did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)

Religions > Bible > did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 6

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Yuri Kuchinsky"
Date:	20 Jan 2004 05:45:29 PM
Object:	did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)

DID JESUS TELL A LIE? (Jn 7:8)
by Yuri Kuchinsky
Greetings, all,
This is a most peculiar case. If we follow the traditional KJV, based
on Byzantine Greek text, this passage presents no interpretative
problems whatsoever.
But if we examine the modern translations, such as the RSV, NRSV, NASB
(the Gideons Bible), ASV, and ESV, it looks like they all make
Jesus... speak a lie! Indeed, all these versions have Jesus saying he
was not going up to the feast of Tabernacles, and then he does go up
to the feast, in any case.
So here's how this passage goes according to our mainstream Revised
Standard Version, for example. This is what Jesus says to his
brothers, who were preparing to go to Jerusalem,
(John 7:8 RSV) Go to the feast yourselves; I am NOT GOING up
to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."
(9) So saying, he remained in Galilee.
(10) But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he
also went up, not publicly but in private.
So what is going on here? It sure looks like our modern biblical
scholars, who came up with this "updated" rendering, want to accuse
the Lord of lying!
On the other hand, the traditional text has the following in verse 8,
"I am NOT YET going up to this feast"
So, according to the traditional Byzantine/Majority text, Jesus says
truthfully that he wants to delay his journey to Jerusalem, and does
accordingly.
Well, looking at our oldest Greek manuscripts, the basic fact is that
they are badly divided here. Some of them, just like the Byzantine
family, use the word hOUPO (not yet) in this passage, while plenty of
others use the negative OUK (not).
So here's how the textual evidence is spread in this case.
http://bible.ovc.edu/tc/lay09jhn.htm
John 7:8:
TEXT: "I am not [OUK] going up to this feast"
EVIDENCE: S D K Pi 1241 most lat vg syr(c,s)
most cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIVn NEB TEV
RANK: C
NOTES: "I am not yet [hOUPO] going up to this feast"
EVIDENCE: p66 p75 B L T W X Delta Theta
Psi 0180 f1 f13 28 700 892 1010 Byz Lect two
lat syr(p,h,pal) one cop(north) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn RSVn NASVn NIV NEBn TEVn
So, as can be seen above, it looks like the divisions go all across
our major text types. Both the Alexandrian and the "Western" witnesses
are split; as a result the decision of the UBS Editorial Committee is
ranked as "C" in this case. This means that, quoting from the
Introduction to the UBS edition, "there is considerable degree of
doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior
reading". In other words, in making this decision, the scholars were
not really so sure about this case, and admitted it... (This Editorial
Committee is an elite group of textual critics who actually determine
how the standard gospel text should read in Greek.)
And yet, the rank-and-file Christians who are studying their Bibles
would not really know about such technicalities. They just read the
main text of John, as printed in their Gideons Bible, and see that
Jesus deceived his relatives.
This passage has of course created quite an industry of interpretation
over the centuries, and especially since the publication of these
"modern" translations, that revised the traditional reading. And,
needless to say, the atheist critics of Christianity were not slow to
note this revised text, and to use it to their own advantage. Here,
for example, is a passage from one such critic, Douglas E. Krueger
(WHAT IS ATHEISM? A SHORT INTRODUCTION, Prometheus Books, 1998), who
wishes to stress that "the bible contains contradictory ethical views"
throughout its pages, since it portrays Jesus as a liar.
[quote]
What Is Atheism Review
http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/krueger_atheism.htm
"Having been invited to go to the Feast of
the Tabernacles in Jerusalem, he [Jesus] told his
followers, 'You go up to this feast. I am
not going up to this feast, for my time has
not yet fully come' (John 7:8 [NKJ]). But
after his followers left Jesus went up to
the feast 'not openly, but as it were, in
secret' (John 7:10). This caused people
there to complain about Jesus and say that
he 'deceives the people' (John 7:12),
which, according to the bible, was true."
[unquote]
And then, Krueger continues with a summary of mainstream text critical
arguments in support of the "revised" reading, although he obviously
doesn't quite understand the textual situation for this passage, and
what the early manuscripts really say here (I underlined the
problematic parts below)... It looks like our modern Textual Wizards
got him all confused! Oh, well...
[quote]
"Note that some versions of the bible insert
the word 'yet' between 'not' and 'going' in
John 7:8 to suggest that Jesus was
actually saying that he was 'not yet going'
to the feast, with the possibility that he
would go later. The word 'yet' was added
by a copyist _sometime long after the
writing of John_ to try to make it seem that
Jesus was not lying. The word is _missing
from early manuscripts of the book_, so
scholars know that it does not belong
there. Some of the more scholarly
versions of the bible will concede this in a
footnote. Clearly, Jesus was not always
honest."
[unquote]
There's no evidence, of course, that the word 'yet' was added by a
copyist "sometime long after the writing of John". And this word is
certainly _not_ "missing from early manuscripts of the book", as we
shall soon see in more detail.
In actual fact, many of the manuscripts that the mainstream scholars
see as the earliest -- both the Alexandrian and the Western -- do
contain the "not yet" reading. Only the Byzantine text -- which is the
text of the overwhelming majority of our old Greek MSS -- is fully
consistent for this passage.
THE SPLIT IN THE ALEXANDRIAN FAMILY
Among the Alexandrian witnesses, even the Vaticanus MS (abbreviated as
"B"), which was a great favourite of Westcott & Hort, these two
Fathers of modern New Testament, has hOUPO here, and thus agrees with
Byzantine text.
But especially to be noted is the witness of our oldest Egyptian
Papyri of John -- p66 (ca. 200 CE), and p75 (early 3rd century) --
because they also support the Byzantine text in this passage! And yet,
according to our modern-day textual wizards, all that is for
nothing... (They even somehow managed to confuse Mr. Krueger, who was
under the impression that this reading is not found in the earliest
MSS!)
So here's a great illustration of how our modern textual critics
really treat those oldest Papyri -- what value they are really given
in deciding upon the "correct reading" for any given passage... One
would have thought that their testimony should be considered as
decisive in a case like this, when all the other prised textual
witnesses are divided. But no, in actual fact... their testimony is
duly noted, and then discarded!
The consensus of the Editorial Committee was still against the
Byzantine text, even when it's supported by the oldest Papyri! So it
sure seems like the Papyri are only given the lip service when they
might appear useful for proving the "originality" of Alexandrian text
but, when push _really_ comes to shove, their actual contribution is
summarily dismissed without further notice...
THE SPLIT IN "WESTERN" FAMILY
As to the "Western" witnesses in this case, we can see above that two
of our Old Latin MSS (namely "f" and "q") also seem to support
Byzantine text in this passage. And there are also some other
"Western" witnesses that happen to go with the Byzantine text here,
although most of them are listed as supporting the "modern"
translations.
But do they really? Well, the actual situation within the "Western"
family is a lot more complicated than that, as I've found out on a
closer investigation, and we shall return to this later, in the Part 2
of this article. (What we will see there is that the majority of the
"Western" textual witnesses actually do not seem to be portraying
Jesus as a liar! So a good case can be made that the Editorial
Committee has actually misrepresented the evidence of many "Western"
witnesses in this case, at least to some extent...)
To sum up, it looks so far like the external attestation in this case
is hopelessly divided, or may even be seen as supporting the Byzantine
reading. So, since the Hortian philosophy seems to be to dismiss the
value of Byzantine text a priori -- "We will support any reading as
long as it's non-Byzantine!" -- the scholars of the Editorial
Committee will now appeal to the internal evidence.
UBS EDITORIAL COMMITTEE AT WORK
So let us now look at the reasoning that our modern textual scholars
will give for their puzzling decision to accuse Jesus of lying. Here
are the Comments of the Editorial Committee from the above website.
[quote]
COMMENTS: Looking past verse 9 ("he
remained in Galilee") to verse 10 ("he also went
up"), several copyists apparently changed "not"
to "not yet" to remove what they thought would
have been a lie told by Jesus. If "not yet" was
original, there would have been no reason for it
to have been changed to "not" in so many
manuscripts.
[unquote]
So this is it! According to our august Editorial Committee, "several
copyists apparently changed "not" to "not yet". But why could they not
do it the other way around, and change "not yet" to "not"? According
to our great textual authorities, "there would have been no reason"
for this... Hmm, but, Why not?
Surely they could have had a reason -- and I will suggest a few
below... But, first, let us try to go step by step, and spell out all
the unstated assumptions behind this rather terse verdict that the
Committee gives us above.
1. It is clear that the Committee considers the OUK reading as the
more difficult one, compared to the hOUPO reading, as found in the
Byzantine/Majority manuscripts.
2. Clearly, the reasoning of the Committee is that the more "difficult
reading" must have the first claim to originality.
3. They in effect challenge their opponents to produce the reasons why
the more "difficult reading" -- from their perspective -- could have
replaced an "easier reading", as found in the Byzantine/Majority text.
Well, actually, it seems to me like the first two of these points are
very doubtful.
1. Is the OUK reading really the more "difficult" one in this case? It
would depend on your theological perspective, one would think, and
we'll return to this below.
2. Should the more "difficult" reading _always_ have the first claim
to originality, really? I don't think so, and in fact... hardly anyone
else thinks so!
LECTIO DIFFICILIOR?
So it may seem like the decision of the Committee in this case has
been predetermined in advance by one of the prominent rules of modern
Textual Criticism, "lectio difficilior lectio potior" (the more
difficult reading is the more probable reading).
Well, there are two big questions that will need to be considered in
this connection.
-- How valid is this rule, in general? Can it really be used to
provide us with any secure answers in the area of biblical history?
-- Can this "lectio difficilior" rule be applied legitimately to this
particular case of John 7:8?
