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

In this article (http://www.nazarene.net/hantri/FreeBook/chapter3.pdf), our favourite wannabe-Aramaic-scholar, (Dr?) James Scott Trimm, makes the following bold claim:

James Scott Trimm Wrote:Lk. 1:39 OS:???and went-up quickly to a mountain, to a city of Judea. ([font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]qls[/font])

P: ???and went quickly to a mountain, to a city of Judea. ([font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]tlz0[/font]) (agreeing with the Greek)

Here the Old Syriac makes use of a common idiom in Hebrew and in Jewish Aramaic whereby any approach to Jerusalem or Judea is describe as ???going up??? but the Jewish idiom is lost here in the Greek and in the Peshitta.

Faithful to his style, Mr. James Scott(sman) Trimm here boldly declares a half-truth, while covering the other half with fancy language intended to blindside the otherwise ignorant. (at least, more ignorant than he.)

The truth is that there is, indeed, a common Jewish idiom that prefers to say "go up to Jerusalem" rather than "go to Jerusalem." This has much to do with geography. Jerusalem literally sits higher geographically than the rest of Judea. And the temple area is the highest point in Jerusalem. So when the Gospels speak of anyone travelling to Jerusalem or, more specifically, to the temple area during a religious pilgrimage, they speak of them as "going up" rather than as simply "going."

That's the half-truth in Trimm's statement, for which he is so well known. The other half, of course, is pure bunk - again, for which he is so well known.

In the second half, Trimm implies that the Peshitta, by using the Aramaic word for "go" instead of "go up", must have dropped this well-known Semiticism. And therefore, his beloved Old Scratch is closer to Jewish idiom than the Peshitta is...which, of course, according to him was revised from the Old Scratch to bring it closer in line with the Greek.

Firstly, contextually speaking, Luqa 1:39 is referring to Mary going to a mountain, to a small village where Elizabeth lived. It is not referring to any pilgrimage being made to Jerusalem, or more specifically, to the temple area. All references to such events are properly referred to as "going up" in the Peshitta (c.f., Luqa 2:4, Luqa 2:42, Luqa 18:10, Yukhanan 5:1, Yukhanan 7:8, etc.) In other words, the Peshitta properly preserves the Jewish idiom in all relevant passages.

Secondly, Trimm conveniently forgets that his beloved Old Scratch records the following for Luqa 17:11:

Old Scratch Luqa 17:11 Wrote:[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Ml4rw0l 0wh Lz0 dkw[/font]

And he (Meshikha) was going to Jerusalem......

He also conveniently forgets that his beloved Old Scratch records the following for Luqa 2:41:

Old Scratch Luqa 2:41 Wrote:[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Ml4rw0l wwh Nylz0 0n4 Lkb Yhw4n0w[/font]

And his family every year was accustomed to going to Jerusalem...

Here are but two examples where Old Scratch uses "going" instead of the more proper "going up". But Trimm doesn't mention that in his article, does he? Of course not - being truthful is not his style.

There are several other places where his beloved Old Scratch seems, like him, to "forget" this Jewish idiom - but I think you "get" the picture of Trimm's style.

The fact of the matter is that the only reason Old Scratch records "going up" in Luqa 1:39 is because, quite simply, Mary was going "up" to a mountain....and not because this was being used in any sort of manner to denote a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (which, as demonstrated, the Old Scratch is not even consistent on!)

Akhay - remember that there are wolves in sheeps clothing out there. They prey on people who don't understand these things....but once they try to pass their bull on someone who can actually speak the language, they run with their tails between their legs hoping not to get exposed for the liars and frauds and cheats that they really are.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#2
Dear Paul:

Suppose we have (say) the original text written by Matthew. This manuscript is of course lost and possibly distroyed forever. Let call it A, It was copied, perhaps many times (B). This copies were also copied many times ©. They are also lost. But they were copied, and copied, and copied. Now we have some manuscripts: Peshitta, Old Syriac (sinaitic an curatonian), and other manuscripts in other langages. Thay were not written in the first century, but they are a copy of a copy, of a copy... They are not A, nor B, nor C, nor D. Thay are (say) X, Y, Z.

