Thoughts on the Diatessaron.

[Ben C. Smith]

Here is a rather famous example of Diatessaronic detective work. The Diatessaronic text of Codex Fuldensis presents the following opening lines (this is from the Ranke edition):

Quoniam quidem multi conati sunt ordinare narrationem quae in nobis conpletae fiun rerum· sicut tradiderunt nobis qui ab initio ipsi uiderant et ministri fuerunt sermonis Uisum est et mihi assecuto a principio omnibus diligenter ex ordine tibi scribere optime theofyle· ut cognoseas eoram uerboram de quibus eruditus es ueritatem (= Luke 1.1-4).
In principio erat uerbum et uerbum erat apud deum et dens erat uerbum. hoc erat in principio apud deum· omnia per ipsum facta sunt· et sine ipso factum est nihil· quod factum est in ipso uita erat· et uita erat lux hominum· et lux in tenebris lucet· et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt (= John 1.1-5).

The text itself is, as has been mentioned, almost pure Vulgate. Fuldensis begins, then, with the Lucan preface and then part of the Johannine preface. What comes next is about Zacharias the priest.

Compare this introduction to that of the Arabic Diatessaron:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the Word. This was in the beginning with God. Everything was by his hand, and without him not even one existing thing was made. In him was life, and the life is the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not.

And what comes next is about Zacharias the priest. So Fuldensis includes the Lucan preface, while the Arabic Diatessaron excludes it. Was the preface original to this Diatessaronic text, and the Arabic removed it, or was it originally absent, and the Latin added it? An important clue comes from the capitularium (list of chapters) that stands before the text:

I. In principio uerbum· deus apud deum· per quem facta sunt omnia
II. de sacerdotium zacchariae

The list of chapters includes the Johannine preface followed by the story of Zacharias the priest; the Lucan preface is not there. The natural supposition is that the Lucan preface has been added to a text whose list of chapters was not correspondingly altered. There are other clues from the chapter titles, as well. For example, chapter X is entitled ubi herodes interfecit pueros ("when Herod murdered the children"), but the Vulgate text of Fuldensis says that Herod "killed" (occidit) the children, suggesting that the chapter titles belong to a text that is not Vulgate.

[MrMacSon]

This may provide some interesting clarifications (or raise questions or further discussion) -

• http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Diatessaron

Aspects of that seem to have been reproduced in Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessaron

Interestingly

The Syriac name for this gospel harmony is 'ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܚܠܛܐ' (Ewangeliyôn Damhalltê) meaning 'Gospel of the Mixed' while in the other hand we have 'ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܦܪܫܐ' (Evangelion de Mepharreshe) meaning 'Gospel of the separated'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatessar ... el_harmony

[Secret Alias]

FWIW the Lukan preface takes on a different sense in front of a harmony text

[Ben C. Smith]

FWIW the Lukan preface takes on a different sense in front of a harmony text

Granted.

[DCHindley]

I noticed that, in the Diaressaron text, which I got from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... saron.html...

Not quite sure why Peter does not cite his source. Folks should avoid citing any online text the source of which is not clearly stated. Otherwise, you don't know what you got.

The Arabic Diatessaron was translated into English, with a good number of quite good critical notes, by Hope W. Hogg, in vol. 10 (at least in print) of the Ante Nicene Fathers series. This was the last, supplemental, volume edited by Allan Menzies and published in 1896, 9 years after the Index and Bibliography volume of the 8 volumes already published between 1885 & 1886 (this Index is the "real" vol. 9, which is usually omitted in the online versions, that call vol. 10 "vol. 9"), labeled "Recently Discovered Additions to Early Christian Literature".

It contains works such as:
 Gospel of Peter
 Arabic Diatessaron attributed to Tatian (tr. Hope Hogg)
 Apocalypse of Peter
 Vision of Paul
 Apocalypse of the Virgin
 Apocalypse of Sedrach
 Testament of Abraham
 Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena
 Narrative of Zosimus
 Clement of Rome's
• 1 Clement - New translation
• Homily ascribed to Clement - New translation
 Apology of Aristides the Philosopher
 Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs
 Origen's
• Epistle to Gregory (Thaumaturgas)
• Commentary on the Gospel of John
• Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

For those who do not know, Mr. Hope W. Hogg was a son of the Scottish Presbyterian missionary John Hogg, whose entire family was active in the mid to late 19th century, primarily in Egypt but I think some of his kids went on to work in either China or India. Some might remember that stories about John Hogg's missionary exploits was what prompted Kenneth Bailey to propose his theory of "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition."

John, his wife, his daughters and the sons with him in Egypt were all fluent in Arabic, but the males at least were also fully educated in Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic. Hope was later to resign his position in the mission due to "doctrinal differences over the inspiration of scripture", so he can probably be described as more on the "liberal" or progressive side of the religious spectrum, but tried very hard to maintain his objectivity.

Hope Hogg's translation, in full and with the footnotes, is readily available both online and in print. IIRC, he was cautious in stating that the Arabic Diatesseron may not be, and probably wasn't, exactly the same as Tatian's Diatessaron, although the ANF volume makes it seem as though it was.

DCH

[Secret Alias]

Typical. Someone should do a study on the psychological need of academics for certainty. I saw a note on Cargill's blog or Facebook page that hit the nail right on the head. We're always in need of these 'simple solutions' to things and then if you can't provide a 2 minute sound bite you've 'obviously' got the wrong answer. The Arabic Diatessaron is likely related to the Diatessaron of Tatian. But how, why, when, what and the like we don't really know.

For those who have difficulties with this look at Mark, Matthew and Luke. Look at the various Patristic texts like Ignatius. Why these things expand so quickly and in all directions is beyond me. It would seem that there were no controls on early Christian texts and then all by a sudden they became standardized. Beyond that we don't anything about the Arabic Diatessaron other than the fact that one gospel text somehow feels right and the fact that almost all the early Christians seem to use 'gospel' in the singular.

[DCHindley]

Are these Diatessaron-type gospels "harmonizations", "conflations", "independent witnesses", or all of the above, about the life of Jesus?

DCH

[Secret Alias]

I think both. You see it a bit with the story of Ammonius. Eusebius claims that he got his tables from Ammonius. But other sources say that Ammonius wrote a gospel and the title of the work is 'the gospel.' But at the same time you see Clement and to a less extent Papias arguing that there were sources behind the canonical gospels. Even Irenaeus when arguing for a Hebrew original of Matthew and then IMPLICITLY the closeness in wording between the gospels necessarily must have led people to conclude that there were gospel 'sources' behind the gospel. How could any reasonable person come to a different conclusion? Yes there's the 'holy Spirit' argument. But I don't think ancient people were as stupid as people like to think.

There must have been long texts and short texts and depending on your perspective you could say the short texts were the sources of the long or alternatively that someone 'separated' the long gospel to make the short. I think the existing harmonies are deliberate attempts to justify Eusebius's statement about Ammonius's tables. Eusebius even seems a likely author of the surviving Diatessaron. But there was something earlier and still in use at the time of Ephrem and various Syriac sources which was not a harmonized text.

[Secret Alias]

Of course that claim would be disproved or supported by comparing the Arabic Diatessaron to the Armenian tables something I have not done

[Ben C. Smith]

Of course that claim would be disproved or supported by comparing the Arabic Diatessaron to the Armenian tables something I have not done

Ammonian/Eusebian tables? (Not being pedantic. Just clarifying.)