Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, JD.

But I'm saying that Tatian had little if anything to do with the Diatessaron. Actually, Tatian was often mentioned by various early Catholic authors, but they generally failed to credit him with the authorship of the Diatessaron.

Quote:

YURI: But how do you know he was in error? Ah! And here you show you unfamiliarity with the _Syriac version_ of this quote! JD: Syriac & Latin would have been second hand since Eusebius wrote in Gr. 'sunafeian tina kai sunagwghn ouk oid' opwV tvn euaggeliwn sunqeiV' But you may be right about tampering. It seems to me that it is easier to omit than to add especially given the mother tongue of the author, Eusebius. BTW what is the exact Syriac phrase? Is it in serto or estrangela?[/i]

These apparent additions in the Greek text have a clear political purpose. They might represent redaction by a later Greek scribe.

I don't have Petersen's volume here, so I'm not sure about the particulars of the Syriac version at this point.

Quote:

YURI: But what about he commentaries on DT by various Latin writers? Although they were later in date JD: EXACTLY as is the Latin MS, which by the way shows the SYR syntax underlying the text. Its pretty obvious where the Latin version is derived.

Are you saying that the Latin version were based on Aramaic? If so, I've seen similar views expressed before, although I don't think this is the mainstream view.

Quote:

YURI: But I just don't see this purported confusion of Peshitto with Peshitta as an important issue. Again, I'm not so much interested in the Peshitto/Peshitta as in the Old Syriac gospels. JD: Here is the importance. Peshitta/Peshitto many times don't seem to follow any Gr. ms, papyri, aleph, B C, etc., whereas OS tends to show the underlying Gr text.

Really? How so? How about some examples?

IMHO it's the other way around...

All the best,

Yuri.

jdmins

Hi Yuri,


But I'm saying that Tatian had little if anything to do with the Diatessaron. Actually, Tatian was often mentioned by various early Catholic authors, but they generally failed to credit him with the authorship of the Diatessaron.These apparent additions in the Greek text have a clear political purpose. They might represent redaction by a later Greek scribe.

Ok, it looks like we will not convince each other.



I don't have Petersen's volume here, so I'm not sure about the particulars of the Syriac version at this point.

Whenever you find it please let me know. Thanks.

Really? How so? How about some examples?

Here is the largest most obvious one:

The OS Sinatic and Papyri of GNT mss., generally considered the earliest texts, omit Mk. 16:9-20.

The OS Curetonian has vv. 17-20 and later GNT mss., generally considered less reliable than those above, along with ALL
PNT have the entire passage.

Also PNT includes Matt. 16:2-3, Luke 22:43-44, 23:34, etc. most of which are omitted by the Old Syriac & it omits John 7:53-8:11.

And as you know the PNT excludes 2Ptr, 2&3 John, Jude, & The Apocolypse., all which are included in the GNT.

JD

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear JD,

What is it exactly that you're trying to prove now? Are you really saying that OS is closer to the Greek text than the Peshitta? If so, I don't think this will fly.

So here we have one of those cases where the OS textual tradition is split. So what is this supposed to prove, according to you?

Quote:

and later GNT mss., generally considered less reliable than those above, along with ALL PNT have the entire passage.

And so... what is your point now?

Quote:

Also PNT includes Matt. 16:2-3, Luke 22:43-44, 23:34, etc. most of which are omitted by the Old Syriac & it omits John 7:53-8:11. And as you know the PNT excludes 2Ptr, 2&3 John, Jude, & The Apocolypse., all which are included in the GNT. JD

Let's stick to the gospels for now. Please clarify your position and your argument. Are you really trying to prove that the Old Syriac gospels came after the Peshitta? But I've already explained to judge why this doesn't work.

All the best,

Yuri.

jdmins

Yuri,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jdmins


The OS Sinatic and Papyri of GNT mss., generally considered the earliest texts, omit Mk. 16:9-20.

