any important variant readings for this passage. And neither do any of the standard commentaries on Matthew address this problem...

Well, I did go beyond the standard references and commentaries, and I found the whole 9 (!) passages in various old MSS that support my suggested emendation. They include the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, as well as a number of Diatessaronic texts. (See the details here,

"An older text of the Canaanite Woman episode"
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/canaaw.htm ).

And, believe it or not, all this is still being covered up by our very dishonest NT guild.

Surely, such an important alteration in the text of Matthew should have attracted at least some attention from the professionals? But no, they are not interested... Why? Because NT studies, as we see them today, is still in the hands of the Apologists for the Faith, who are masquerading as "objective scholars". These are really no better than a crew of con-artists. If it's not in the Greek text, i.e. if it doesn't support their Gentile-oriented view of Jesus and his disciples, they are not interested.

Regards,

Yuri.

Baqqesh shalom veradphehu -- Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15)

Geoff Hudson

You don't sound as if your seeking peace Yuri, but I understand what you mean. Even today, many scholars are still inhibited in what they can say without "rocking the boat" too much.

(26)He replied, “[It is not] {IS IT NOT} right to take the children's bread and give it to their dogs {?}"

(27)"YES, Master," she said, "[but] even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

The "yes" seems to be an answer to a question. In my book, of course, the "bread", is the "pure bread" from heaven, or the Spirit, which had been offered to the "children" of Israel from the time of Moses. The woman belonged to the children of Israel, but was of an inferior tribe, regarded as "dogs" by Judeans.

Jesus flew in Concorde to Tyre and Sidon and then flew to the Sea of Galilee. But I think the prophet John went to the region of Sodom and Gommorah where he met the woman, and then "went along" (Mt.15:29) the Dead Sea.

Geoff

Yuri Kuchinsky

So then what do I seek, according to you, Geoff?

Quote:

but I understand what you mean. Even today, many scholars are still inhibited in what they can say without "rocking the boat" too much.

So do you see "rocking the boat" as antithetical to peace?

Quote:

(26)He replied, “[It is not] {IS IT NOT} right to take the children's bread and give it to their dogs {?}" (27)"YES, Master," she said, "[but] even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." The "yes" seems to be an answer to a question.

Whatever...

Quote:

In my book, of course, the "bread", is the "pure bread" from heaven, or the Spirit, which had been offered to the "children" of Israel from the time of Moses.

Not only in "your" book. That's a common view.

My main argument in regard to the Canaanite woman episode is that the mainstream NT scholars are no better than the Apologists for the Faith, since they still continue to slander the Jewish-Christian disciples of Jesus, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Yours,

Yuri.

davidH

Yuri,

Have you ever considered the possibility that Jesus answer: I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. was not intended for the disciples but rather for the women in question?

Because isn't it interesting that straight after Jesus says this, the women came and knelt before him - as if in final pleading?

I would wonder if you had ever considered that. The Bible records what Jesus says - if Jesus did indeed say this - as I believe he did, then to me i see him saying it for the benefit of the women - so that she would understand why he was not responding to her - the way he had responded to so many others.

Does this not seem reasonable to you? That Jesus would use this as a way of explaining why he 'answered her not a word' until this moment?
Maybe he used it as a test of her faith - for she was not afraid to keep following him, then she kneels down and begs when she hears Jesus saying this.

Just thought I would put that in.
Though I do see your point that if he was talking to the disciples it is a very strange thing to say, so I see him saying it for the benefit of the woman.
I am interested in the work you have done in finding the different interpretations of the Hebrew. Have you found what the oldest available passage says? Because that will be in the most likelyhood the most accurate.

One more thing Yuri, I am interested that you see the passages in Genesis about the creation as 2 separate accounts.

I see no contradiction at all - to me the passages in chapter 2 are just elaborating on the creation of man from the overall creation week. Adding detail to it - like a supplement.

For example we are told that God created man (a generic term) male and female (1:27), but this doesn't mean that the first creature was a male-female combination - the details of their creation are explained in chpt 2 and v5 adds more detail to the creation of the vegetation on the third day.

It must also be mentioned here that the words used in v5 refer to the kind of plants that need cultivation, not to all kinds of green plants. Plants that required such cultivation either didn't appear until when adam was created and could then cultivate them, or they appeared but did not grow until adam was created.
I quote from Leupold:


Ge 2:5 And every plant <siyach> of the field <sadeh> before <terem> it was in the earth <'erets>, and every herb <`eseb> of the field <sadeh> before <terem> it grew <tsamach>: for <kiy> the LORD <Y@hovah> God <'elohiym> had not <lo'> caused it to rain <matar> upon the earth <'erets>, and there was not <'ayin> a man <'adam> to till <`abad> the ground <'adamah>.

This is a literal translation showing the Hebrew for verse 5. The plants refer to cultivative ones.

