Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, CX,

Recent editions of Aland's Synopsis cite D k SyS for PTWMA in Mk 15:43. All three are very important Western MSS (D = Greek Codex Bezae, k = Latin Bobbiensis MS, SyS = Old Syriac Sinaiticus). The witness of 3 such important sources make me think that PTWMA was original in Mk 15:43. (Some other refs I have also indicate that the same reading is also found in some ancient Georgian MSS.)

It was corrected (independently?) by 4 very early scribes in 4 different corners of the world? And by no other scribes? This seems extremely unlikely.

Also, I said that this case is doubtful primarily because these two words (PTWMA and SWMA) can be easily confused in various translations. In my research, I usually compare many different translations, and not just examine the meaning of a word in Greek.

No, I'm not a proponent of the Griesbach Hypothesis. In fact, I see the main Synoptic hypotheses such as Griesbach and 2-Source as way too simplistic. They clearly cannot account for all the Synoptic evidence on hand. So I see various Multi-Stage hypotheses as far more realistic. According to such theories, there were many stages in the editing of the gospels, and a lot of cross-pollination between various gospels at various times.

But, as I say, I'm not insisting that my solution to this puzzle of Mk 15:43 has got to be correct. This is quite a difficult problem, and the final answer on this may never be known with certainty.

And of course I agree with you that our ultimate goal should be to arrive at the most plausible and rational conclusion. I'm still working on it... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

As to the "academic conspiracies", it certainly makes me wonder why those Ancient Old Syriac Aramaic gospels have been so neglected by NT scholars ever since they've been published a century ago. Their last edition came out in 1910! (Although this year they've finally been reissued by Wilson.) So these are as early as any Greek MSS, and they are written in the language of Jesus, or very close to it. These texts obviously have a lot of primitive stuff in them, that is not found in any Greek MSS.

In my view, 20th century Anglo-German scholarship is mostly interested in Jesus the Greek. There seems to be an awful lot of anti-semitism in there. Although things are somewhat better in France and Holland. It's mostly because of my interest in the Old Syriac gospels that I was expelled from TC-List recently.

All the best,

Yuri.

CX

Thanks for the references. I guess I just have to ask why anyone would change PTWMA in 15:43 and not change it in 15:45 leaving an inconsistent reading. The other way round just seems more plausible, but of course this question is probably ultimately unresolvable to any degree of certainty.

I'd say the sample size is too small to make a determination.

Perhaps, but one can go overboard speculating about various intermediate steps.

As far as I know there are only 2 MSS referred to as "The Old Syriac", Sinaiticus and Curetonian. SYs dates to late fourth century and Curetonian dates to fifth century. I suspect they are of little interest to scholars because of the wealth of earlier Alexandrian MSS, because they are difficult to read (SYs appears to have been overwritten in the 8th century), because they contain the same types of paraphrases, insertions and deletions as the "wilder" D though not to the same degree and because the NT was clearly written in Greek so any "version" regardless of it being in Syriac (as opposed to Coptic or Latin) is of less probative value because it represents a translation of the original text with all the attendant interpretation and potential for translational bias as any translation. Why, in your opinion, should we consider a later translation to be of more value than an earlier MSS in the original language?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, CX,

I don't quite understand what you mean by "the sample size" here.

Well, and I'm saying that the mainstream 2-Source hypothesis had already gone overboard long ago. There's just too much hard evidence that happens to contradicts it.

There's really nothing substantial there with your objections.

1. Alexandrian MSS are not "earlier". In fact, the Old Syriac MSS are just as early as the Alexandrian ones. (The Egyptian Papyri evidence is a separate subject, and I've dealt with this already in another thread.)

2. That they are "difficult to read" is completely irrelevant, and is a logical fallacy. Just because something is difficult to do, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.

3. That they agree with D is actually a _good_ thing! What I'm saying is that the Western (Syro-Latin) text is older than the Alexandrian. So the more agreement there's within the Syro-Latin text, the better.

4. As to calling the Syro-Latin text "wild" -- this is simply a pejorative comment that the scholars like to use; they are just demonstrating their prejudice thereby.

5. The NT was not so clearly all "written in Greek". There are numerous doubts about at least some parts of it.

And so on...

The real picture is far more complex that the comic-book version that is being peddled today by the academic NT hacks. Check out my webpage for more details, and in particular about the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

All the best,

Yuri.

CX

Hmmm...I'm afraid I don't recall your arguments regarding the early papyri. Perhaps you could restate in this thread. It seems to me that we have a number of early MSS (46 prior to the 4th century) which mostly agree with Codex Sinaiticus. I'd say you'd have to demonstrate why these are not exemplars of the Alexandrian family in order to discount this evidence

Not irrelevant. The fact that SYs, for example, was overwritten, affects it's probabative value since we can't be sure what the original said. Certainly such texts still deserve scrutiny, but it does affect their value.

Objection your honor! Presenting facts not established in evidence.

So you dispute that D shows evidence of being highly paraphrastic, containing harmonization etc.? Please elaborate.


Well certainly the Gospels give evidence of being written in Greek. If you wish to rebutt this point please do.