The OS Curetonian has vv. 17-20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So here we have one of those cases where the OS textual tradition is split. So what is this supposed to prove, according to you?

BTW when ever you have that Syriac quote that would be helpful, thanks.

My contention has always been that PNT varies from the OS. OS tends to follow PP texts as PNT tends Byz. Not in these passages in question. The reverse is true. How then could PNT follow GNT or OS?(IN the gospels too). There is no extant common text. Its as though the PNT "translators" would have had to cut & paste.
Where is that trend w/ OS? It is a stretch to compare. It's as though PNT has a different source text than GNT or OS. That is to say why divert from an OS source in favour of a Gr. source different from those the scribe was using all along?

(Sorry I though you were getting my point in all this without me deatiling, my bad.)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and later GNT mss., generally considered less reliable than those above, along with ALL
PNT have the entire passage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And so... what is your point now?


See above.


JD

fiddler

Wouldn't the perspective of which language usage claimed depend on the Bible that is quoted? In other words, the Latin Vulgate Bible claims one thing regarding its source material, while the KJV Bible claims something entirely different. Something else to throw into the mix...the usual Aramaic transliteration you may have heard about is usually of dubious scholastic integrity. However, there is in fact ancient Aramaic documents, the Gospels and other books of the Bible that are in fact intact and possess considerable integrity. Notice I stated ancient Aramaic. Most current dictionaries [Aramaic/English] do not work with these ancient documents. Remember that language is a living thing, it changes constantly.

What I believe is at issue is this, it all depends on who will benefit from which transliteration is the accepted version by the adherents. So, the Douay-Challoner transliteration benefits the Roman Catholic Church. Whereas, the KJV Bible benefits the Protestant sects. There is much that is hidden in regards to the original meaning and intent when the original ancient Aramaic documents are ignored. All modern christian sects ignore these documents in their entirety. What can I say, organized religion truly is the opiate of the masses.

Religion as a word means "to link." It is intended to link the individual with the supernatural/spiritual realm. However, spirituality and the subconscious realm have absolutely nothing to do with organized religion! Organized religion is in effect an ethics system meant to control the masses.

So, is it Aramaic or Greek? Consider this: early christians were living in the Roman Empire. The everyday language was Latin. The language of court was Greek. Common street languages in Judea (Palestine) were Hebrew,
Aramaic and various other Semetic variations. My money is on Aramaic from all the evidence we have found. Hope this either answers the question or kindles a bonfire.

fiddler

jdmins

Dear fiddler,

YOU SAID:"the usual Aramaic transliteration"

Do you mean translation? THe PNT is written in Aramaic and not transliterated. There are Gr. transliterations of Aramaic in the NT

'talitha cumi','ephata', 'rabboni','eloi', 'sabbaktani', just to mention a small sample..


you may have heard about is usually of dubious scholastic integrity.

Dubious integrity? Tell me more.


However, there is in fact ancient Aramaic documents, the Gospels and other books of the Bible that are in fact intact and possess considerable integrity. Notice I stated ancient Aramaic. Most current dictionaries [Aramaic/English] do not work with these ancient documents. Remember that language is a living thing, it changes constantly.

Really? What about the CAL-Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon which searches Ancient Aramaic, Middle Aramaic (official Khaldean documents, the Targums, and secular writings,) Late Aramaic (Mishnah & Talmuds, esp.Jerusalem Talmud-JPA-Jewish Palestinian-Aramaic)?

What I believe is at issue is this, it all depends on who will benefit from which transliteration is the accepted version by the adherents. So, the Douay-Challoner transliteration benefits the Roman Catholic Church. Whereas, the KJV Bible benefits the Protestant sects. There is much that is hidden in regards to the original meaning and intent when the original ancient Aramaic documents are ignored. All modern christian sects ignore these documents in their entirety.


