Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Metzger the deceiver (Text. Crit.)
Greetings, all,

The following article is written from the Old Syriac perspective, but, in so far as Metzger's deception is concerned, this shouldn't really make any difference. And Part 2 of this article (coming up) will be even more relevant to the Peshitta supporters.


[Part 1]

So here's some more evidence to demonstrate just how dishonest our modern New Testament scholarship is, and the NT Textual Criticism in particular.

Dr. Bruce Metzger is considered as one of the leading lights of modern Textual Criticism of the New Testament. He's one of the members of the United Bible Societies Editorial Committee, the elite group of Textual Critics who actually determine how the standard gospel text should read in Greek... Yes, these are the folks who actually define what your Bible will say to you.

And this man is a deceiver!

So this is how he deceives the public,

[quote from Metzger]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

"We have no records in manuscript form of the gospels in Aramaic. There are no Aramaic documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John left. All we have are Greek documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. "

[end quote]

So here we have it in black and white, straight from the horse's mouth... And it is all a straight misrepresentation!

Metzger made these comments in 1992, during a question and answer period after a lecture that he delivered for The Foundation for Biblical Research in Charlestown, NH (now known as the "Center for Scriptural Studies"). It is safe to assume that his audience mostly consisted of non-academics, pastors and lay-people. So, no doubt, they believed everything he said without further question... After all, he's the Big Expert, isn't he?

No doubt, Metzger knows very well what the real situation with ancient Aramaic manuscripts is -- didn't he describe them in detail in some of his many books? But very few of that audience that he was addressing that day probably read his books, especially the more technical ones... so he felt free to deceive them, it seems!

In actual fact, of course, our oldest Aramaic manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are just as old as our best Greek MSS of the gospels. (Here's some more info about them,

The Old Syriac Aramaic Gospels
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> )

So Metzger knew about it, and yet he knowingly deceived the public... He lied!

So this is how this "Jesus the Greek" Cult operates... Yes, dear friends, what I'm saying is that our whole mainstream New Testament academic establishment is nothing other than a weird cult of "Jesus the Greek"!

In the last 100 years or so, they all but suppressed the precious witness of the ancient Aramaic manuscripts of the gospels, written as they were in the language that is very close to what Jesus, himself, spoke.

Make no mistake, these ancient Aramaic texts are very different from their Greek counterparts. What they say is quite simply _very different_ in many particulars -- in hundreds and thousands of passages... Only an out and out deceiver will claim that these ancient Aramaic texts were the straight translations from our canonical Greek texts. They are as different from our canonical Greek texts as can be, so how can they be "translations"?

So, I'd like to ask, Why are these mainstream scholars like Metzger still covering up those ancient Aramaic gospels? And I suggest it's because of a deep-seated and systemic racism in our University system. They really _want_ to see Yeshua the Greek at the bottom of that well! So this is what they see, and the hard textual evidence be damned.

So this is the Great Aramaic Cover-up, folks! And the professional deceivers like Dr. Bruce Metzger have certainly done plenty of work to put it into place.


Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Greetings, all,

Here's now Part 2 of my article about Dr. Bruce Metzger, and about the sorts of misrepresentations that he engaged in in regard to the ancient Aramaic gospels.

Let's take a look at some other things that Metzger said that day, besides the ones that I've already commented upon. Actually, some of his other comments are no less objectionable than the ones that I've already cited...

Because, in his other comments, Metzger insulted George Lamsa and his translation of the Aramaic Peshitta as "frauds". While I certainly don't agree with Lamsa on everything, the Peshitta priority theory is no more a "fraud" than the Byzantine priority theory (after all, these two theories happen to have a lot in common). And the last time I looked, the Byzantine Greek prioritists like M. Robinson were treated quite respectfully by their Text Critical colleagues. So then why is the Peshitta priority theory supposed to be a fraud? This is not fair at all to Lamsa and his work. The comments by Metzger were mean and vindictive.

Also, Metzger misrepresented Lamsa's translation of the NT by claiming as follows,

[quote from Metzger]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

He [Lamsa] said that 'the whole of the New Testament was written in Aramaic,' and he 'translates it from the Aramaic,' but he never would show anybody the manuscripts that he translated from.

[end quote]

But this is yet another misrepresentation by Metzger, and a blatant one at that. In actual fact, according to page ii of the Lamsa Bible, Lamsa used the Mortimer-McCawley manuscript of the Aramaic Peshitta for his New Testament.

Thus, quite a sordid performance all-in-all from Dr. Bruce Metzger, one of the major stalwarts of mainstream Textual Criticism today.

Speaking about Jesus the Greek Cult... So these are the sorts of methods that these big mainstream authorities use in defence of their Greek First dogma.

Frankly, I didn't expect to see such behaviour on Metzger's part, and I was quite surprised to find these comments on the Net. I've read some of Metzger's books before (and even cited him in my own book), and I've always considered him as a respectable source, although undoubtedly biased towards Greek priority. My only explanation for his bizarre comments is that he made them in front of a semi-private audience, and didn't expect them to get out to the larger public. I guess he only has the Internet to blame for this... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I suppose that these are the sorts of things that the biblical scholars always say off record. But now his comments are on record, and they illustrate quite well the culture of deception that is so prevalent in the biblical studies today.


Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
yuku Wrote:1. Old Syriac Codex Sinaiticus, dated to the mid- or late-fourth century.
2. Old Syriac Codex Curetonianus, dated to the early fifth century. .

I've heard that at least one of those "Old Syriac" mss. was scratched off and a story of a saint written over it.

I've also heard it the other way around. In which case how can you date those mss. that early? Since, the paper itself would be much earlier than the "Old Syriac" verses. I've seen nothing given which would take that into account when dating the "Old Syriac."

Shlama, Craig
Man that is gold, look how desperate Zorbans are...

UBS. That's teh same group that said "that looks more like teh Greek you would expect in a translation from the Aramaic"!!!
Even for me, who holds to neither camp, that was some very misguilded information by him. Does he want the Greek upheld that badly as to actually lie about facts. Lamsa posted clearly in the front of his book what manuscripts he used for the old covenant and new.

Good article yuri!
I agree that the Metzger talk was tacky to the max..

Nonetheless... it would be helpful to help with this question..

Is there confirmation of the Mortimer-McCawley manuscript?
Where it is situated ? Who owns it ?

Can any of you Aramaicists help with this ?

Thanks ...

Schmuel (Praxeus on Paltalk)
<!-- e --><a href=""></a><!-- e -->
Shlama Schmuel,

I have no idea what the Mortimer-McCawley manuscript is. I have a feeling it's changed names since Lamsa used it. That's probably why the publisher of his translation calls it "so-called Mortimer-McCawley manuscript."

Regardless - if it's a Peshitta NT - then it's just like any other Peshitta NT found in the many museums of the world....and just like the modern printed version.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)