Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, everyone!

In my view, the conventional dating of P52 is quite simply fraudulent. And I see this whole P52 story as one of the best indications of just how dishonest NT scholarship is.

For more details,

THE RYLANDS PAPYRUS FRAUD

by Yuri Kuchinsky

http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/rylands.htm

Cheers,

Yuri.

Haran

Yuri, you have some interesting and challenging information. I would like to see some of it addressed more thoroughly by someone more knowledgable in textual criticism than myself.

On your website you mention being banned from various scholarly websites (or at least the TC-List). I remember your posts there and in other places. I don't think it was necessarily your views that got you banned but the rhetoric you use. Nobody likes being called dishonest, yet you seemingly label all modern NT textual critics this way. You may feel this way, but I doubt that this is true (at least for the majority of them).

Anyway, I would be curious to know a little more about the major differences that you see in the Syriac Aramaic versions. What sources would you recommend for further reading on the subject?

Haran

A brief, humorous aside:

I had never heard of Dr. Udo Schnelle before CX began mentioning his work quite a while back.

Anyway, I decided to do a google search on Dr. Schnelle, which turned up his website. Since it was in German, which I don't read very well, I clicked google's translate option and went on to his page.

Lo and behold, in big, bold letters were:

Professor Dr. Udo fast one

CX, are you just pulling a "fast one" on us with this scholar?! He's not real, is he?!

Just kidding...I shortly realized that not-so-bright translation program had translated Dr. Udo fast one's last name. Ha! We need better translation programs!

Dr. Udo fast one

Seriously, though, CX (or others), I had not heard of this scholar until you mentioned him quite a while back. Perhaps I have just missed references to his work in my studies. Is he a relative new-comer or has he been around a while? Are there any well-known scholars that refer to his work? Are there any critiques of his work? Thanks...

Vinnie

Every so often someone comes in here trumpeting 25,000 manuscripts not really knowing what they are talking about about. This is a common view of many apologists though. My comment was more for those types of people than those like yourself. Especially since you tend to agree with the Metzger and Brown citations

Yuri Kuchinsky

Thank you, Haran.

Quote:

I would like to see some of it addressed more thoroughly by someone more knowledgable in textual criticism than myself. On your website you mention being banned from various scholarly websites (or at least the TC-List). I remember your posts there and in other places. I don't think it was necessarily your views that got you banned but the rhetoric you use.

Now, Haran, please be fair.

I've been banned from two big biblical mailing lists, more recently from TC-List. And yet, in neither case, the stated reasons for my expulsion included "the rhetoric" that I used. This is only your perception of things, which happens to be in contradiction with what moderators actually said.

For example, the stated reason for my expulsion from TC-List was because I was expressing some doubts. And I'm actually _proud_ to be expelled from there for expressing doubts. Because this tends to brand this whole forum as an intolerant and highly bigoted place.

Quote:

Nobody likes being called dishonest, yet you seemingly label all modern NT textual critics this way. You may feel this way, but I doubt that this is true (at least for the majority of them).

No, I don't think that all modern NT textual critics are dishonest. You've mischaracterized my position. The whole thing is a lot more complex.

You ask above about what someone more knowledgeable in textual criticism than yourself might have said about all the new evidence that I've uncovered. Well, the answer is quite simple; they say nothing. Or, at least, when posted to professional forums, typical response to my new evidence was silence. (If not silence, the next most common response is a hostile barrage of petty nit-picks -- while avoiding all big issues. If you want to see some of this, check out the recent discussion on the Hugoye-List, for example,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hugoye-list/messages )

The truth of the matter is that this whole area of the Diatessaron and the Old Syriac gospels is basically unknown to your typical professional NT scholar. The number of people who really know about this stuff can probably be counted on the fingers of two hands. And these individuals are so invested in their own peculiar theories and beliefs that any new voice trying to say something different is almost automatically ignored or resented.

So your typical biblical professional is simply afraid of this new stuff, and all too happy to see this uncomfortable new evidence silenced and dismissed.

Quote:

Anyway, I would be curious to know a little more about the major differences that you see in the Syriac Aramaic versions. What sources would you recommend for further reading on the subject?

Well, first of all, I would recommend that you read these Aramaic gospels for yourself (in translation, of course). You would be one of a small handful of people brave enough to do this. Nobody else is interested.

As to secondary literature, I really cannot recommend anyone 100%, especially in English. In French, there's a lot more choice. Of course my own book can give you many refs to various published sources.

All the best,

Yuri.

Tercel

I see the numbers being dealt with in this thread are purely for Greek MSS. However, I am given to understand that ancient quotations and translations also play a role in the TC of the NT. What sort of numbers are we dealing with for those? And how important is their role in comparison to the Greek MSS?

Haran

I'm attempting to be. Things like "intolerant and highly bigoted", "So your typical biblical professional is simply afraid of this new stuff", "dishonest", etc., it comes across as polemic and kind of harsh. 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. 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.


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)?


I just don't think this is really true. If they are afraid of anything, it's learning yet another new language!

What do you think of Matthew Black's work?

An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts

I'm interested. Are they online? I know the Peshitta is online because I have a link to it from my website.

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

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

vtran31

does amos always post such strnage stuff?

CX

Yes. Amos has his own...shall we say..."unconventional" ideas about Xianity and the NT.

CX

Actually P52 and P90 have nothing to do with it. According to the witnesses listed in NA27:

1 & 2 Timothy - not attested prior to Codex Sinaiticus
2 & 3 John - not attested prior to Codex Sinaiticus
Philemon, 2 Peter & Jude - first attested (arguably prior to Codex Sinaiticus) by P72 dated III/IV (i.e. turn of the 4th century)