So let's begin with the first question. What is this "lectio
difficilior" rule all about, really, and how secure is it? This is how
it's usually stated,
"All things being equal, the most difficult reading has the
greatest claim to authenticity, since it can be demonstrated
that scribes tended to smooth out perceived rough spots, not
invent difficulties."
Well, to be sure, originally, this rule was meant to apply only to
certain types of grammatical changes commonly made by ancient scribes.
For example, if some rare Greek word had been used in the original
text, and some later scribe was unfamiliar with this word, he might
have been likely to replace it with a more familiar and "smoother"
word.
All right, in so far as these things go, such a rule _may_ have some
validity in a few isolated cases. But it can certainly never be used
mechanically to all cases where there's some perceived difficulty with
the text... Otherwise, our reconstructed "eclectic" text will have...
nothing but nonsense readings!
Imagine that... So we go around and collect all difficult and
nonsensical readings among _all_ the thousands of NT manuscripts that
we have. So we collect them all together, because they are the
"difficult readings", et voila! We have reconstructed our "new modern"
copy of the NT that consists of nothing but gibberish!
Is this really the goal of modern Textual Criticism? Of course not.
So, it's clear that this "lectio difficilior" rule can never be
applied to each and every problematic reading without some very
careful consideration. And, in fact, it can be applied legitimately
only to _a very few_ "difficult" readings, perhaps to 1 in 10, and
even less!
But don't just take my word for it; here's Dr. Vaganay, one of the
great authorities in Textual Criticism, sounding his word of caution,
"But the more difficult reading is not always the more
probably authentic. The rule does not apply, for instance, in
the case of some accidental errors . . . . But, what is worse,
we sometimes find difficult or intricate readings that are the
outcome of intentional corrections. A copyist, through
misunderstanding some passage, or through not taking the
context into account, may in all sincerity make something
obscure that he means to make plain." (as cited in Colwell,
"The Origin of the Text-types," p. 137)
So this one is a highly paradoxical rule, that must be used only with
extreme caution. But, unfortunately, in my experience, I've seen it
abused so many times by various commentators, that I would think that,
by now, the whole rule is pretty nigh useless... Because, in the
larger analysis, it seems to be doing more harm that good.
And we must be _especially_ careful when the "difficult reading" in
question might have been theologically motivated, as this reading in
John 7:8 certainly appears to be. In such a case, all bets will be
off, because it is our own private ideological preferences that will
come into play above all, in considering which reading is the more
difficult.
A THEOLOGICALLY LOADED PASSAGE
So let us now come back to that challenge that the Editorial Committee
has issued in regard to our passage of John 7:8.
As the Committee has stated, "there would have been no reason" for
scribes to change hOUPO to OUK in so many manuscripts. Well, I would
beg to differ...
What we see in this passage, really, is that the "brothers of Jesus"
tend to stand for mainstream Judaism. And furthermore, it seems like
they may even stand for Jewish-Christianity.
After all, we see that his brothers are going to Jerusalem for the
Feast of Tabernacles, so they are observant Jews. They are also said
to be rather sceptical of Jesus' power to work miracles, an attitude
that the gospels repeatedly ascribe to the Jewish critics of Jesus.
In fact, this whole story, whichever version of it we may wish
consider as the most authentic -- and there's quite a lot of
variability there among our ancient manuscripts, especially in verses
5 and 8 -- seems to be irrevocably coloured by this supposed tension
between Jesus and his "brothers". Clearly, it was so conceived right
from the beginning. It is only the _degree_ of tension, as is
evidenced by these key verses, that can be discussed and disputed, and
this is precisely where our old manuscripts disagree rather
significantly, as we shall see in Part 2 of this article.
So this story is clearly theologically loaded, any way you look at it,
and its main focus is on the attitude that Jesus shows towards the
traditional Judaism -- which is, of course, the issue of central
importance in so far as early Jewish-Christianity is concerned.
Also, at this point, we must keep in mind that the relatives of Jesus
were most likely deeply involved in the early Jewish-Christian
movement. We know from various sources, including the NT, that James,
the brother (or perhaps cousin) of Jesus, was some sort of a very
influential figure for the early Christians, and presumably especially
for the early Jewish-Christians. So this is what this whole story
really seems to be about. It's the early Jewish-Christian disputes...
So is it any wonder that there would have been some pretty early
theological interest in "adjusting" this verse 8, as the
political-theological situation kept evolving depending on time and
place?
In the early Christian centuries, Jesus' blood-relatives were known as
the "desposyni", and they were apparently seen as the persons of some
significance within the movement, and especially for various
Jewish-Christian groups then still in existence. So this is what our
early historical sources indicate.
And these "desposyni" were certainly very much around at the time when
the gospels were written.
Desposyni
http://www.dhushara.com/book/yeshua/desposyn.htm
The Testimony Of Eusebius
[quote]
Eusebius and the Early Church
http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/euseb_ch.html
III.11: After the martyrdom of JAMES and the
capture of Jerusalem which instantly followed,
there is a firm tradition that those of the apostles
and disciples of the Lord who were still alive
assembled from all parts together with those who,
_humanly speaking, were kinsmen of the Lord_ -- for
most of them were still living. Then they all
discussed together whom they should choose as a
fit person to succeed James, and voted
unanimously that SIMEON, son of the Cleophas
mentioned in the gospel narrative (John 19:25)
was a fit person to occupy the throne of the
Jerusalem church. He was, so it is said, a _cousin
of the Saviour_, for Hegesippus tells us that
Cleophas was Joseph's brother.
[unquote]
Thus, considering all these matters above, let us ask once again, Why
would have an early editor of the Gospel of John changed hOUPO to OUK
in John 7:8? Well, if there were some tensions with Jewish-Christian
groups at the time, as only seems likely, then this could have well
provided the motivation to alter this passage in such a way.
After all, assuming that the "brothers of Jesus" in John 7:5 do stand
for the Jewish-Christian groups, and assuming that there were tensions
with such groups at the time when this editor was working, then this
will provide all the explanation that one needs for such an editorial
change. The editor would have been simply retrojecting the existing
tensions back into the earthly career of Jesus...
Here's how this editor' reasoning may have gone,
"Why would Jesus need to deceive his relatives? Well, he
probably didn't trust them, so, naturally, he didn't want to
disclose to them his travel plans! So, under such conditions,
it would have been entirely justifiable, from His perspective,
to deceive these scoffing unbelievers, some of whom may have
even been in league with his Pharisee opponents!"
And so, the main purpose of this editor or editors would have been,
quite simply, to drive a wedge between Jesus and his family! To make
an effort to separate Jesus as much as possible from his own Jewish
milieu...
And there are quite a few other passages in our early manuscripts
where the same sort of an anti-Judaic editorial activity is
detectable. This one is certainly not an isolated case.
Thus, to summarise, in the cases that are theologically loaded, it
seems like the "more difficult reading" rule of TC is entirely
inapplicable. Because what is a "difficult reading" to some scholar
today, may also be an "easier reading" to someone else -- it all
depends on our private theological preconceptions, and on the
historical context -- the particular time and place where these
textual changes may have been made... And in this specific case of
John 7:8, the passage where Jesus would be more at home in his own
Jewish milieu, and fully trusted his relatives and co-operated with
them, in fact may have been a rather "difficult reading" to an
ecclesiastically oriented editor, working under the conditions of
increasing antisemitic tendencies within the Church.
CONCLUSION
It is obvious that, in a highly doubtful case such as this, where the
external evidence is seriously split, the testimony of the early
Papyri should be given the decisive weight. Thus, the Byzantine/KJV
reading in this case should be seen as superior, because it is also
supported by our earliest Papyri.
Seeing that, in this case, the early textual evidence really favours
the Byzantine/KJV reading, any attempt to use "lectio difficilior"
rule in support of the other reading, where Jesus is seen as
purposefully deceiving his relatives, is entirely without merit.
Jesus was not a liar. It is only the misguided Hortian preconceptions
of modern textual scholars that want to make him so.
The whole thing is really quite absurd... In essence, the guiding
methodology of the Editorial Committee seems to be, If anything at all
derogatory in regard to Jesus can be found _anywhere_ among the
thousands of our NT manuscripts, then clearly this must be the
earliest tradition...
Indeed, since the assumption is that nothing like this could ever
emerge at any later period of time, then let's just define all such
dubious material as belonging to the "original NT"!
These, dear friends, are the follies of modern Textual Criticism...
These scholars hide behind the cloak of learning, authority, and
objectivity but, when everything is said and done, they are really
just the babes in the woods. Their political biases are pretty
obvious, and this is what seems to pre-determine their decisions in
cases like this. They really don't care how illogical they may sound.
PART 2 (upcoming)
In the second part of this article, I will look in some more detail at
how our ancient "Western" manuscripts of John are really treating this
passage. There appears to be a serious problem with how UBS Editorial
Committee laid out for us the textual evidence above. Based on their
presentation, it may seem like all our witnesses are divided pretty
evenly into two camps, the ones featuring "not yet" vs. the others
featuring "not". But, actually, this isn't the case... There also
happens to be a very large "grey area" among various "Western"
witnesses, namely, the Old Latin and the Old Syriac, because most of
them appear to read somewhere in between these two extremes!
So this seems to provide even more basis for the view that, in the
original text of John, Jesus did not deceive his relatives.
All the best,
Yuri.
Baqqesh shalom verodpehu -- Seek peace and pursue it (Psalm 34:15)
Yuri Kuchinsky -- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -- Toronto
.

