Debunking another Trimmism

[abudar2000]

Shlomo Yuri,

Here's part of the same quote from the introduction:
"We can demonstrate that the Peshitto Version of the Gospels has not been corrupted in later times"

All they have done is collected a bunch of Peshitto text from different places, and compared them together. And in the end they realised that they all agreed, as the above quote confirms.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

shlomo Yuri,

In regards to "Tetraeuangelium", it actually confirms that the Peshitta is the same as it was before (Here's a quote from its introduction):

Pusey, Phillip E., and Gwilliam, George H., eds., 1901. TETRAEUANGELIUM SANCTUM

"Many years ago the late Philip Edward Pusey, son of the well-known Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford, began to collate ancient MSS. of the Peshitto, in order to test the accuracy of the printed Text, and to collect materials for a revision of it. The object of his researches was to discover whether the traditional text, first published by Widmanstadt, and reproduced with little variation by subsequent editors, might reasonably be considered to represent that of the ancient Syriac Church. In pursuit of this design he made careful collations of a large number of MSS., for the most part very ancient and valuable copies: some he collated throughout, others he examined in important passages."

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

Greetings, Abudar!

When the textual scholars say "collations", what this means is to collect textual variants from old manuscripts.

So what your quote means is that these scholars spent many years collecting interesting variants from a number of Peshitta manuscripts. (I can assure you they didn't collect spelling errors! :)).

Thus, there are many variants in Peshitta manuscripts. See what I mean?

Best wishes,

Yuri.

[abudar2000]

shlomo Yuri,

Thank You!

Does "cal1." indicate which OS is Sinatic and which OS is Cureton?

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

Shlom lokh oh Thadman,

I have a copy of the Sinaitic Old Syriac Text, and on "http://cal1.cn.huc.edu" they have what is called the "Old Syriac" text, but I think it might be the Sinaitic and Cureton mixed together.

Would you have the Cureton Text in electronic form, it would help out my research?

poosh bashlama,
keefa-moroon

CAL database has all the available text of the Curetonian manuscript (as well as of the Sinaitic manuscript). It just takes a while to learn to navigate this database...

Best,

Yuri.

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

But even if we're talking only about the Peshitta manuscripts, still there are significant variants among them, as is easy to verify from the Pusey/Gwilliam edition.

Well, please post an example of a "variant" among eastern Peshitta manuscripts. Let's see what you are talking about. I have compared a 5th-century manuscript with the modern printed version and have found no "variants."

I'd love to see what you have. Please include all the details....the manuscript location and identification, locale where discovered, etc.

[judge]

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

But even if we're talking only about the Peshitta manuscripts, still there are significant variants among them, as is easy to verify from the Pusey/Gwilliam edition.

Well, please post an example of a "variant" among eastern Peshitta manuscripts. Let's see what you are talking about. I have compared a 5th-century manuscript with the modern printed version and have found no "variants."

I'd love to see what you have. Please include all the details....the manuscript location and identification, locale where discovered, etc.

Hi Paul and Yuri,
I would love to see this too. I did have another discussion with Yuri touching on this once before.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=45854&page=3&pp=25">http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php? ... ge=3&pp=25</a><!-- m -->

I asked Yuri if we could see a demonstration of a variant, however none was provided.

It would sure make things alot clearer if someone could demonstrate this claim. Quite frustratingly the Yuri suggested in post 54 that one should assume these variants exist until proven other wise. Yuris' reasoning for this can be seen in previous posts (which those interested can peruse)

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Michael,

I asked Yuri if we could see a demonstration of a variant, however none was provided.

It would sure make things alot clearer if someone could demonstrate this claim. Quite frustratingly the Yuri suggested in post 54 that one should assume these variants exist until proven other wise. Yuris' reasoning for this can be seen in previous posts (which those interested can peruse)

Akhan Yuri knows there are no real "variants" in the Eastern Peshitta textual tradition.....that's why he's already back-pedaling with the tired old "homogenous text" argument.....even comparing the Peshitta to the Byzantine Greek text!

I'm just wondering how long it's gonna take for him to post an example of a real variant from the eastern tradition?

Akhi Yuri - missing Daleth proclitics and the like aren't going to count. Remember - you said there are more than just "spelling/scribal errors" - we are waiting for an example from Gwilliam and Pusey's critical edition.