&lt;moderator hat on&gt;
Please stick to the issues and avoid hyperbole and ad hominem. Thanks.
&lt;/moderator hat off&gt;


Actually I'm familiar with your website and HMt. The problem I have is that we are forced to rely on 14th and 15th century MSS copies of a 13th century translation contained in Shem Tob's polemic and we have no MSS attestation for his source or sources. If you'd like to begin another thread discussing Shem Tob please do.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, CX,

I'm glad that you're interested in these text-critical issues. I think there's a lot there that our mainstream scholars prefer to avoid and/or to cover up. These are all very big issues, and one can almost start a separate thread for each of these items. You're welcome to begin doing so at any time, if you feel like it.

Well, to make the long story short, the 3c Egyptian Papyri mostly agree with the 4c Egyptian text (Codex Sinaiticus). So what's so unusual about that?

As I say, on my theory, the Alexandrian Egyptian text originated ca 180-250 CE in Egypt. So the fact that most of the Egyptian Papyri agree with this is not surprising in any way.

As it's stated specifically by Vaganay and Amphoux, who are supporters of the Western text, despite all the best efforts of our learned Textual Critics, still, "... there is a stumbling block that remains, that is the history of the text before AD 200." (Vaganay and Amphoux, INTRODUCTION TO NT TEXTUAL CRITICISM, Cambridge, 1991, p. 168)

So this is all that I'm saying. The truth of the matter is that, so far, the Egyptian Papyri haven't really shed much light on what's been happening textually before 200 CE.

Now, as to palimpsests being "difficult to read", some of the big Alexandrian texts are also palimpsests. Such as e.g. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. And yet I never see anyone complaining that it's so difficult to read. So this looks like double standard to me...

As to the following exchange,

Sorry, but no new facts have been presented. I'm just trying to explain to you why your position is wrong. (I merely expressed my opinion that the Syro-Latin text is older than the Alexandrian.)

Yes, some scholars describe Syro-Latin texts as "highly paraphrastic, containing harmonization etc.". But why should any such features be seen, necessarily, as a sign of lateness? The arguments would have to be made for some specific passages, and then we'll have to see if these features are really late.

But I think that it's you now who's making such a claim. So the onus is on you in so far as presenting evidence.

But how can it be an "ad hominem argument" if no individual has been named specifically?

And as to Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew, all arguments against this text break down soon enough when one sees a massive amount of (often unique) close textual agreements between Shem-Tob's Matthew and the ancient Old Syriac Matthew. So it looks like this textual tradition does go to ancient times, after all.

All the best.

Yuri.

CX

TC is about my favorite nonprofessional subject (I'm a computer scientist and an MBA student so most of my reading relates to those fields) In any case you certainly raise some good points which I unfortunately don't have the time to properly address presently. I'm off on holiday in the wilds of the American Midwest and when I get back school starts.

To be honest I don't know a lot about the Western text tradition. I am somewhat attached to NA27 which is mostly an Alexandrian text. My attachment is largely a result of my study of Koine. NA27 is the text I have used and am familiar with. Can you recommend a good text on the Western tradition? Preferrably something in print rather than online.

Vis-a-vis Shem Tob, can you cite the agreements you find compelling? I have a hard time accepting such a late text which is so divergent from the mainstream as valuable. This is mostly bias on my part I suppose, but the arguments I've read in favor of HMt don't seem terribly compelling.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, CX,

The book that I've already cited (Vaganay and Amphoux, INTRODUCTION TO NT TEXTUAL CRITICISM, Cambridge, 1991) will give you the basic facts about the Western text. They critique the Alexandrian priority dogma pretty thoroughly. But I don't think that Vaganay and Amphoux really offer much in the way of a positive solution as to what were the earliest texts.

The biggest problem with the Western text, of course, is that it's so polymorphous. Often, there are quite a few versions of the same passage to choose from, so this can get pretty confusing. So Western text supporters, who are especially strong in France, are often divided among themselves. For example, some think that Bezae represents the original gospel texts, although I don't agree with them. Some favour the Old Syriac texts, and the Aramaic priority, etc.

So, basically, the way things are now, there are still a lot more questions than answers. If I may be forgiven some blatant self-promotion, why don't you read my own book? I deal with many of these issues there in some detail.

Well, I don't think this problem is really all that complicated as it's made out to be. In a way, myself, I'm currently reassessing the work that Howard did on this text, and I think I'm beginning to disagree with him about a few issues. I don't quite think that he makes the case for HMt as strongly as it could have been made.

But, in any case, in his book (p. 194, 1995) he does supply 14 examples where Shem-Tob's Matthew agrees with the ancient Old Syriac Mt against all other Matthean witnesses. And I'm sure these cases can be multiplied, because he could have easily made these 14 into 140. In other words, there's a whole multitude of such agreements -- often unique agreements -- with the ancient versions of Mt. So if this is not solid evidence, what can be?

All the best,

Yuri.

slept2long

I want to thank everyone here for posting. I must admit I am in way over my head with this topic but
I did learn a few things reading your posts. One question I still have is "is there an earliest/most acccurate portrayal(sp?) of the Bible from original language to english?" I am hoping to look at it in the original form to truly see what there is in it with regard to.......

Slept2long

David Conklin

The more modern the translation the more likely it uses the best mss available. You might try the computer program BibleWorks for instance. This would allow you to read a number of translations simultaneously and to check the underlying Hebrew and/or Greek as well. You should also get Metzger's Textual Commentary so you can see why the experts in the field went with one type of mss over another in their choice of wording and yet, say, in the next verse flipped it around. For more info ab't the NT you can try Metzger's The Text of the New Testament.

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: David Conklin ]</p>