User: "Roy Mock"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	21 Jan 2004 02:48:17 PM

"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:t4jPb.490$hL2.334390339@news.nnrp.ca...

[snip]
Given that Peter lived closely with Jesus for a number years, and that he
had the chance to reflect on the integrity of the Person, have you
considered his position that "He committed no sin, neither was deceit found
in his mouth" (1 Peter 2:22)?
.

User: "Yuri Kuchinsky"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	22 Jan 2004 12:57:43 PM

"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<400ee623$0$16594$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...

"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:t4jPb.490$hL2.334390339@news.nnrp.ca...

[snip]

Given that Peter lived closely with Jesus for a number years, and that he
had the chance to reflect on the integrity of the Person, have you
considered his position that "He committed no sin, neither was deceit found
in his mouth" (1 Peter 2:22)?

Hello, Roy,
You should really direct this question to our misguided academic
biblical establishment. You should ask them, Why do they want to
accuse Jesus of lying?
So why did they reject the KJV, and the Byzantine Greek text, where
Jesus is not portrayed as a liar?
The whole thing is a massive delusion!
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
"The distressing realization is forced upon us that the "progress" of
the past hundred years has been precisely in the wrong direction --
our modern versions and critical texts are several times farther
removed from the original than are the Authorised Version (KJV) and
TR! How could such a calamity have come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering
.

User: "Frederick Weller"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	22 Jan 2004 08:24:28 PM

(Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote in message news:<2b61489c.0401221057.309304b@posting.google.com>...

Hello, Roy,

You should really direct this question to our misguided academic
biblical establishment.

And to the scribes of Syr C Syr S and of the OL MSS of John as well as
Cyril, Chrsostom etc. who also report that Jesus said "I am not going
up".
You should ask them, Why do they want to

accuse Jesus of lying?

If this is what they actually do. So far the only one who has been
lying here is Yuri in trelling us that the UBS GNT Editorial board
said something they didn't say.

So why did they reject the KJV, and the Byzantine Greek text, where
Jesus is not portrayed as a liar?

It has still not been proven that Jesus _is_ portrayed as a liar in
the texts that have Jesus say "I am not going up ...". So this
question is on the order of "have you stopped beating your wife".
But even should we assume that this _is_ the case, you should note
that this is not something that modern biblical scholars are alone in
doing. The Scribes of Syr S and Syr C and of Siniaticus, of D, of
numerous OL MSS did so too,and long before any member of the USB or
the NA GNT editorial committee were born, as did Jerome, Chrysostom,
Epiphaneus, Cyril, Porphyri and others. That Yuri insits that it's
only modern text critics who do this is just a blatant
mistrepresentation of the facts.

The whole thing is a massive delusion!