I'm not sure if these were the contradictions you see, but if there are others in this account I would be interested to know.

By the way Yuri - as a Biblical scholar, I would like to know whether you see a contradiction between the account of Jesus appearing to the disciples in Luke 24v 33, 36 and then between the account of John were he says that Thomas was not present.
Some argue that Luke says the eleven were present whereas John says Thomas was absent.
I'd like a quick opinion on that - thanks.
Dave

Volker.Doormann

Hi Yuri,

You do write a lot about contradictions in the bible. But I think this are only contradictions, if one is adjusting this stuff on a reference of rational logic or his own imagination of the meaning. But if the stories are not to be grasp with logic or a fixed reference of morality, then I think, it could be, that there are not really contradictions to criticize.
In my understanding the Gospels are created myths as a form of literature without any historic base containing hidden spiritual meanings to spiritual seekers, as many other stories in the Pentateuch of the OT. It is written explicit in the Gospels that the teachings of the figure Jesus are not for those, who do not understand parables. From this it is to be recognized as parable - without a contradiction - , that the figure Jesus is only acting on souls, who are interested in spiritual knowledge and spiritual freedom, but not on physical illness of persons. It is the spiritual blindness, not a physical blindness, which was meant also in the gospels. The figure Jesus in that Gospels is not interested in repairing ill physical bodies or ill physical brains, and he has stated this here with his sentence: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”. Israel is the spiritual home of the souls, now running blind through the historical world, like sheeps, from them we know, that if one sheep runs in the ditch, all other are do following. This, his rejection to people, who have their bondage in the secular world of father, mother, brother, or possession in hardware, does show that. In that moment, the woman gives to recognize to Jesus, that she has understood the true interpretation about the children’s bread - and she said: “Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.” - she was interested in ‘spiritual food’ hearing some wise words of truth from him, the figure Jesus does welcome her. There was never a social work from that figure Jesus, except that one case he has given some money and an order to help an physical ill man to recover. I think, there are only contradictions between mistaken imaginations of the figure Jesus, as a healer of ill and dead bodies and the given parable, but this is not to be addressed to the gospels, it is to be addressed to him, who has own imaginations, which does not match with the parables in that Gospels.

Best

Volker

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, David, what you're suggesting is simply yet another way to harmonise away this apparent contradiction. And yet, your suggestion goes against the natural reading of this text.

Quote:

I would wonder if you had ever considered that. The Bible records what Jesus says - if Jesus did indeed say this - as I believe he did, then to me i see him saying it for the benefit of the women - so that she would understand why he was not responding to her - the way he had responded to so many others. Does this not seem reasonable to you? That Jesus would use this as a way of explaining why he 'answered her not a word' until this moment? Maybe he used it as a test of her faith - for she was not afraid to keep following him, then she kneels down and begs when she hears Jesus saying this. Just thought I would put that in.

What Jesus says, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel", is not a nice thing to say. So why do you think that he said this "for the benefit of the women"?

In my view, these exclusionist-sounding words of Jesus expressed the views of the Jerusalem branch of Jewish-Christianity -- which produced the earliest Jewish-Christian version of Mt. As opposed to the more inclusionist views of the diaspora Jewish-Christians -- the authors of Lk.

Quote:

Though I do see your point that if he was talking to the disciples it is a very strange thing to say, so I see him saying it for the benefit of the woman. I am interested in the work you have done in finding the different interpretations of the Hebrew. Have you found what the oldest available passage says? Because that will be in the most likelyhood the most accurate.

You can see this passage according to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew on my webpage (I already provided the link).

Quote:

One more thing Yuri, I am interested that you see the passages in Genesis about the creation as 2 separate accounts. I see no contradiction at all - to me the passages in chapter 2 are just elaborating on the creation of man from the overall creation week. Adding detail to it - like a supplement. For example we are told that God created man (a generic term) male and female (1:27), but this doesn't mean that the first creature was a male-female combination - the details of their creation are explained in chpt 2 and v5 adds more detail to the creation of the vegetation on the third day. It must also be mentioned here that the words used in v5 refer to the kind of plants that need cultivation, not to all kinds of green plants. Plants that required such cultivation either didn't appear until when adam was created and could then cultivate them, or they appeared but did not grow until adam was created. I quote from Leupold: Ge 2:5 And every plant <siyach> of the field <sadeh> before <terem> it was in the earth <'erets>, and every herb <`eseb> of the field <sadeh> before <terem> it grew <tsamach>: for <kiy> the LORD <Y@hovah> God <'elohiym> had not <lo'> caused it to rain <matar> upon the earth <'erets>, and there was not <'ayin> a man <'adam> to till <`abad> the ground <'adamah>. This is a literal translation showing the Hebrew for verse 5. The plants refer to cultivative ones. I'm not sure if these were the contradictions you see, but if there are others in this account I would be interested to know.

