Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Debunking another Trimmism
#46
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

Academics may well be about politics and phony alliances - but I am not. I don't wish to be buddy-buddy with someone I consider a fraud and a liar.

For the record - I'm not against James Trimm because he's a Hebrew primacist, an Old Scratch primacist, or anything of the sort. Anyone is free to form their own opinions. In his case, the opinions are not even his own and are plagiarized from other people (like Matthew Black et al.)

BTW - I think you misunderstood Andrew's post. Andrew did not call Mark 9:49 a "smoking gun." He called it a "OS-stinker." <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

The "smoking gun" is the evidence we found through the name "Evangelion de Mepharreshe" pointing back to Rabbula.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#47
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

You still haven't answered one of my questions.

You seem to have a high regard for scholarly consensus. Well, all scholars slam the western textual transmission by the SOC. Why do you think they never criticize the eastern textual transmission?

How come Juckel picked on the SOC in his article?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#48
Scholarly consensus is a joke. Without textual criticism, it's akin to saying: "Mommy told me so."
Reply
#49
Akhi Yuri, you should listen to Akhan Paul--he understood exactly my point about what is and is not a smoking gun.

You asked if I think all the "professional Bible scholars" are wrong. Let me be clear:

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I don't care WHY they are wrong. That is not my burden to explain, although I have some suspicions.

Beyond that, it is simply not for me to care why a title exclusive to Rabulla that appears on the Old Syriac is NOT taken by these people to mean what it most assuredly has to mean. Old Syriac proclaims itself as the work of Rabulla as surely as if he signed it. Rabulla is fifth century. Therefore, Old Syriac cannot be older than Peshitta, quoted by Mar Aphrahat at least a century earlier. Once that's out of the way, then we can talk about Zorba, to which I say, as I have for many years, BRING IT ON!

If you need a reason beyond that, all I can say is 500 years ago almost every "scientist" in the world thought the earth was flat even though Isaiah 40:22 called it a sphere. Didn't they see that? Didn't they understand? No, they did not, and it's not my problem, but theirs. (Okay maybe Galileo's also.)

Can you honestly tell me Yuri that if EVANGELION D'MEPHARESHE appeared on a Peshitta mss that you would not look at that as proof of your position, lining up with the words in Rabulla's own biography? Really? Pardon me, but I don't think you would do that. Why then do you not address it now that it has happened to your beloved Old Syriac? I tell you the truth, the days of Old Syriac distractions are numbered. <!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: -->

But now let me shift gears to another of your questions. Do I hold an "extreme position"????

First, I would like to define the term as I know it...

An extreme position is when people cut and paste general quotes from others that have no probative value to the discussion.

An extreme position is when a simple request is made to show ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE and that request is consistently ignored.

An extreme position is when someone who has little to no Aramaic understanding is parroted as an authority figure before the very group of people who exposed him for the fraud that he is.

An extreme position is when a Cambridge scholar comes on to this forum and proclaims Y'shua spoke Western Aramaic using weasel word language and general proclamations that offer no proof. Then, when we show that Thackston's Grammar DISPROVES his theory, what does he do but turn tail and run?

THAT, Akhi, is extreme, and NONE of these things came from me. I am here to discuss evidence, and this evidence of EVANGELION D'MEPHARESHE totally DISPROVES the entire Old Syriac argument. There is simply no other explanation--the dates of the mss even are correct to this time period. And if that is not enough, we have those 100+ examples I mentioned.

But to NOT take those things into account, to NOT respond to the compelling lines of evidence, THAT IS EXTREME. <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) -->

Think about it.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#50
Hehe, Yuri is taking quite a few shots across the bow there. Let me see if I can turn the attention to something else.

I have been doing some research as The Lord has led me lately on the western text. Some interesting things surfaced.

I have a copy of Ephraims commentary on Tatians Harmony. This is the "Syriac" version with the few missing parts from the Armenian. His biblical quotes are a mix of OS and Peshitta. They are neither dominant here, the mix is even. Interesting!

Also, From the earliest church father up to around the 4th century, almost all of the church fathers were quoting the Western style text, not the Majority/Received text. Interesting.

Almost all your older type texts have these "Western" readings mixed in!

Everything points to something happening around the 4th century. For the most part, the received text relates to the Peshitta. It is not hard to see the likeness.

What I would like to know is how this "condensed" version came about. If all the quotations from multiple church fathers are distinctly Western, then what happened? This would also point to one of the reasons why the scholar community as a whole would question the Peshitta, no?


(Paul, I'm over in Singapore! I'll fly over to Diego Garcia tonight, finally. I've been flying all week here).
Reply
#51
Shlama Akhi Dave,

Ephraim's commentary on Tatian's Diatesseron does not contain quotes from either the Peshitta or Old Scratch. He is quoting from Tatian's Diatesseron - after all, that's the version he is commenting on! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

As for Church fathers exclusively quoting western-style texts over the Peshitta - that is simply not true. We have scores of quotes in the forum from Mar Aphrahat quoting the Peshitta. And he lived before Ephraim.