If so then the scribes of Syr C and Syr S, of D, of Siniatics , etc,
were also deluded, for as Yuri himself notes, they explicity deny in
recording the words of Jesus at Jn 7:8 as they do, that Jesus said "I
am not yet going up>all have Jesus saying "I am not going up".
Frederick
.

User: " Didymos"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	23 Jan 2004 01:08:04 PM

"Frederick Weller" <FSWeller@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:70b21bb.0401221824.105b0709@posting.google.com...

yuku@trends.ca (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote in message

news:<2b61489c.0401221057.309304b@posting.google.com>...

Hello, Roy,

You should really direct this question to our misguided academic
biblical establishment.

And to the scribes of Syr C Syr S and of the OL MSS of John as well as
Cyril, Chrsostom etc. who also report that Jesus said "I am not going
up".

Now stop this . . . bringing up facts in a debate with the
"_objective_scholar" Mr Yuri Kuchinsky, Bachelor of Arts, is grossly unfair.
He only uses generalizations and phantom texts that nobody can produce. So
I ask you, is it fair to bring up documents that really exist and can be
examined?

You should ask them, Why do they want to

accuse Jesus of lying?

Is the "_objective_scholar" Mr Yuri Kuchinsky, Bachelor of Arts, prepared to
provide a citation for this alleged utterance by the USB editorial board?

If this is what they actually do. So far the only one who has been
lying here is Yuri in trelling us that the UBS GNT Editorial board
said something they didn't say.

So why did they reject the KJV, and the Byzantine Greek text, where
Jesus is not portrayed as a liar?

Ah, the KJV (which I presume to mean the King James version) is not in
Greek. Ergo, it cannot be compared to a Greek text. Seems to me an
"_objective_scholar" like Mr Yuri Kuchinsky, Bachelor of Arts, would be
cognizant of this fact . . . And which Byzantine Greek text would he have in
mind?

It has still not been proven that Jesus _is_ portrayed as a liar in
the texts that have Jesus say "I am not going up ...". So this
question is on the order of "have you stopped beating your wife".

Aw, come on . . . didn't Dr. Goebbels use the same tactics? And are not
these tactics quite successful?

But even should we assume that this _is_ the case, you should note
that this is not something that modern biblical scholars are alone in
doing. The Scribes of Syr S and Syr C and of Siniaticus, of D, of
numerous OL MSS did so too,and long before any member of the USB or
the NA GNT editorial committee were born, as did Jerome, Chrysostom,
Epiphaneus, Cyril, Porphyri and others. That Yuri insits that it's
only modern text critics who do this is just a blatant
mistrepresentation of the facts.

The whole thing is a massive delusion!

Much like the ephemeral "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew" that the
"_objective_scholar" Mr Yuri Kuchinsky, Bachelor of Arts, refers to
constantly but can never seem to provide the location of a manuscript for .
.. .

There you go bringing up these grossly inconvenient facts again, while your
opponent is limited to his personal opinion, silly presuppositions,
misreadings, and his inability to redad the languages of the manuscripts.
Honestly, is that fair?

Frederick

User: "Yuri Kuchinsky"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	25 Jan 2004 03:01:45 PM

Roy Mock <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
: news:2b61489c.0401221057.309304b@posting.google.com...
:> "Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
: news:<400ee623$0$16594$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
:> > "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
:> > news:t4jPb.490$hL2.334390339@news.nnrp.ca...
:> > >
:> > > DID JESUS TELL A LIE? (Jn 7:8)
:> > >
:> > > by Yuri Kuchinsky
: [snip]
:>
:> You should really direct this question to our misguided academic
:> biblical establishment. You should ask them, Why do they want to
:> accuse Jesus of lying?
:>
:> So why did they reject the KJV, and the Byzantine Greek text, where
:> Jesus is not portrayed as a liar?
:>
:> The whole thing is a massive delusion!
: I see. It's the wholesale rejection of Byzantine Greek text for the
: Bible you are on about.
Among other things...
: Perhaps we have the wrong subject line.
Not really.
: I am always curious if the KJV is the Bible non-English readers must use
: than one in their own native tongue.
I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you...
What is truly important here IMHO is the underlying Greek text, rather
than how you translate it. The underlying Greek text, as used by the KJV
translators, was far superior to what our misguided biblical scholars
devised in the more recent times.
: Moreover, I am interested see if
: modern Judaism should use the KJV OT for their scriptures in lieu of
: their Tanakh.
Your understanding of these subjects doesn't seem to be all that great.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
The distressing realization is forced upon us that the "progress" of
the past hundred years has been precisely in the wrong direction --
our modern versions and critical texts are several times farther
removed from the original than are the Authorised Version (KJV) and
TR! How could such a calamity have come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering
.

User: " Didymos"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	25 Jan 2004 03:38:50 PM

"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:Z8WQb.641$085.438641710@news.nnrp.ca...

Exactly what manuscripts were used by the King James translators to produce
their English New Testament?

: Moreover, I am interested see if
: modern Judaism should use the KJV OT for their scriptures in lieu of
: their Tanakh.

Your understanding of these subjects doesn't seem to be all that great.

And that from the man who believes the Greek word spelled omicron, upsilon
[acute accent; smooth breathing mark indicating the initial dipthong is not
aspirated, i.e., no h sound is pronounced], pi, omega is transliterated into
English and prounounced houpo. Geez . . . . any Greek student in about the
second hour of class is taught breathings, dipthongs, and accents, usually
right after the alphabet.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

The distressing realization is forced upon us that the "progress" of
the past hundred years has been precisely in the wrong direction --
our modern versions and critical texts are several times farther
removed from the original than are the Authorised Version (KJV) and
TR! How could such a calamity have come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering

User: "Yuri Kuchinsky"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	21 Jan 2004 12:15:34 PM

In soc.history.ancient Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
: DID JESUS TELL A LIE? (Jn 7:8)
: This is a most peculiar case. If we follow the traditional KJV, based
: on Byzantine Greek text, this passage presents no interpretative
: problems whatsoever.
: But if we examine the modern translations, such as the RSV, NRSV, NASB
: (the Gideons Bible), ASV, and ESV, it looks like they all make
: Jesus... speak a lie! Indeed, all these versions have Jesus saying he
: was not going up to the feast of Tabernacles, and then he does go up
: to the feast, in any case.
...
: So what is going on here? It sure looks like our modern biblical
: scholars, who came up with this "updated" rendering, want to accuse
: the Lord of lying!
Hello, all,
Here's yet another Rationalist who's trying to use this passage to his
own advantage...
[quote]
The Rationalist -- "What a Difference a Word Makes!", by A. J.
Mattill, Jr.,
http://www.therationalist.eu.org/kk.php/s,2623
While textual critics discuss the correct reading, the impression has
spread far and wide that Jesus did lie. It may not be surprising that
an atheist philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), remarked,
Jesus Christ did of set purpose utter a falsehood. To use a modern
expression, Jesus lied right through his teeth. But it is shocking to
discover that some of Jesus' most loyal followers hold that Jesus lied
to his brothers. Some years ago a prominent evangelical theologian
told me that he had perjured himself in a certain situation, using
Jesus' lie as his justification.
If Jesus was indeed a liar, as many hold, then the consequences for
basic Christian beliefs are devastating. Jesus the liar is unworthy of
our heartfelt devotion and undivided loyalty. Nor as a liar can he be
our moral leader, showing us what is right and wrong.
[unquote]
So could all this be based on a misunderstanding?
Sure looks like our modern biblical scholars really don't know what
they are doing...
All the best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
For every credibility gap, there is a gullibility fill.
.

