Pepysian Gospel translation
Yuri Kuchinsky
All those who are interested in early Christian history, and especially
in non-canonical gospels should enjoy checking out the Pepysian Gospel,
which is a very mysterious Middle English text that nobody seems to know
much about.
Pepysian Gospel had been published for the first time in 1922 by Oxford
University Press, and since then, it has been read only by very few
scholars, mostly medieval specialists. It is not a very easy text to
read. And yet some highly respected Biblical scholars have argued that
it preserves numerous valuable primitive traditions.
At this time, the first ever translation of the Pepysian Gospel into
modern English, as well as a commentary are being prepared for
publication. But meanwhile, I have made available on WWW the first one
third of my translation. You will find it at the following address,
together with the original text,
http://www.styx.org/yuku/pepys/index.html
So what is this unusual gospel all about? Now you can read it for
yourself, and make up your own mind. If you find any mistakes in my
translation, please let me know.
Best wishes,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
Uziyahu / Clif
--Uzi
alt.messianic
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:9fdvc8$1ma6$1...@news.tht.net...
Yuri Kuchinsky
: They wrote a Good News account named after a Soda drink? lol
Well, Uzi, I didn't give the Pepysian Gospel its name. In actual fact,
the gospel is anonymous, which also happens to be the best thing for it
to be very primitive.
What I will demonstrate in my book is that in fact this is the long-lost
Gospel According to the Hebrews. There are great many Jewish-Christian
features in this Middle English gospel.
Believe it or not, this is nothing other than the source of the NT that
everyone has been hoping to discover one day! At least this is how it
appears to me...
Cheers,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Churchill's Commentary on Man:
"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
:>
Uziyahu / Clif
Nevertheless, keep us posted.
--Uzi
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:9fgjhn$25ta$3...@news.tht.net...
stillsunny
Hi, Yuri.
I'm still reading, but I have a couple of questions, if you have a
moment.
I have the Jesus Seminar Complete Gospels, but it doesn't include the
one you reference in here, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. What is this
book?
Also, how did you determine that the things that were apparently later
additions were indeed, later additions, and not that the whole thing
was a corrupt translation?
Sunny
Yuri Kuchinsky
: On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:24:08 +0000 (UTC), Yuri Kuchinsky
: <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
:>At this time, the first ever translation of the Pepysian Gospel into
:>modern English, as well as a commentary are being prepared for
:>publication. But meanwhile, I have made available on WWW the first one
:>third of my translation. You will find it at the following address,
:>together with the original text,
:>
:>http://www.styx.org/yuku/pepys/index.html
: Hi, Yuri.
: I'm still reading, but I have a couple of questions, if you have a
: moment.
: I have the Jesus Seminar Complete Gospels, but it doesn't include the
: one you reference in here, the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
Hi, Sunny,
The fact that they fail to mention the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew should
speak for itself. To me this is yet another example of incredible bias
in the profession against studying Jewish-Christianity, which was
OBVIOUSLY the most primitive form of Christianity. In other words, the
Jesus Seminar is just a bunch of dishonest and bigoted scholars.
: What is this book?
The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was first published in 1987 (second edition
1995), so they have no excuse not to even mention it. HMt is clearly a
Jewish-Christian gospel that contains numerous primitive features. So
how come nobody is interested in studying it? The situation as it stands
now appears to be extremely bizarre, and it's not just the Jesus
Seminar, but the whole biblical profession that has egg on their faces.
Here you will find a lot more info about HMt,
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/2dh.htm
: Also, how did you determine that the things that were apparently later
: additions were indeed, later additions, and not that the whole thing
: was a corrupt translation?
Do you mean the parts of my translation that are printed in red? Then
you're misunderstanding. The red parts are more likely to be early than
late. What I'm saying is that Pepys is the earliest Christian gospel
that we have. It's really quite incredible.
Yes, there are also some passages there that are probable
mistranslations, but these are quite few. I've marked most of them as
well.
Cheers,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
I doubt, therefore I might be.
stillsunny
<yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
Thank you for the links -- they're extremely interesting.
<sigh>
Now I'm going to have to go *back* to Barnes & Noble to see if I can
find this Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. I appreciate all the information.
What's the current best guess on when HMt was written? Or is there no
way to tell?
>Here you will find a lot more info about HMt,
>
>http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/2dh.htm
>
>: Also, how did you determine that the things that were apparently later
>: additions were indeed, later additions, and not that the whole thing
>: was a corrupt translation?
>
>Do you mean the parts of my translation that are printed in red? Then
>you're misunderstanding. The red parts are more likely to be early than
>late. What I'm saying is that Pepys is the earliest Christian gospel
>that we have. It's really quite incredible.
Okay. I think (without looking back) that I was referencing the
places where the names used reflect what we *now* call them (the
Magnificat, and all the "St." denotations), and which you have denoted
with plus signs.
I guess what I'm trying to ask is, the language, even to me, seems
sometimes obviously a product of the progression of church thought, so
how did you determine which was ancient and which was more recent?
Sunny
Neville Lindsay
"stillsunny" <sun...@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:5j2tht4e2v1ohpdaa...@4ax.com...
Sunny, be careful about being sucked in by this turkey. He is well known
theoughout usenet for his enthusiastic selling of improbable takes on
everything from Polynesian origins to now touting that the Pepysian Gospel
Harmony reflects the Hebrew Matthew. The only one with egg on face is Yuri,
who has been shot down on his presumptions every time he exhibits them. And
be careful, as soon as you disagree with him, he turns abusive. Watch his
reaction to this, or try it yourself.
The Netzerim website makes similar claims that they have Hebrew Mathew which
they have published - it is a late mediaeval makeup. No one has. It was
apparently (according to church father Papias) a Sayings/Testimony document,
not a gospel, any more that the Pepysian is - it is again a mediaeval gospel
harmony - that is a revisionist paraphrase of other gospels which seeks to
harmonise gospel discrepancies.
NL
stillsunny
<nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> I guess what I'm trying to ask is, the language, even to me, seems
>> sometimes obviously a product of the progression of church thought, so
>> how did you determine which was ancient and which was more recent?
>>
>> Sunny
Hi, Neville.
>Sunny, be careful about being sucked in by this turkey. He is well known
>theoughout usenet for his enthusiastic selling of improbable takes on
>everything from Polynesian origins to now touting that the Pepysian Gospel
>Harmony reflects the Hebrew Matthew. The only one with egg on face is Yuri,
>who has been shot down on his presumptions every time he exhibits them. And
>be careful, as soon as you disagree with him, he turns abusive. Watch his
>reaction to this, or try it yourself.
If it's all the same to you, I'd rather not get in the middle of some
older flame fest. I am, however, interested in what he said, and I'm
also now interested in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
>The Netzerim website makes similar claims that they have Hebrew Mathew which
>they have published - it is a late mediaeval makeup. No one has. It was
>apparently (according to church father Papias) a Sayings/Testimony document,
>not a gospel, any more that the Pepysian is - it is again a mediaeval gospel
>harmony - that is a revisionist paraphrase of other gospels which seeks to
>harmonise gospel discrepancies.
I'm confused (and admittedly ignorant).
Is there an actual Hebrew Gospel of Matthew? Or, better phrased, is
there an actual Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which is accessible (ie,
extant copies) rather than speculated on (as Q is spoken of as real,
though no extant copies exist). Is that what you're referring to, or
were you referring to some other gospel harmony which does exist,
purports to be the Hebrew Gospel, and isn't?
Also, Thomas is a sayings gospel, but still qualifies as a gospel,
does it not? Or not?
And finally, if there does exist an extant Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,
how come it wasn't included in the Jesus Seminar complete gospels (all
that, assuming you know the answer, and sorry to be so pushy).
Sunny
Peter of Canada
It is known as the "Shem-Tob" in academic circles. Professor George Howard
from the University of Georgia made an English translation available and you
can purchase it at Amazon... links below. (You may need to copy and paste
the links into your browser in two steps because of the length of the URL.
