Thoughts on the Diatessaron.

[Ben C. Smith]

Fuldensis (Ranke edition): https://archive.org/stream/CodexFuldens ... 3/mode/2up.

(Page backward to find the Eusebian canon tables, modified to line up with the Fuldensis chapters; page forward to go through the evangelium and its marginal numbers.)

[Peter Kirby]

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.

Pardon. Navigating up to Diatessaron finds it attributed to the "Roberts-Donaldson English Translation" (i.e. the ANF series).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html

Now I'm sure that this page is inadequate in all kinds of ways. Just look at it. I must have spent 2 minutes on it total, max. A bit more if you count the link-hunting time. But even then it's not quite so bad that there is no attribution at all.

Also I've never been certain about the shape of the "Diatessaron" or its exact origins, etc., and agree with all the scholars who've observed that it is an especially thorny problem in a field known for its thorns.

[John2]

I'm following this discussion with interest and thought I'd give my take on it thus far.

First of all, what a fascinating character Ammonius Saccas is. I used to be into the history of Neoplatonism (and the emperor Julian and all that) but I had overlooked Ammonius, and he seems like a proto-Julian (assuming the Christian one and the Neoplatonist one are the same).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonius_Saccas

So let's assume then that Stephan is right that Origen used a harmony (or an Alexandrian super gospel) that likely came from Ammonius. That is interesting. Good work, Stephan. But we are still left with the fact that the earliest references to any gospel (whether there was originally a super gospel or not) are from the second century CE. Plus we already know that there was a "harmonistic tendency" before Ammonius (e.g., Tatian). And as Howard puts it, " The studies of Koester and Bellinzoni have shown that a harmonistic tendency existed even before Tatian wrote his Diatessaron. In 1980, I pointed out a number of harmonistic readings in the Old Syriac Gospels which are unsupported by the Diatessaron and agree with pre-Tatianic writers. From these studies, it may be concluded that harmonization characterized the Gospel tradition from very early times, even before Tatian made his harmony."

https://books.google.com/books?id=4tdEB ... es&f=false

And in my view the canonical Matthew is a "harmony of two," Mark + the translated Matthew.

In any event, all gospels, canonical and non-canonical, and whether there was originally a super gospel that was later separated or not, are unattested before the second century CE.

[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.

Pardon. Navigating up to Diatessaron finds it attributed to the "Roberts-Donaldson English Translation" (i.e. the ANF series).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html

I figured it had to be there somewhere, but couldn't find a link back to the home page (or wherever the info was). I just turned 60 a few weeks ago, and age has taken its toll on me <creak>.

As my message had mentioned, the volume with the Diatessaron was a 10th, supplemental, volume, and was not edited by Alexander Roberts or James Donaldson.

Those two actually edited an earlier series of books (24 total, published in Edinburgh, Scotland, delivered to subscribers via the post office, between 1867-1872) called The Ante Nicene Christian Library (ANCL). Some of these books they translated themselves, others they reproduced (sometimes unattributed) from (much) earlier translators like William Whiston, or commissioned translations by more or less well known (Protestant) churchmen of letters.

Thirteen years later, these 24 volumes were in turn edited by A. Cleveland Coxe and re-published in the USA as a condensed 8 volume series, plus a 9th volume containing a General Index and, for the times, an up to date Bibliography. These were also delivered to subscribers via postal service, between 1885-1887, under the name The Ante Nicene Fathers (ANF). These were exactly the same texts as in the ANCL, except that they were grouped by author and published in rough chronological order, and the editor (Coxe) added his 2 cents and some footnotes and comments.

It wasn't until 9 years after those first 9 ANF volumes went to press that another editor, Allan Menzies, for the 5th edition of Coxe's edition, appended a 10th, Supplemental Volume, with more recent translations of the letter and homily attributed to Clement of Rome, but mainly translations that were commissioned by Menzies, or otherwise published, in the intervening period, concentrating on pseudepigraphical and Christian apocryphal works, but including the Arabic Diatessaron (labeled somewhat presumptuously as "Tatian's"), the Apology of Aristides, and Origen's commentaries on the Gospels of John & Matthew.

Maybe it is just me, but I like to see citations that would pass muster when cited as a tertiary source in a modern critical work. Generally, translations of the kind found in the internet either do not bother to cite the source (the translator's name alone is not enough, as translators can and do publish more than one edition of a translation, so dates and accurate names of the publications are important), or mis-cite the source (here, a book edited by Menzies is attributed to a series of books published over two decades earlier by Roberts & Donaldson).

It's not just you, Peter. The publishers of Bibleworks software treat the Coxe 5th edition, the one with Menzies' supplemental volume, as if edited by Philip Schaff, but Schaff had absolutely nothing to do with the Roberts & Donaldson, or Coxe's edition of R&D, or Menzies supplemental volume added to the 5th ed. of Coxes' edition. He was in fact the editor or co-editor of two later sets of works of Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers (NPNF), series I (14 volumes published between 1886 & 1889) and series II (another 14 volumes, with Henry Wace, 1890-1900). The only connection between the Coxe-Menzies' ANF 5th edition and NPNF was that the whole shebang is published in one package by Hendrickson Publishing. WTF?

This is almost ... Hüllerian!

DCH