User: "Yuri Kuchinsky"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	22 Jan 2004 01:16:49 PM

It seems like some of the usual trolls are now making themselves active in
this discussion. I've already had most of them filtered for a while, but
their responses still pop up in Google Groups.
Oh, well, let them bicker and nit-pick around the edges, that's all they
can do... The evidence that I've already presented is pretty solid, and
there's a lot more to come.
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
The distressing realization is forced upon us that the "progress" of
the past hundred years has been precisely in the wrong direction --
our modern versions and critical texts are several times farther
removed from the original than are the Authorised Version (KJV) and
TR! How could such a calamity have come upon us?! -- Wilbur Pickering
.

User: "Frederick Weller"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	22 Jan 2004 06:24:09 PM

Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<BkVPb.558$U04.372317316@news.nnrp.ca>...

Showing that you don't read Greek and therefore may be incompetent to
assess the evidence is nit picking?
Showing that you don't know what the UBS comittee actually said is nit
piccking?
Showing that by your own rules for determining what is an original
reading your conclusions regarding which of the variants for Jn 7:8 is
wrong is nit picking?

... The evidence that I've already presented is pretty solid,

A fundamental misrepresentation of what the USB editorial committee
actually said about Jn 7:8 is "solid evidence"?
A conclusion that violates your own stated rules about whatconstitutes
evidence for an original reading is "solid evidence"?

and there's a lot more to come.

If it's this sort of "solid evidence", spare us.
Frederick
.

User: "Geoff Hudson"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	23 Jan 2004 07:32:43 AM

Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<t4jPb.490$hL2.334390339@news.nnrp.ca>...

DID JESUS TELL A LIE? (Jn 7:8)

In the second part of this article, I will look in some more detail at
how our ancient "Western" manuscripts of John are really treating this
passage. There appears to be a serious problem with how UBS Editorial
Committee laid out for us the textual evidence above. Based on their
presentation, it may seem like all our witnesses are divided pretty
evenly into two camps, the ones featuring "not yet" vs. the others
featuring "not". But, actually, this isn't the case... There also
happens to be a very large "grey area" among various "Western"
witnesses, namely, the Old Latin and the Old Syriac, because most of
them appear to read somewhere in between these two extremes!

So this seems to provide even more basis for the view that, in the
original text of John, Jesus did not deceive his relatives.

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri,
I am interested in the "grey area". Do any manuscripts have neither
"not yet" nor "not" so that the words attributed to J are something
like, "I AM going up to this Feast, because the right time for me HAS
come."? In the case of the NIV this would require the removal of "not
yet" from two positions where the words appear to be used somewhat
clumsily as though forced, particularly in the second position.
I would suggest that the vacillation in the use of "not" or "not yet"
are merely the ripples of extensive editorial chicanery in the related
passage about which I have had some previous thoughts.
Geoff
.

User: "Frederick Weller"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	23 Jan 2004 12:58:56 PM

(Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0401230532.2373735b@posting.google.com>...

Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<t4jPb.490$hL2.334390339@news.nnrp.ca>...

Yuri,

I am interested in the "grey area". Do any manuscripts have neither
"not yet" nor "not" ...?

No. But p66 has OUDEPW instead of OUK.
Frederick.
.

User: "Geoff Hudson"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	24 Jan 2004 04:50:46 AM

(Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0401230532.2373735b@posting.google.com>...

Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<t4jPb.490$hL2.334390339@news.nnrp.ca>...

Yuri,

I am interested in the "grey area". Do any manuscripts have neither
"not yet" nor "not" so that the words attributed to J are something
like, "I AM going up to this Feast, because the right time for me HAS
come."? In the case of the NIV this would require the removal of "not
yet" from two positions where the words appear to be used somewhat
clumsily as though forced, particularly in the second position.

I would suggest that the vacillation in the use of "not" or "not yet"
are merely the ripples of extensive editorial chicanery in the related
passage about which I have had some previous thoughts.

Geoff

The phrase of Jn.7:6, "for you any time is right" is unnatural, if not
nonsense. A natural expression would be: For you NO time is right.
It would then make sense for the previous words to be, again quite
naturally, "The right time for me HAS come". That time was a Feast
of special significance which everyone so far has totally ignored.
Geoff
.

User: "Geoff Hudson"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	27 Jan 2004 12:11:50 PM

(Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0401240250.af94b0f@posting.google.com>...

(Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0401230532.2373735b@posting.google.com>...

Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<t4jPb.490$hL2.334390339@news.nnrp.ca>...

Yuri,

I am interested in the "grey area". Do any manuscripts have neither
"not yet" nor "not" so that the words attributed to J are something
like, "I AM going up to this Feast, because the right time for me HAS
come."? In the case of the NIV this would require the removal of "not
yet" from two positions where the words appear to be used somewhat
clumsily as though forced, particularly in the second position.

I would suggest that the vacillation in the use of "not" or "not yet"
are merely the ripples of extensive editorial chicanery in the related
passage about which I have had some previous thoughts.

Geoff

So who spoke, grasshoppers? Go back to Jn. 7:1, where we have our
prophet apparently hiding himself away in Galilee of all places,
supposedly "staying away from Judea"- behaviour reminiscent of other
reluctant whingeing prophets such as Moses, Elijah and Jonah. Such
behaviour was well understood by Jewish writers who knew the dangers
of being a prophet. Suddenly, Jesus' brothers appear out of the blue
(7:3) and tell him "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that
your disciples may see the miracles you do". Now you would have
thought that the disciples of the prophet would have stayed with him
for his protection. I mean, it would have been pretty dangerous for
the prophet to have wandered off alone through hill country over a
distance of some 80 miles, travelling through hostile Samaritan
territory, and then into Galilee where there were even more hostile
cut-throats ready to deal with wanderers from Judea. No, the place
where there was real danger for the prophet was Jerusalem where the
high priests were looking out for him. Judea was a safe place �
plenty of hiding places there, all well known to the prophet and his
disciples who were no doubt with him. The prophet never went to
Galilee, he "went around" in Judea, "purposely staying away from"
Jerusalem not Judea (7:1).
Now, I would suggest that in the scroll of the prophet, the character
who appeared out of the blue and who spoke was the Spirit of God, in
keeping with the way God had traditionally dealt with a prophet. In
Jn. 7:3, you are looking at the source of the myth of Jesus' brothers
who the editors created to speak the words that originally were spoken
by the Spirit. The disciples were well aware of the signs that the
Spirit did, but those in Jerusalem were not. So the Spirit of God
said to the prophet, "You ought to leave here and go to Jerusalem, so
that the people may see the signs I do".
Geoff
.

User: "Frederick Weller"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	27 Jan 2004 04:15:09 PM

(Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0401271011.72bfbb74@posting.google.com>...

(Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0401240250.af94b0f@posting.google.com>...

(Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0401230532.2373735b@posting.google.com>...

Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<t4jPb.490$hL2.334390339@news.nnrp.ca>...

Yuri,

I am interested in the "grey area". Do any manuscripts have neither
"not yet" nor "not" so that the words attributed to J are something
like, "I AM going up to this Feast, because the right time for me HAS
come."? In the case of the NIV this would require the removal of "not
yet" from two positions where the words appear to be used somewhat
clumsily as though forced, particularly in the second position.