This story about Eve being created from "Adam's side (or rib)" just sounds to me like a later patriarchal addition. And, in case you didn't know, there's a bit of a parallel there in the Greek myth of Athena being created from... Zeus' head??? This is widely seen as a late patriarchal myth.

Of course most people above the age of 5 know where the children normally come from, and it's not from either man's side or head.

There's no doubt that, in ancient times, women played a much larger role in society, as well as in religious life. So it seems to me like the patriarchal forces, as they were gathering more power after 1000 BCE, were also changing the official mythology accordingly.

Quote:

By the way Yuri - as a Biblical scholar, I would like to know whether you see a contradiction between the account of Jesus appearing to the disciples in Luke 24v 33, 36 and then between the account of John were he says that Thomas was not present. Some argue that Luke says the eleven were present whereas John says Thomas was absent. I'd like a quick opinion on that - thanks. Dave

This is really a complicated subject, because this takes us to the problem of who Judas was, and whether or not he even existed. Quite a few scholars think that Judas was a late anti-Judaic invention.

There are great many other contradictions in the Passion narrative between the 4 gospels. So I don't think there's any simple answer to this problem that you're bringing up.

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear Volker,

In my analysis, I followed the most natural reading of the text. So this is where I started from. OTOH, your analysis seems to rely on a rather obscure interpretation of the text.

Quote:

But if the stories are not to be grasp with logic or a fixed reference of morality,

Why not?

Quote:

then I think, it could be, that there are not really contradictions to criticize.

Yes, I agree, if you ignore the natural, straightforward reading of this text -- or of any text -- then all sorts of conclusions can be drawn from any text. But this would not be a scientific study of history.

Quote:

In my understanding the Gospels are created myths as a form of literature without any historic base containing hidden spiritual meanings to spiritual seekers, as many other stories in the Pentateuch of the OT.

If you start your analysis with such assumptions, then I suspect that your conclusions will agree with your assumptions.

Quote:

It is written explicit in the Gospels that the teachings of the figure Jesus are not for those, who do not understand parables.

You obviously misunderstand the Bible. In fact, the teachings of the figure Jesus are for everyone.

Quote:

From this it is to be recognized as parable - without a contradiction - , that the figure Jesus is only acting on souls, who are interested in spiritual knowledge and spiritual freedom, but not on physical illness of persons. It is the spiritual blindness, not a physical blindness, which was meant also in the gospels. The figure Jesus in that Gospels is not interested in repairing ill physical bodies or ill physical brains, and he has stated this here with his sentence: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”. Israel is the spiritual home of the souls, now running blind through the historical world, like sheeps, from them we know, that if one sheep runs in the ditch, all other are do following. This, his rejection to people, who have their bondage in the secular world of father, mother, brother, or possession in hardware, does show that. In that moment, the woman gives to recognize to Jesus, that she has understood the true interpretation about the children’s bread - and she said: “Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.” - she was interested in ‘spiritual food’ hearing some wise words of truth from him, the figure Jesus does welcome her. There was never a social work from that figure Jesus, except that one case he has given some money and an order to help an physical ill man to recover. I think, there are only contradictions between mistaken imaginations of the figure Jesus, as a healer of ill and dead bodies and the given parable, but this is not to be addressed to the gospels, it is to be addressed to him, who has own imaginations, which does not match with the parables in that Gospels. Best Volker

Well, as I say, if you start your analysis with a set of assumptions that you find pleasing, then it's very likely that your conclusions will tend to agree with your assumptions. In any case, it doesn't seem like your particular reading of this text will be shared by so many people.

Regards,

Yuri.

doc58

Yuri,
I found your initial post most interesting.
I am not familiar with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew or the Magdalene gospel. I assume your website explains these?

I have been both an apologist and secularist so I can speak from both viewpoints.
As an inerrantist and apologist, the necessity was to neatly and surely explain every contradiction. Why? Because the emotional, spiritual, and eternal stakes were so high. Doubting threatened everything I was raised to believe. Doubting meant that I could be literally tortured for eternity. Doubting was to shake the foundations of my existence. Apologetics protected my emotional stability and spiritual security.

To then become an secularist swings the emotions to the other side. It is hard to read the Josh McDowells of the world without screaming. The freedom found in finally releasing the chains of dogmatism is something that naturally you want to defend. It is hard not to see the Bible as something to attack.

To view the Bible principally as an historian / anthropologist must be liberating and relaxing. No hidden agenda necessary. The stakes are not high. It is not necessary to be "right" all the time.
I wonder if it can be a progression- apologist to secularist to historian.

Do you do your research and writings out of intellectual curiosity and because it simply interests you?

Volker.Doormann

In my analysis, I followed the most natural reading of the text. So this is where I started from.

