04-21-2004, 11:27 PM
Shlama all--
I have to say this about this whole thread: As much as I have known for several years that the OS mss were frauds, most likely a translation from Codex Bezae, what has emerged recently has totally killed any possibility of OS Primacy in my book.
On the textual level, between Paul's website, Steve Caruso's website and my own (<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicnttruth.org">http://www.aramaicnttruth.org</a><!-- w -->) we must have at least 100+ cases of inferior OS readings, including real OS stinkers like Mark 9:49-50. On the other side of the equation, I have yet to find a SINGLE CASE where a similar horrendous reading existed on the Peshitta side. At best, OS Primacists made extremely tentative points on what they viewed as vague Peshitta readings, but this perfect text has yet to show in my view a single serious demonstrable error. I mean, if the difference between "his purification" and "their purification" in Luke 2 is the best the OS people can come up with, then the entire breadth of their "scholarship" is a joke.
As for Trimm, he could not even tell that "Smyrna" was in Crawford Revelation, until I cornered him and made him admit his error and the sophistry of his HRV footnote that it was "restored from the Greek". BTW, the reason Trimm needed to restore "Smyrna" from the Greek is because he could neither read the two proclitics in front of the word and also the fact that it was spelled with a ZAYIN and not a SAMEKH confused him. And this is the man who is supposed to be the end all and be all? Please spare me from his idle ramblings! There are many on this forum who have more Aramaic knowledge in their little finger than Trimm has in his whole body. For those who are just learning, let me throw in some Latin, CAVEAT EMPTOR! (Let the buyer beware!)
It is SO frustrating to me when:
Trimm proclaims Crawford Rev as original when the colophon makes it 12th century...and the Rylands Library that has it backs this dating up.
Trimm postulates grammatical impossibilities sucn as the dalet proclitic meaning "because" between two nouns in Ephesians 2:15, and even when you show him Thackston's Grammar proving him wrong he still tries to take advantage of the ignorant....
90% of the "original Crawford readings" that he postulates are verbatim in Peshitto Revelation, which he knows is a translation...
In short, anything that overtly disproves his theory he leaves out, and only false impressions remain. It is BEYOND outrageous what this man does.
Having said all that people, to be totally honest, the smoking gun against OS has been found and fired. Because if all the OSers had found ONE REFERENCE in ANY Peshitta mss that it was called EVANGELION D'MEPHARESEHE, they would declare their victory by shouting from the rooftops. Now we find that the unique name that Rabulla called his work, MISSING FROM ALL GREEK AND ARAMAIC WITNESSES, IS ONLY LISTED ON OLD SYRIAC SINIATICUS, AND TWICE AT THAT, and all of a sudden it's Cricket-City quiet. To me, that seems hypocritical.
Rabulla is 400's and the Peshitta, as we also demonstrated, was quoted extensively AGAINST OS by Mar Aphrahat. How then can Rabulla's work be a more ancient text than the one quoted 70 years before Rabulla was even in diapers?
For myself, that fact alone throws Old Syriac out, en toto, 100% for all time. It has proved to a be a colossally wasteful effort, common yet as distasteful as shovelling manure every day of our lives. Accept no substitutes!
I have to say this about this whole thread: As much as I have known for several years that the OS mss were frauds, most likely a translation from Codex Bezae, what has emerged recently has totally killed any possibility of OS Primacy in my book.
On the textual level, between Paul's website, Steve Caruso's website and my own (<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicnttruth.org">http://www.aramaicnttruth.org</a><!-- w -->) we must have at least 100+ cases of inferior OS readings, including real OS stinkers like Mark 9:49-50. On the other side of the equation, I have yet to find a SINGLE CASE where a similar horrendous reading existed on the Peshitta side. At best, OS Primacists made extremely tentative points on what they viewed as vague Peshitta readings, but this perfect text has yet to show in my view a single serious demonstrable error. I mean, if the difference between "his purification" and "their purification" in Luke 2 is the best the OS people can come up with, then the entire breadth of their "scholarship" is a joke.
As for Trimm, he could not even tell that "Smyrna" was in Crawford Revelation, until I cornered him and made him admit his error and the sophistry of his HRV footnote that it was "restored from the Greek". BTW, the reason Trimm needed to restore "Smyrna" from the Greek is because he could neither read the two proclitics in front of the word and also the fact that it was spelled with a ZAYIN and not a SAMEKH confused him. And this is the man who is supposed to be the end all and be all? Please spare me from his idle ramblings! There are many on this forum who have more Aramaic knowledge in their little finger than Trimm has in his whole body. For those who are just learning, let me throw in some Latin, CAVEAT EMPTOR! (Let the buyer beware!)
It is SO frustrating to me when:
Trimm proclaims Crawford Rev as original when the colophon makes it 12th century...and the Rylands Library that has it backs this dating up.
Trimm postulates grammatical impossibilities sucn as the dalet proclitic meaning "because" between two nouns in Ephesians 2:15, and even when you show him Thackston's Grammar proving him wrong he still tries to take advantage of the ignorant....
90% of the "original Crawford readings" that he postulates are verbatim in Peshitto Revelation, which he knows is a translation...
In short, anything that overtly disproves his theory he leaves out, and only false impressions remain. It is BEYOND outrageous what this man does.
Having said all that people, to be totally honest, the smoking gun against OS has been found and fired. Because if all the OSers had found ONE REFERENCE in ANY Peshitta mss that it was called EVANGELION D'MEPHARESEHE, they would declare their victory by shouting from the rooftops. Now we find that the unique name that Rabulla called his work, MISSING FROM ALL GREEK AND ARAMAIC WITNESSES, IS ONLY LISTED ON OLD SYRIAC SINIATICUS, AND TWICE AT THAT, and all of a sudden it's Cricket-City quiet. To me, that seems hypocritical.
Rabulla is 400's and the Peshitta, as we also demonstrated, was quoted extensively AGAINST OS by Mar Aphrahat. How then can Rabulla's work be a more ancient text than the one quoted 70 years before Rabulla was even in diapers?
For myself, that fact alone throws Old Syriac out, en toto, 100% for all time. It has proved to a be a colossally wasteful effort, common yet as distasteful as shovelling manure every day of our lives. Accept no substitutes!
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth