neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:43 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:16 pm
Neil, you don't engage with my arguments when I'm being polite.
Neither do you engage with them when I'm being less polite
I'm not interested in your arguments about Thomas. One of the reasons I only occasionally drop into this forum is the frequency of people reacting with their intestines rather than their craniums. Just try being polite and civil, okay? -- and even go so far as to trying to understand someone else's argument from their point of view -- without assuming they have some "attitude" or "agenda" problem. Maybe they do, but demonstrate that rationally, not reflexively. (And you're not "less polite" -- you're outright insulting.)
Actually I did quote a line about Perrin's argument that applied in principle specifically to the point of this thread. . . .
To his credit, Perrin recognizes the difficulties inherent in his approach and even raises the question himself of whether his reconstructions will be tendentiously skewed. He responds that since Syriac offers a limited range of lexicological options, this is not as big a problem as first appears. . . .
Now that's a point I'd like to address -- in relation to the canonical gospels and Hebrew.
It is striking, Neil - let's use a neutral word shall we? - that I start with insulting Nicholas Perrin, accusing him of being a
foolish idiot:
viewtopic.php?p=124035#p124035
That doesn't prevent you from merely lightly countering that insult, and reacting to the content of his booklet while citing positive reviews:
viewtopic.php?p=124058#p124058
And only after I cite negative reviews (
viewtopic.php?p=124062#p124062) is it that you follow up with addressing none of the content, and only stick to my labelling of Perrin (
viewtopic.php?p=124066#p124066)
And now, after the overwhelming evidence of Perrin being either a foolish idiot or a fraud (
viewtopic.php?p=124067#p124067), given the demonstrated fact that he uses an English translation of Thomas as a basis for his "Syriac thesis" (and it is likely that of Michael Grondin, given the odd word choice of 'districts', although Grondin had "woman" in logion 15 in 1997, 2002 and now), you suddenly decide to refuse to address the content, and revert to the OP?
I'll leave you to it then, Neil. I'll block some time in the future, looking forward to your attempts to "restore" an Aramaic or Hebrew version of some of the NT.
I will give you solid advice on translating: the only valid way to do so is via a fully normalised one, which is demonstrated and verifiable via a double (reverse) index (preferably concordance, of course).
https://www.academia.edu/42110001 is a splendid example of such