Hi Yuri,
as I have argued, this could be an error, because in Luke it is written: "And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

OTOH, your analysis seems to rely on a rather obscure interpretation of the text.

I think not.
V: "But if the stories are not to be grasp with logic or a fixed reference of morality."

Why not?

Logic is only helpful in rational functions. But dimensions as love, harmony or confidence is not to be grasp with logic. Morality depends on time.
V: "then I think, it could be, that there are not really contradictions to criticize."

Yes, I agree, if you ignore the natural, straightforward reading of this text -- or of any text -- then all sorts of conclusions can be drawn from any text. But this would not be a scientific study of history.

Correct. But if a scientific study of history doesn't help to grasp the hidden meaning of announced (!) parables, and it does only conclude contradictions and further Questions, 'What did they mean?' - knowing Jesus has said, that one must first solve the parables - it seems to me, that this practice is scientifically recognizable not efficient.

V:"It is written explicit in the Gospels that the teachings of the figure Jesus are not for those, who do not understand parables. "

You obviously misunderstand the Bible. In fact, the teachings of the figure Jesus are for everyone.

I think there is no big misunderstanding about the fact in Luke: "And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

Thank you, Yuri

Volker

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thank you for your reply, Doc.

Your reply is the only one that I got, really, that addressed the main issue of my post. You know, I posted the same article in Usenet, and got tons of replies, but hardly any of them focused on what I really meant to say. Instead, the whole thing mostly degenerated into the usual slinging matches about contradictions.

But what I'm pleading for is for people to go beyond the simple fact that there's a contradiction there, and ask how it can be explained from a rational, historical point of view. OTOH, those who refuse to admit that the contradictions are there really deserve our pity much more than our condemnation.

Yes, at great lengths.

Quote:

I have been both an apologist and secularist so I can speak from both viewpoints. As an inerrantist and apologist, the necessity was to neatly and surely explain every contradiction. Why? Because the emotional, spiritual, and eternal stakes were so high. Doubting threatened everything I was raised to believe. Doubting meant that I could be literally tortured for eternity. Doubting was to shake the foundations of my existence. Apologetics protected my emotional stability and spiritual security. To then become an secularist swings the emotions to the other side. It is hard to read the Josh McDowells of the world without screaming. The freedom found in finally releasing the chains of dogmatism is something that naturally you want to defend. It is hard not to see the Bible as something to attack.

Yes, your unique perspective really seems to give you an opportunity to see things more objectively than most others do.

Quote:

To view the Bible principally as an historian / anthropologist must be liberating and relaxing. No hidden agenda necessary.

Yes, but while, indeed, no hidden agenda is "necessary", still, it doesn't mean that everyone who describes him/herself as a biblical historian is really lacking such an agenda. In my experience, it's actually the other way around...

If one is charitable, one can describe these agendas in Kuhnian terms (Thomas Kuhn) as practising "normal science". In such a case, our mainstream NT scholars are all marching in step, and merrily disregarding all evidence to the contrary simply because this is how they had been taught in grad school. They are simply not thinking for themselves, so they disregard all evidence to the contrary, and "see" only what they want to see.

But, less charitably, the NT profession is a preserve of bigots who are simply biased against Jewish-Christianity. So this is why they still disregard and marginalise the Jewish-Christian sources like the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the Magdalene Gospel.

Or else, they are simply the hidden apologists, like I said in my original post. Should we now call them the "embedded apologists"?

Quote:

The stakes are not high. It is not necessary to be "right" all the time.

Well, you're not now talking about our mainstream NT scholars, are you?

Quote:

I wonder if it can be a progression- apologist to secularist to historian.

You know, now I think that such a progression is actually the one that supplies the best perspective on things. For example, I love reading stuff by Robert Price, who came from exactly this perspective. He's IMHO one of the few really honest biblical scholars today. He may not always be correct, but he certainly tries to be objective, and open to new ideas.

Quote:

Do you do your research and writings out of intellectual curiosity and because it simply interests you?

Well, my own life story really doesn't fall into any typical and familiar category. My family wasn't particularly religious, and I came to biblical studies purely because of my own interest. My early interests were in philosophy and languages, and I got my undergrad degree in this area. But, from the earliest age, I've always loved history, and read lots of books about it. I originally learned Greek, years ago, so I could read Plato in his own words!

My interest in biblical studies really developed because of my previous interest in history and mythology. My teachers in the area of mythology (thorough their books) were Joseph Campbell and Robert Graves, and other such great generalists. And I also still keep doing other kinds of history, such as ancient American history (see my webpage; there's another black hole of scholarship for you, where objectivity is very hard to come by).

But recently, I've been mostly concentrating on the study of Christian gospels, and I think that my discoveries in this area will eventually be seen as quite significant.

All the best,

Yuri.