The_Thadman    |
"Dr. Trimm on AramaicNT.org"
Jun-07-2003 at 05:00 PM (GMT3)
|
Well, I didn't know when it would happen, but it has  Dr. Trimm is posting on my AramaicNT.org's Yahoo! Group about the primacy of the Old Syriac, and I was hoping that you guys could help me out. I know especially that Akki Paul debated with him a while ago, and, Akki Paul, I would appreciate your help! Everyone who wants to help out will need a Yahoo! ID to sign up: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AramaicNT Shlomo,
---------------------------------------
Steve Caruso
(a.k.a. "The Thadman")
Webmaster & Author, AramaicNT.org
(http://www.AramaicNT.org)
Lead Programmer, eBethArké
(http://www.BethMardutho.org/eBethArke/)
Rutgers University, NJ
Thadman@mindspring.com
http://www.AramaicNT.org
AIM/Yahoo!: TheThadman1
----------------------------------------
|
|
|
TOP |
|
Paul Younan |
1. "RE: Dr. Trimm on AramaicNT.org"
Jun-07-2003 at 06:49 PM (GMT3)
|
» Last edited by Paul Younan on Jun-07-2003 at 06:56 PM (GMT3)Hi Akhi, While I will not converse with James Trimm directly anymore since he refused to be honest with me and everyone else on this forum, and I made that very clear in the past, I will reply to his ridiculously idiotic example here and you can use it anyway you want: His example from Matthew 18:2 is really stupid. Is he really saying something silly like "Khad", or "certain", is a Semiticism? Akhi, don't waste your time with his pseudo-scholarship. It is so obvious that the so-called "Old Syriac" is a revision of the Peshitta to bring it closer in line with the Alexandrian and Western texts. We've posted these examples time and time again.....and what does this guy come up with? "Certain" as a Semiticism? C'MON Akhi, you are far more versed in Aramaic than this guy. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
|
|
|
TOP |
 |
|
Paul Younan |
5. "RE: Dr. Trimm on AramaicNT.org"
Jun-08-2003 at 05:39 PM (GMT3)
|
Hi Akhi,To be completely honest with you, I find it very annoying to argue with someone who can't even speak Aramaic, about Aramaic. James Trimm is a student. He learned whatever little he knows from reading books. That's not a bad thing. What is bad is when he sets himself up as some sort of authority on the topic, which he is not. What's worse is that he insists on arguing with me about the meaning of words he has no clue about, about a language that is completely foreign to him and that he can't even hold a 30-second discussion in, face-to-face. James Trimm is a person of Scottish lineage. His family background is deep southern U.S. Protestant Christian, not Jewish. Furthermore, James Trimm has absolutely no credentials to be calling himself a "Dr.", and you shouldn't address him is as such, either. That gives people the wrong impression, but that's your choice. Nobody who really knows a spit of Aramaic pays any attention to him, as Dr. Kiraz will attest to you. I will be here to answer any questions you need me for, but realize that I have serious qualms about giving him any more undeserved attention than he already gets. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
|
|
|
TOP |
|
|
Steven |
7. "RE: Dr. Trimm on AramaicNT.org"
Jun-19-2003 at 04:24 PM (GMT3)
|
Thank you Sam, and Paul, and Andrew and Thadman and friends... I will use my given name here (Some of you may know me as Schmuel or Praxeus on email and Paltalk)Two thoughts on your recent post, Sam. > The Tuillet text is nothing more than a
> revised Shem Tov. Personally I find Pinchas Lapide's "Hebrew in the Church" invaluable for getting the gist of the Middle Ages Matthews (Curly and friends, per Andrew ) issues. I really don't think there is a Shem Tov connection to the other two. Lapide about Munster re: Shem Tob - "and yet with even the most superficial comparison of the two works the radical differences between their vocabularly, style, and diction would have demonstraed the impossiblity of a common origin" p. 55 Munster was a Hebraicist and translator, and DuTillet is a very close manuscript to Munster. Recommdation: try to get the Lapide book from Amazon, Abebooks, bookfinders.org, Dovebooks etc. >He uses mis understood scholarship of David >Ginsburg, a Christian Hebrewist who mis >understood rabbinical teachings of the Masorah >to restore the name of YHWH 160 times in place >of the original Adoani or Elohim. Good topic..I have an ongoing "research project" on this "emendations of the sopherim" issue, although I would like it to move faster. Shall we share our research on this ? Seems like you know the basic issue, and I can share some thoughts from Professor Lawrence Schiffman and the Karaite Nehemiah Gordan (as well as James).. There are a couple of papers and books that I have not yet sought out, however, and assistance will be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
