Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

[JoeWallack]

JW:
The Long Ending: (From Ben Smith's great sight):

The Long Ending

9 And having arisen early on the sabbath he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.
10 She went and announced it to those who had been with him while they were mourning and weeping.
11 And they, having heard that he lived, and that he had been seen by her, did not believe.
12 And after these things he appeared in another form to two of them while they were walking along, going to the country.
13 And they went away and announced it to the others, but they did not believe them.
14 {And} afterward he appeared to the eleven as they reclined, and he reproached their lack of belief and their hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him risen.
15 And he said to them: Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He who has believed and been baptized will be saved, but he who has not believed will be condemned.
17 These signs will accompany those who have believed: In my name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues,
18 {and in their hands} they will pick up serpents, and if they should drink any deadly thing it will not harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will get well.
19 So the Lord Jesus, after speaking with them, was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.
20 And they went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.

The Short Ending:

And all that had been commanded them they promptly announced to those around Peter. And after these things J{esu}s himself appeared to them, and from the east as far as the west he sent out through them the sacred and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.

Roger Pearse relatively recently had Eusebius' GOSPEL PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS translated:

Eusebius' GOSPEL PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

In discussion of evidence for LE it's generally just assumed that Eusebius is simply evidence for awareness of the common Long Ending as above. Let's see what Eusebius has to say about that.

The Greek evidence (starts on page 95):

Your first question was:
How is it that the Saviour’s resurrection evidently took place, in
Matthew, “late on the Sabbath”, but in Mark “early in the
morning on the first day of the week”?

Eusebius, the presumed Gospel authority is asked a question by a Marinus. Consider the setting for the question. For most of Christianity's history claiming/wondering about a contradiction publicly would have been very bad for your health. In Eusebius' time though, c. 300, Christianity is not in control and therefore does have to try and defend itself against criticism.

Note that the explicit contradiction here (in the Gospels) does not involve guessing when the supposed resurrection took place but when the women (which are different also) came to the tomb =

Mark 16

2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.

Verses

Matthew 28

1 Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

So just like "Mark's" Jesus, Marinus' question does not appear, to refer to the Long Ending.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[JoeWallack]

JW:
The Long Ending: (From Ben Smith's great sight):

The Long Ending

9 And having arisen early on the sabbath he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.
10 She went and announced it to those who had been with him while they were mourning and weeping.
11 And they, having heard that he lived, and that he had been seen by her, did not believe.
12 And after these things he appeared in another form to two of them while they were walking along, going to the country.
13 And they went away and announced it to the others, but they did not believe them.
14 {And} afterward he appeared to the eleven as they reclined, and he reproached their lack of belief and their hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him risen.
15 And he said to them: Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He who has believed and been baptized will be saved, but he who has not believed will be condemned.
17 These signs will accompany those who have believed: In my name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues,
18 {and in their hands} they will pick up serpents, and if they should drink any deadly thing it will not harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will get well.
19 So the Lord Jesus, after speaking with them, was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.
20 And they went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.

The Short Ending:

And all that had been commanded them they promptly announced to those around Peter. And after these things J{esu}s himself appeared to them, and from the east as far as the west he sent out through them the sacred and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.

Eusebius' GOSPEL PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

In discussion of evidence for LE it's generally just assumed that Eusebius is simply evidence for awareness of the common Long Ending as above. Let's see what Eusebius has to say about that.

The Greek evidence (starts on page 95):

Your first question was:
How is it that the Saviour’s resurrection evidently took place, in
Matthew, “late on the Sabbath”, but in Mark “early in the
morning on the first day of the week”?

Note that the explicit contradiction here (in the Gospels) does not involve guessing when the supposed resurrection took place but when the women (which are different also) came to the tomb =

Mark 16

2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.

Verses

Matthew 28

1 Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

So just like "Mark's" Jesus, Marinus' question does not appear, to refer to the Long Ending.

