Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 04-21-2010, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The Diatessaron appears to have been translated into Latin (possibly directly from Syriac) c 300 CE.

Thanks Andrew. So this might have gone Syriac diatessaron to Latin diatessaron and then into Latin Mark?

Quote:

However there is another possibility. Scholars such as Torrey have suggested that there was an early 2nd century CE Aramaic Targum of the Gospels and Acts which was retranslated into Greek ....

I've gotta say that if this is true then it is really a long and unusual route to come to the aramaic NT.
Jesus, apprently spoke in Aramaic and this was then written down in greek, then targumed back into Aramaic again, then retranslated back into greek and then ,presumably, translated back into Aramaic.

judge · 04-21-2010, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The textual criticism handbooks give Ephraem Syrus as a witness for "moved with anger". If this is correct (and I haven't checked in Ephraem) then his source was presumably the Diatessaron.

It would be interesting to see. As you mention textual commentaries such as this one (page 42) give Ephraem as a source seemingly as if that is from his diatessaron. I have read elsewhere someone say that Ephraem mentioned the variant in his commentary on the diatessaron. However I dont know whether he just mentioned it existed or that he mentions it being in his diatessaron.

andrewcriddle · 04-24-2010, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The textual criticism handbooks give Ephraem Syrus as a witness for "moved with anger". If this is correct (and I haven't checked in Ephraem) then his source was presumably the Diatessaron.

It would be interesting to see. As you mention textual commentaries such as this one (page 42) give Ephraem as a source seemingly as if that is from his diatessaron. I have read elsewhere someone say that Ephraem mentioned the variant in his commentary on the diatessaron. However I dont know whether he just mentioned it existed or that he mentions it being in his diatessaron.

The reference seems to be to Ephraem's commentary on the Diatessaron.
There is a discussion by Ephraem in chapter 12 of the commentary beginning.

Quote:

If you are willing you can cleanse me The formula is one of petition and the word is one of fear. "That you are able to I know, but whether you are willing, I am not certain." Therefore our Lord showed him two things in response to this double [attitude]: reproof through his anger, and mercy through his healing. For in response to if you are willing he was angry and in response to you can he was healed.

From Carmel McCarthy's English translation 1993 p 202.

Andrew Criddle

judge · 04-25-2010, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The reference seems to be to Ephraem's commentary on the Diatessaron.
There is a discussion by Ephraem in chapter 12 of the commentary beginning.

Quote:

If you are willing you can cleanse me The formula is one of petition and the word is one of fear. "That you are able to I know, but whether you are willing, I am not certain." Therefore our Lord showed him two things in response to this double [attitude]: reproof through his anger, and mercy through his healing. For in response to if you are willing he was angry and in response to you can he was healed.

From Carmel McCarthy's English translation 1993 p 202.

Andrew Criddle

Hey thank very much for that Andrew.

aa5874 · 04-25-2010, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

It would be interesting to see. As you mention textual commentaries such as this one (page 42) give Ephraem as a source seemingly as if that is from his diatessaron. I have read elsewhere someone say that Ephraem mentioned the variant in his commentary on the diatessaron. However I dont know whether he just mentioned it existed or that he mentions it being in his diatessaron.

The reference seems to be to Ephraem's commentary on the Diatessaron.
There is a discussion by Ephraem in chapter 12 of the commentary beginning.

Quote:

If you are willing you can cleanse me The formula is one of petition and the word is one of fear. "That you are able to I know, but whether you are willing, I am not certain." Therefore our Lord showed him two things in response to this double [attitude]: reproof through his anger, and mercy through his healing. For in response to if you are willing he was angry and in response to you can he was healed.

From Carmel McCarthy's English translation 1993 p 202.

Andrew Criddle

But, isn't this all speculation? There is no way in the world Ephraem can even begin to demonstrate what he wrote is true.

There is no corroborative source for Jesus. Ephraem just made stuff up. And, when was the Lord angry or had mercy? Who could Jesus heal?

No one even knows Jesus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.