May be that in the way from A to X, or from A to Y, or from A to Z no changes happened. But this would be an exception, perhaps a miracle. The usual thing is that some little changes happen. For example, it is normal that the most know of the gospels, the one which is more used in the liturgy, has certain influence on the scribes, consciously or inconsciously, and they do little changes in the text of the other gospels supposing for example that their copy of Mark laks some words which are in their copy of Matthew, and so on. Sometimes the scribes do errors, forget words. Sometimes the scribes have two different texts before their eyes, and decide for one of them (even they can err in this decisions, for example accepting some authority of a certain translation), and so on.

In the greek New Testament scholarship it is usual to suppose that no one of the actual conserved manuscripts has the original text (or original greek translation, does not mind for this particular issue). The long history between the original manuscripts (no more conserved) and the actual ones makes the scholars suppose that a certain manuscript may have the oldest version sometimes, while other manuscript may have an older reading another times. Then the task of the scholars is to compare each reading where the manuscripts are different, and try to guess IN EACH CASE were a concrete expression may be older and why it was changed. This has to be done verse by verse.

When the discussions try to deffend one manuscript IN EVERY POINT against any other possible, a person who is trained in Greek New Testament scholarship (I have studied greek, hebrew, and aramaic for one of my PhD's in Germany) gets the impression that the discussion may be too biased. Why should not be possible (at least a priori) that a manuscipt (say the Peshitta) has and older reading sometimes, while another times other manuscript (say Old Syriac, hebrew or even greek) may have an older reading in other verses. For Greek New Testament scholars it is obvious that, although the latin Vulgata New Testament was translated from the Greek, somtimes even the Vulgata is able to have a better reading than a concrete greek manuscript. This discussion about the oldest text has to be held for every concrete verse were the nowdays conserved manuscripts differ. The discussion takes usually the form of a discussion about the reasons the scribes may have had to change some verse. Errors of the scribes are possible. When you copy a text, you may even miss some words of the original. Sometimes scribes are biased theologically, and left some words, or included others.

You must study the differece, look for the possible motives of the change, and decide in each case. Greek New Testament scholars have observed, for example, that the scribes tended to harmonize the differences between the synoptic gospels, and therefore they suppose that when two texts of tho synoptics differ, you may have an older version that when they completely agree. Thay have also observed that some difficult readings were usually made more comprensible by the scribes, and therefore we suppose that the most difficult reading (for example, when it contains a semitism or a theologically difficult expression) should be older (lectio difficilior, proabilior, says the latin rule), and so on. For these reasons, for Greek New Testament scholars consider that the very existence of multiple variants is a great help in the seach for the original version. (The Old Testament scholarship did not have such richness of texts, and this is the reason why every new text discovery is important and has consequences for discussion about the oldest text). Greek New Testament scholars don't try to deffend the primacy of one concrete greek text (say Vaticanus, Semiticus, Alexandrinus) against the others. The compare each verse and try to guess were the original reading was changed.

Greek New Testament scholars have done this since the XVI century, have developed different rules, and this critical approach has led to a great consensus about the possible oldest Greek Text, which does not coincide with any of the conserved manuscripts (allthough some of them are very old, even from the IId century), but is a reconstructed text. This wide consensus is expressed in the 27th edition of the Nestle Aland New Testament, which completely agrees whith the other mayor critical edition of the New Testament, the so called Greek New Testament. After centuries of studies and discussions of every verse there is a consensus (not complete, of course) about the most possible greek text of the New Testament.

