These, as I see it, are the scandals, deceptions, and cover-ups in the NT profession
articles by Yuri Kuchinsky posted to and discussed in various Internet forums
Here's my general article about the "Six Big Fallacies of NT Studies" (June 2002). It's short and snappy.
When I wrote this article, I tried to summarise my main criticisms very briefly. Later on, I continued to develop many of these same ideas and analyses in a lot more detail. In particular, I gave a lot more attention to Textual Criticism of the NT gospels, a much neglected field nowadays...
So, below are a couple of the more recent articles that focus in some more detail on Textual Criticism.
In this article, I deal head on with today's mainstream Greek text of the New Testament, which is the basis of almost all modern translations. Unfortunately, there are all too many problems with this text... It's the Westcott & Hort Fraud! (November 2003)
And, in the following article, I deal with some of the same textual problems. Except that here my approach is considerably more positive. Earliest Gospel MSS make it all clear... (October 2003)
The following two articles were written in the winter 2002/2003. Again, I was trying to explain some very arcane Text Critical controversies in the simplest language possible, so that even those without much background in this area could still understand what's going on.
What is the Western Text? Shouldn't it rather be known as the Peripheral Text? I sure think so. Indeed, by all indications, this is the earliest text of the gospels.
The following article adds even more evidence to what I was saying above. It sure looks like these simple truths that I'm now talking about had already been obvious to some scholars even way back in the 18th century! Griesbach had it right!
Here's a detailed examination of John 7:8, a very controversial passage. It looks like our modern biblical scholars have decided to accuse Jesus of telling a lie! With very little basis, it must be said... This article is in 5 parts.
Was Jesus a Baptist, just like his teacher John? This matter is far from simple. In the following article, I examine this question in some detail, and bring in some new textual evidence to bear on this matter.
Here's my article about the Rylands Papyrus, the tiny scrap of writing that has been much discussed and appealed to in mainstream NT histories. But, unfortunately, it's not really what it's cracked out to be...
Was Tatian really the author of the Diatessaron? It really doesn't look this way... And here's why.
WL Petersen criticised Boismard rather harshly in his book on the Diatessaron. But was this criticism really justified? I don't think so. Here's my answer to Petersen. (NOTE: This material may be a bit too difficult to follow for those readers who are unfamiliar with Textual Criticism. Anything involving the analysis of the Diatessaron is usually quite complex, and demands some considerable preparation, as well as some knowledge of ancient languages.)
Many more articles dealing with Textual Criticism are also available on my Ancient Aramaic Texts Page.
The Synoptic Problem?
In this part of my NT Controversies Page, I am devoting some more time to the consideration of the Synoptic Problem, so-called... On the most basic level, I don't think that there's much of a problem there at all. These are all late, 2nd century gospels, so none of them is really the earliest!
Some of the fundamental difficulties in this area are analysed here. This article continues with the analysis that I began in the "Six Big Fallacies of NT Studies" piece above.
The very early elements in the Gospel of Luke are itemised here. All these early features of Luke are a big thorn in the mainstream notion of Markan priority. And also, this evidence goes entirely contrary to the theories of Farrer/Goulder/Goodacre, who try to argue that Luke is the latest gospel of them all, based on both Mark and Matthew.
Quite a few more articles dealing with the Synoptic issues are also available elsewhere on my NT webpage. In particular, some of my most recent research on the ancient Aramaic gospels (linked above) is very much relevant here.
In fact, it is my view that the whole issue of Synoptic interrelationships depends very heavily on Textual Criticism. And how can it be otherwise? Indeed, before the Synoptic scholar can even begin his or her work, s/he needs to have the earliest text of the Synoptic gospels to work with... And if we are still not sure which text is the earliest, then, right away, this creates some very heavy obstacles for Synoptic research. Too bad that the mainstream Synoptic scholarship today often seems to be unaware even of these simple considerations...
As an example of what I'm saying, here's a detailed analysis of Mt 19:16-17 that in effect combines Textual Criticism and Synoptic Criticism into one harmonious whole. And so, as illustrated by this analysis, it seems like the Synoptic Criticism should only be seen as an appendage to Textual Criticism; only after the Text Critic has done his or her work properly, can the work of a Synoptic scholar truly begin.
And here's a Part 2 of this article, where the great importance of early patristic evidence is now considered in some additional detail. Why is there such a disinterest on the part of so many modern textual critics in regard to this type of evidence? Why do so many want to minimise it in various ways? Could it be because... it undermines so many of their cherished ideas about the "Original Gospel Text"?
The following two articles constitute a major breakthrough in the area of Synoptic scholarship. The Synoptic solution is now in sight!The Hebrew Matthew and Luke: An Important Key to the Synoptic Problem
Click here to return to Yuri's New Testament Research Page.