Ignorance IS bliss. What about the discovery of DSS mss. and subsequent reasearch and a revival of semitic roots underlying the GNT? BTW DSS mss. contained Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.(Occuring quantitatively in that order and no Latin).

Are you aware of the Church of the East? They use the Peshitta.

Have you not heard the Eastern Othodox Church or The Syrian Othodox Church? I belive they use Peshitto.

What can I say, organized religion truly is the opiate of the masses.
Religion as a word means "to link." It is intended to link the individual with the supernatural/spiritual realm. However, spirituality and the subconscious realm have absolutely nothing to do with organized religion! Organized religion is in effect an ethics system meant to control the masses.

Interesting you mentioned religion. Why is that? We are talking linguistic-history behind the textual tradition of ancient manuscripts, a historical study. But do tell me more.

So, is it Aramaic or Greek? Consider this: early christians were living in the Roman Empire. The everyday language was Latin. The language of court was Greek. Common street languages in Judea (Palestine) were Hebrew,
Aramaic and various other Semetic variations. My money is on Aramaic from all the evidence we have found. Hope this either answers the question or kindles a bonfire.



Latin? For whom?
The Jews of Judea who were oppressed by the Roman government?
Those of Galilee who were very pious and detested being subjected to the Roman secular rule,?
The Khassidim who considered them unclean pigs?
The Essenes who separated themselves at Qumran?
The Sicarri who wanted them dead?
The Pharisees who also saw them as unclean?
Oh yea, it was probably the Sadducees, they WERE the most secular.

What's more interesting is the"soregh" sign leading from the "court of the gentiles" to the "outer court" was primarily in Greek then Latin, this we know from Josephus. So you say Latin was the everyday language. Why did they need a Greek inscription? Greek was the linga "negotialis" (oops, I used Latin) of the world and still it wasn't "the everyday language" in Judea, Samaria, Galilee, or Syria. If one needed to conduct trade on a large scale one did so in Greek, like English today (thanks to US economic superiority), but make no mistake the street language was JPA. What is most interesting is that Josephus translated his Aramaic work into Greek for wider readership among the Jews in the diaspora rather than Latin whence comes his surname Flavius.

What evidence do you have that Hebrew was a first century common language and not simply a language of liturgy?

Other semitic mixes you say? Surely you are no implying Arabic? What evidence supports anything other than Aramaic/Syriac and Hebrew. Internal (NT) and external (Talmud,Mishnah, Midrash) evidence supports the view that Hebrew was the liturgical language, much like the Latin mass today, and JPA was the language of the common Jew in the region.

JD

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, JD,

See below.

Quote:

My contention has always been that PNT varies from the OS. OS tends to follow PP texts as PNT tends Byz. Not in these passages in question. The reverse is true. How then could PNT follow GNT or OS?(IN the gospels too). There is no extant common text. Its as though the PNT "translators" would have had to cut & paste. Where is that trend w/ OS? It is a stretch to compare. It's as though PNT has a different source text than GNT or OS. That is to say why divert from an OS source in favour of a Gr. source different from those the scribe was using all along?

What is "PP"?

I'm still not quite sure what your main thesis is in regard to the Old Syriac and the Peshitta...

Also, please keep in mind that what I've said so far in this area happens to represent basic consensus among TC scholars today. If you wish to challenge this, you've got quite a climb in front of you.

Now, here's that whole passage in my book where I discuss this troublesome citation from Eusebius. I hope it's helpful. Can you get to Petersen's book in your local library? Because he supplies the Syriac text, as well as the Latin.

[quote from "THE MAGDALENE GOSPEL: a Journey Behind the New Testament", by Yuri Kuchinsky, Ch. 35, p. 299ff]

ONE QUESTIONABLE QUOTE FROM EUSEBIUS: IS THIS ALL?