If the Aramaic Primacy has to gain some respect among Western Scholars, it has to go beyond biased discussion which try to deffend one manuscript against the others, in every case. I do not know if that is your official position, but if it is, it would not be taken seriously. I feel simpathy for the aramaic primacy theory, at least for some NT texts, but the proposition of this theory has to go beyond personal disqualifications and concentrate in the arguments, in favor and against each reading, openly considering why the readings differ, and trying to obtain in each case the oldest reading.

I see how biased Trimm may be, because of his theological position (his concrete nazarene sect, and so on). But I openly have to say too that I have the suspicion that the "totally and in every case Peshitta primacy being an ignorant whoever suggests the contrary" (if this is your position) may be also biased for ecclesiastical reasons. Please do not take this as a personal offence. Try to understand my position, and my desire to take seriously your arguments. But please, don't use insults.

I think that it would be very useful, for example, to take the Kiraz edition, to look for evey variant among the texts, and try to decide in every case which of them was the oldest reading. If the Peshitta wins always and in every case, OK. But this is not necessary a result to seek apriori. It is not necesary to "win" or "loose" here. May be that some older readings are preserved in other manuscripts. NOT ALWAYS, but in some cases. So what? This would be a normal result of the transmission of texts during centuries. This happens whith the Old Testament, with the Greek and Latin texts of christian and pagan authors, and this happens of course with the greek Text. We have to look in every case, for each verse of phrase, which reading, which variant, is possible the oldest. I think this is a normal and reasonable procedure.

Pershaps you have already done this. I would like to receive information about this kind of studies. Perhaps is an inmense task for generations to study each variant, and we are just in the beginings. But I think that this would be a very important task.

Yours sincerely,

Antonio Gonz??lez
Reply
#3
Dear Antonio,

The procedure of textual criticism you have outlined is very useful in the Greek primacist world. It is, in fact, a necessity because there is no such thing as a "Greek New Testament" - there are "Greek New Testaments."

The textual history of the Aramaic NT is far simpler in comparison - on this point, everyone is in agreement. Rather than four major textual traditions, each with a geographic church tradition associated with it - and thousands upon thousands of variants, you have one version in Aramaic that is universally accepted by all Aramaic churches (which, by the way, are all sworn enemies.)

Aside from this main Aramaic textual tradition - you have two pieces of scratch paper found in a Greek Orthodox monastery in Egypt - not in the possession, by the way, of any Aramaic-based church. The Aramaic grammar sucks. Misspellings abound. Obviously the work of an amatuer translating the Bezan Greek text.

I'm sorry - but the process you mention which is practiced out of necessity on the Greek side will not work on the Aramaic side - and that is the fundamental error that Trimm is making. You cannot apply Greek NT textual criticism, which was meant to try and accomplish the impossible (to arrive at some sort of "original Greek"), to the comparison of the well-attested Peshitta and those two pieces of scratch paper that sat on a shelf in a Greek Orthodox monastery.

Your textual criticism, by nature, is highly subjective. First off, it assumes that the "original" reading is somewhere to be found among extant manuscripts that vary as much as they possibly can and still be considered the same book. That is, of course, an unprovable assumption. To build your house on that presupposition is akin to the parable of building your house on sand.

We don't do things in the East that way. Thank God they didn't have the same freedom to revise as the Greeks did with their manuscripts. Anyone who even tried would have had their bowels ripped out and roasted for dinner. Semites do not alter their scriptures. Try and revise a Tanakh or a Koran.....and see how far you get.

The eastern manuscripts never change - and the archaeological evidence proves it. What you insinuate is bias is, in fact, what has kept this tradition pure. Hell yes I am bias. We don't accept any substitutes or use any other version. That what got you into trouble in the first place. Why you have thousands of Greek manuscripts that cannot even agree - and why you have even more English versions than Greek. It all started because some Greek took the liberty to alter and revise God's holy word - something which a Semite is afraid to death of.

I sincerely challenge you or anyone else to find one variant among the eastern Peshitta manuscripts, from the 5th century manuscripts we have in museums to the modern printed version. You will not be able to.