The first part of Eusebius' answer:

1. The answer to this would be twofold.
The actual nub of the matter is the pericope which says this. One who athetises1 that pericope would say that it is not found in all copies of the
gospel according to Mark: accurate copies end their text of the Marcan account with the words of the young man whom the women saw, and who
said to them: “‘Do not be afraid; it is Jesus the Nazarene that you are looking for, etc. … ’ ”, aft er which it adds: “And when they heard this, they ran away, and said nothing to anyone, because they were frightened.” That is where the text does end, in almost all copies of the gospel according to
Mark. What occasionally follows in some copies, not all, would be extraneous, most particularly if it contained something contradictory to the
evidence of the other evangelists.

That, then, would be one person’s answer: to reject it, entirely obviating the question as superfluous.

JW:
The analysis of this would be twofold, whether Eusebius has correctly addressed the contradiction in the Gospels and more importantly, the Textual Criticism evidence that Eusebius provides regarding the ending of GMark:

1. Addressing the contradiction.

Eusebius claims that an acceptable solution for the apparent contradiction of when Jesus supposedly resurrected in the Gospels of GMark and GMatthew is to take the position that GMark ended at 16:8. But as previously noted Eusebius is wrong in every way here:

• 1) The contradiction does not involve the Long Ending.
  
  2) Exorcising the Long Ending does not solve the contradiction.
  
  3) He misses the possible explanation that the difference involves the determination of the Jewish day verses the Greek day.

2. Evidence regarding the ending of GMark.

• 1) Eusebius gives the Text Critical comment that the Manuscripts overwhelmingly support 16:8 as original in the quality and quantity category. This coordinates with what we've seen in the Manuscript evidence thus far. No extant Greek Manuscript support for the Long Ending through the time of Eusebius. This evidence is exponentially weightier than any individual Manuscript would be.
  
  2) Note that as it relates to the primary point of this Excursus, at this point Eusebius' answer is general as to what follows 16:8. There is nothing specific regarding the Long Ending.
  
  3) Eusebius, starting a long tradition of Patristics, exposes himself, as an Apologist, by posturing that anything that follows 16:8 could be considered an addition if creates a contradiction. This would apply then to the Long Ending, the Short Ending or anything in between.

• The TrilEuser:
  
  1) Eusebius is a Lunatic = He is simply wrong about everything.
  
  2) Eusebius is a Liar = He thinks falsehood is an acceptable medicine for those who (he thinks) need it.
  
  3) Eusebius is Lord = He knows what happened after 16:8 because he was the one resurrected.

Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[JoeWallack]

JW:
The Long Ending: (From Ben Smith's great sight):

The Long Ending

9 And having arisen early on the Sabbath he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.
10 She went and announced it to those who had been with him while they were mourning and weeping.
11 And they, having heard that he lived, and that he had been seen by her, did not believe.
12 And after these things he appeared in another form to two of them while they were walking along, going to the country.
13 And they went away and announced it to the others, but they did not believe them.
14 {And} afterward he appeared to the eleven as they reclined, and he reproached their lack of belief and their hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him risen.
15 And he said to them: Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He who has believed and been baptized will be saved, but he who has not believed will be condemned.
17 These signs will accompany those who have believed: In my name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues,
18 {and in their hands} they will pick up serpents, and if they should drink any deadly thing it will not harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will get well.
19 So the Lord Jesus, after speaking with them, was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.
20 And they went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.

The Short Ending:

And all that had been commanded them they promptly announced to those around Peter. And after these things J{esu}s himself appeared to them, and from the east as far as the west he sent out through them the sacred and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.

Eusebius' GOSPEL PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

In discussion of evidence for LE it's generally just assumed that Eusebius is simply evidence for awareness of the common Long Ending as above. Let's see what Eusebius has to say about that.

The Greek evidence (starts on page 95):

Your first question was:
How is it that the Saviour’s resurrection evidently took place, in
Matthew, “late on the Sabbath”, but in Mark “early in the
morning on the first day of the week”?

Note that the explicit contradiction here (in the Gospels) does not involve guessing when the supposed resurrection took place but when the women (which are different also) came to the tomb =

Mark 16

2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.

Verses

Matthew 28

1 Now late on the sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first [day] of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

So just like "Mark's" Jesus, Marinus' question does not appear, to refer to the Long Ending.