Although it is repeated in every standard reference book that "Tatian wrote the Diatessaron, and introduced it to Syria", it is rather surprising to discover just how little evidence exists for this. Yes, odd as it may seem, this whole notion is based on little more than one short quote from Eusebius (263-340 CE), the Church father who is already familiar to us. And even this quote, itself, happens to be disputed as to its exact wording! Here is what seems like the best text, as preserved in a fourth century Syriac translation,

[Tatian, the first leader of the Encratites] "... collected and combined and composed a Gospel, and he called it Diatessaron; now this is [the Gospel] of the Mixed, the same that is in the hands of many unto this day." (Eusebius, The History of the Church, IV.29.6, quoted from Petersen, Tatian's Diatessaron, 1994, p. 36)

And here is how this statement comes down to us in the standard Greek text of Eusebius,

[Tatian, the first leader of the Encratites] "... arranged a kind of joining together and compilation of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title The Diatessaron; and it is still to this day to be found in the hands of some." (Lawlor and Oulton translation)

There are some important differences there between these two versions and, on the whole, one can see that our Greek version seems to be rather dismissive of the Diatessaron.

1. The Greek version includes an additional and rather disparaging clause, "I know not how".

2. According to the Syriac version, at the time of Eusebius, the Diatessaron was still found "in the hands of many"; while, according to the Greek, it was only found "in the hands of some."

3. Also, the Syriac text describes the Diatessaron as a "Gospel", which tends to sound more respectable.

Now, there also happens to be an ancient Latin translation of this same passage (also supplied by Petersen), and it is interesting that, just like the Syriac version, it also calls the Diatessaron a "Gospel", and says that it was "possessed by many".

So it does seem like our Greek version of this passage may have been corrupted during its transmission, while both the Latin and Syriac translations seem to be preserving original statement of Eusebius more accurately.

Generally speaking, this situation may be seen as quite representative, of course, since, as I have already explained in previous chapters, such agreements between Latin and Syriac texts against the Greek are also commonly found elsewhere -- and indeed they seem to be very significant. In fact, very often -- and unbeknownst to most biblical scholars today -- these types of agreements seem to be supplying for us the all-important key to understanding what the earliest texts of New Testament gospels really were.

In any case, regardless of which of these two versions of Eusebius' statement is judged more original, these differences certainly seem to indicate that Syriac-speaking Christians were far more respectful of the Diatessaron than Greek-speaking ones.

But there is yet another important detail that needs to be noted about this quote from Eusebius. Because he happens to be supplying this information about Tatian's alleged authorship of the Diatessaron together with yet another piece of information -- namely, that Tatian was the leader of the Encratites, which was a "heretical" movement of Christian ascetics. Right away, we see that there may have been some political agenda that was being pursued there by Eusebius in saying what he was saying. It stands to reason that his aim in writing what he wrote (whatever it was, exactly) may have been -- at least in part -- apologetical, and that his real intention was to dismiss the Diatessaron as a "heretical gospel" that should be viewed with suspicion.

So is this rather late statement by Eusebius -- a Church father who was a prominent heresiologist, i.e. an opponent of heresies -- all we have to pin the blame on Tatian as the author of the Diatessaron? Yes, this is about it... To be sure, we do have some similar statements by still later heresiologists, such as Theodoret -- but nothing before this.

[end quote]

All the best,

Yuri.

jdmins

Dear Yuri,

I'm still not quite sure what your main thesis is in regard to the Old Syriac and the Peshitta...


Let me restate:It's as though PNT has a different source text than GNT or OS. That is to say why divert from an OS source in favour of a Gr. source different from those the scribe was using all along?


Also, please keep in mind that what I've said so far in this area happens to represent basic consensus among TC scholars today. If you wish to challenge this, you've got quite a climb in front of you.

Scholars abound and still no evidence?

Now, here's that whole passage in my book where I discuss this troublesome citation from Eusebius. I hope it's helpful. Can you get to Petersen's book in your local library? Because he supplies the Syriac text, as well as the Latin.