Someone should teach them how to code better)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865544425/qid=991895304/sr=1-2/ref=s
c_b_2/102-3573730-0828912
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865544700/qid=991895304/sr=1-1/ref=s
c_b_1/102-3573730-0828912
Dr. Howard's credentials can be found here:
http://www.uga.edu/~irp/facreg/fr98fafh.htm
Howard, George Eulan.*
Professor of and Department Head of Religion
B.A., David Lipscomb University
M.A., Th.M., Harding Graduate School of Religion
Ph.D., Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion
Note: * Member of Graduate Faculty
He has successfully demonstrated that this Hebrew is significantly
independent from the Latin Vulgate. Unfortunately, it does not make a rock
solid case for its authenticity as a Hebrew original, especially THE Hebrew
Gospel spoken of by many early writers.
The power of Rome and the ancient setting made it quite easy for a
determined Roman conspiracy to identify and eliminate every trace of Hebrew
writing that incriminated them. This as well as other concerns have made the
search for an original ancient Hebrew or Aramaic manuscript the stuff of
legend.
Dr. Howard does put forth some compelling arguments to show that this is
indeed a Hebrew original and is independent from the canonical texts. It
does seem probable that this was preserved through Jewish sources who used
it for polemics. It is heretical as far as mainstream Christianity goes, but
then again, isn't anything truly Holy and righteous? <g>
This IS an important work.
Since I have a copy, I will share a little with you:
(Matthew 16:18-20) I say to you: you are a stone and I will build upon you
my house of prayer. The gates of Gehenna will not prevail against you
because I will give you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind
on earth will be bound in Heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed
in Heaven.
Then he commanded his disciples not to say that he is the Messiah.
Here is a very interesting quote:
(Matthew 5:18) Truly I say to you that until Heaven and Earth depart, not
one letter or dot shall be abolished from the Torah or the Prophets, because
all will be fulfilled.
The layout is also quite nice with the Hebrew text on the left side and the
English translation on the right. The Divine Name (yod he vov he) is used in
this manuscript as well. The book is an interesting read and the actual
manuscript itself is presented nicely.
In my opinion, everyone who is serious about the Gospel should own a copy.
It is not the stuff of conspiracies and all that, but it is a nice find.
Some people go a little overboard when they come upon it but after you read
the scholarly work as well as the text itself you will find that the truth
is somewhere in the middle.
I hope that helps somewhat.
--
Peter
One Flock. One Rock.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
"As you looked, a Rock was cut out by no human hand, and it smote the image
on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces; {35} then the iron,
the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in
pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the
wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the
Rock that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole
earth." (Daniel 2:34-35)
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
"stillsunny" <sun...@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:5j2tht4e2v1ohpdaa...@4ax.com...
stillsunny
It was marvelous. Thank you very, very much, both for the information
and the time you put into the post.
One of the best things about Usenet is stumbling on treasures like
this, new directions or new avenues of thought to explore.
Sunny
who's wondering, just how many gospels *are* there, anyhow?
Yuri Kuchinsky
: ... now touting that the Pepysian Gospel Harmony reflects the Hebrew
: Matthew.
Actually, I've never said that Pepys "reflects the Hebrew Matthew"
(whatever this is supposed to mean). However, there are numerous unique
textual parallels between Pepys and the Hebrew Matthew.
Yuri Kuchinsky
: <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
:>The Netzerim website makes similar claims that they have Hebrew Mathew which
:>they have published - it is a late mediaeval makeup. No one has. It was
:>apparently (according to church father Papias) a Sayings/Testimony document,
:>not a gospel, any more that the Pepysian is - it is again a mediaeval gospel
:>harmony - that is a revisionist paraphrase of other gospels which seeks to
:>harmonise gospel discrepancies.
: I'm confused (and admittedly ignorant).
: Is there an actual Hebrew Gospel of Matthew? Or, better phrased, is
: there an actual Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which is accessible (ie,
: extant copies) rather than speculated on (as Q is spoken of as real,
: though no extant copies exist). Is that what you're referring to, or
: were you referring to some other gospel harmony which does exist,
: purports to be the Hebrew Gospel, and isn't?
Sunny,
I can see that this notorious troll Neville got you a little confused...
In actual fact, there are three versions of Hebrew Matthew that are
known from medieval manuscripts,
1. Muenster's version of the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew (first
published in 1537)
2. Du Tillet's version of Hebrew Matthew (first published in 1555).
3. Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew (first published in 1987 by Howard).
Now, as Howard documents in his book, #1 and #2 are for the most part
medieval translations of Mt into Hebrew, based on the canonical Mt. And
up to 1987, that's what all the scholars believed -- that no other
version of Mt in Hebrew is available. But then in 1987 Howard came up
with his very different version, and everyone has been amazed and
wondering about it ever since.
All the other versions of the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew that may exist
at this time are modern reconstructions, and therefore mostly irrelevant
for a serious historian. (But it also should be mentioned that there are
some interesting Syriac versions of Mt as well. Ancient Syriac is a
language that is related to Hebrew.)
: Also, Thomas is a sayings gospel, but still qualifies as a gospel,
: does it not? Or not?
Sure does.
: And finally, if there does exist an extant Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,
: how come it wasn't included in the Jesus Seminar complete gospels (all
: that, assuming you know the answer,
He doesn't know much... But in my view, the Jesus Seminar's neglecting
even to mention Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew only indicates their
dishonesty, and their fear that their precious picture of Yeshu the
Greek may be ready for a revision.
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"No theory is too false, no fable too absurd, no superstition too
degrading for acceptance when it has become imbedded in common belief" --
Henry George
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Hello,
: It is known as the "Shem-Tob" in academic circles. Professor George Howard
: from the University of Georgia made an English translation available and you
: can purchase it at Amazon... links below. (You may need to copy and paste
: the links into your browser in two steps because of the length of the URL.
: Someone should teach them how to code better)
: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865544425/qid=991895304/sr=1-2/ref=s
: c_b_2/102-3573730-0828912
: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865544700/qid=991895304/sr=1-1/ref=s
: c_b_1/102-3573730-0828912
: Dr. Howard's credentials can be found here:
: http://www.uga.edu/~irp/facreg/fr98fafh.htm
: Howard, George Eulan.*
: Professor of and Department Head of Religion
: B.A., David Lipscomb University
: M.A., Th.M., Harding Graduate School of Religion
: Ph.D., Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion
: Note: * Member of Graduate Faculty
: He has successfully demonstrated that this Hebrew is significantly
: independent from the Latin Vulgate.
That's right, Peter.
: Unfortunately, it does not make a rock
: solid case for its authenticity as a Hebrew original,
But Howard doesn't even claim that it's the Hebrew original. It probably
isn't, the way we have it now, and I agree with him. And yet many
elements of a primitive Hebrew Matthew seem to be preserved.
: especially THE Hebrew
: Gospel spoken of by many early writers.
What all those early writers meant when they spoke about "Hebrew
Matthew" is open to question.
: The power of Rome and the ancient setting made it quite easy for a
: determined Roman conspiracy to identify and eliminate every trace of Hebrew
: writing that incriminated them.
Actually, I disagree with you here. It was not the Romans, but the
Catholic Christians who were systematically eliminating all Jewish
Christian writings -- in Hebrew as well as in other languages.
: This as well as other concerns have made the
: search for an original ancient Hebrew or Aramaic manuscript the stuff of
: legend.
: Dr. Howard does put forth some compelling arguments to show that this is
: indeed a Hebrew original
See above.
: and is independent from the canonical texts.
Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is indeed significantly independent from the
canonical texts. And Pepys even more so.
: It does seem probable that this was preserved through Jewish sources
: who used it for polemics.
That's right.
: It is heretical as far as mainstream Christianity goes, but
: then again, isn't anything truly Holy and righteous? <g>
Maybe so... :)
: This IS an important work.
Yes. So how come nobody in the academe seems to want to deal with it?
Are they afraid?
...
: In my opinion, everyone who is serious about the Gospel should own a copy.
I think so too.
: It is not the stuff of conspiracies and all that, but it is a nice find.
: Some people go a little overboard when they come upon it but after you read
: the scholarly work as well as the text itself you will find that the truth
: is somewhere in the middle.
Best wishes,
Yuri Kuchinsky
: <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote:
:>Do you mean the parts of my translation that are printed in red? Then
:>you're misunderstanding. The red parts are more likely to be early than
:>late. What I'm saying is that Pepys is the earliest Christian gospel
:>that we have. It's really quite incredible.
: Okay. I think (without looking back) that I was referencing the
: places where the names used reflect what we *now* call them (the
: Magnificat, and all the "St." denotations), and which you have denoted
: with plus signs.