Why, on God's green earth, would I want to compare this textual tradition of the Peshitta, which scholars universally agree is the best and most accurately preserved textual tradition (even better preserved than the MSS).....to two pieces of junk scratch paper from a Greek monastery....two pieces of junk that can't even get Aramaic grammar right?

Do you realize how bad that grammar is to a speaker of the language? What if I told you in English...."that man, she is very argumentative" - what would you think? How about if I said something like "there ain't no fixin' this here type of grammar?" How about "hey mister tally-man, tally me banana!"?

Would you respect me as an English speaker? Would you consider anything that I write to be divinely inspired? Would God write in this type of grammar? IS that a God worthy of your worship - a God who cannot even speak properly?

Your insinuation that we cannot possibly be better than the Greeks, who did their own revising, is quite insulting. Just because the Greeks did it - doesn't mean that everyone else did.

Instead of advising me to do things the Western way - why didn't you just address the topic of my post? Wasn't it you who asked for this type of rebuttal to Trimm's arguments? Wasn't this what you were looking for?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#4
Paul,

I know a while back you were unsure of the originality behind the so-called Old Syriac. Are you now somewhat sure it was this Greek western text Bezae or of a similar text of it?

I'm trying to learn more about this "western" text lately.

Dave
Reply
#5
Shlama Akhi Dave,

There is no doubt in my mind that the person(s) responsible for Old Scratch (both manuscripts that disagree even with each other) used the Peshitta as a basis for making a translation from the western Greek text into Aramaic.

It's very simple. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, the Peshitta reading was retained where the text of the western Greek agreed with it. Where they disagreed, the author(s) freshly translated the western Greek (most likely Bezae) into Aramaic. Bad Aramaic, I might add. My 3-year old could have probably done a better job.

There is no other explanation why when the OS shares a reading with the Peshitta, the grammar is perfect....but when it differs from the Peshitta (towards a western Greek reading), the grammar is often bad.

No surprise that the text was scratched off to write the story of a saint over it.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#6
Interesting!

Do you see that happening also in the Palestinian Aramaic? Probably a stupid question, but must ask.
Reply
#7
Shlama Akhi Dave,

Oh yes, you mean the Palestinian Aramaic books you sent?

They spell the Lord's name as "Isous Kristos!" No doubt what they were translated from. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#8
Dear Paul:

Thank you for your mail. I also am very gratefully that you discuss the affirmations of Trimm, as I asked for. Do you have some kind of text where you discuss them all systematically? Perhaps is to ask too much, but it would help.

No, of course I don't think that the greeks necesarily did better. Nor the people from the East. That has to be proved in each case.

With the Tanak, it is clear that from the end of the first century the text was considered authoritative, and the jew scribes took special mesures to conserve the text, including the destruction of every other variant. Nevertheless, the Septuaginta (greek translation of the IInd century before Christ), the samaritan Pentateuch, the Nash Papyr found in Egypt, the Peshitta, the Targums and the texts from Qumran show some variants. We also have the Geniza fragments, found in XIX century, which show important variants. Even the Masorets, during the Middle Ages, implicity agnowledged possible variants when they distinguished (in a kind of "notes" or "apparat") between ketib (what is written) and qere (what you have to read), although this distinction also shows their respectful decision to leave the text as it was. Sometimes, this variations are very interesting. For example, sometimes the qere agrees with the Septuagint aginst the ketib. Sometimes the Qumran texts have interesting agreemets with the septuagint againt the masoretic text. Sometimes the septuagint and the peshitta agree against the masoretic text (Prov 14,13). In those cases, it is very useful to have variants, because you have the possibility of reconstructing the older text. And although the septuaginta is a translation from the hebrew, it is very possible that sometimes it contains an older version of the text (also the Peshitta). It is very possible that from the IInd century before Christ to the end of the first century after Christ, were more control appeared, the hebrew text was not totally controlled, and some differences apeared.