More importantly, Ephraim was a western Aramaic monk = he used the Diatesseron before Rabbula was able to detroy all copies in those areas and replaced them with his own Old Scratch version.

Aphrahat was on the other side of the border, in the eastern empire - and again, he predates Ephraim.

What you're looking at is the Peshitta's slow rise to dominance in the Western Aramaic tradition. They went from Diatesseron to Old Scratch to Peshitta and then finally to Peshitto (additional books and verses added to the original Peshitta.)

The Peshitta, in the east, was there all along.....
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#52
Shlama, Akhay,

The Biography of Rabbula says that he translated something from the Greek.

Rabbula uses the expression "Evangelion de Mepharreshe".

SyS also uses the expression "Evangelion de Mepharreshe".

Sorry, but I cannot conclude from the above that Rabbula was the author of SyS. Rabbula might have translated something, but there's no sufficient evidence that this was SyS. (Perhaps he might have created some intermediate version between the Peshitta and SyS, that is now lost?)

Besides, Rabbula only became bishop in 411. The date of SyS is mid- to late 4th c.

Also, Akhi Andrew said some other things that I couldn't quite understand. When I said "extreme" it was only meant to characterise the position that all establishment scholars are always wrong about everything. This obviously cannot be so, because here we see people quoting Voobus all the time, or Metzger, so they must be right about something, isn't this so?

I'm not here to try to change people's minds about the earliest texts, or to slam any old MSS. In general, I prefer to be positive and constructive. People can believe anything that they want to believe.

All I'm saying is, Let's spend more time criticising the Greek zombies (99% of biblical professionals today), rather than our fellow Semitic prioritists. Rather than criticising some other Aramaic/Hebrew MSS that we don't like, let's focus on all the good things that _all_ Aramaic/Hebrew MSS share with each other, as opposed to the mainstream Greek MSS.

I think this is a better way to go forward, and to make progress in advocating Semitic priority.

And as to the mainstream biblical scholars, I would like to see some constructive dialogue between the Aramaic prioritists and the Greek mainstreamers. There must be a way... Just saying that they are all deluded isn't going to be helpful.

Yes, they are deluded to a significant extent. But still there should be some way to challenge them on some common grounds, and in the language that they would understand. Saying, for example, that all palimpsests are worthless will only get a laugh from them, but will not score us any points. Such a strategy will be counterproductive.

Shlama,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#53
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

yuku Wrote:Besides, Rabbula only became bishop in 411. The date of SyS is mid- to late 4th c.

According to comparison of handwriting style, only, which is very subjective. It's not an exact science. The actual manuscript has never been dated scientifically (using carbon dating.)

Besides, bishops are selected when they become elderly. Rabbula could have easily been working on this translation of his in the 370-380s while still a deacon or priest or monk. It is very well within the timeframe - exactly, actually.

You also fail to mention that the Old Scratch is the only version which has Rabbula's term "Evangelion de Mepharreshe" on the heading of EVERY page and at the beginning of the actual text of Matthai and end of the actual text of Yukhanan.

Unless you can point to the term being used before Rabbula - I will stand by my thesis that Rabbula created them. (which would also explain why the CoE never adopted his version.)

yuku Wrote:And as to the mainstream biblical scholars, I would like to see some constructive dialogue between the Aramaic prioritists and the Greek mainstreamers. There must be a way... Just saying that they are all deluded isn't going to be helpful.


Last I checked - that is exactly what we are doing here. Have you not read about all the evidences we have found in the different categories on this forum? What are YOU doing to further the Aramaic primacist cause?

yuku Wrote:Saying, for example, that all palimpsests are worthless will only get a laugh from them, but will not score us any points. Such a strategy will be counterproductive.

A "palimpset" that has the Holy Gospels sitting on top of previously scratched-off writing is respectable. A "palimpset" where the Holy Gospels IS the scratched-off text is JUNK. There's a huge difference.

You say you don't care why somebody scratched it off. I do. In my part of the world, no one scratches off sacred writing to write recipes or a love letter over it. It may be how things are done in your part of the world - but not in mine.

yuku Wrote:The Biography of Rabbula says that he translated something from the Greek.

Rabbula uses the expression "Evangelion de Mepharreshe".

SyS also uses the expression "Evangelion de Mepharreshe".

Sorry, but I cannot conclude from the above that Rabbula was the author of SyS. Rabbula might have translated something, but there's no sufficient evidence that this was SyS. (Perhaps he might have created some intermediate version between the Peshitta and SyS, that is now lost?)

Again, you've grossly oversimplified the argument. Your second point "Rabbula uses the expression" is false. He doesn't "use" the expression - HE COMMANDS all the churches to use "Evangelion de Mepharreshe" - and I would suspect that it was his own version that he would try and force down people's throats. He was that type of maniac. Remember - he did supress the Diatesseron......right? We are not talking about a nice guy here.

Akhi - you are in your own fantasy world if you think that Old Scratch is your buddy when fighting the Greeks. They will use it against you more efficiently than I ever could - because it is so easy to attack it and to prove it's a translation from the Greek.

