Debunking another Trimmism

[Paul Younan]

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

Shlama Akhi Steve-o,

That's great news. We should compile these examples and create an article to be hosted on both sites! I don't think anyone else has made this observation before. (kinda like the whole "Evangelion de Mepharreshe" pointing back to Rabbula)

I think if we demonstrate conclusively that the basis for Old Scratch was the Peshitta, except in cases of disagreement with the Western Greek textual family - then this would put to an end once and for all the headache that Old Scratch is.

[Dave]

There is another problem also Paul.

Mr Trimm spewed forth so much propaganda in his beliefs towards the Hebrew Matthew being original, that now you got loads of people believing that it is possibly true.

You do speak with sincerety of heart Paul. Articles like this as you contend would do more to inform people and give them a website they can refer to in such matters that teaches them in simplicity.

Gaining peoples trust genuinely is always a needed thing! <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Dave,

There is another problem also Paul.

Mr Trimm spewed forth so much propaganda in his beliefs towards the Hebrew Matthew being original, that now you got loads of people believing that it is possibly true.

Part of the reason why I get so worked up over this is because the people eventually get turned off by him (to their credit) and somehow wind up here.....and I have to clean-up, so to speak.

It'll happen again, too. It might take a few days, weeks or months....but somebody will eventually come along again and ask me what I think about Trimm. (just peruse the archived forum and you'll see what I'm talking about.)

I am doomed for the rest of my life to clean up. I guess the sooner I accept my fate, the better.

[Dave]

Yea I guess the same old questions would get to be rediculous after a while <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->

I gotta fly out to Diego Garcia Monday (new duty station). I'm bringing my laptop along. Let me get hooked up there and I'll look around the site and try to combine some of the regular questions together. Maybe you can use it for an article. I'm not the report savvy individual as you and others, but would be interesting to try!

Dave

[yuku]

Shlama Akhi Antonio,


You have to realize that ALL existing Peshitta manuscripts agree.

Shlama Akhi Paul,

All the best wishes to you, and to all other members of the forum!

Sorry I've been away all this time. I've been busy with various projects that I had to do.

I've read your discussion with Antonio, and I confess that I'm rather sympathetic to what he's saying. I don't think it's a good idea to reject everything that the professional textual critics have to offer, and all the standard text-critical methodologies.

As you know, I've had many battles of my own with the professional textual critics, and yet I still don't want to reject everything that they say. I still accept many of the standard methods of textual criticism (although not all, of course).

In any case, what you say above is incorrect, sorry. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->

All existing Peshitta manuscripts don't really agree. There are quite a few variations among them, as Pusey/Gwilliam edition's textual apparatus indicates.

Pusey, Phillip E., and Gwilliam, George H., eds., 1901. Tetraeuangelium sanctum juxta simplicem syrorum versionem ad fidem codicum, massorae, editionum denuo recognitum. Oxford: Clarendon.

Shlama,

Yuri.

[abudar2000]

shlomo Yuri,

In any case, what you say above is incorrect, sorry. :(

All existing Peshitta manuscripts don't really agree. There are quite a few variations among them, as Pusey/Gwilliam edition's textual apparatus indicates.

Pusey, Phillip E., and Gwilliam, George H., eds., 1901. Tetraeuangelium sanctum juxta simplicem syrorum versionem ad fidem codicum, massorae, editionum denuo recognitum. Oxford: Clarendon.

From my greeting you can tell that I belong to the Western Aramaic Tradition. The Peshitto Text that I have and the Peshitta Text that Paul has are the same. The Khabouris from the 5th Century is the same as Peshitto/a. Everyone knows that in Western Aramaic we added a few books, and some passages that are not found in the Peshitta, because of Hellenization forces, but even in the Peshitto the parts that were added have been indicated in between brackets.

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

"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. After his death, his collations were continued by the present writer; and while the work has progressed somewhat slowly, for various reasons, the critical materials have increased in amount, and the plan of the work has outgrown Pusey's original design.

The labours of my predecessor and of myself have resulted in certain definite conclusions. We have discovered the answer to the inquiry which suggested there researches. We have found that the text of the Editio Princeps of 1555 is amlost identical with that current at the time when our MSS. were written. We can demonstrate that the Peshitto Version of the Gospels has not been corrupted in later times; but, on the contrary, that whatsoever variations it exhibits from the Greek, date from a most remote antiquity. Our authorities are products of both the great schools of Syriac Christianity, while our most ancient copies connect our readings with those of the undivided Syriac Church.

