Diatessaron & age of manuscripts

[bcedaifu]

Tatian, Diatessaron?

Does Tatian refer to Nazarenes?

Does he reference Justin Martyr?

Does he mention Marcion?

Does he acknowledge Paul's epistles?

Some authors show themselves to be familiar with pretty much all preceding tradition (Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen). Some texts were influenced by the letters attributed to the apostles or by the well-known Gospels.

"pretty much all preceding tradition" -- quite a feat, considering the various wars, inconstant delivery service, few public libraries, impressively tiny quantity of literate folks, censorship, poverty, disease, absence of reliable communication systems. ..... almost a miracle....

OR

(plan B) They were all manufactured concurrently, and therefore demonstrate coherence.

[Peter Kirby]

But they don't demonstrate coherence. The syncretic "Omega group" is distinctly different from everything else in regard of its eclecticism. Likewise, these other texts are distinct from each other, to the point of not being able to agree on what words mean or how it is appropriate to apply them (e.g. gospel, apostle, priest, pastor, etc.). There is also a very sharp divide between "catholics" and "gnostics," with the catholics doing the heavy lifting of making the division (but with the distinction noted in presumably gnostic texts as the difference between hylic, psychic, and pneumatic initiates).

A miracle? Perhaps the wording of my statement is being stretched too far. There were certainly some stray things that escaped their notice. But they are aware of the major trends, including the Johannine cluster of terms ("God" and "Word" applied to Jesus), the synoptic Gospel traditions, the letters of Paul, and the burgeoning church heirarchy and its evolving terminology (such as bishop, apparently the most recent innovation).

Tatian, Diatessaron?

If you can find me a reliable text of the original Diatessaron...

[bcedaifu]

If you can find me a reliable text of the original Diatessaron...

I know that Brill has published a text, authored by Peterson, from about twenty years ago, but, I acknowledge that I know not what his sources were.

I believe, that original texts of the Diatessaron may exist in several languages, but not Greek, or Latin. Are those documents copies of an original manuscript written in Greek? I don't know.

The key word here, is "reliable". To my way of thinking, there is nothing reliable about one word printed regarding Marcion. We have nothing, zilch, written by him, in any language, not even a fragment. There is also nothing believable written by the bishop of Lugdunum who escaped imprisonment/death at the hands of inept Roman soldiers, by hiding in Rome, if we can believe that fairy tale. Why would a Latin speaking Gallic population, employ as Bishop, a Turk, whose native language was Aramaic, to speak to the congregation in Greek, when he wasn't hiding in another city?

How "reliable" is Justin Martyr's sole extant manuscript recovered from the 14th century Italian monastery of its creation? Didache? There are so many other early texts, of uncertain provenance, how can one then decide that Diatessaron is of such uncertainty, that we must ignore it?

I wrote those questions, because I have not read Peterson, nor Ephrem's commentary on this gospel harmony, nor have I yet procured Reverend Hogg's English translation of the Arabic version, I believe available on line as pdf file.

If the text available, no matter how potentially corrupted, offers some clues, then, shouldn't it be included in a search for the origins of the earliest Christian enterprise? Surely, Diatessaron is in better condition, than anything attributed to Marcion, or for that matter, Ignatius, or Polycarp.....?

[Leucius Charinus]

Since then I've looked for ways of making these tables useful.

These category codes are very useful PK but I would suggest that you might consider introducing another attribute of data which I see as absolutely critical, which is available in the extant literature (eg: Schneemelcher) and which may be collected against all these texts into your table(s). The field is simply the date of the earliest manuscript that has been discovered for each of the texts.

[MrMacSon]

Since then I've looked for ways of making these tables useful.

... I would suggest that you might consider introducing another attribute of data which I see as absolutely critical ... the date of the earliest manuscript that has been discovered for each of the texts.

The earliest-known surviving physical manuscript? ("hard copy"?)

