How the evangelists understood the nature of their gospels

[iskander]

A Jewish Christian source cited by Al Jabbar

the Romans reigned over them. The Christians (used to) complain to the Romans about the Jews, showed them their own weakness and appealed to their pity. And the Romans did pity them. This (used) to happen frequently. And the Romans said to the Christians: "Between us and the Jews there is a pact which (obliges us) not to change their religious laws. But if you would abandon their laws and separate yourselves from them, praying as we do (while facing) the East, eating (the things) we eat, and regarding as permissible that which we consider as such, we should help you and make you powerful, and the Jews would find no way (to harm you). On the contrary, you would be more powerful than they."

The Christians answered: "We will do this." (And the Romans) said: "Go, fetch your companions, and bring your Book." (The Christians) went to their companions, informed them of (what had taken place) between them and the Romans and said to them: "Bring the Gospel, and stand up so that we should go to them."

The text goes on to describe how the Romans ultimately transformed the single gospel into a fourfold text. It also mentions ‘dissenters’ to this corruption process and the involvement of disreputable presbyters like Irenaeus:

But these said to them: "You have done ill. We are not permitted (to let) the Romans pollute the Gospel. In giving a favorable answer to the Romans, you have accordingly departed from the religion. We are (therefore) no longer permitted to associate with you; on the contrary, we are obliged to declare that there is nothing in common between us and you;" and they prevented their (taking possession of) the Gospel or gaining access to it. In consequence a violent quarrel (broke out) between (the two groups). Those (mentioned in the first place) went back to the Romans and said to them: "Help us against these companions of ours before (helping us) against the Jews, and take away from them on our behalf our Book." Thereupon (the companions of whom they had spoken) fled the country. And the Romans wrote concerning them to their governors in the districts of Mosul and in the Jazirat al-'Arab. Accordingly, a search was made for them; some were caught and burned, others were killed.

(As for) those who had given a favorable answer to the Romans they came together and took counsel as to how to replace the Gospel, seeing that it was lost to them. (Thus) the opinion that a Gospel should be composed was established among them. They said: "the Torah (consists) only of (narratives concerning) the births of the prophets and of the histories of their lives. We are going to construct a Gospel according to this (pattern).

Everyone among us is going to call to mind that which he remembers of the words of the Gospel and of (the things) about which the Christians talked among themselves (when speaking) of Christ." Accordingly … four Gospels were left which are due to four individuals.

Al Jabbar quotes his original source as concluding that:

If the Christians would consider these things, they would know that the Gospels which are with them are of no profit to them, and that the knowledge claimed (on their behalf) by their masters and the authors (of the Gospels) is not (found) in them, and that on this point) things are just as we have said---it is a well-known (fact) which is referred to here (namely the fact that they have abandoned the religion of Christ and turned towards) the religious doctrines of the Romans, prizing and (seeking to obtain) in haste the profits which could be derived from their domination and their riches.'

KK deserves to be treated with courtesy. Go home,chum

[Secret Alias]

Marutha in the fourth century makes mention of a similar tradition referencing a group of Christians who adopted the dress of Roman priests and

made for themselves a gospel in four parts and they called it the book of the regions of the world

The footnote in Voorbus's translation notes the similarity to Irenaeus's tessara klimata tou cosmou (Adversus haereses 111, 1 I, 8, vol. 11, p. 42f). The thing being reported on is Irenaeus's sect which of course became the authoritative form of Christianity. Marutha doesn't recognize the source of the phrase perhaps because he himself used a Diatessaron (?)

[Secret Alias]

Consider also the name for the four canonical gospels in the east clearly developed in the period when the Diatessaron was still the normative gospel. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the 'separated gospels.' Each separated from what? Clearly the super gospel.