I would suggest that the vacillation in the use of "not" or "not yet"
are merely the ripples of extensive editorial chicanery in the related
passage about which I have had some previous thoughts.

Geoff

So who spoke, grasshoppers? Go back to Jn. 7:1, where we have our
prophet apparently hiding himself away in Galilee of all places,
supposedly "staying away from Judea"- behaviour reminiscent of other
reluctant whingeing prophets such as Moses, Elijah and Jonah. Such
behaviour was well understood by Jewish writers who knew the dangers
of being a prophet. Suddenly, Jesus' brothers appear out of the blue
(7:3) and tell him "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that
your disciples may see the miracles you do". Now you would have
thought that the disciples of the prophet would have stayed with him
for his protection. I mean, it would have been pretty dangerous for
the prophet to have wandered off alone through hill country over a
distance of some 80 miles, travelling through hostile Samaritan
territory, and then into Galilee where there were even more hostile
cut-throats ready to deal with wanderers from Judea. No, the place
where there was real danger for the prophet was Jerusalem where the
high priests were looking out for him. Judea was a safe place ?
plenty of hiding places there, all well known to the prophet and his
disciples who were no doubt with him. The prophet never went to
Galilee, he "went around" in Judea, "purposely staying away from"
Jerusalem not Judea (7:1).

Now, I would suggest that in the scroll of the prophet, the character
who appeared out of the blue and who spoke was the Spirit of God, in
keeping with the way God had traditionally dealt with a prophet. In
Jn. 7:3, you are looking at the source of the myth of Jesus' brothers
who the editors created to speak the words that originally were spoken
by the Spirit. The disciples were well aware of the signs that the
Spirit did, but those in Jerusalem were not. So the Spirit of God
said to the prophet, "You ought to leave here and go to Jerusalem, so
that the people may see the signs I do".

Geoff

So ... now we have another shift of the issue from whether or not the
Greek of the text of Jn 7:8 as we have it in either of its two major
varints is "natural" to an assertion about what the "original" text
said that, curiously, hasn't, as we would expect it would IF original,
a scintilla of textual attestation in any witness, major or minor,
versional or orignial language, or in the discussions of John by
fathers or even by the "heretics", and is based upon nothing more
than certain unsubstatiated assumptions about what "must have been the
case" given some highly questionable theological aprorii.
Great work, Geoff. Right up there with that of Jim Deardorff.
But let's assume you are right, and that the original text upon which
all other MSS of this pasage in John are ultimately based was what you
claim it was.
Please lay out for us all what Greek behind this "You ought to leave
here and go to Jerusalem, so that the people may see the signs I do"
was so that we can see whether it is any more natural that hwat you
claim is not and so that we can begin to do the text critical work on
why it was that all of our MSS of this verse got it wrong.
Frederick
.

User: "Geoff Hudson"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	28 Jan 2004 03:21:25 AM

(Frederick Weller) wrote in message news:<70b21bb.0401271415.56e10bb0@posting.google.com>...

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0401271011.72bfbb74@posting.google.com>...

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0401240250.af94b0f@posting.google.com>...

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message news:<fba079c7.0401230532.2373735b@posting.google.com>...

Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<t4jPb.490$hL2.334390339@news.nnrp.ca>...

Yuri,

I am interested in the "grey area". Do any manuscripts have neither
"not yet" nor "not" so that the words attributed to J are something
like, "I AM going up to this Feast, because the right time for me HAS
come."? In the case of the NIV this would require the removal of "not
yet" from two positions where the words appear to be used somewhat
clumsily as though forced, particularly in the second position.

I would suggest that the vacillation in the use of "not" or "not yet"
are merely the ripples of extensive editorial chicanery in the related
passage about which I have had some previous thoughts.

Geoff

So who spoke, grasshoppers? Go back to Jn. 7:1, where we have our
prophet apparently hiding himself away in Galilee of all places,
supposedly "staying away from Judea"- behaviour reminiscent of other
reluctant whingeing prophets such as Moses, Elijah and Jonah. Such
behaviour was well understood by Jewish writers who knew the dangers
of being a prophet. Suddenly, Jesus' brothers appear out of the blue
(7:3) and tell him "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that
your disciples may see the miracles you do". Now you would have
thought that the disciples of the prophet would have stayed with him
for his protection. I mean, it would have been pretty dangerous for
the prophet to have wandered off alone through hill country over a
distance of some 80 miles, travelling through hostile Samaritan
territory, and then into Galilee where there were even more hostile
cut-throats ready to deal with wanderers from Judea. No, the place
where there was real danger for the prophet was Jerusalem where the
high priests were looking out for him. Judea was a safe place ?
plenty of hiding places there, all well known to the prophet and his
disciples who were no doubt with him. The prophet never went to
Galilee, he "went around" in Judea, "purposely staying away from"
Jerusalem not Judea (7:1).

Now, I would suggest that in the scroll of the prophet, the character
who appeared out of the blue and who spoke was the Spirit of God, in
keeping with the way God had traditionally dealt with a prophet. In
Jn. 7:3, you are looking at the source of the myth of Jesus' brothers
who the editors created to speak the words that originally were spoken
by the Spirit. The disciples were well aware of the signs that the
Spirit did, but those in Jerusalem were not. So the Spirit of God
said to the prophet, "You ought to leave here and go to Jerusalem, so
that the people may see the signs I do".

Geoff

This is gobbledegook from a Greek geek.

Great work, Geoff. Right up there with that of Jim Deardorff.

Never heard of him!

But let's assume you are right, and that the original text upon which
all other MSS of this pasage in John are ultimately based was what you
claim it was.

Please lay out for us all what Greek behind this "You ought to leave
here and go to Jerusalem, so that the people may see the signs I do"
was so that we can see whether it is any more natural that hwat you
claim is not and so that we can begin to do the text critical work on
why it was that all of our MSS of this verse got it wrong.

Frederick

You can't live with the logic can you Frederick. I think what worries
the Greekies more than anything is that there just might have been
more original Jewish documents in either Aramaic or Hebrew. I believe
that a Mr Jack Kilman actually thinks along those lines, as does Yuri.
Then where would be your Greek text? Clearly the events were Jewish,
and I think that the prophet and his disciples were more literate than
is generally supposed by those such as Crossan. I would go further
and say that the prophet and his close disciples "came out of" a
particular group (not "out of" the editor's Galilee), and that that
group was known for its writing capability and it wasn't in Greek.
Geoff
.

User: " Didymos"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	29 Jan 2004 01:46:20 PM

"Geoff Hudson" <geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:fba079c7.0401280121.3e3e1278@posting.google.com...

FSWeller@yahoo.com (Frederick Weller) wrote in message

news:<70b21bb.0401271415.56e10bb0@posting.google.com>...

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message

news:<fba079c7.0401271011.72bfbb74@posting.google.com>...

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message

news:<fba079c7.0401240250.af94b0f@posting.google.com>...

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message

news:<fba079c7.0401230532.2373735b@posting.google.com>...

Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message

news:<t4jPb.490$hL2.334390339@news.nnrp.ca>...