TOP |
|
|
Samuel |
8. "RE: Dr. Trimm on AramaicNT.org"
Jun-20-2003 at 04:22 AM (GMT3)
|
The Tuillet is revised but is not an original Hebrew Book of Matthew, there is none. The Peshitta is far older and much more reliable than any of the Midevil Hebrew translations made. As for the Masorah in Gen.18:22 the masorah said that they thought t6he text should read and YHWH stood befroe Abraham , but it would be an indecent thing to lower YHWH to being in such a position , not as Christian Ginsburg says that they changed the text to read Abraham stood before YHWH. The other proof is that in the Dead Sea Scrolls of Genesis it has the same Masorah as Abraham stood before YHWh as does all other Versions that are pre-Masoretic in Greek, Latin, Syrian -Aramaic and ect.Yet despite this fact james here like the Scripture research Center change the text to read YHWH stood before Abraham. Thyis information comes from Midrash Rabba in Aramaic of Sefer Berashit(Beraista) I read it from Soncino's Midrash Rabba in English as a have the ten volume set. Without detailed critical examing of the sources one can easyily make errors of thought as Christian Ginsburg has . Also James does not speak fluent Hebrew nor Aramaic and as such is unqualifed to translate anything. I beleive he bases his transltion on personal study and paraphrasing previous translations that are literal like the AV, JPS, and ect. So many people are doing this today trying to pass off their work as a translation which it is not even qualified to do so. Sure i could look up words in a lexicon and use the info to translate the Bible , but i not speaking the languages fluently however accurate the translation may seem I still am unqualified and merly transposed ideas about words and their meanings passing it off as a translation. Would that not be very dishonest in the first place. I know a person revising the AV. using a program of Bible Herminutics called Bible Works 3.5. The program has a lot of language studies and resources , but it still can not enable one to be a translator. This is like reading up about medications and calling yourself a doctor, a big mistake. Shlama W'Berkhate, Sam
p.s Paul Younan is qualified to tranlate the Peshitta since he both knows and speaks its language fluently, but not so with Hebrew or Greek.
|
|
|
TOP |
|
|
Rob |
9. "Great argument for Oral Torah"
Jun-20-2003 at 04:47 PM (GMT3)
|
Shlama Sam,Your argument that "James does not speak fluent Hebrew nor Aramaic and as such is unqualifed to translate anything"
is a great argument for the necessity for the existence of an oral tradition, through which the meaning of a text is handed down from one generation to another.Tell me, of which translations do you approve? How do you suppose we achieved the translation of 'the epic of Gilgamesh,' or the 'Enumah Elish' or any other Assyrio/Babylonian cuneiform texts? How about the Rosetta stone? What about the ancient Egyptian literature that is now read and studied? How about Cyrus Gordon and Co.'s brilliant work in Ugaritic, the study of which has revealed many parallels to early Hebrew poetry? ALL OF THESE LANGUAGES ARE DEAD AND LOOK FOR THE MOST PART LIKE CHICKEN SCRATCH. YET, THEY HAVE BEEN DECYPHERED AND ARE NOW READ... ...WITHOUT ANYONE 'SPEAKING THEM FLUENTLY' AS YOU WOULD INSIST. You fail to recognize that languages can be learned and understood through serious study. I could easily show this by sending an email in Hebrew or Aramaic to Akhan Paul, J. Trimm, and any person that you seem fit, and THEY WOULD ALL COME UP WITH BASICALLY THE SAME TRANSLATION. Any scholar that will endeavor to translate the Bible without consulting other translations is foolish. NO matter what, they would ultimately refer to what someone else has told them something means, whether it is a parent that taught them the meaning of a passage or a reference to what all other prior translations have done. ACcording to your own argument, we cannot read the Bible! Because the only way fluent speakers became fluent was through study and practice of WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE TAUGHT THEM! So, we are stuck with God's Word without anyone able to read it, because it's all been passed on (through oral or written means)! Sam, reconsider your argument. It doesn't hold any water! But it does provide you with a nice soap box from which to criticize others' work! Rob
|
|
|
TOP |
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