But while the collations made tend chiefly to the support of the traditional text of the Peshitto, in a certain number of passages we are able to correct it, where the MSS. used by Widmanstadt were apparently defective or corrupted. In these places the results of our collations are highly satisfactory; for it is found that the ancient codices, and of both schools, agree so remarkably, that seldom is the true reading left doubtful.

...."

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

We missed you as well. Welcome back and don't be a stranger.

In any case, what you say above is incorrect, sorry. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->

All existing Peshitta manuscripts don't really agree. There are quite a few variations among them, as Pusey/Gwilliam edition's textual apparatus indicates.

Pusey, Phillip E., and Gwilliam, George H., eds., 1901. Tetraeuangelium sanctum juxta simplicem syrorum versionem ad fidem codicum, massorae, editionum denuo recognitum. Oxford: Clarendon.

Akhi - I'd appreciate that if you're going to go through the trouble of quoting me, please do so completely.

If you re-read my statements, I said that "all existing Peshitta manuscripts agree." I did not say that the "Peshitta and Peshitto manuscripts agree."

In fact, I asked Antonio, verbatim:

Do you have any proof of any sort of standardization of variants among the eastern Peshitta textual tradition?

In case you need a "refresher":

Eastern Aramaic text: Peshitta
Western Aramaic text: Peshitto

Again, please, if you're going to try and correct me - then at least quote me accurately.

Your Pusey and Gwilliam edition compares all manuscripts regardless of their origin. It is a universally accepted fact that the eastern Peshitta text is far better preserved than the western Peshitto:

"Following the split in the Syriac Church in the 5th century into Nestorian (East Syrian) and Jacobite (West Syrian) traditions, the textual history of the Peshitta became bifurcated. Because the Nestorian Church was relatively isolated, its manuscripts are considered to be superior..."

I challenge you to find one variant (of any significance) in the eastern Peshitta. That means that you have to compare two eastern manuscripts against each other and find any differences. You will not (except for maybe spelling conventions, scribal errors, etc.)

Now don't you go and compare it to the Peshitto! That won't count! I don't care about, nor do I particularly trust, the Western textual tradition (those manuscripts that originated from Byzantine areas.)

[abudar2000]

breekh ramsho oh Paul,

Aside from the added 5 books, and the few added passages, the Peshitta and Peshitto are virtually identical. In the Peshitto, the added passage are indicated in brackets, so that we known that they don't belong to the original Peshitto.

taybutho dmoryo 'amokh habr Paul,
keefa-moroon

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

We missed you as well. Welcome back and don't be a stranger.

In any case, what you say above is incorrect, sorry. :(

All existing Peshitta manuscripts don't really agree. There are quite a few variations among them, as Pusey/Gwilliam edition's textual apparatus indicates.

Pusey, Phillip E., and Gwilliam, George H., eds., 1901. Tetraeuangelium sanctum juxta simplicem syrorum versionem ad fidem codicum, massorae, editionum denuo recognitum. Oxford: Clarendon.

Akhi - I'd appreciate that if you're going to go through the trouble of quoting me, please do so completely.

If you re-read my statements, I said that "all existing Peshitta manuscripts agree." I did not say that the "Peshitta and Peshitto manuscripts agree."

In fact, I asked Antonio, verbatim:

Do you have any proof of any sort of standardization of variants among the eastern Peshitta textual tradition?

In case you need a "refresher":

Eastern Aramaic text: Peshitta
Western Aramaic text: Peshitto

Again, please, if you're going to try and correct me - then at least quote me accurately.

Your Pusey and Gwilliam edition compares all manuscripts regardless of their origin. It is a universally accepted fact that the eastern Peshitta text is far better preserved than the western Peshitto.

I challenge you to find one variant (of any significance) in the eastern Peshitta. That means that you have to compare two eastern manuscripts against each other and find any differences. You will not (except for maybe spelling conventions, scribal errors, etc.)

Now don't you go and compare it to the Peshitto! That won't count! I don't care about, nor do I particularly trust, the Western textual tradition (those manuscripts that originated from Byzantine areas.)