: I guess what I'm trying to ask is, the language, even to me, seems
: sometimes obviously a product of the progression of church thought,
Yes, Sunny, this is indeed so, but such minor glosses/additions (that I
denoted with plus signs) are less than 1% of the text.
: so how did you determine which was ancient and which was more
: recent?
Most of these are pretty obvious. Like you say, when "the Magnificat" is
being mentioned, you know right away this is a late gloss. I placed plus
signs there to indicate my personal opinion, that's all.
As far as the red parts go, they represent something like 10 to 20
percent of the text, and in my view this is for the most part very
primitive material. To understand what all this stuff means will
probably take many years.
Best,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices -=O=- William James
Moggin Goldberg
> Is there an actual Hebrew Gospel of Matthew?
There are translations of Matthew into Hebrew, some of them
very old. But the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew spoken of in the
tradition -- the one that's claimed to precede the Greek version
-- isn't around.
-- Moggin
Neville Lindsay
> In soc.history.ancient Neville Lindsay <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> : ... now touting that the Pepysian Gospel Harmony reflects the Hebrew
> : Matthew.
>
> Actually, I've never said that Pepys "reflects the Hebrew Matthew"
> (whatever this is supposed to mean). However, there are numerous unique
> textual parallels between Pepys and the Hebrew Matthew.
As Hebrew Matthew exists only in the fact that Eusebius reported that Papias
said that it did, and we have no copy of it, there are no parallels between
the non-available Hebrew Matthew and the Pepysian Gospel Harmony. And Papias
did NOT say HM was a gospel - he said 'oracles of the Lord' - sayings.
NL
Neville Lindsay
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 04:06:55 GMT, "Neville Lindsay"
> <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> >> I guess what I'm trying to ask is, the language, even to me, seems
> >> sometimes obviously a product of the progression of church thought, so
> >> how did you determine which was ancient and which was more recent?
> >>
> >> Sunny
>
> Hi, Neville.
>
> >Sunny, be careful about being sucked in by this turkey. He is well known
> >theoughout usenet for his enthusiastic selling of improbable takes on
> >everything from Polynesian origins to now touting that the Pepysian
Gospel
> >Harmony reflects the Hebrew Matthew. The only one with egg on face is
Yuri,
> >who has been shot down on his presumptions every time he exhibits them.
And
> >be careful, as soon as you disagree with him, he turns abusive. Watch his
> >reaction to this, or try it yourself.
>
> If it's all the same to you, I'd rather not get in the middle of some
> older flame fest. I am, however, interested in what he said, and I'm
> also now interested in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.
Don't want to involve you (or myself) in anything - just a caution to not
listen to the one source - you have noticed others have come in with some
varying advice/responses.
> >The Netzarim website makes similar claims that they have Hebrew Mathew
which
> >they have published - it is a late mediaeval makeup. No one has. It was
> >apparently (according to church father Papias) a Sayings/Testimony
document,
> >not a gospel, any more that the Pepysian is - it is again a mediaeval
gospel
> >harmony - that is a revisionist paraphrase of other gospels which seeks
to
> >harmonise gospel discrepancies.
>
> I'm confused (and admittedly ignorant).
>
> Is there an actual Hebrew Gospel of Matthew? Or, better phrased, is
> there an actual Hebrew Gospel of Matthew which is accessible (ie,
> extant copies) rather than speculated on (as Q is spoken of as real,
> though no extant copies exist). Is that what you're referring to, or
> were you referring to some other gospel harmony which does exist,
> purports to be the Hebrew Gospel, and isn't?
Papias - an early 2nd Century bishop - is quoted a couple of hundred years
later by Eusebius as saying:
"Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and
each one interpreted them as best he could" (a problem for Greek speaking
gentile congregations).
Some have tried to say that this meant that canonical Matthew was originally
in Hebrew, however the latter does not translate back from Greek easily, and
obviously isn't.
Note also that Papias is reported as saying 'oracles' - that is Sayings.
This could be interpreted as being the Q document which we also don't have
any more than we have the HM Sayings, or it could have been one of a lot of
aide memoirs of sayings circulating parallel to the oral traditions in the
dispersed Christian communities by the 2nd Century.
> Also, Thomas is a sayings gospel, but still qualifies as a gospel,
> does it not? Or not?
It is called a gospel, whatever a gospel is. You can call anything you want
anything you want. But there are about 50 'gospels', most of which are
pretty terrible stuff.
> And finally, if there does exist an extant Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,
> how come it wasn't included in the Jesus Seminar complete gospels (all
> that, assuming you know the answer, and sorry to be so pushy).
Several people and groups have put forward documents which purport to be
Hebrew Matthew. None have much credibility. Some are rubbish. We have no
authenticable document. For the canonical gospels, we have the complete 4th
Century copies in Codices Vaticanis and Sinaiticus, and before that separate
copies and fragments going back to the 2nd C. For Hebrew Matthew, nothing
but Papias second hand saying it existed. Q has been isolated from the
canonical Matthew and Luke, because they have used similar sayings material
fron a singular source, which has been called Q - you could call it the Q
Gospel or Sayings Gospel or anything else you wanted to. But we have no Q or
HM in the sense that we have the canonical and extra canonical ones.
There is a lot of work to be done for any real acceptance that any of the
present candidates for HM are authentic. Read it, but read with scepticism.
NL
Yuri Kuchinsky
: For Hebrew Matthew, nothing but Papias second hand saying it
: existed.
This is incorrect. If you read Howard's book you will learn that there
are many other witnesses to the existence of Hebrew Matthew in ancient
times.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"Genuine ignorance is ... profitable because it is likely to be
accompanied by humility, curiosity, and open mindedness; whereas ability
to repeat catch-phrases, cant terms, familiar propositions, gives the
conceit of learning, and coats the mind with varnish water-proof to new
ideas" -- John Dewey
Yuri Kuchinsky
: news:9focbb$112i$1...@news.tht.net...
:> In soc.history.ancient Neville Lindsay <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
:>
:> : ... now touting that the Pepysian Gospel Harmony reflects the Hebrew
:> : Matthew.
:>
:> Actually, I've never said that Pepys "reflects the Hebrew Matthew"
:> (whatever this is supposed to mean). However, there are numerous unique
:> textual parallels between Pepys and the Hebrew Matthew.
: As Hebrew Matthew exists only in the fact that Eusebius reported that Papias
: said that it did,
Here's something for you.
Epiphanius, in his Panarion (ca 375 ce), talks about a variety of
Jewish-Christian groups still existing in his time. Among them are the
Ebionites, the Cerinthians/Merinthians, and the Nazoreans. All of them
use some form of a Gospel according to Matthew in Hebrew.
"They [Ebionites] too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the
Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it,
"According to the Hebrews", and it is true to say that only Matthew put
the setting forth and the preaching of the Gospel into the New Testament
in the Hebrew language and alphabet." (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.3.7; F.
Williams translation, Brill, 1987)
"They [Nazoreans] are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the
entire Law, the prophets, and the so-called Writings -- I mean the
poetic books, Kings, Chronicles, Esther and all the rest -- are read in
Hebrew, as they surely are by Jews." (Epiphanius, Panarion, 29.7.4)
"They [Nazoreans] have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety
in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew
alphabet, as it was originally written. But I do not know whether they
have removed just the genealogies from Abraham to Christ." (Epiphanius,
Panarion, 29.9.4)
: and we have no copy of it,
This is called begging the question.
: there are no parallels between the non-available Hebrew Matthew and
: the Pepysian Gospel Harmony.
Perhaps in your Alternative Universe indeed there's no Hebrew Matthew.
But in the real world there's Hebrew Matthew, and it's available from
Amazon.com.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain
Neville Lindsay
> In soc.history.ancient Neville Lindsay <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> : For Hebrew Matthew, nothing but Papias second hand saying it
> : existed.
>
> This is incorrect. If you read Howard's book you will learn that there
> are many other witnesses to the existence of Hebrew Matthew in ancient
> times.
>
> Yuri.
'ancient times' - typical of you to make a bald statement without quoting
them and giving their date.