I can't make you understand how bad the grammar of Old Scratch is because you don't speak the language. If you can, then please answer this post:

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=679">viewtopic.php?t=679</a><!-- l -->

...and tell me what's wrong with the grammar? I count no less than 6 grammatical errors in this one verse alone. Can you point out 1 or 2?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#54
abudar2000 Wrote: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 has the Curetonian under the 100's and the Sinaitic under the 200's in the database.

I also have Dr. Kiraz's comparative edition, but that's on paper :-P :-)

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't realize that this was answered earlier until I read along :-)

Shlomo,
-Steve-o
'Just your average Antithetical Italian "Protestant" House-churching Charismatic Evangelical Karaite "Fundamentalist" for Aramaic Primacy... Drat I think I left something out... One sec.. I'll add on more as I think of it.
Reply
#55
Shlomo oh Thadman

The Thadman Wrote:EDIT: Sorry, I didn't realize that this was answered earlier until I read along :-)

Thank you! <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#56
Paul,
BTW, wanted to let you know, I was glazing through Burkits footnotes in his OS translation, and he even admits several times that OS is a copy off a greek original.

Interesting!
Reply
#57
Dave Wrote:Paul,
BTW, wanted to let you know, I was glazing through Burkits footnotes in his OS translation, and he even admits several times that OS is a copy off a greek original.

Interesting!

No doubt - it reads like a translation. Very offensive grammar to the Aramaic ear.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#58
Shlama, Akhi Paul,

Let me tell you a little story from some of the non-biblical archaeological research that I'm doing.

About 100 years ago, while working on his land, a farmer in Minnesota has discovered a very strange-looking slab of stone. It had some strange writing on it! After a while the scholars had figured out that the writing was in runes (an old Scandinavian writing system). The date on the stone was 1362.

But the runes on this stone seemed to be all wrong! The scholars said that half of them were impossible -- no such runes had ever existed in real life... And the grammar was also all wrong!

And so, all the best scholars of Scandinavian history at the time had immediately declared this Kensington Rune Stone a crude forgery. It was returned to the farmer (who was very puzzled), and everybody ignored it after that.

But, what do you know? A few more years had passed, and then yet another scholar (Hjalmar Holand) came to visit this farm, and he said, Well, maybe these runes aren't really all wrong? He started to look in some medieval archives and, lo and behold, he started finding some of these runes that were previously thought not to exist!

Well, to make the long story short, by now almost every rune on the Kensington Rune Stone has been attested in genuine medieval documents and inscriptions. The scholars are still arguing if the Stone is a forgery or not (I have no idea why?), but one thing is certain, the grammar and the writing were not really wrong for 1362!

The Stone was recently exhibited in Sweden, where all the mass media kept reporting on this controversy. You'll find lots of webpages on the Net about this Stone, including my own,

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/tran/tkrs.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/tran/tkrs.htm</a><!-- m -->

Now, I certainly don't claim to be a great authority on Aramaic. I'm just a humble student who's trying to figure these things out to the best of my ability. But when I hear someone saying that, Oh, some old manuscript has got it all wrong, they have the wrong grammar, they didn't know what they were doing, I get a bit suspicious, I must confess... And I think about the story of the Kensington Rune Stone, and how the knowledge of all those great Experts wasn't really up to scratch...

Cheers,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#59
Shlomo oh Paul,

Here's a file that I created to compare the Oldest Semitic inscription, and the current Syriac-Aramaic. This oldest inscription isn't in Aramaic, it's in Canaanite (i.e Phoenician) a dialect of Aramaic, and the mother of Hebrew.

Paul can you comment on the grammar structure and similarities of this dialect and Aramaic?

<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.beith-morounoye.org/special/example.PDF">http://www.beith-morounoye.org/special/example.PDF</a><!-- w -->

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon
Reply
#60
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

That's an interesting story - but not at all applicable here. <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

Aramaic grammar was well established for more than 1,000 years before Old Scratch came along the scene. We have examples of well-written Aramaic from imperial Assyrian days (850 BC)....and we have examples of well-written Aramaic after Old Scratch.

None of them read as bad as Old Scratch does.

Akhi - I'm not talking about grammar errors that are explainable by different dialects or something like that. I'm talking about grammar errors the like of which are made by someone who doesn't know the language that well.

I've seen these very same mistakes made by children in Sunday School - the same types of errors found in Old Scratch.

Do you know how GPs say that the Greek grammar of the NT is bad? Well, how do you suppose they know that the Greek grammar is bad? Well, they compare it to samples of Koine Greek from other sources at the same time, and they know that the Greek NT grammar is a monstrosity.

In the same way, an Aramaic speaker who reads Old Scratch thinks that a child wrote it.

In contrast, the text of the Peshitta is the standard text in any university-level class for Syriac-Aramaic. In fact, why don't you pick up Thackston's grammar from amazon.com and see what text he uses to explain proper Aramaic grammar?

I'll give you a hint: Out of several sources he uses, not one reading is from Old Scratch. The Peshitta readings are the majority of his examples to teach people proper Grammar.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)