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Abudar,

breekh ramsho oh Paul,

Aside from the added 5 books, and the few added passages, the Peshitta and Peshitto are virtually identical. In the Peshitto, the added passage are indicated in brackets, so that we known that they don't belong to the original Peshitto.

taybutho dmoryo 'amokh habr Paul,
keefa-moroon

I agree. What Yuri calls "variants" are actually little misspellings or other scribal errors between the eastern and western textual tradition. There are very few real "variants" between the two traditions, at least in the Greek "sense" of "variants" where they insert an entirely fabricated story (the woman caught in adultery!)

But if Yuri wants to nit-pick about spelling variations and such, then of couse there will be differences because the two textual traditions were seperated for many centuries. And especially because the western tradition lived under the domination and persecution by the Byzantine Greek church - then it is to be expected that certain pressures were applied on them that were not applied on the CoE because it lived as a minority under a pagan Persian government, a government which could care less about Christian scriptures and standardizing them to the "official version" of the empire.

See what I mean? The Encyclopedia Britannica quote I gave is very important, because I totally agree that the isolation of the eastern textual tradition kept dirty hands out of the text. It kept the text more "original."

[abudar2000]

bshayna wbashlama ah Paul,

Ok, I see what you mean.

bashlama,
keefa-moroon

Shlama Akhi Abudar,

breekh ramsho oh Paul,

Aside from the added 5 books, and the few added passages, the Peshitta and Peshitto are virtually identical. In the Peshitto, the added passage are indicated in brackets, so that we known that they don't belong to the original Peshitto.

taybutho dmoryo 'amokh habr Paul,
keefa-moroon

I agree. What Yuri calls "variants" are actually little misspellings or other scribal errors between the eastern and western textual tradition. There are very few real "variants" between the two traditions, at least in the Greek "sense" of "variants" where they insert an entirely fabricated story (the woman caught in adultery!)

But if Yuri wants to nit-pick about spelling variations and such, then of couse there will be differences because the two textual traditions were seperated for many centuries. And especially because the western tradition lived under the domination and persecution by the Byzantine Greek church - then it is to be expected that certain pressures were applied on them that were not applied on the CoE because it lived as a minority under a pagan Persian government, a government which could care less about Christian scriptures and standardizing them to the "official version" of the empire.

See what I mean? The Encyclopedia Britannica quote I gave is very important, because I totally agree that the isolation of the eastern textual tradition kept dirty hands out of the text. It kept the text more "original."

[The Thadman]

Shlama Akhi Steve-o,

That's great news. We should compile these examples and create an article to be hosted on both sites! I don't think anyone else has made this observation before. (kinda like the whole "Evangelion de Mepharreshe" pointing back to Rabbula)

I think if we demonstrate conclusively that the basis for Old Scratch was the Peshitta, except in cases of disagreement with the Western Greek textual family - then this would put to an end once and for all the headache that Old Scratch is.

Well, the prime example was the research I did on Trimm's "khadh" idiom. Each Mefarishe MSS agreed more with the Peshitta seperately than amongst themselves. It's still here somewhere on the board, and is definitely still on James' email list.

From Heb-Aram-NT

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:38:07 -0400
From: Steve Caruso <thadman@mindspring.com>
Subject: Kkadh/Chad in the Old Syriac: Interesting Development (Please read)

Akki James and all involved with the Kkadh/Chad study,

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 :-) 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!

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

[abudar2000]

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

[yuku]

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! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->).

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

Best wishes,

Yuri.

[yuku]

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

We missed you as well. Welcome back and don't be a stranger.

Thank you, Akhi Paul!

If you re-read my statements, I said that "all existing Peshitta manuscripts agree." I did not say that the "Peshitta and Peshitto manuscripts agree."

Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between Peshitta and Peshitto.

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.

From the textual perspective, the Peshitta textual tradition is generally quite similar to the Byzantine Greek textual tradition. Both of these traditions are generally quite homogeneous, but this certainly doesn't mean that they are totally and completely homogeneous.

Certainly no supporter of the Byzantine text, while defending the priority of Byzantine text, claims that this a totally homogeneous textual tradition.

All the best,

Yuri.

[yuku]

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.