Steve Caruso on Trimm's "Khad Semiticism"

[Paul Younan]

There is something I noticed, going over the numbers concerning the preservation of the "Kkadh idiom." Going over the verses Akki James provided I found out how the Old Syriac looks against itself along with the Peshitta:

Sinaitic Unique (~4): 2:23; 15:22; 18:2; 21:2;
Cureton Unique (~3): 9:9; (26:7)? (27:57)?
Peshitta Unique (~1): 12:11

Peshitta & Sinaitic Agreement (~4): 8:2; 8:5; 18:24; 21:19;
Peshitta & Cureton Agreement (~4): 9:18; 13:46; 21:24; (26:69)?
Sinaitic & Cureton Agreement (~1): 17:14;

Complete Agreement (~6): 8:19; 12:10; 12:22; 19:16; 21:28; 21:33

Total Instances: ~23

Peshitta & Sinaitic Agreement: ~43%
Peshitta & Cureton Agreement: ~43%
Sinaitic & Cureton Agreement: ~30%
Peshitta, Sinaitic, & Cureton Agreement: ~26%


Taking a close look at the evidence, there are many places where syr(s) and syr© disagree with eachother. With this in mind, we find one place where the Peshitta disagrees with both Old Syriac manuscripts (Mt. 12:11), and one place that we can verify that both Old Syriac manuscripts disagree with the Peshitta (17:14). Even Steven <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s --> We also see that the Peshitta Agrees more closely to each individual Old Syriac Manuscript than the Old Syriac Manuscripts do to eachother (43% vs 30%).

With this in mind, I believe that this is ample evidence to conclude that the inclusion or exclusion of "kkadh"/"chad" as "certain" is arbitrary & not a valid means of determining which biblical text is "more authentic" than another; the statistics simply do not warrant it. Additionally, I wholeheartedly reject the further study of it's frequency in this context as any form of evidence for the Gospel of Matthew.

Shlomo!

Well said, and well researched Akhi!