Jeffrey Gibson

Since the author was only intent to examine what certain 1st century Greek texts (i.e., the Gospel of Mark and the Greek material common to Matthew and Luke) had to say about the nature and content of Jesus' testings and defined early Christianity as 1st century CE Christianity, why would (let alone should) he mention or use the writings of Syriac Fathers? After all, they are not only late, but their writings are not the texts he was investigating.

The issue of being fair to Syriac writings is a red herring. And your claim that the author is obsessed with the Greek church fathers is as unfounded as it is undemonstrated.

Do you know how much you are aping Pete in this nonsense?

Jeffrey

stephan huller

I am just saying, I thought the scholarship in that book was top notch. That's the kind of person I'd like to have at the forum - even if he was a complete pain in the ass. If that guy was at the forum I'd tell him that he'd been an invalauble friend and resource. There's just the question of to what degree is this is leading us to the ultimate ground from which the concept of gospel sprang. If we are sitting around trying to figure out how the Catholic gospels emerged in the second century, yes - this is the answer. But what is the Catholic tradition? How far does it really go beyond Irenaeus? Not that far. I even think Polycarp's letter was tampered with.

I can't get over the basic difficulty of Tatian's relationship with Justin. How is it possible that Tatian isn't the authority on Justin? Yes, Irenaeus says this and that about Justin. But it's hard to get around a student's relationship with his teacher. They say the apple doesn't fall from the tree but now we are supposed to believe that Tatian 'invented' the concept of the Diatessaron even though Theophilus and Ammonius are each associated with the text roughly contemporaneously with Tatian.

It can't be this way. The quaternion comes after the 'super gospel' type (because 'Diatessaron' is a loaded term). Why was Petersen stuck at some shit hole university? Because he chose to ride on the wrong horse. Indeed, its one of those things where there is a black hole - there is no evidence - but logic and the facts dictate the idea there was a 'super gospel' which was split up and 'centonized.' Irenaeus says as much when he accuses the heretics of doing this on two occasions.

This doesn't mean that there aren't problems with the thesis. Each of the gospels have specific features which distinguishes them from each other. There's no doubt about that. But the earliest tradition associated with the synoptics assumes they are all associated with older traditions. Mark's copying of Aramaic. Matthew's relationship with the Gospel of the Hebrews. Luke's opening words; John's closing words.

My point is simply if you open the door to the Syriac tradition -the tradition from the land of Jesus - it questions the eternity of the quaterion concept. Why the late reception for these 'simple' texts? Why is there such an intimate association with Diatessaronic witnesses? So yes, I can't offer a better more reliable-sounding paradigm that all that develops from the synoptic texts. But it's like someone telling you that they built a time machine. They can cite Einstein, draw formulas on a blackboard until it wraps around the building. They didn't build a fucking time machine. It's bullshit.

In the same way, all the arguments in the world doesn't change the fact that the people where Christianity is supposed to have started out didn't use this quaternion, that it emerged very late in Christian history and the people who first promote this set (Irenaeus et al) were locked in a bitter battle with single gospel heretical communities (= older traditions of Christianity).

The one of the principal reasons there are four gospels - or that the four are argued together to be one - is because each is being used to combat one of four principle heretical groups - Jewish Christian (Matthew), Marcionite (Luke), Encratite (Mark) and Valentinian (John). I am using the odd order of Irenaeus in Book Three quite deliberately. Each of these communities used one text only. But we have four. My guess is that each community had a solitary Diatessaronic text where Matthew, Luke, Mark and John are condensed versions of the original.

Yet the only way we ever get a sense of that original paradigm is if we constantly - and I mean daily - incorporate Ephrem, Aphahat into our discussion of witnesses. The second option is to invoke the scholars who were brave enough to study this shit. Petersen went further, Quispel went too far, Baarda is as close to 'just right' even though he's not always bang on.

andrewcriddle

I'm not at all sure that Baarda is right in arguing that Augustine is not a genuine witness to an unusual text of these verses. However his argument is sufficiently plausible that it prevents the use of Augustine as solid evidence for such an unusual text.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Bravo! I couldn't have put it better. That's what it comes down to. That's what I would have said if I was smart and better educated.

stephan huller

Jeffrey, a point for your new book maybe - or a new thing to beat me over the head with. There is a consistent substitution for magister (Διδάσκαλε) in the heretical gospel tradition.

The Baarda example is not alone. I asked him to research this for me just now. He said he will have something this week which I will post here. I asked him to look up Ephrem, Aphrahat, Jacob of Nisibis etc.

There is a logic here but I will explain when I put my kids to bed.