NL
Yuri Kuchinsky
> Yuri,
>
> >Petersen, it seems, demonstrated rather conclusively that HMt and the
> >harmonised gospel tradition as represented by the Middle Dutch Liege
> >harmony are textually closely related. I agree with this. But the only
> >conclusion that can be legitimately drawn from this is that both HMt and
> >Liege ultimately go to the same source.
>
> Do you? Howard does not agree.
Trotter,
This is incorrect that Howard does not agree. You're making things up
now...
> Also note:
>
> RB 1999 T.106-3 (pp. 358-407)
> José Vincente NICLÒS, op
> Ecole Biblique, JERUSALEM
> L'Evangile en hébreu de Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut : Une traduction d'origine
> judéo-catalane due à un converti, replacée dans son Sitz im Leben
I noted this long time ago already. See below.
> Some scholarly works have been recently published on the Gospel in
> Hebrew found in the book Eben Bohan, by S.T. Ibn Shaprut
> (Tudela-Navarre XIVth C.). They study its antiquity and the parallels
> with the N.T., or later. This article shows, from the analysis of
> words irrelevant to the sacred language, that the writer was a
> Catalan, who expressed himself in his own idiom, and was not
> translating the Vulgate.
Addressed below.
> Further, we found some glosses, incipits and a vocabulary common to
> Bibles in Provençal and Catalan from the XIIIth C.
And this actually argues _against_ Niclos! These pericope divisions in
HMt, now also supported by some Provencal and Catalan mss, are very
important, and undermine the Q-hypothesis considerably...
> The convergence of these analyses gives evidence that the Vorlage of
> the Hebrew translation was a romance language Bible.
Addressed below.
> The writer was probably a convert to Christianity; we envisage the
> possibility that he worked in the Schools for Foreign Languages which
> existed in Catalonia during the Middle Ages. >>
Total and complete nonsense.
> > but I suspect that it was the Gospel According to
> > the Hebrews.
>
> Why on earth would you suspect that given that scholars who have a lot
> more skills than you
This is appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
> and who have spent a lot more time researching the matter
I doubt this very much...
> all think it was something else. They may not agree but none of them
> agrees with your position.
All of them? How many are there? You only cited two so far, and both of
them made some pretty basic and rather obvious mistakes.
Now, here's something for you,
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 19:30:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Yuri Kuchinsky <[24]yuku@g...>
Reply-To: TC-List <[25]tc-list@r...>
To: TC-List <[26]tc-list@r...>
Subject: [tc-list] Re: context of HMt
[edited]
[Reply to Sat, 8 Jan 2000 message by U.B.Schmid]
When judging the provenance of an ancient text, its content is extremely
important. The biggest mistake of Petersen, Horbury, and now Niclos, is
that they totally ignore the theology of HMt. This is what I mean by
straining out gnats while swallowing the camel. The gnats are little
assorted textual variants that provide no clear "smoking guns" either way.
The camel is the theology of the text that is extremely unusual and
clearly aberrant in the context of the middle ages.
How and in what circumstances a clearly "heretical" text like HMt could
have been created in medieval Europe? This is the question that Niclos
even **fails to ask**, far from answering it. Why do all these critics
fail to engage with this extremely important matter? I see this as an
indication of their incompetence as historical scholars. Because clearly
the question about the theological tendencies of HMt needs to be asked
before any other question -- before one goes into all the minutia of text
criticism.
So the answer to your question, Ulrich, is that it is the historian of
religion who needs to be asked first to evaluate an unusual text such as
HMt. So it is primarily the problem for the historian of Christianity to
clarify the Sitz of this text. When this is done, then the textual
scholars can do their work much more productively. In other words,
historical criticism should come before text criticism.
Let me repeat once again that it is incumbent on those who wish to claim
that HMt is a medieval translation to outline how it could have had its
Sitz im Leben in medieval Europe. As far as I know, nobody has been able
to do this as yet. Until this is done with some degree of realism, IMHO
any claim that HMt is a medieval translation is founded in quicksand.
Indeed, for anyone to maintain that HMt is a medieval translation,
obviously they would have to maintain that a gospel that is **very much
like** a primitive Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, that we know from many
ancient witnesses existed in antiquity -- a gospel possessing, among other
things, the low Christology of the earliest Jesus movement -- got
completely lost without trace in antiquity, but then was **miraculously
recreated** in the middle ages by some unknown genius, and without any
clear motivation for being summoned thus out of the thin air. Obviously
Occam's Razor will have a lot of fun with this one. Entities should not be
multiplied.
And now, let's look at some other things Niclos says in his article.
First of all, it is quite clear that Niclos contradicts Petersen.
According to Niclos, the Vorlage of HMt was not Latin,
"La conclusion que nous pouvons tirer de cette analyse de
termes en roman est que la source de la traduction ne fut
pas la Vulgate, main une langue romane." 384-5
Petersen thinks HMt had a Latin Vorlage. Niclos thinks HMt had a Catalan
Vorlage. Both of them cannot be right. So anyone wishing to claim that
everything is clear about Shem-Tob's HMt, and that no questions about it
remain, should think again. There're too many questions that still remain.
Yes, Niclos identifies some interesting apparently Catalan words included
in HMt. But from there to make a logical jump that the Vorlage was Catalan
would not be good science.
Since, as mentioned above, Niclos totally ignores the theology of HMt, any
attempt on his part to reconstruct the circumstances of its "translation
from Catalan" can only be pure speculation. It is absurd to suppose that a
recent convert to Christianity will come up with a clearly heretical
gospel. This should be self-evident to any historian of religion. As a
rule, converts are more Catholic than Catholics themselves. So any
suggestion that a convert can create a clearly heretical gospel amounts to
the logical fallacy of special pleading.
So according to Niclos, as we find out, HMt comes from the circles
associated with Pau Cristia, a famous Catholic convert from Judaism active
ca 1250-1313. According to Niclos, "this is where we should look for the
author of HMt". (403)
He also thinks that HMt is a translation by one man, a convert, possibly a
Dominican, and done by the command of his religious superiors. He thinks
HMt may be
..l'oevre pesonelle d'un converti, mais re'alise'e probablement
`a la demande des supe'rieurs de son Ordre .. si toutefois nous
avons bien affaire `a un dominicain comme nous le pensons.. (405)
I'm sorry, but this stretches credibility to the very limit, for all the
reasons already outlined.
Once again, I ask those who wish to claim that HMt is a medieval
translation to outline **in a realistic way** how it could have had its
Sitz im Leben in medieval Europe. Until this is done, you're still
nowhere, folks.
[unquote]
I'll deal with your other points later.
Regards,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
Yuri Kuchinsky
> Yuri,
>
> >Also, I would like to remind you once
> >again that the original question was, Why is the Jesus Seminar ignoring
> >this amazing new discovery, and pretending it did not happen?
>
> Why is this important if other scholars have addressed the matter?
Trotter,
It's important because this demonstrates the bias and dishonesty of the
Jesus Seminar.
> >As far as I know, I was removed from Synoptic-L because of my interest in
> >the Diatessaronic tradition and in the Jewish-Christian sources that seem
> >to be represented by it.
>
> I was not on Synoptic-l but again I am sure that you can show that you
> were removed (if you were) for what your interests were rather than
> how you acted on the list.
This should be very easy to see. All you have to do is look at my posts to
Synoptic-L in the period previous to my being removed. There's absolutely
nothing in them that could have given cause to expulsion. Formally, the
reason that was given for my expulsion was that I mentioned ms Pepys in my
post. Now, if this is not political bigotry, then what is it?
> I mentioned Goranson last time. He's a fine scholar. But he got booted
> for *how* he said it.
This is irrelevant to my case.
> I have some serious doubts as to whether you were booted off a list
> for *what* you wrote about.
See above.
> >> So you are not aware of any evidence presented to show that Hebrew
> >> Matthew was not an ancient document?
>
> Even Howard argues no more than that Shem-Tob is "probably no more
> than a dim reflection of a prior tradition."
Well, the question is precisely how much of the primitive tradition can be
found in HMt. And in order to know this, one needs to study the text.
> >> Okay, what evidence shows that it was rather than a document which
> >> copied other more ancient documents? I don't recall any from TC.
> >
> >There's plenty of evidence to show that HMt is an ancient document. I
> >have lots of it on my webpage,
>
> Again Howard: "I do not presume that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew goes
> back to early times. This is a text that has been repeatedly
> revised...."
Of course it's been revised. So what?