Petersen? What is the title?


Although it is repeated in every standard reference book that "Tatian wrote the Diatessaron, and introduced it to Syria", it is rather surprising to discover just how little evidence exists for this. Yes, odd as it may seem, this whole notion is based on little more than one short quote from Eusebius (263-340 CE), the Church father who is already familiar to us. And even this quote, itself, happens to be disputed as to its exact wording! Here is what seems like the best text, as preserved in a fourth century Syriac translation,
[Tatian, the first leader of the Encratites] "... collected and combined and composed a Gospel, and he called it Diatessaron; now this is [the Gospel] of the Mixed, the same that is in the hands of many unto this day." (Eusebius, The History of the Church, IV.29.6, quoted from Petersen, Tatian's Diatessaron, 1994, p. 36) And here is how this statement comes down to us in the standard Greek text of Eusebius,
[Tatian, the first leader of the Encratites] "... arranged a kind of joining together and compilation of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title The Diatessaron; and it is still to this day to be found in the hands of some." (Lawlor and Oulton translation) There are some important differences there between these two versions and, on the whole, one can see that our Greek version seems to be rather dismissive of the Diatessaron.
1. The Greek version includes an additional and rather disparaging clause, "I know not how".


Why is it disparaging? Also why is the phrase placed where it is in the sentence if it is an addition? Wouldn't it be constructed more like the English phrase you show above if it was edited? Also who might have translated this to Syriac? What were their motives if one wants to seek conspiracy?

2. According to the Syriac version, at the time of Eusebius, the Diatessaron was still found "in the hands of many"; while, according to the Greek, it was only found "in the hands of some."


Yes some. In particular that some is the Syrians. Some as opposed to the many Ephesians, Phillipians, Corinthians, Alexandrians, Galatians, Philadelphians, Boreans, Cyprians, etc., etc. To the Syrian I'm sure there would be many. As far as they were concerned IT WAS THEIR GOSPEL TEXT NOT THE HELLENISTS'.


3. Also, the Syriac text describes the Diatessaron as a "Gospel", which tends to sound more respectable.
Now, there also happens to be an ancient Latin translation of this same passage (also supplied by Petersen), and it is interesting that, just like the Syriac version, it also calls the Diatessaron a "Gospel", and says that it was "possessed by many".




Actually I beleive it refers to it as "THE Gospel". And for the Syrians it was their Gospel until PNT. It is interesting that the Latin text seems to be based on the Syrian rather than the orignal Greek of Esuebius whose historical writings originated in Greek for wider readership. I'll fill you in more down the page.





So it does seem like our Greek version of this passage may have been corrupted during its transmission, while both the Latin and Syriac translations seem to be preserving original statement of Eusebius more accurately. Generally speaking, this situation may be seen as quite representative, of course, since, as I have already explained in previous chapters, such agreements between Latin and Syriac texts against the Greek are also commonly found elsewhere -- and indeed they seem to be very significant. In fact, very often -- and unbeknownst to most biblical scholars today -- these types of agreements seem to be supplying for us the all-important key to understanding what the earliest texts of New Testament gospels really were.

Now I agree with some of this as far as PNT is concerned.

In any case, regardless of which of these two versions of Eusebius' statement is judged more original, these differences certainly seem to indicate that Syriac-speaking Christians were far more respectful of the Diatessaron than Greek-speaking ones.


And we ALL know why.

But there is yet another important detail that needs to be noted about this quote from Eusebius. Because he happens to be supplying this information about Tatian's alleged authorship of the Diatessaron together with yet another piece of information -- namely, that Tatian was the leader of the Encratites, which was a "heretical" movement of Christian ascetics. Right away, we see that there may have been some political agenda that was being pursued there by Eusebius in saying what he was saying. It stands to reason that his aim in writing what he wrote (whatever it was, exactly) may have been -- at least in part -- apologetical, and that his real intention was to dismiss the Diatessaron as a "heretical gospel" that should be viewed with suspicion.