Remember - eastern ("Assyrian", "Persian", "CoE", "Nestorian") manuscripts only.

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Yuri and Akhi Michael,

Michael - I read the thread you pointed to.....and Yuri, you should be ashamed of yourself for constantly attempting to draw analogies between the Aramaic textual tradition and the Greek/Latin textual tradition! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

And I agree with Michael - you didn't answer him back then when he asked you to provide a variant from the Peshitta textual tradition (again, note: NOT the Peshitto western textual tradition.) Are you going to provide one (just one) now?

[yuku]

shlomo Yuri,

Thank You!

Does "cal1." indicate which OS is Sinatic and which OS is Cureton?

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

CAL database has all the available text of the Curetonian manuscript (as well as of the Sinaitic manuscript). It just takes a while to learn to navigate this database...

Best,

Yuri.

Shlomo, keefa-moroon,

Here's how to use the CAL database, in order to access the texts of the Old Syriac gospels.

You begin with the "Text Browse" screen,

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/text_browse.html">http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/text_browse.html</a><!-- m -->

Select "Syriac", and then click on "submit".

Click on "60040 OS Mt".

Now you should be seeing a window with numbers starting from 100. First chapter of the Cureton manuscript is 101, second chapter is 102, etc. Last available chapter of the Cureton manuscript is 123. Then, further down in the same window begins the Sinaitic manuscript with the number 201 (first chapter). The last available chapter of the Sinaitic manuscript is 228.

For Mark, only the Sinaitic manuscript survives.

For Luke, you have the same system as for Matthew.

For John, all of the available texts are in two long files. The first is the Curetonian, and the second Sinaitic.

All the best,

Yuri.

PS. It may take me a couple of days to address the questions of Paul and Judge about the Pusey/Gwilliam edition of the Peshitta. I'll need to make a trip to the library and double-check some refs.

[abudar2000]

Thanks Yuri!

I've actually started to make use of the manuscript in my research!

keefa-moroon

shlomo Yuri,

Thank You!

Does "cal1." indicate which OS is Sinatic and which OS is Cureton?

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

CAL database has all the available text of the Curetonian manuscript (as well as of the Sinaitic manuscript). It just takes a while to learn to navigate this database...

Best,

Yuri.

Shlomo, keefa-moroon,

Here's how to use the CAL database, in order to access the texts of the Old Syriac gospels.

You begin with the "Text Browse" screen,

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/text_browse.html">http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/text_browse.html</a><!-- m -->

Select "Syriac", and then click on "submit".

Click on "60040 OS Mt".

Now you should be seeing a window with numbers starting from 100. First chapter of the Cureton manuscript is 101, second chapter is 102, etc. Last available chapter of the Cureton manuscript is 123. Then, further down in the same window begins the Sinaitic manuscript with the number 201 (first chapter). The last available chapter of the Sinaitic manuscript is 228.

For Mark, only the Sinaitic manuscript survives.

For Luke, you have the same system as for Matthew.

For John, all of the available texts are in two long files. The first is the Curetonian, and the second Sinaitic.

All the best,

Yuri.

PS. It may take me a couple of days to address the questions of Paul and Judge about the Pusey/Gwilliam edition of the Peshitta. I'll need to make a trip to the library and double-check some refs.

[Andrew Gabriel Roth]

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!

[Paul Younan]

Hey Mr. Cricket-City quiet, <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Gotta love that EVANGELION D'MEPHARRESHE - written right there on the Scratched-One itself, underneath that all-important story of Holy Saint Thecla (!), of course ....underneath everyone's large Semitic sniffers all along - and still nobody made the connection to Rabbula.

Heheh.

[nashama]

To the Learned Members of the Forum:
Is anyone interested in writing a short scholarly paper debunking the Crawford Manuscript as a translation from the Greek?