Now, speaking about the Jesus Seminar, one of its prominent members is
Dr. Mahlon Smith, who also happens to be one of the moderators of
Synoptic-L. So now we can see that the bigotry and intolerance of
Synoptic-L is also shared at least in part by the Jesus Seminar.
Yours,
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
Neville Lindsay
You would strain anyone's tolerance. This matter of your removal from
Synoptic-L is an old and much rehearsed tale of woe from you, but it comes
down to the fact that you have been asked time and again to post the emails
which show your warning by the moderators and your response to them. It is
in your hands to demonstrate for once and for all the facts of the matter,
not just bleat endlessly about your deep sense of injustice. Post it now,
and convince us.
NL
Yuri Kuchinsky
: You would strain anyone's tolerance. This matter of your removal from
: Synoptic-L is an old and much rehearsed tale of woe from you, but it comes
: down to the fact that you have been asked time and again to post the emails
: which show your warning by the moderators and your response to them. It is
: in your hands to demonstrate for once and for all the facts of the matter,
: not just bleat endlessly about your deep sense of injustice. Post it now,
: and convince us.
I will not violate Netiquette. Unlike you and Doug, I actually do have
some moral principles.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
"Why should I have shame?" -- Mr. Doug Weller, putting the matters very
succinctly, and providing a fine perspective on his whole personality,
on Oct 2, 2000, in http://www.egroups.com/message/loisy/1001
Yuri Kuchinsky
> Yuri,
>
> >represented by the Middle Dutch Liege
> >> >harmony are textually closely related. I agree with this. But the only
> >> >conclusion that can be legitimately drawn from this is that both HMt and
> >> >Liege ultimately go to the same source.
> >>
> >> Do you? Howard does not agree.
> >
> >Trotter,
> >
> >This is incorrect that Howard does not agree. You're making things up
> >now...
>
> Just to make sure I went back to Howard's 1986 and 1989 JBL articles.
> Howard thinks that HMatthew there is an old substratum that was
> originally composed in Hebrew. In a 1999 article Howard takes
> exception with Petersen's position by saying that Petersen does not
> even understand the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony. You agree that the
> MDLH and HMt are textually closely related and conclude that they go
> back to the same source. In this matter you and Howard disagree.
>
> Why do you think I am making things up?
Because you're going beyond the evidence, that's why.
Prof. Howard is a highly accomplished and respected scholar (the list of
his professional publications is very long indeed), a model of academic
integrity. He never claims more than he can prove, and he's usually quite
modest with his claims. When he doesn't know something, he admits it. For
example (in http://rosetta.atla-certr.org/TC/vol04/Howard1999.html), he
says,
"I do not know when Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew dates or where it was
created."
A useful contrast can be drawn here with Petersen who constantly makes
excessive and rather boastful claims about him having figured out all
sorts of things about the history of HMt. This is the most that Howard
claims,
"What I have argued is that a Shem-Tob type Matthean text (not Shem-Tob's
Hebrew Matthew per se) has roots in an early period of Christian
history..."
But at the same time, he adds,
"I am unsure what this prior tradition [of an early Shem-Tob type Matthean
text] amounts to, whether a complete gospel or simply an undefined
source."
Thus, I would say that you have gone too far in claiming that Prof.
Howard will for sure disagree with my views about the history of HMt. I
remind that what I suggested on 10 Jun 2001 was that, in my view,
Petersen, demonstrated rather conclusively that HMt and the harmonised
gospel tradition as represented by the Middle Dutch Liege harmony are
textually closely related, and that I agree with this. Further, I said
that, as far as I can see, the only conclusion that can be legitimately
drawn from this is that both HMt and Liege ultimately go back to the same
source X. At the same time, the nature of this source X is not so clear at
this stage.
So what was this source X then? I don't really know, but (a) perhaps it
was a very primitive Jewish-Christian version of Mt that may go back to
1c, or (b) perhaps it was the Gospel According to the Hebrews (GAH), which
I see as a very early harmony of four gospels that much later, with
significant alterations, were to become canonical. (Or, to put it in
another way, GAH would have incorporated primitive texts of four gospels
that will later be changed for political reasons.)
The above suggestions are quite reasonable, and I don't see why Howard
should disagree with them.
> >And this actually argues _against_ Niclos! These pericope divisions in
> >HMt, now also supported by some Provencal and Catalan mss, are very
> >important, and undermine the Q-hypothesis considerably...
>
> At this point I am quoting myself from a post of a few days ago:
>
> >> If you say no at this point, at some later point I reserve the right
> >> to require the same level of proof which you have hereby rejected.
>
> You said "fine." Okay, at this time I require the same level of proof:
> demonstrate that the pericope divisions in HMt are supported by
> Provencal and Catalan mss and that they undermine the Q-hypothesis
> "considerably."
Well, my dear friend, you're asking me now to complete a whole PhD
dissertation online for you... How about the option of withdrawing the
claim? :)
But seriously, I'm not really interested so much in this whole Q hoax any
more. I don't believe a word of it, and I don't want to waste any time on
it.
The proof is in Howard's book (for pericope divisions in HMt), and in
Niclos' article (for support from some other European gospel mss). If
interested, read that, and we can discuss this further. If not
interested, consider the claim withdrawn...
> >> Why on earth would you suspect that given that scholars who have a lot
> >> more skills than you
> >
> >This is appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
>
> One gets a choice. One can either demonstrate that one has the
> expertise to show one's point or one can cite the work of another. So
> far you have cited other scholars to show your points. I don't see a
> lot of analysis by Yuri;
Read the links I've given you, and you will see lots!
The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/2dh.htm
> I just see Yuri "suspecting" what he is trying to show.
>
> >So it is primarily the problem for the historian of Christianity to
> >clarify the Sitz of this text. When this is done, then the textual
> >scholars can do their work much more productively. In other words,
> >historical criticism should come before text criticism.
>
> Maybe this makes sense to you but it is backwards to me. Textual
> criticism always comes first in order to establish a Sitz im Leben.
> Suppose we were studying a text from the OT and did our analysis of
> the Sitz im Lebem first. We might decided that a text comes from the
> inter-testimental period based upon an allusion to a Hasmoneon king.
> Textual criticism could show that this allusion to this king
> disappears when a scribal error is taken into account. The Sitz im
> Leben could change by centuries.
But if archaeologists find an empty Coke can in an ancient burial, they
will not call in textual experts to read the text on it.
> >Until this is done with some degree of realism, IMHO
> >any claim that HMt is a medieval translation is founded in quicksand
>
> Actually some of the readings of HMt are being considered as having
> some degree of antiquity. Shedinger wrote an article about it in Cath
> Bib Q back in 1999. But proponents of the antiquity of even portions
> of HMt have yet to prove their point.
Read Howard. He makes his points very well.
Neville Lindsay
> In soc.history.ancient Neville Lindsay <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> : You would strain anyone's tolerance. This matter of your removal from
> : Synoptic-L is an old and much rehearsed tale of woe from you, but it
comes
> : down to the fact that you have been asked time and again to post the
emails
> : which show your warning by the moderators and your response to them. It
is
> : in your hands to demonstrate for once and for all the facts of the
matter,
> : not just bleat endlessly about your deep sense of injustice. Post it
now,
> : and convince us.
>
> I will not violate Netiquette. Unlike you and Doug, I actually do have
> some moral principles.
>
> Yuri.
As has been pointed out many times to you before when you have used this
lame excuse, all you have to do is ask the moderators for permission.
Someone even volunteered to ask them for this permission to save you the
trouble. No breach of netiquette required whatsoever.
On each and every occasion you have ducked this. Where are your
self-proclaimed moral principles? It has been obvious that the last thing
you want is for the real facts of your expulsion to be published so that you
can avoid being unmasked as an unprincipled defamer and a sympathy-seeking
whiner.
NL
Jeffrey B. Gibson
unfairly treated by
the moderators of Synoptic-L but also his standard defense of his
claim, namely,
that there was nothing in the psot that got him banned from that List
that anyone
would judge offensive.
For what it's worth, let me note that while it is true that there was
nothing in the tone
of that post itself that was a violation of Synoptic-L protocols, it
was NOT the post
itself which got Yuri banned (as he claims), but his refusal to abide
by an off list
request from the modeartor of Synoptic-L not to post **anything** on
the PGH.
After posting a series of messages on the Pepsyian Gospel Harmony,
Yuri
received an official **off list notice** from the chief moderator of
Synoptic-L that he
(Yuri) was to refrain from posting again anything about or pertaining
to the PGH .
But quite contrary to what he had bound himself to do when he
subscribed to
Synoptic-L, Yuri refused to honour this off List notice/official
request, and posted a
message in which he did just what he was asked not to do.
So the issue here is not whether the message that got Yuri banned
was/is publically
offensive or inoffensive. That's a red herring. Rather, it is that his
act of posting his
message was a refusal to be bound by directives from the List
moderator.
So contray to Yuri's claims, the real issue was NOT whether the post
that resulted in
Yuri's being banned was in itself offensive, let alone whether anyone
can see
anything within it that might be deemed as such. Rather it was
whether, in his very
act of sending that post, he disreguarded and disobeyed an OFF LIST
official
notice against doing so. And this he most certainly did.
Yours,
Jeffrey Gibson
Jeffrey B. Gibson
>
Yuri.
>
> As has been pointed out many times to you before when you have used this
> lame excuse, all you have to do is ask the moderators for permission.
> Someone even volunteered to ask them for this permission to save you the
> trouble. No breach of netiquette required whatsoever.
>
> On each and every occasion you have ducked this. Where are your
> self-proclaimed moral principles? It has been obvious that the last thing
> you want is for the real facts of your expulsion to be published so that you
> can avoid being unmasked as an unprincipled defamer and a sympathy-seeking
> whiner.
>
Not to open a can of worms, you might also want to ask him why he has
been banned from the Jesus Mysteries, Biblical Studies, and Hebrew
Matthew Lists and is on moderated status on XTalk
Yours,
Jeffrey Gibson
Jeffrey B. Gibson
> In soc.history.ancient Neville Lindsay <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> : You would strain anyone's tolerance. This matter of your removal from
> : Synoptic-L is an old and much rehearsed tale of woe from you, but it comes
> : down to the fact that you have been asked time and again to post the emails
> : which show your warning by the moderators and your response to them. It is
> : in your hands to demonstrate for once and for all the facts of the matter,
> : not just bleat endlessly about your deep sense of injustice. Post it now,
> : and convince us.
>
> I will not violate Netiquette. Unlike you and Doug, I actually do have
> some moral principles.
Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or not you
actually have moral principles, do you categorically deny that the
modderator(s) of Synoptic-L ever wrote to you off List and asked you
not to post on the PGH?
Yours,
Jeffrey Gibson
Yuri Kuchinsky
: Not to open a can of worms, you might also want to ask him why he has
: been banned from the Jesus Mysteries, Biblical Studies, and Hebrew
: Matthew Lists and is on moderated status on XTalk
I have never been banned from Biblical Studies-L, so I demand an
immediate retraction and apology from Mr. Gibson for this slanderous
accusation.
As to these other two groups, I don't think the matter significant
enough to deserve any of my attention. They share the same quality in
that both have been set up by unknown individuals with uncertain private
agendas, and both keep their archives secret from the general public.
And in addition, this "Hebrew Matthew List" also happens to be a "dead
list", i.e. one message or so per month. Why should anyone worry about
being expelled from a dead list?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Yuri Kuchinsky
"After posting a series of messages on the Pepsyian Gospel Harmony,
Yuri received an official **off list notice** from the chief moderator
of Synoptic-L that he (Yuri) was to refrain from posting again
anything about or pertaining to the PGH."
Correct, I did receive such a request from the moderators of Synoptic-L.
Although one could debate about its exact wording, and whether or not I
really violated any such specific "notice", that's really not the point
right now. The real point is that quite a few respected biblical scholars
argued that Pepys preserves numerous primitive traditions. And also, that
it is perfectly clear that it preserves many Jewish-Christian elements (a
list can be supplied on request).
So why do these arrogant censors feel like they have the right to ban
"anything about or pertaining to" what seems like a primitive
Jewish-Christian gospel? To me, this is the best indication of serious
political bias in the field of biblical studies -- and this is really what
I'm complaining about.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"At times to be silent is to lie. You will win because you have enough
brute force. But you will not convince. For to convince you need to
persuade. And in order to persuade you would need what you lack: Reason
and Right." -- Spanish philosopher Miguel de Unamuno in a confrontation
with fascist General Milan-Astray at the University of Salamanca on
October 12, 1936. Milan-Astray shouted in reply, "Death to
intelligence!"
In soc.history.ancient Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibs...@home.com> wrote:
Jeffrey B. Gibson
> In soc.history.ancient Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> : Not to open a can of worms, you might also want to ask him why he has
> : been banned from the Jesus Mysteries, Biblical Studies, and Hebrew
> : Matthew Lists and is on moderated status on XTalk
>
> I have never been banned from Biblical Studies-L, so I demand an
> immediate retraction and apology from Mr. Gibson for this slanderous
> accusation.
Slanderous is a bait of an overstatement, don't you think?
Nevertheless, I'll be happy to oblige if , once I've heard back from
the moderators of Biblical Studies, that I was indeed in error on this
matter. In the meantime, I'm still waiting for an answer from you as
to whether you categorically deny that the
moderator(s) of Synoptic-L ever wrote to you off List and asked you
not to post on the PGH.
>
> As to these other two groups, I don't think the matter significant
> enough to deserve any of my attention. They share the same quality in
> that both have been set up by unknown individuals with uncertain private
> agendas, and both keep their archives secret from the general public.
> And in addition, this "Hebrew Matthew List" also happens to be a "dead
> list", i.e. one message or so per month. Why should anyone worry about
> being expelled from a dead list?
>
I guess then the question is: why did you find it necessary and/or
desirable to join these lists and to stay on them until you were
banned if they were so sub par? Aesop, anyone?
Yours,
Jeffrey Gibson
Jeffrey B. Gibson
Kuchinsky why he [Yuri} has been banned from the Jesus Mysteries,
Biblical Studies, and Hebrew Matthew Lists and is on moderated status
"never been banned from Biblical Studies-L" but went on to "demand"
that I issue "an immediate retraction and apology ... for this
slanderous accusation."
To insure that my memory was not as bad as Mr. Kuchinsky implies that
it is -- not to mention that I had spoken the truth and had not
uttered anything of a slanderous nature, I contacted to owner of
Biblical Studies, Jim West, and asked him to confirm what I had
asserted. Well, I've just had word back from Jim, and, as I suspected,
Yuri was indeed banned from the Biblical Studies List. So in the light
of this confirmation of my claim, I guess the questions now to be
answerd are: Will Yuri issue a retraction of what appears to be a
distortion of the truth (if not a boldfaced lie)? And will **I** get
from him an apology for claiming that I engaged in slander when I did
no such thing?
Anyone want to take odds that the answers to these questions will be
"no"?
Yours,
Jeffrey Gibson
Jeffrey B. Gibson
> In soc.history.ancient Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> "After posting a series of messages on the Pepsyian Gospel Harmony,
> Yuri received an official **off list notice** from the chief moderator
> of Synoptic-L that he (Yuri) was to refrain from posting again
> anything about or pertaining to the PGH."
>
> Correct, I did receive such a request from the moderators of Synoptic-L.
> Although one could debate about its exact wording, and whether or not I
> really violated any such specific "notice", that's really not the point
> right now.
Ah ... but it is **exactly** the point. When you subscribed to
Synoptic-L, you agreed to follow the Moderators' decisions and
requests. But you chose to ignore their requests. So, as many have
repeatedly claimed, it was **your behaviour**, not any "political"
bias that got you booted from Synoptic-L.
Yours,
Jeffrey Gibosn
Yuri Kuchinsky
: In response to my question to Nelille that one might want to ask Yuri
: Kuchinsky why he [Yuri} has been banned from the Jesus Mysteries,
: Biblical Studies, and Hebrew Matthew Lists and is on moderated status
: on XTalk, Yuri not only boldly asserted that he had (and I quote)
: "never been banned from Biblical Studies-L" but went on to "demand"
: that I issue "an immediate retraction and apology ... for this
: slanderous accusation."
: To insure that my memory was not as bad as Mr. Kuchinsky implies
Your memory is obvious rotten...