The second part of Eusebius' answer:

2 Another view, from someone diffident about athetising anything at
all in the text of the gospels, however transmitted, is that there is a twofold
reading, as in many other places, and that both are to be accepted; it is not
for the faithful and devout to judge either as acceptable in preference to
the other.

3 [2] Supposing the latter point of view to be granted as true, the
proper thing to do with the reading is to interpret its meaning. If we were
to divide up the sense of the wording, we would not find it in conflict with
the words in Matthew to the effect that the Saviour’s resurrection was “late
on the Sabbath”, because we shall read the words in Mark: “Having risen
again early in the morning” with a pause, punctuating after “Having risen
again,” and making a break in the sense before the following words. Let
us then refer2 “having risen again” back to Matthew’s “late on the Sabbath”,
because that was when the resurrection had taken place; but the
next part forms part of a separate idea, so let us connect it with the words
that follow: “early in the morning on the first day of the week he appeared
to Mary of Magdala”. As confirmation, that is what John has told us, as
well: he too testifies that Jesus had been seen by the Magdalene early in the
morning on the first day of the week. In this way, therefore, he appeared
to her “early in the morning” in Mark also. It was not that the resurrection
took place early in the morning; it was well before that, “late on the
Sabbath”, as Matthew has it. That was when he appeared to Mary, after his
resurrection; the appearance was not at the time of the resurrection, but
“early in the morning”.

Thus two points of time are presented here: that of the resurrection,
“late on the Sabbath”, and that of the Saviour’s appearance, “early in the
morning”, as written by Mark in words to be read as including a pause:
“Having risen again”. Then the next words are to be pronounced after our
punctuation-mark:3 “early in the morning on the first day of the week he
appeared to Mary of Magdala, from whom he had driven out seven devils”

JW:
Eusebius' claimed points in order (so to speak) of importance:

1) As an authority on the subject Eusebius has opened the door to add the Long Ending of Mark. He states that it is acceptable
to add an ending to GMark if you think it has earlier support as long as it does not create a contradiction. One of the ways to
do that is to add what's already in the other post resurrection stories and that is mostly what the Long Ending is. Again, the key
to Textual Criticism is explaining the change in readings. Here we have the explanation. This is even better evidence than
Eusebius' testimony that the Manuscript category overwhelmingly favored 16:8.

2) Eusebius' general Textual Criticism comments are that there are a lot of other textual variations and it is likewise acceptable
to choose the one you prefer. This time period, late third century, is the time of Recension and when Byzantine rears its ugly
Textual head. Eusebius also repeats the backwards Textual Criticism method, still in (mis)use today. Start with the conclusion
(no error) and look for the evidence.

3) Eusebius goes on to defend the Long Ending against contradiction by adding punctuation to it.

4) Eusebius only identifies a relatively small part of the Long Ending:

Eusebius' quote: "Having risen again early in the morning on the first day of the week he appeared
to Mary of Magdala from whom he had driven out seven devils"

This appears to refer to:

9 And having arisen early on the Sabbath he appeared first
to Mary Magdalene from whom he had cast out seven demons.

So Eusebius has only referred to one verse of the Long Ending with
several textual differences. Presumably, Eusebius is making a general
point here about anything that follows 16:8. Was there a common form of
the Long Ending in Eusebius' time? God knows.



Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_SAMrDnXOE

JW:
On a comical note, in explaining that there is no contradiction between a/the/thuh Marys at the end of GMatthew verses GJohn Eusebius writes:

https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp- ... s_2010.pdf

[113]

It is better, though, not to invoke error in the passages as the cause, but
to say that there were really two women from Magdala, just as we showed
that there were four Marys. Of these, it is perfectly reasonable to say that
two Marys came from the same place, Magdala. There is then no difficulty
in saying that one of them was the Magdalene who, in Matthew, came to
the tomb late on the sabbath; and then again that the other, also a Magdalene,
came there early in the morning, in John, and that she is the one
of whom it is stated in Mark (according to some copies) that “he had cast
seven devils” out of her, and also presumably the one who heard the words
“Do not touch me”—but not the one in Matthew, about whom, even if
she too was certainly from Magdala, the divine scripture makes no such
derogatory statement.

