Yuri Kuchinsky

No, Roger, it's not "known" that the Diatessaron was composed in Greek.

All the Standard Reference books tell us that Tatian authored the Aramaic version of the Diatessaron, the fragments of which still survive in various citations by Syriac fathers.

The problem with you is that your criticisms often aim to overturn both what I say, and what the Standard Reference books say. But before you try to overturn what the Standard Reference books say, it would be a good idea for you to learn what they actually do say...

One thing at a time, please...

Yours,

Yuri.

Haran

I thought Roger was just asking questions.

The point of all the questions, however, may be that there isn't much early physical MS evidence for many of your assertions...

Roger Pearse

I am surprised to hear that 'The Standard Reference Books' (why not name your sources?) say that Tatian composed in Aramaic. Would you cite some of these?

They may possibly say he wrote in Syriac. This was why I was asking. Is it really the case that the Greek is a translation from Syriac? <surprised>

????

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Just to summarise my part of this thread:

And no Syriac mss of the Diatessaron exist -- all we have are these citations by Syriac writers later than 350AD.

Now we started with Yuri's statement that "we have early patristic citations" "in Old Syriac."

I think that we have now established that no patristic works in Syriac prior to 350AD are extant -- and what Yuri has in mind is late patristic quotations of the Syriac version of the Diatessaron in later Syriac writers.

I think we have established that as far as either of us knows, there are no such early patristic citations; only late patristic quotes from the Diatessaron.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yuri Kuchinsky

I didn't actually say "in Old Syriac", Roger.

Quote:

I think that we have now established that no patristic works in Syriac prior to 350AD are extant

Not actually sure if we "established" that...

Quote:

-- and what Yuri has in mind is late patristic quotations of the Syriac version of the Diatessaron in later Syriac writers.

And how do you know what I have in mind?

Quote:

I think we have established that as far as either of us knows, there are no such early patristic citations; only late patristic quotes from the Diatessaron. All the best, Roger Pearse

Can you please tell us exactly what point are you trying to make now?

Yours,

Yuri.

Roger Pearse

I beg your pardon -- I hadn't understood that this was important. Citations of the NT of an Old Syriac text type, then?

The perils of condensation! You're right. I think we established that neither of us knows of an patristic author extant in Syriac prior to ca. 350.

In fact, it has just occurred to me (like a twit) to look in Wright, Short history of Syriac Literature, and he mentions Bardesanes, whom of course I had forgotten, in the 3rd century, and Simeon Bar Sabbae, who just slips under the wire in the 4th. But none of the works of the latter are extant; and the Dialogue on Fate of Bardaisan, well, does it contain anything useful?

Well, is this not right? You mean the Diatessaron, and it is only extant in Syriac in late patristic references. If not, what do you mean?

The statement that we have early patristic citations of an Old Syriac text type of the NT does not appear to be correct (unless there are some in Bardesanes, and we count him in as patristic). Just a point of detail!

That said, I have no idea why they should not exist. Syriac literature must be much older than 350AD, and no doubt they used versions earlier than the Peshitta. What about the lectionaries? Wright refuses to deal with them, but surely this would be a fertile ground of investigation, if the Old Latin is anything to go by.

But none of the older patristic material in Syriac seems to exist now. Perhaps the conditions for preservation were not right, prior to the foundation of the School at Edessa?

By the way, Yuri, do you know of a guide to literature in Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, like Wright?

All the best,

Roger Pearse
<><

Yuri Kuchinsky

Depends on what you mean by "_early_ patristic citations", Roger...

Also, depends on what you mean by "an Old Syriac text type of the NT".

What you're focusing upon now does seem to be just a point of detail. But, still, before launching into a discussion of such details, I would like to know if you're trying to make some sort of a general point?

Why should these things be important to you now?

Let's say I found some early Latin fathers whose citations are in accord with the Old Syriac gospels. What would be your reaction to that?

Quote:

By the way, Yuri, do you know of a guide to literature in Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, like Wright? <><

Not really. ABD is a pretty good general reference for such things, though, and it will give you the latest bibliography.

Yours,

Yuri.

Roger Pearse

I'm taking these terms as I found them, actually. I have no view on what you had in mind in either case!

Not really -- I'm not actually sure what the general point was.

They're not of special importance to me, except that I'm vaguely interested in Syriac literature, and on seeing the statement I thought I'd query it.

I don't see why such things should not exist: it would only indicate the existence of a Greek text of that period, which was known to either end of the classical world. One recalls that Irenaeus started life in Asia, as Polycarp's disciple, became Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, wrote in Greek (now lost), and the earliest fragment of his Adversus Haereses (ca. 200, in Greek) is from Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, at the far end of the empire. Clearly texts could move around, when a reason existed. Likewise Tertullian in Carthage was in contact with Montanists in Asia, across the Greek-Latin language barrier.

Whether these do exist, of course, is something I'm not qualified to comment on! (I'm a bit of a non-combatant on all of this stuff -- I know you have a theory of some sort, but I can't get into it --, as perhaps you realise).

Thanks anyway.

All the best,

Roger Pearse