: that
: it is -- not to mention that I had spoken the truth and had not
: uttered anything of a slanderous nature, I contacted to owner of
: Biblical Studies, Jim West, and asked him to confirm what I had
: asserted. Well, I've just had word back from Jim, and, as I suspected,
: Yuri was indeed banned from the Biblical Studies List.
This is an out and out lie.
This is the campaign of lies and distortions that these creeps have now
launched against me. And what was my fault? It seems my only fault is
that I want to study primitive Jewish-Christianity!
Political bias in biblical studies is now more clear than ever, as well
as the utter dishonesty of all these "moderators" (read political
censors).
If Jim West claims that I was "banned", I would really like to know the
date of my "banning" and the cause. But of course these will not be
forthcoming because they don't exist...
Yuri Kuchinsky
: .tht.net>...
:> In soc.history.ancient Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibs...@home.com> wrote:
:>
:> "After posting a series of messages on the Pepsyian Gospel Harmony,
:> Yuri received an official **off list notice** from the chief moderator
:> of Synoptic-L that he (Yuri) was to refrain from posting again
:> anything about or pertaining to the PGH."
:>
:> Correct, I did receive such a request from the moderators of Synoptic-L.
:> Although one could debate about its exact wording, and whether or not I
:> really violated any such specific "notice", that's really not the point
:> right now.
: Ah ... but it is **exactly** the point. When you subscribed to
: Synoptic-L, you agreed to follow the Moderators' decisions and
: requests. But you chose to ignore their requests.
Nope, I never ignored their requests.
: So, as many have
: repeatedly claimed, it was **your behaviour**, not any "political"
: bias that got you booted from Synoptic-L.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with my behaviour. But the real point
here for me is that ms Pepys preserves numerous primitive traditions,
and many Jewish-Christian elements. Is this why it was banned perhaps?
So why do these arrogant censors feel like they have the right to ban
"anything about or pertaining to" what seems like a primitive
Jewish-Christian gospel? To me, this is the best indication of serious
political bias in the field of biblical studies.
Could someone have guessed that there's one ancient Christian gospel one
mention of which is enough for an immediate expulsion from the list
dedicated to the history of Christian gospels? Can such a thing be
possible in our day and age? Yes, my friends, believe it or not, this is
possible, and this is what happened to me.
Are we now back to the supreme justice of the book-burners of the
Inquisition, I would like to ask? How is it possible, in our day and
age, in a civilized society, to ban any mention of an ancient document
in a public forum? How can any theory of Synoptic dependence be excluded
from being considered on a discussion list dedicated to the Synoptic
problem? If this is not an ultimate example of intolerance, bigotry, and
bias, then what is this?
So this is really what I'm complaining about.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"At times to be silent is to lie. You will win because you have enough
Jeffrey B. Gibson
> In soc.history.ancient Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> : In response to my question to Nelille that one might want to ask Yuri
> : Kuchinsky why he [Yuri} has been banned from the Jesus Mysteries,
> : Biblical Studies, and Hebrew Matthew Lists and is on moderated status
> : on XTalk, Yuri not only boldly asserted that he had (and I quote)
> : "never been banned from Biblical Studies-L" but went on to "demand"
> : that I issue "an immediate retraction and apology ... for this
> : slanderous accusation."
>
> : To insure that my memory was not as bad as Mr. Kuchinsky implies
>
> Your memory is obvious rotten...
>
> : that
> : it is -- not to mention that I had spoken the truth and had not
> : uttered anything of a slanderous nature, I contacted to owner of
> : Biblical Studies, Jim West, and asked him to confirm what I had
> : asserted. Well, I've just had word back from Jim, and, as I suspected,
> : Yuri was indeed banned from the Biblical Studies List.
>
> This is an out and out lie.
>
> date of my "banning" and the cause. But of course these will not be
> forthcoming because they don't exist...
>
Yours,
Jeffrey Gibson
Jeffrey B. Gibson
> :> Correct, I did receive such a request from the moderators of Synoptic-L.
> :> Although one could debate about its exact wording, and whether or not I
> :> really violated any such specific "notice", that's really not the point
> :> right now.
>
> : Ah ... but it is **exactly** the point. When you subscribed to
> : Synoptic-L, you agreed to follow the Moderators' decisions and
> : requests. But you chose to ignore their requests.
>
> Nope, I never ignored their requests.
>
This puzzles me. You admit that you received off list correspondence
from the moderators of Synoptic-L asking you not to post on, or to
mention, the PGH again. But you went ahead and posted a message which
did mention the PGH. How is this NOT ignoring the moderators' request?
> : So, as many have
> : repeatedly claimed, it was **your behaviour**, not any "political"
> : bias that got you booted from Synoptic-L.
>
> There was absolutely nothing wrong with my behaviour.
So you say. But given that you were told NOT to post on a certain
topic, but went ahead and did so anyway after having given your tacit
agreement to abide by the rules of Synoptic-L, how can what you did
**not** be wrong behaviour?
But the real point
> here for me is that ms Pepys preserves numerous primitive traditions,
> and many Jewish-Christian elements. Is this why it was banned perhaps?
As I've mentioned many times before, the PGH was not banned as a
subject of discussion on Synoptic-L. What was prohibited was **your**
bringing it up.
> So why do these arrogant censors feel like they have the right to ban
> "anything about or pertaining to" what seems like a primitive
> Jewish-Christian gospel?
Seems to whom?
> To me, this is the best indication of serious
> political bias in the field of biblical studies.
>
> Could someone have guessed that there's one ancient Christian gospel one
> mention of which is enough for an immediate expulsion from the list
> dedicated to the history of Christian gospels?
As we've rehearsed before -- and as you yourself have admitted -- the
expulsion was hardly **immediate**. You were given a prior warning not
to post on, or mention, the PGH (largely because of the way you
respond to anyone who dares to question your take on this harmony).
And once you ignored that warning and went ahead and sent a post in
which, contrary to that warning, you mentioned it, it took over a week
(as you yourself have noted) for a decision to come down from the
moderators of Synoptic-L to note that you had done what they had asked
you not to do and were therefore excluded from the List. This is
hardly an "immediate" expulsion.
>
> Are we now back to the supreme justice of the book-burners of the
> Inquisition, I would like to ask? How is it possible, in our day and
> age, in a civilized society, to ban any mention of an ancient document
> in a public forum?
We've seen this paragraph before. And the questions about the accuracy
of its assertions still remain.
Synoptic-L is **not** a public forum. True, anyone can read what has
been posted there. The psots don't come from just anyone. And anyone
who is approved for posting agrees to adhere to certain rules.
> If this is not an ultimate example of intolerance, bigotry, and
> bias, then what is this?
I would say your message with its underlying tone of "anyone who
doesn't agree with me is a book burner" -- fits the bill pretty well.
> So this is really what I'm complaining about.
>
Yes, but it still misses the point that **you** violated List Rules
and that it was your behaviour that got you banned, not any bigorty on
the part of Synoptic-L moderators.
Yours,
Jeffrey Gibson>
Yuri Kuchinsky
: tht.net>...
:> :> Correct, I did receive such a request from the moderators of Synoptic-L.
:> :> Although one could debate about its exact wording, and whether or not I
:> :> really violated any such specific "notice", that's really not the point
:> :> right now.
:>
:> : Ah ... but it is **exactly** the point. When you subscribed to
:> : Synoptic-L, you agreed to follow the Moderators' decisions and
:> : requests. But you chose to ignore their requests.
:>
:> Nope, I never ignored their requests.
:>
: This puzzles me. You admit that you received off list correspondence
: from the moderators of Synoptic-L asking you not to post on, or to
: mention, the PGH again.
There was no such off list correspondence from the moderators of
Synoptic-L. What they sent me in fact was a request not to post "on the
topic of the PGH". And I didn't.
Therefore, my expulsion was completely unwarranted.
: But you went ahead and posted a message which
: did mention the PGH. How is this NOT ignoring the moderators' request?
:> : So, as many have
:> : repeatedly claimed, it was **your behaviour**, not any "political"
:> : bias that got you booted from Synoptic-L.
:>
:> There was absolutely nothing wrong with my behaviour.
: So you say. But given that you were told NOT to post on a certain
: topic, but went ahead and did so anyway after having given your tacit
: agreement to abide by the rules of Synoptic-L, how can what you did
: **not** be wrong behaviour?