Do you think this is worthy of my list Ken?

Nota Ben = Such embarrassing Patristics prevented this work from ever being
fully published by a Christian professional. What would any Christian Bible
scholar have to gain from it. It was left to an amateur to have it translated in
our time.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[JoeWallack]

JW:
We've seen that Eusebius provides evidence that GMark ended at 16:8 by testifying that quality and quantity of Manuscripts supported that. Apologists like James O Snapp make the ridiculous argument that Eusebius was limited to only presenting a hypothetical argument that a Believer could make and not Eusebius' own opinion. In response to a later question though Eusebius makes clear that he thought GMark ended at 16:8:

GOSPEL PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

[123]

Mark and Luke did not even mention the incidents in John and Matthew—I mean, of course, the appearances of the
Saviour—but left them for their betters, Matthew and John, to tell, while themselves telling the secondary incidents, and
filling in what the others had passed over in silence.27

JW:
More valuable then the evidence for 16:8 is the evidence for Markan priority. Eusebius provides the reason for why orthodox Patristics claimed that GMatthew was written before GMark = Original GMark had no resurrection sightings which therefore left out the most important orthodox Christian assertion. After GMatthew was written, using GMark as a base, but adding resurrection sightings, orthodox Patristics claimed as a solution that GMatthew wrote first and the reason GMark did not provide resurrection sighting was because GMatthew had already covered it. And what supporting claim could the orthodox make that GMatthew was written first? That it was written in the original language.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Nicetius

Saint Nicetius (French: Saint Nizier) (c.525 - c.566) was a bishop of Trier, born in the latter part of the fifth century, exact date unknown; died in 563 or more probably 566.[2]

GOSPEL PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

[181]

The two men in Luke, seen in
dazzling clothes (those being indications of the festival), and also the
young man in Mark, also wearing white {.}, seen on the right-hand
side 9 as opposed to the left , and giving the women the bright, propitious9
good news, would be different, again, both from each other and
from those in the first two {.}. That is why these writers do not call them
“angels”, either, because they also did not mention {…} the appearances
of the Saviour, but stood aside for those more important than themselves,
Matthew and John, to write the account of the more important
matters, while themselves narrating the secondary incidents which10
took place some time after the first ones recorded; they bypassed what the
eyewitnesses had said, and filled in, instead, what those had said nothing
about. These were secondary matters indeed, falling far short of the earlier
writers’ accounts in importance. Thus the Holy Spirit assigned to each the
appropriately corresponding narratives.

JW:
So Nicetius agrees with Eusebius that GMark ended at 16:8. Apologists
will claim that because Nicetius agrees with Eusebius this is duplicate
evidence and only counts once. A strange/bizarre/macabre way of
weighing evidence.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[JoeWallack]

West End Gospels

JW:
Ambrose

Aurelius Ambrosius[a] (c. 340–397), better known in English as Ambrose (/ˈæmbroʊz/), an Archbishop of Milan, became one of the most influential ecclesiastical figures of the 4th century. He served as the Roman governor of Liguria and Emilia, headquartered in Milan, before popular acclamation propelled him into becoming Bishop of Milan in 374. Ambrose staunchly opposed Arianism.

Western Christianity identified Ambrose as one of its four traditional Doctors of the Church, and as the patron saint of Milan. He had notable influence on Augustine of Hippo (354-430).

GOSPEL PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

[259] [Latin]

It was also to the eleven that Mark, in his ending, writes that he appeared when they were at table.

JW:
Compare to:

16:14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat

So a third of another verse of the LE is referred to.

Ambrose accepts the earlier general apology that any contradiction can be solved by claiming that whatever is referred to in the contradiction is different in the sources and therefore does not need the supporting apology related to the contradictions in the endings that "Mark" and "Luke" deliberately omitted post resurrection witnesses. This then frees him to use whatever he thought was the post resurrection sightings story in "Mark".