DID JESUS TELL A LIE? (Jn 7:8)

In the second part of this article, I will look in some more

detail at

how our ancient "Western" manuscripts of John are really

treating this

passage. There appears to be a serious problem with how UBS

Editorial

Committee laid out for us the textual evidence above. Based on

their

presentation, it may seem like all our witnesses are divided

pretty

evenly into two camps, the ones featuring "not yet" vs. the

others

featuring "not". But, actually, this isn't the case... There

also

happens to be a very large "grey area" among various "Western"
witnesses, namely, the Old Latin and the Old Syriac, because

most of

them appear to read somewhere in between these two extremes!

So this seems to provide even more basis for the view that, in

the

original text of John, Jesus did not deceive his relatives.

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri,

I am interested in the "grey area". Do any manuscripts have

neither

"not yet" nor "not" so that the words attributed to J are

something

like, "I AM going up to this Feast, because the right time for me

HAS

come."? In the case of the NIV this would require the removal of

"not

yet" from two positions where the words appear to be used somewhat
clumsily as though forced, particularly in the second position.

I would suggest that the vacillation in the use of "not" or "not

yet"

are merely the ripples of extensive editorial chicanery in the

passage about which I have had some previous thoughts.

Geoff

The phrase of Jn.7:6, "for you any time is right" is unnatural, if

not

nonsense. A natural expression would be: For you NO time is right.
It would then make sense for the previous words to be, again quite
naturally, "The right time for me HAS come". That time was a Feast
of special significance which everyone so far has totally ignored.

Geoff

So who spoke, grasshoppers? Go back to Jn. 7:1, where we have our
prophet apparently hiding himself away in Galilee of all places,
supposedly "staying away from Judea"- behaviour reminiscent of other
reluctant whingeing prophets such as Moses, Elijah and Jonah. Such
behaviour was well understood by Jewish writers who knew the dangers
of being a prophet. Suddenly, Jesus' brothers appear out of the blue
(7:3) and tell him "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that
your disciples may see the miracles you do". Now you would have
thought that the disciples of the prophet would have stayed with him
for his protection. I mean, it would have been pretty dangerous for
the prophet to have wandered off alone through hill country over a
distance of some 80 miles, travelling through hostile Samaritan
territory, and then into Galilee where there were even more hostile
cut-throats ready to deal with wanderers from Judea. No, the place
where there was real danger for the prophet was Jerusalem where the
high priests were looking out for him. Judea was a safe place ?
plenty of hiding places there, all well known to the prophet and his
disciples who were no doubt with him. The prophet never went to
Galilee, he "went around" in Judea, "purposely staying away from"
Jerusalem not Judea (7:1).

Now, I would suggest that in the scroll of the prophet, the character
who appeared out of the blue and who spoke was the Spirit of God, in
keeping with the way God had traditionally dealt with a prophet. In
Jn. 7:3, you are looking at the source of the myth of Jesus' brothers
who the editors created to speak the words that originally were spoken
by the Spirit. The disciples were well aware of the signs that the
Spirit did, but those in Jerusalem were not. So the Spirit of God
said to the prophet, "You ought to leave here and go to Jerusalem, so
that the people may see the signs I do".

Geoff

This is gobbledegook from a Greek geek.

Great work, Geoff. Right up there with that of Jim Deardorff.

Never heard of him!

I suppose I am what you would consider a "Greekie" but I am not bothered one
iota by the fact that the events described in the gospels occurred in a
Jewish context. And I readily admit the possibility that there indeed may
have been saying sources, proto-gospel narratives, or even a later full
blown gospel or two or three written earlier and in a language other than
the extant Greek manuscripts. The problem is that none are now known to be
extant. Can you disagree with that assessment thus far?
Further, the earliest Syriac gospels are dated to the 4th century, albeit
there is an oral tradition within the Syrian Orthodox Church that these
readings are faithful reproductions of the words transmitted by the apostles
of Jesus. One can speculate endlessly concerning the primacy of one or more
theoretical Hebrew or Aramaic sources or narratives, but these conclusions
lack evidential premises in the form of extant manuscripts. In historical
reconstruction, ultimately the physical evidence at hand and having been
examined must outweigh solely speculative theorizing, with the understanding
that every position is tentative based upon the possibility of the
introduction of new evidence or less speculative analysis and
interpretation. Do you disagree yet?
The evidence known to be extant is that the manuscript sources closest in
space and time to the events depicted in the gospels happen to have been
written in Greek, and not Hebrew or Aramaic or any other language. Do you
disagree?
As for your question: "Then where would be your Greek text?" my reply is:
If and when early Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts are discovered, the Greek
manuscripts would be exactly where they now are as representative of the
primary and secondary sources for the texts as they existed in Egypt,
Caesarea Maritima, North Africa, Italy, Gaul, Syria and every other place
they have been located. The main difference would be that something
infinitely precious would be added to the historical record that will
enhance our knowledge of the early Christian movement and life during
classical antiquity.
This is not a competition between sources in competing languages, despite
the uninformed maunderings of Mr Kuchinsky and his ilk. Every manuscript
from every source is infinitely precious and aids in the historical
reconstruction of the past, because each fills a tiny space in the great
puzzle that is the mostly unsourced ancient world. This "Greekie" would
enjoy nothing more that the announcement of the discovery of a first century
Christian manuscipt in any language from any location. A Greek or Latin
manuscript would be personally convenient, but Aramaic, Hebrew, Persian, or
any other language is fine with me.
I have been searching out evidence for literacy rates in the ancient world
for some time, and have been unable to nail down reliable sources. Since
you indicated your disagreement with Crossan, can you please provide some
sources for your contention?
You may note that I tried to limit this discussion to the gospels, and I do
not restrict that term to the canon. Surely you do not believe that the
Pauline corpus, the Johannine letters, and most of the Catholic epistles
were not originally in Greek, do you? These were, after all, addressed to
Greek centers. And since Luke addresses his gospel and Acts to a man named
Theophilus which is surely a Greek name (literally "one who loves god" or
"god lover" from the contract verb "phileo" and the noun meaning god), is
that not an indicator that the autograph was indeed composed in Greek?
.

User: "Geoff Hudson"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	30 Jan 2004 03:40:09 PM

" Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<gqdSb.2171$F23.605@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

"Geoff Hudson" <geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:fba079c7.0401280121.3e3e1278@posting.google.com...

FSWeller@yahoo.com (Frederick Weller) wrote in message

news:<70b21bb.0401271415.56e10bb0@posting.google.com>...

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message

news:<fba079c7.0401271011.72bfbb74@posting.google.com>...

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message

news:<fba079c7.0401240250.af94b0f@posting.google.com>...

geoff.hudson@ntlworld.com (Geoff Hudson) wrote in message

news:<fba079c7.0401230532.2373735b@posting.google.com>...

Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message

news:<t4jPb.490$hL2.334390339@news.nnrp.ca>...

DID JESUS TELL A LIE? (Jn 7:8)

In the second part of this article, I will look in some more

detail at

how our ancient "Western" manuscripts of John are really

treating this

passage. There appears to be a serious problem with how UBS

Editorial

Committee laid out for us the textual evidence above. Based on

their

presentation, it may seem like all our witnesses are divided

pretty

evenly into two camps, the ones featuring "not yet" vs. the

others

featuring "not". But, actually, this isn't the case... There

also

happens to be a very large "grey area" among various "Western"
witnesses, namely, the Old Latin and the Old Syriac, because

most of

them appear to read somewhere in between these two extremes!