: But the real point
:> here for me is that ms Pepys preserves numerous primitive traditions,
:> and many Jewish-Christian elements. Is this why it was banned perhaps?
: As I've mentioned many times before, the PGH was not banned as a
: subject of discussion on Synoptic-L. What was prohibited was **your**
: bringing it up.
I see... It's not banned as a subject of discussion on Synoptic-L, it's
just that those who are interested in it are banned?
:> So why do these arrogant censors feel like they have the right to ban
:> "anything about or pertaining to" what seems like a primitive
:> Jewish-Christian gospel?
: Seems to whom?
To those who know what's it about.
:> To me, this is the best indication of serious
: Yours,
: Jeffrey Gibson>
I see... so what you're saying is that Pepys is not banned, it's just
Yuri who's banned because Yuri is such a bad, bad fellow. But perhaps
he's such a bad, bad fellow primarily because he's interested in
primitive Jewish-Christianity? Whereas, as we all know, all the
right-thinking biblical scholars should just accept that Yeshu was a
Greek, and be done with the subject!
Funny how I've been a member of all these lists for years, and I never
had any trouble with moderators until I started to question this
cardboard figure of Yeshu the Greek... And now I'm censored everywhere
and driven from post to pillar... yeah, sure, all of a sudden I became
such a bad, bad person...
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even
to young children, is called, in Newspeak, crimestop. Crimestop means the
faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any
dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of
failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest
arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc [English Socialism], and of being
bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a
heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." --
Orwell/1984
Yuri Kuchinsky
: tht.net>...
Now, since I'm still a member of Biblical Studies, why would I not be
allowed to post to it?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
"The first and simplest stage in the discipline, which can be taught even
Jeffrey B. Gibson
> In soc.history.ancient Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibs...@home.com> wrote:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:<9gqe5h$1eb$1@news.
> : tht.net>...
> :> :> Correct, I did receive such a request from the moderators of Synoptic-L.
> :> :> Although one could debate about its exact wording, and whether or not I
> :> :> really violated any such specific "notice", that's really not the point
> :> :> right now.
>
> :> : Ah ... but it is **exactly** the point. When you subscribed to
> :> : Synoptic-L, you agreed to follow the Moderators' decisions and
> :> : requests. But you chose to ignore their requests.
> :>
> :> Nope, I never ignored their requests.
> :>
>
> : This puzzles me. You admit that you received off list correspondence
> : from the moderators of Synoptic-L asking you not to post on, or to
> : mention, the PGH again.
>
> There was no such off list correspondence from the moderators of
> Synoptic-L. What they sent me in fact was a request not to post "on the
> topic of the PGH". And I didn't.
>
> Therefore, my expulsion was completely unwarranted.
You didn't?!! Here's a quote from the post you have youself said go
you booted:
****
And it may be noted also that Boismard is a pioneer in the study of
the
Pepysian Gospel, which he links to Justin's Harmony, and to
proto-Luke. (I
must say I find it quite ironic that it took a Frenchman to launch
serious
study of this intriguing Middle English document.)
*****
Can you homestly tell me that the quote above does not deal--however
briefly and indirectly--with the topic of the PGH?
> : As I've mentioned many times before, the PGH was not banned as a
> : subject of discussion on Synoptic-L. What was prohibited was **your**
> : bringing it up.
>
> I see... It's not banned as a subject of discussion on Synoptic-L, it's
> just that those who are interested in it are banned?
>
No -- and you misconstrue to your own advantage here. The deciding
point is not "interest" in the PGH. It was whether those who are
interested can post on the topic without rancor when their views about
the PGH are challenged. And as we've all seen, this seems to be
something that is impossible for you to do.
>
> :> If this is not an ultimate example of intolerance, bigotry, and
> :> bias, then what is this?
>
> : I would say your message with its underlying tone of "anyone who
> : doesn't agree with me is a book burner" -- fits the bill pretty well.
>
> :> So this is really what I'm complaining about.
> :>
>
> : Yes, but it still misses the point that **you** violated List Rules
> : and that it was your behaviour that got you banned, not any bigorty on
> : the part of Synoptic-L moderators.
>
>
> I see... so what you're saying is that Pepys is not banned, it's just
> Yuri who's banned because Yuri is such a bad, bad fellow.
In a nutshell, yes. Sorry that you can't see it. But all one has to do
to find evidence of how invested you are in rancour, spitefulness,
vituperation, and bile is to browse through your messages here and on
the Loisy List, T-C, and on the old Crosstalk, not to mention GThomas
(where you are on moderated status for your behaviour), the HMatt List
(from which you've been banned), Biblical Studies (where you posting
priveleges have been withdrawn), XTalk (where you are on permanent
moderated status). Then there's the wealth of classic Yuri that's been
sent off List to the moderators of these Lists when you have been
notified that your posts have violated List protocols.
> But perhaps
> he's such a bad, bad fellow primarily because he's interested in
> primitive Jewish-Christianity?
No, since lots of others on Synoptic-L and all the other Lists I've
mentioned are interested as well. It's that you continually denigrate
those who don't give your "expertise" the acknowldgement you think it
deserves.
> Whereas, as we all know, all the
> right-thinking biblical scholars should just accept that Yeshu was a
> Greek, and be done with the subject!
>
As I've pointed out before on numerous occasions, this
characterization of what biblical scholars feel is out of touch with
reality. If you had ever attended an SBL or SNTS or CBA conference,
you'd know that your characterization of what members of the guild
believe with respect to "Yeshu" is hardly what you keep insisting it
is. But constructing strawmen and selective perception is your forte.
So keep at it if you wish. But don't expect many to believe you.
Yours,
Jeffrey Gibson
Jeffrey B. Gibson
> :> If Jim West claims that I was "banned", I would really like to know the
> :> date of my "banning" and the cause. But of course these will not be
> :> forthcoming because they don't exist...
>
> : Let me ask you this: are you allowed to post to Biblical Studies?
>
> Now, since I'm still a member of Biblical Studies, why would I not be
> allowed to post to it?
Because your style of posting has made you persona non grata on the
Biblical Studies List and Jim has decided he has had enough of you.
As Jim has told me (and I quote):
"he [Yuri] can read whatever he likes. he's just prohibited from
posting".
So while it is true that Jim has not unsubscribed you, he has placed a
flag against anything that comes in from you. The effect is that, so
far as your messages to the List are concerned, you have been
"banned".
And if you don't believe me, try posting to Biblical Studies and see
what happens.
Yours,
Jeffrey Gibson
(28SW2) Michael Cecil
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> In soc.history.ancient Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibs...@home.com> wrote:
>
> : In response to my question to Nelille that one might want to ask Yuri
> : Kuchinsky why he [Yuri} has been banned from the Jesus Mysteries,
> : Biblical Studies, and Hebrew Matthew Lists and is on moderated status
> : on XTalk, Yuri not only boldly asserted that he had (and I quote)
> : "never been banned from Biblical Studies-L" but went on to "demand"
> : that I issue "an immediate retraction and apology ... for this
> : slanderous accusation."
>
> : To insure that my memory was not as bad as Mr. Kuchinsky implies
>
> Your memory is obvious rotten...
>
> : that
> : it is -- not to mention that I had spoken the truth and had not
> : uttered anything of a slanderous nature, I contacted to owner of
> : Biblical Studies, Jim West, and asked him to confirm what I had
> : asserted. Well, I've just had word back from Jim, and, as I suspected,
> : Yuri was indeed banned from the Biblical Studies List.
>
> This is an out and out lie.
>
> This is the campaign of lies and distortions that these creeps have now
> launched against me. And what was my fault? It seems my only fault is
> that I want to study primitive Jewish-Christianity!
Believe it or not, there are more serious issues here.
Just try telling them that the "resurrection" is similar to the Buddhist
Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.
Then you will get a REAL war.
This, after all, is THE *fundamental* perversion of the Teaching of
Jesus which they are attempting to address when they oppose
those who want to study PRIMITIVE Jewish-Christianity.
Were THIS Truth to be made known and considered within the
academic community, THOUSANDS of these IDIOTS would
wind up unemployed.
>
> Political bias in biblical studies is now more clear than ever, as well
> as the utter dishonesty of all these "moderators" (read political
> censors).
Of course, of course.
I have had similar experiences with the "Jesus Seminar".
Michael Cecil