So is this rather late statement by Eusebius -- a Church father who was a prominent heresiologist, i.e. an opponent of heresies -- all we have to pin the blame on Tatian as the author of the Diatessaron? Yes, this is about it... To be sure, we do have some similar statements by still later heresiologists, such as Theodoret -- but nothing before this.

[end quote]

BINGO. REMEMBER ALSO TATIAN'S SCOURGING ATTACK -"AGAINST THE HELLENES". Therefore the Gr. text had been redacted, although it doesn't appear to lessen the force of the assignment as Tatian's synthesis. The Latin fathers would certainly want to cast Tatian in a bad light. Never-the-less the statement carries the same force.

2Questions do arise:
1. What do the Syrian Fathers say of Tatian?

2. What is the date of the Latin mss?


JD

judge

Hi again yuri!.


Yuri:
That the Peshitta came after the Old Syriac is quite clear by analogy with the Old Latin gospels, which are of course very similar to the Old Syriac gospels textually. After all, we know from good historical sources that Jerome was assigned to "standardise" the Latin gospels. Before Jerome, Latin textual tradition was rather unstable. So he's normally credited with standardising it.

Judge:
Yuri are you saying that the peshitta was standardised. Is there any evidence of this happening?

Yuri:
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Vulgate
http://www.ntcanon.org/Vulgate.shtml

Judge:
This site is unfortunately down for maintenace at the moment. perhaps the answer is there?


yuri:
"In 382 Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the leading biblical scholar of his day, to produce an acceptable Latin translation of the Bible from the several divergent translations then in use. His revised Latin translation of the Gospels was delivered to the Pope in 384."

Thus, I'm arguing that the Old Syriac gospels stand to the Peshitta in the same type of a relationship as the Old Latin gospels stand to the Latin Vulgate.

What do you think?

Judge:
I am not sure if there is good evidence for this. I have seen Dr James trimm from SANJ, try to argue this on peshitta.org over an extended period once, but very unsuccessfully IMHO. tyes are in the archive (but may be hard to find)
paul Younan who is posting an interlinear peshitta at peshitt.org has argued against this. His posts there can be found in the Archives. Anyone interested shoud go to peshitta.org and check out posts under the title "old scratch"



Do you have any specific examples that will show your argument?

Thanks again...enjoying your posts.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, judge,

Since the Peshitta is standardised, I assume that someone must have standardised it...

Quote:

yuri: "In 382 Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the leading biblical scholar of his day, to produce an acceptable Latin translation of the Bible from the several divergent translations then in use. His revised Latin translation of the Gospels was delivered to the Pope in 384." Thus, I'm arguing that the Old Syriac gospels stand to the Peshitta in the same type of a relationship as the Old Latin gospels stand to the Latin Vulgate. Judge: I am not sure if there is good evidence for this. I have seen Dr James trimm from SANJ, try to argue this on peshitta.org over an extended period once, but very unsuccessfully IMHO. tyes are in the archive (but may be hard to find) paul Younan who is posting an interlinear peshitta at peshitt.org has argued against this. His posts there can be found in the Archives. Anyone interested shoud go to peshitta.org and check out posts under the title "old scratch"

What I'm saying in this area merely represents the consensus in the field. If you have problems with it, you're welcome to present arguments to the contrary.

Also, I've read the long reply from JD, but I still don't see what his main thesis is in regard to the Old Syriac and the Peshitta. He keeps asking me all sorts of questions, but neglects to clarify his own position in this area.

Perhaps the Peshitta was based on some separate Greek source, perhaps it wasn't -- that's not the main point here. But if JD thinks that he can explain how the Old Syriac gospels could have evolved from the Peshitta, he will be the first one in the world to have done so. OTOH it's very easy to explain how the reverse process could have occurred.

All the best,

Yuri.