As Ben Smith astutely pointed out, the early support for LE is generally Western and we will see this here. Jerome will be contemporary with Ambrose, and while Ambrose only refers to a small part of the LE he gives no reason not to use whatever form he thought it was. Jerome will agree with Eusebius as to what the evidence is and also agree with Eusebius that you can use whatever ending you want to GMark as he goes full LE in the Latin. This would appear to be the transition point to LE, fifth century, as when you translate GMark into Latin you are forced to use words that are not in your exmplar and not originally written. Again note there is little Greek evidence for the LE to this point. The evidence for LE comes much earlier in the Latin tradtion than it does in the Greek. When in Rome...

Bonus material for Solo = Regarding the apology that "Mark" and "Luke" deliberately did not report post resurrection sightings because "Matthew" and "John" already covered them, note the Western Order:

Western Text-Type

In at least two Western texts, the Gospels appear in a variant order: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.

Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[JoeWallack]

JW:
We can now explain why the Editor of GMark was okay with adding 16:9 and did not think it created an Internal Evidence problem (and as is often the case here, give everyone something to dislike):

16:1-8

1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.
3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?
4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.
5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.

Verses 16:9

Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.

One of the major pieces of evidence that 16:9-20 is not original is that Mary Magdalene is identified here as "whom he had cast out seven demons" which would be unnecessary (strange/bizarre/macabre) to add since Mary Magdalene was just introduced in 16:1. As previously indicated in the Thread, Eusebius (not at all famously) gives us the answer:

https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/wp- ... s_2010.pdf

Specifically, regarding the two Mary Magdalenes:

there were really two women from Magdala, just as we showed
that there were four Marys. Of these, it is perfectly reasonable to say that
two Marys came from the same place, Magdala. There is then no difficulty
in saying that one of them was the Magdalene who, in Matthew, came to
the tomb late on the sabbath; and then again that the other, also a Magdalene,
came there early in the morning, in John, and that she is the one
of whom it is stated in Mark (according to some copies) that “he had cast
seven devils” out of her, and also presumably the one who heard the wordsthere were really two women from Magdala, just as we showed
that there were four Marys. Of these, it is perfectly reasonable to say that
two Marys came from the same place, Magdala. There is then no difficulty
in saying that one of them was the Magdalene who, in Matthew, came to
the tomb late on the sabbath; and then again that the other, also a Magdalene,
came there early in the morning, in John, and that she is the one
of whom it is stated in Mark (according to some copies) that “he had cast
seven devils” out of her, and also presumably the one who heard the words
“Do not touch me”—but not the one in Matthew, about whom, even if
she too was certainly from Magdala, the divine scripture makes no such
derogatory statement.
“Do not touch me”—but not the one in Matthew, about whom, even if
she too was certainly from Magdala, the divine scripture makes no such
derogatory statement.

Eusebius claims there were two different Mary Magdalenes. Can't wait to hear James O Snapp's related apology here since it's generally assumed by everyone nowadays that the reason "Mark" added "Magdalene" was to distinguish her from the other Marys. Snapp's gotten a ways behind on his apologies here and and may find it easier to convert to Judaism rather than make a full Apology.

and Eusebius later on generally:

Mark and Luke did not even mention the incidents in John and Matthew—I mean, of course, the appearances of the
Saviour—but left them for their betters, Matthew and John, to tell, while themselves telling the secondary incidents, and
filling in what the others had passed over in silence.27

Eusebius claims that "Mark" intentionally did not have any resurrection sighting because "Matthew"/"John" had already covered it.

Thus we have our explanation as to why our Editor of GMark did not see addition of 16:9 as creating an Internal evidence problem:

• 1) Specifically - Since the Mary Magdalene of 16:9 was a different Mary Magdalene from the one in 16:1 it needed the differentiation, "from whom he had cast out seven demons".
  
  2) Generally - The intent of the Editor was to have a complete resurrection sighting story at the end and not limit the ending to what "Mark" originally wrote. For those who need points sharply explained, it was not intended to be limited to what "Mark" originally wrote.

Something for everyone to dislike/hate:

• Believers = Don't like the claim that some early Patristics thought there were two different Mary Magdalenes in order to "solve" obvious contradictions.
  