Of course, the reconstruction is always a rational construction, which tries to explain why the diferences appear. Sometimes the differences don't allow to decide which could be the older reading. For example, Psalm 141:5 is different in the masoretic text, greek, peshitta, and qumran. Four different readings. The hebrew texts is not clear, but it is difficult to decide where is the best reading. But in other cases, it is not difficult to explain why the difference begun. For example, in 2 Cr 2:10 (9 in some versions) the hebrew text says makkot (beats), but this makes no sense. Other old versions say something like "sustenance". And this makes sense. The variant can come from a scribal mistake between makkot and makkolet (sustenance). At this point the very existence of variants is very helpful to understand the original meaning of the text. This doesn't question the hebrew primacy, but shows the importance of having variants and even of having translations. Of course, the reconstruction can be sometimes very speculative, but other times can be very probable.

I think that is very difficult to say that a text was preserved during centuries without changes. The manuscripts we have are copies of copies of copies. I can understand that at a certain point more control can appear. I could admit that no aramaic scribe tried to do conciously any correction because they were more repectful than the greeks (although to take this as a rule without exceptions is very difficult). But anyway: also against their will scribes can do unconscious mistakes, and this mistakes tend to be cumulative for the nexts copies. This happens in the Tanak. Why should it not happen in the Peshitta?

If you say that the Old Syriac texts are completely unvaluable, I could accept this by now on your word. I have not read them yet, and although I studied aramaic, I am not so fluent to get all the possible nuances. But textual criticism of the Tanak shows that sometimes late translations as the Vulgate or the Vetus Latina, which as a whole represent no alternative to the masoretic text, can sometimes be more accurate than the masoretic text. The reason is simple: they were translated before a scribe did some change in the masoretic text, or they were translated from a hebrew text which was different to the masoretic one. I would find very useful (at least for me) to go beyond the discussion with some concrete person (say Trimm), to do a list of the differences among the texts, and to discuss each difference in particular.

The ecclesiastical reasons can I understand and respect. The love for a concrete text, too. This happens in every church. But it would be very useful to go beyond this. The cause of aramaic primacy (at least for some texts) can only profit from it.

Yours sincerely,

Antonio Gonz??lez
Reply
#9
Shlama Akhi Antonio,

I have one area of agreement with you: and that is, to discuss the variants that Old Scratch presents and to show you why they don't matter one iota.

Two disagreements I have with you: you keep mentioning "church" in the singular. My church, while it accepts Peshitta primacy, is by no means the only one. All Aramaic-based churches... those that actually speak the language at home and in the liturgy (Chaldean Uniate Catholic, Syriac Uniate Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Maronite Catholic and Church of the East) - they all have the Peshitta as their official version, and no other text is allowed in the churches.

So please, acknowledge that it is not just my church but ALL Aramaic churches which have this tradition. And that no community of believers uses Old Scratch. I wonder why?

The second disagreement I have with you is that you try and make the case for some standardization of the Peshitta text, and that's why there are no variants.

You have to realize that ALL existing Peshitta manuscripts agree. There is no justification or scientific evidence for your claim of standardization. There is on the Greek side, there is not on the Aramaic side.

I don't care what the Masoretes did with the MSS - I'm telling you the facts that every scholar acknowledges - the Peshitta NT is better preserved than even the Hebrew MSS......forget about anything in Greek.

Unless you have evidence of any sort of standardization among the eastern Peshitta textual tradition (historical quotes, manuscript evidence, etc.) then simply saying "the Jews and Greeks did it, why not the Arameans?" is irrelevant. That is begging the question. Do you have any proof of any sort of standardization of variants among the eastern Peshitta textual tradition?

If so, I would love to see it. Because I've compared 5th-century manuscripts with the printed version available in bookstores today and have barely found a spelling error per chapter or two.

IS this what you consider a variant? If not, then show your evidence.

But DO NOT compare the Peshitta with the Old Scratch as they are NOT from the same textual tradition. Of course you will find variants between them. You will find variants between the Sinaitic and Cureton, who cannot agree amonst themselves.