[Secret Alias]

Again you don't have to accept the claims but you have to at least recognize the 'super gospel' form was original in the East in the 'land of Jesus.' From the Syrian Church official website:

As for the New Testament, the earliest form used in the early Syriac Church is known in Syriac as Evangelion Damhalte which means 'Gospels of the Mixed'. It is known in Western sources as the Diatessaron, a Greek word meaning 'through [the] four [Gospels]'. As its name implies, this Gospel was made up by 'combining' the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) into one text. The Diatessaron was very popular in the early Syriac Church, but later was replaced by the four separate Gospels. Alas, the text of the Syriac Diatessaron is lost, but some verses can be found as citations in the writings of the Church Fathers.

The Syriac Church produced another version of the Gospels in the 2nd-5th century. This translation was unknown to the Syriac Church or to Biblical scholars until its discovery in the nineteenth century. Since it is older than the text of the Syriac Bible which is current, it was called by scholars the Old Syriac. However, the ancient Syriac church which used this translation named it in Syriac Evangelion Dampharshe which means 'Gospels of the Separated' in order to distinguish it from 'Gospel of the Mixed'. The Old Syriac is a 'free' translation from the Greek text; it is 'free' in the sense that the translators paraphrased the text in order to make it as clear as possible to the native Syriac reader. They had in mind the reader rather than the original text. After the Old Syriac was replaced by the Peshitto (see below), it was forgotten by the Syriac Church until two manuscripts containing portions of its texts were discovered in the nineteenth century.

[Secret Alias]

It is worth noting that in Jewish Aramaic at least the root hlT has a number of meanings. Yes it can mean mixed but it can also mean 'final' or 'lost, forfeited, surrendered.'

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/showjastrow.php?page=467

The gospel might have been known as the 'lost' or 'surrendered, forfeit gospel' after it was banned in the fifth or sixth centuries. The fact that there is a specifically Jewish meaning to the word related to Biblical Hebrew seems to question whether 'mixed' was the original meaning. In Hebrew chalat means to 'snatch' (= 1 Kings 20:33). The 'snatched gospel,' 'the gospel that was taken (away)' might be the real meaning.

[Secret Alias]

On the theory that Marutha used a Diatessaron (and so assigned the fourfold gospel of Irenaeus to a heretical group) - https://books.google.com/books?id=E_Nuf ... on&f=false

[iskander]

On the theory that Marutha used a Diatessaron (and so assigned the fourfold gospel of Irenaeus to a heretical group) - https://books.google.com/books?id=E_Nuf ... on&f=false

You are a man of mediocre intelligence striving hard to impress. Ten out of ten for effort.
Please, Start your own thread and enjoy the running .Thank you so much.

[Secret Alias]

You see this is new me. I will not repay unkindness with unkindness. Turn the other cheek. I can't fathom though why presenting what ancient witnesses said is taken with such hostility. I presume we are all trying to make sense of the evidence. Why not include these witnesses into your mix of things being examined?

[Adam]

Interesting developments here.
This Jewish source indicates that Christians made a deal with Romans to "canonize" four gospels instead of one, and had to agree to discard the one.
Now, why (SA) do we have to assume that the "one" is Tatian's diatesssaron or basically like it? The diatessaron with which we are familiar now clearly was formed after-the-fact from intertwining the four gospels--too late to be relevant to the original "super-gospel". As you know, I myself believe in this original Proto-Gospel, but in the form of sources that developed as the Evolving Proto-Gospel (or Urevangelium or Grundschrift) from which Luke first was taken off, then Proto-Matthew from which developed Mark and Matthew.
A little later this manuscript was further developed by adding in the Special Lucan elements towards the well-known Gospel of the Hebrews. It would have been an easy thing to say to the Romans, "This one tattered manuscript we will agree to suppress, it serves the purposes only of our enemies the Ebionites."

[Secret Alias]

why (SA) do we have to assume that the "one" is Tatian's diatesssaron or basically like it?

Given the prevalence of the Diatessaron in the region where the report comes from wouldn't the Diatessaron be the logical starting point? Would it be the natural place to start and then move with evidence that contradicts the assumption? After all WE KNOW the Imperial authorities confiscated the Diatessaron from the churches of the East in the fifth/sixth century.