I suggest that it be sent to Rylands University Library for their information centre. Rylands Library has the original Crawford Manuscript.
Almost two years ago, I acquired a microfilm copy of the Crawford Manuscript. It is the entire New Testament. I acquired permission to copy and share discreetly, Crawford Revelation. The Crawford Manuscript (Entire New Testament) is beautifully hand scribed in the Estrangelo script.
I formed a small group, THE MS-2 AFFILIATE. I was permitted to share copies of the original manuscript within the affiliate, under certain conditions. The members of the affiliate have kept their promise.
I think it would be useful to use this forum to discuss the things that are found in the Crawford Revelation.
Andrew Roth and I found the Smyrna error of Trimm shortly after I received the microfilm. It isn't difficult to spot . Andrew has a copy of the original manuscript. In a very short time, Andrew Roth and I began to see that the Crawford Manuscript was a translation from the Greek, because it was almost verbatim (except for a very few differences) that of the Peshitto version that is accessible at "peshitta.com". That one is a translation from the Greek, so the Crawford Revelation is obviously not "autograph".


Sh'lama,
Stephen Silver.

[yuku]

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.

Shlama, Andrew,

Why is this a stinker in OS?

Seems OK to me. Although, to be sure, this passage seems rather obscure in any version...

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.

Far be it from me to attack any gospel text. Myself, I always respect ancient manuscripts, as precious witnesses of the past. An attitude that IMHO should be embraced by every serious scholar.

As for Trimm,

[snip]

Trimm has his problems. But he also makes some good points too from time to time.

In general, my dream is to see the situation where Aramaic/Hebrew prioritists try to cooperate with each other, rather than bicker and fight.

Our real enemies IMHO are not the other Aramaic/Hebrew prioritists, but rather the Greek-only zealots, who are 99% of all biblical scholars today.

Having said all that people, to be totally honest, the smoking gun against OS has been found and fired.

How so?

AFAIK 100% of professional textual scholars today believe that OS is older than the Peshitta. Is there even one professional biblical scholar today who says otherwise?

So do you think they are all deluded?

Now, as many people here know, I, myself had many conflicts with the professional biblical scholars over the years... And yet, I'm not yet ready to abandon everything they say as false. That, I think, is a very extreme position.

Shlama,

Yuri.

[Paul Younan]

Trimm has his problems. But he also makes some good points too from time to time.

In general, my dream is to see the situation where Aramaic/Hebrew prioritists try to cooperate with each other, rather than bicker and fight.

Our real enemies IMHO are not the other Aramaic/Hebrew prioritists, but rather the Greek-only zealots, who are 99% of all biblical scholars today.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend? That strategy might work in foreign politics, but why employ it in the search for truth?

The stinker in Marqus 9:49 that Andrew referred to is a play on Aramaic roots that is only present in the Peshitta (see http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38). The play on roots - the Greek lost it. The Old Scratch is missing it - and so with Bezae, not surprisingly.

Only one possible explanation - what you already know. The Bezae is Old Scratch's daddy.

[Paul Younan]

What exactly is a professional bible scholar - and why does his/her opinion matter to you? I know of plenty of professional "biblical scholars" who claim that Jesus didn't exist. Or that he married Mary Magdelene. Some even claim he went off to America and preached to the "lost tribes" there.

The imbeciles cannot even agree amongst themselves. You act as if there is any credibility in what they say. Who cares?

Also, it sounds like a person has to be western in order to qualify as a professional biblical scholar to you.

[yuku]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend? That strategy might work in foreign politics, but why employ it in the search for truth?

Well, I'm afraid, Akhi, that the academic biblical scholarship is all mostly about politics... <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->

The stinker in Marqus 9:49 that Andrew referred to is a play on Aramaic roots that is only present in the Peshitta (see http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38). The play on roots - the Greek lost it. The Old Scratch is missing it - and so with Bezae, not surprisingly.

Only one possible explanation - what you already know. The Bezae is Old Scratch's daddy.

Well, for one thing, SyS is actually very different here from Bezae...

This passage is very difficult, and hotly disputed by textual scholars. The Aramaic word play that you suggest here for Mk 9:49 may well be real, but is this really the smoking gun that will solidly establish the priority of Peshitta for this passage? I'm not so sure...

There's also a Greek pun here, as well, in the Byzantine text,

qusia -- alisqhsetai

THISia -- alesTHESETAI

AFAIAC the Old Syriac text here makes good sense in its own right. So I don't really see this passage as a big smoking gun to establish the priority of the Peshitta over the OS.

Best wishes,

Yuri.