But the Peshitta is, by and large, 99.9% the same in printed form today as it was in the 5th century - and even the 0.1% differences are things like "Bar-Anasha" vs. "Bar-Nasha", etc........in other words, small tiny spelling variances or mistakes by a scribe.

NOTHING in the order of Greek variances, let me assure you!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#10
Paul Younan Wrote:There is no doubt in my mind that the person(s) responsible for Old Scratch (both manuscripts that disagree even with each other) used the Peshitta as a basis for making a translation from the western Greek text into Aramaic.

Just as a quick FYI sidenote :-)

I've done some statistical analysis between the Curetonian, Sinaitic, and Peshitta and have noticed that there are many places where the Curetonian and Sinaitic agree with the Peshitta more than they do with eachother. :-)

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
#11
Again, very interesting Paul!

So, we have an Aramaic manuscript that really isn't Aramaic, we have Palestinian Aramaic that really isn't Aramaic also!

Also Paul, I just was reading about the Harklean version, that the Apostle Pauls epistles were the western type in this particular version also. Seems like there is quite a few Greek versions that were translated into Aramaic here, huh?!?

Ever checked the Harklean version out before Paul? I'm just curious if this is the same thing.
Reply
#12
This is funny.

Mr Trimm wanted to get completely away from the Greek "corruption" and utilize what he thought was the most ancient Hebrew and Aramaic sources, yet in reality (with the exception of the Peshitta usage), he is STILL utilizing Greek manuscripts, it's just hidden behind the Aramaic <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->
Reply
#13
Shlama Akhi Dave,

Dave Wrote:Ever checked the Harklean version out before Paul? I'm just curious if this is the same thing.

Thomas of Harkel was a staunch Monophysite. He hated the Church of the East and was, like Rabbula, its sworn enemy.

He himself revised the Philoxenian version. Philoxenus of Mabbug ,his predecessor said himself, verbatim, that he sought to make a translation from the Greek because he didn't agree with certain readings in the Peshitta because those readings lent too much weight to his theological opponents (the CoE.)

Ultimately, his own Monophysite church outright rejected his translation and reverted back to the Peshitta - although they kept his translation of the 5 "disputed" Greek books (Rev., etc.) and added them to the end of the Peshitta canon.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#14
shlomo Dave,

In Western Aramaic, due to the Hellenization forces, some people tried to create translations based on the Greek Text, but they were rejected. The Peshitta/o has always been the official Bible.

Here is a list of the translations that were rejected:

-Philoxenian Version (508AD)

Reason for creation: Philoxenos contended that the rendition of the Biblical text in some of the Peshitto readings gave room for what he called a Nestorian interpretation.

Conclusion: The Philoxenian version did not find favor among the Syriac Christians; as a result, not a single manuscript survives.


-Harklean Version (616AD)

Reason for creation: Thomas of Harqel completed another revision based on the Philoxenian version. The motivation in this case was a philological one. Thomas aimed at providing a literal translation of the Greek even if that meant unintelligible Syriac.

Conclusion: the translation lost favor, because of its obscure Syriac.


In conclusion despite odd attempts by mis-guided people, the Peshitta/o has always prevailed in Western Aramaic. And in Eastern Aramaic the Peshitta has always been the official version, and in Eastern Aramaic they haven't attempted to do any revisions.

That's my two cents!

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

Dave Wrote:Again, very interesting Paul!

So, we have an Aramaic manuscript that really isn't Aramaic, we have Palestinian Aramaic that really isn't Aramaic also!

Also Paul, I just was reading about the Harklean version, that the Apostle Pauls epistles were the western type in this particular version also. Seems like there is quite a few Greek versions that were translated into Aramaic here, huh?!?

Ever checked the Harklean version out before Paul? I'm just curious if this is the same thing.
Reply
#15
This is very interesting indeed!

Thanks Paul and Abudar <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)