So this seems to provide even more basis for the view that, in

the

original text of John, Jesus did not deceive his relatives.

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri,

I am interested in the "grey area". Do any manuscripts have

neither

"not yet" nor "not" so that the words attributed to J are

something

like, "I AM going up to this Feast, because the right time for me

HAS

come."? In the case of the NIV this would require the removal of

"not

yet" from two positions where the words appear to be used somewhat
clumsily as though forced, particularly in the second position.

I would suggest that the vacillation in the use of "not" or "not

yet"

are merely the ripples of extensive editorial chicanery in the

passage about which I have had some previous thoughts.

Geoff

The phrase of Jn.7:6, "for you any time is right" is unnatural, if

not

So who spoke, grasshoppers? Go back to Jn. 7:1, where we have our
prophet apparently hiding himself away in Galilee of all places,
supposedly "staying away from Judea"- behaviour reminiscent of other
reluctant whingeing prophets such as Moses, Elijah and Jonah. Such
behaviour was well understood by Jewish writers who knew the dangers
of being a prophet. Suddenly, Jesus' brothers appear out of the blue
(7:3) and tell him "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that
your disciples may see the miracles you do". Now you would have
thought that the disciples of the prophet would have stayed with him
for his protection. I mean, it would have been pretty dangerous for
the prophet to have wandered off alone through hill country over a
distance of some 80 miles, travelling through hostile Samaritan
territory, and then into Galilee where there were even more hostile
cut-throats ready to deal with wanderers from Judea. No, the place
where there was real danger for the prophet was Jerusalem where the
high priests were looking out for him. Judea was a safe place ?
plenty of hiding places there, all well known to the prophet and his
disciples who were no doubt with him. The prophet never went to
Galilee, he "went around" in Judea, "purposely staying away from"
Jerusalem not Judea (7:1).

Now, I would suggest that in the scroll of the prophet, the character
who appeared out of the blue and who spoke was the Spirit of God, in
keeping with the way God had traditionally dealt with a prophet. In
Jn. 7:3, you are looking at the source of the myth of Jesus' brothers
who the editors created to speak the words that originally were spoken
by the Spirit. The disciples were well aware of the signs that the
Spirit did, but those in Jerusalem were not. So the Spirit of God
said to the prophet, "You ought to leave here and go to Jerusalem, so
that the people may see the signs I do".

Geoff

This is gobbledegook from a Greek geek.

Great work, Geoff. Right up there with that of Jim Deardorff.

Never heard of him!

D.
I suppose I am what you would consider a "Greekie" but I am not
bothered one
iota by the fact that the events described in the gospels occurred in
a
Jewish context.
G.
When did an old testament prophet walk on water? When did an old
testament prophet claim equality with God? Which events occurred in
reality?
D.
And I readily admit the possibility that there indeed may
have been saying sources, proto-gospel narratives, or even a later
full
blown gospel or two or three written earlier and in a language other
than
the extant Greek manuscripts. The problem is that none are now known
to be
extant. Can you disagree with that assessment thus far?
G.
So you interpret what you have.
D.
Further, the earliest Syriac gospels are dated to the 4th century,
albeit
there is an oral tradition within the Syrian Orthodox Church that
these
readings are faithful reproductions of the words transmitted by the
apostles
of Jesus. One can speculate endlessly concerning the primacy of one
or more
theoretical Hebrew or Aramaic sources or narratives, but these
conclusions
lack evidential premises in the form of extant manuscripts. In
historical
reconstruction, ultimately the physical evidence at hand and having
been
examined must outweigh solely speculative theorizing, with the
understanding
that every position is tentative based upon the possibility of the
introduction of new evidence or less speculative analysis and
interpretation. Do you disagree yet?
G.
You have said nothing yet.
D.
The evidence known to be extant is that the manuscript sources closest
in
space and time to the events depicted in the gospels happen to have
been
written in Greek, and not Hebrew or Aramaic or any other language. Do
you
disagree?
G.
What events again, when did they occur if at all, and what was the
reasonable theology that drove the characters and produced the real
history? As far as the theology is concerned, I would suggest that
the DSS make a good close starting point, and the old testament is not
bad either. In my view, much of what we call John's gospel, was
originally the book of the prophet John, like the writing about any
other old testament prophet.
D.
As for your question: "Then where would be your Greek text?" my
reply is:
If and when early Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts are discovered, the
Greek
manuscripts would be exactly where they now are as representative of
the
primary and secondary sources for the texts as they existed in Egypt,
Caesarea Maritima, North Africa, Italy, Gaul, Syria and every other
place
they have been located. The main difference would be that something
infinitely precious would be added to the historical record that will
enhance our knowledge of the early Christian movement and life during
classical antiquity.
G.
Secondary certainly. But who knows how many stages John's gospel has
gone through?
D.
This is not a competition between sources in competing languages,
despite
the uninformed maunderings of Mr Kuchinsky and his ilk. Every
manuscript
from every source is infinitely precious and aids in the historical
reconstruction of the past, because each fills a tiny space in the
great
puzzle that is the mostly unsourced ancient world. This "Greekie"
would
enjoy nothing more that the announcement of the discovery of a first
century
Christian manuscipt in any language from any location. A Greek or
Latin
manuscript would be personally convenient, but Aramaic, Hebrew,
Persian, or
any other language is fine with me.
G.
My own view is that much of what Yuri comes up with is the tip of a
very big iceberg. His findings I would suggest are the final ripples
of waves of editorial activity. What has fascinated me is that on a
number of occasions his work has led me to think in terms of a Jewish
interpretation. The passage in question is an example where I think
that the words "not" or "not yet", about which the pimpernel and
yourself dispute with Yuri, were never there in the first place, and
that the surrounding words of the extanct text were never spoken by
Jesus (except in the editor's mind) and never spoken by any human
being (in the Jewish writer's mind).
D.
I have been searching out evidence for literacy rates in the ancient
world
for some time, and have been unable to nail down reliable sources.
Since
you indicated your disagreement with Crossan, can you please provide
some
sources for your contention?
G.
Take no notice of literacy rates. How many people would it have taken
to produce this stuff? Try the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on
Rechabites for starters.
D.
You may note that I tried to limit this discussion to the gospels, and
I do
not restrict that term to the canon. Surely you do not believe that
the
Pauline corpus, the Johannine letters, and most of the Catholic
epistles
were not originally in Greek, do you? These were, after all,
addressed to
Greek centers. And since Luke addresses his gospel and Acts to a man
named
Theophilus which is surely a Greek name (literally "one who loves god"
or
"god lover" from the contract verb "phileo" and the noun meaning god),
is
that not an indicator that the autograph was indeed composed in Greek?
G.
Given sufficient time in a foreign country, say residence in Rome,
non-Greek-speaking Jews from Judea could have learned Greek, and some
Latin for that matter given that they mixed with Romans. Acts was
undoubtedly originally biographical. Its writer probably also wrote
the originals of what later editor's turned into the Pauline corpus.
He probably also wrote Hebrews in his native tongue. Needless to say,
I think the extanct Acts and the so-called Pauline letters are not
original. Don't you think that Romans might have been written in
Latin with some assistance from Romans? This is all a long way from
John 7.
Geoff
.

User: "Frederick Weller"
Title: Re: did Jesus tell a lie? (John 7:8)	28 Jan 2004 01:02:37 PM