  Skeptics = Don't like the reduction in the claim of a major piece of Internal Evidence against the LE.

Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[JoeWallack]

JW:
A Dual Reception: Eusebius and the Gospel of Mark (Emerging Scholars) Kindle Edition by Clayton Coombs

I highly recommend this book. The author considers in detail to what extent Ad Marinum is evidence for the original ending of GMark. As part of the related background he also considers the likely/possible influence on Eusebius by previous Patristics.

Tatian

Tatian of Adiabene,[1] or Tatian the Syrian,[2][3][4] Tatian the Assyrian,[5][6][7][8] (/ˈteɪʃən, -iən/; Latin: Tatianus; Ancient Greek: Τατιανός; Classical Syriac: ܛܛܝܢܘܣ‎; c. 120 – c. 180 AD) was an Assyrian Christian writer and theologian of the 2nd century.

Tatian's most influential work is the Diatessaron, a Biblical paraphrase, or "harmony", of the four gospels that became the standard text of the four gospels in the Syriac-speaking churches until the 5th-century, after which it gave way to the four separate gospels in the Peshitta version.[citation needed][9]

Background of Tatian as witness to ending of GMark:
CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) consistently counts Tatian as evidence for the LE as there is no extant Diatessaron that ends at 16:8.

The evidence against Tatian being witness to the LE is:

• 1) Ephrem is generally agreed to be the best witness to the Diatessaron and even though his detailed commentary on it is extant there is no clear reference to unique LE material.
  
  2) The Difficult Reading Principle combined with 1) suggests the LE was not originally in it.
  
  3) There is Patristic evidence that the genealogies were not originally in the Diatessaron.
  
  4) Extant Diatessaron is relatively late.
  
  5) Extant Diatessaron has significant variation.
  
  6) It would be the only complete extant witness to the LE until Jerome's time.
  
  7) Tatian appears to be the first witness to LE.
  
  8) Tatian's teacher Justin does not appear to have referenced the LE.

For the above reasons I do not think Tatian is a witness but I generally allow him as a witness for LE because of the Manuscript evidence. As noted in this Thread compilers of arguments for/against LE generally simply include as witness for LE any Patristic reference. CBS therefore undervalues Tatian as a witness in their argument for LE as it includes all/most of the LE.

Coombs presents the following Patristic evidence that the Diatessaron did not have the LE:

Page 42

Baarda begins by introducing a largely neglected statement of the twelfth-century Dionysios bar Salībī. Commenting on Eusebius’s letter to Ammonius, as part of a larger section introducing the Eusebian Canons, Dionysios adds the following concerning Ammonius: Ammonius—(indeed) Titianus too—had written a “Diatessaron”-gospel that is: of the four, as we said previously. And when they came to the telling of the resurrection and saw that (this) varied, they gave up their work.[8]

Jacob Bar-Salibi

Jacob Bar-Salibi also known as Dionysius Bar-Salibi was the best-known and most prolific writer in the Syriac Orthodox Church of the twelfth century.

Note that Bar-Salibi is quite late but boy does he have the credentials to the Syriac tradition. As my ancestor Caiphais famously said "What more evidence do we need?" (that Tatian is not a witness to LE):

Page 43

later anonymous marginal addition to a manuscript containing the work of the eighth-century Georgios of Beceltan, which reads as follows: Titianus, the heretic, is—say some people—the one who has made this. And when he came to the narrative of the resurrection and saw that it varied, he gave up his work.[10]

Asked and answered.

Note the coordination of early Patristics this would provide. Before Eusebius Patristics recognize the difficulty of harmonizing the post resurrection stories. No Patristic refers to an earlier Patristic commentary on a solution. Eusebius provides the "solution" commentary. It is acceptable to accept apparently contradicting post resurrection stories if they have some claimed authority. Your defense of contradictions, if needed, is conditional. IF they were written by a Gospel author, then there is no contradiction. You only need to present in their defense the best defense you can find. After Eusebius writes subsequent Patristics refer to and use his solution (in authority!).


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[Secret Alias]

Yes to sum up - the Arabic Diatessaron is not Tatian or his gospel.