[DCHindley]

I wrote those questions, because I have not read Peterson, nor Ephrem's commentary on this gospel harmony, nor have I yet procured Reverend Hogg's English translation of the Arabic version, I believe available on line as pdf file.

If the text available, no matter how potentially corrupted, offers some clues, then, shouldn't it be included in a search for the origins of the earliest Christian enterprise? Surely, Diatessaron is in better condition, than anything attributed to Marcion, or for that matter, Ignatius, or Polycarp.....?

Rev (Mr.) Hope Waddell Hogg (1863-1912) was the son of legendary Scottish Presbyterian missionary to Egypt John Hogg, and received a first rate education at Oxford University as well as served as a missionary himself at a College his father established in Assyoot (Aswan) Egypt. He was fluent in Arabic as well as a reader of Greek, Latin, Syriac and I believe also Coptic.

Hope resigned as a missionary of the Scottish Presbyterian Church mission in 1895, right around the time he was publishing his translation of the Arabic Diatesseron, due to "changes in view regarding inspiration of scripture," and eventually became Professor of Semitic Languages and Literature, Manchester University, and a member of the editorial team for Encyclopædia Biblica.

Hope Hogg's English translation of the Arabic Diatesseron is still considered the best critical edition of that text. The translation (with a good deal of footnotes in Arabic, Syriac, etc) was published in the 5th American edition of the ten volume Ante Nicene Fathers series published in the late 19th century, specifically, volume 10 (sometimes volume 9 online, as the original volume 9 was an index to the first 8 volumes), ed. Allan Menzies, 1896.

You are right, though, that there is not much else available as to the wording of the original except maybe in Syriac. The complete lack of fragments of the original Greek text (not Greek translations of quotations from it by other writers), does suggest that it may have been originally written in Syriac (= Aramaic). As for Latin, there are a surprising number of Latin translations of Syriac works, sometimes made before a Greek translation was made.

FWIW, the post mortem account of John Hogg's adventures as a missionary in Egypt, as related by his daughter Rena Hogg, served as the "control" for the oral traditions about these adventures Kenneth Bailey heard at informal Egyptian native fireside story telling sessions during the 40 years he lived in Egypt as an Episcopalian missionary himself (about 1950-1990), which formed the basis of his theory of "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition." I do not give his theory much credence (it seems naïve).

DCH

[Peter Kirby]

The trouble with the Diatessaron is not uniquely due to the age of the manuscripts, nor yet again due to the fact that it is known from translations, but rather (and chiefly) in that the text is (as the name indicates) an amalgam of the four Gospels. There was more than one of these in pre-modern times; i.e., we have different gospel harmonies that don't agree with each other (the Syriac, the Latin, the Arabic, the old English, etc.). Our evidence is thus that these harmonies seem to have been treated pretty freely - contrasting with most texts in most genres. Possibly the idea of a gospel harmony never had a strong sense of authorship attached to it; therefore, subsequent scribes felt free to adapt them to their own needs. In this respect they would be like the florilegia of patristic quotations or other such "anonymous" literature - a fairly common phenomenon in practical literature, which might be compared with the modern Wikipedia or open source movement in its disregard for the idea of authorship.

I'm not sure Tatian ever composed a gospel harmony, as that idea may have arisen simply to discourage the use of such a 'Diatessaron' (Tatian came to be declared a heretic).

[bcedaifu]

The complete lack of fragments of the original Greek text (not Greek translations of quotations from it by other writers), does suggest that it may have been originally written in Syriac (= Aramaic). As for Latin, there are a surprising number of Latin translations of Syriac works, sometimes made before a Greek translation was made.

Thanks for this, and especially, for the useful, and interesting notes on Reverend Hogg.

The trouble with the Diatessaron is not uniquely due to the age of the manuscripts, nor yet again due to the fact that it is known from translations, but rather (and chiefly) in that the text is (as the name indicates) an amalgam of the four Gospels. There was more than one of these in pre-modern times; i.e., we have different gospel harmonies that don't agree with each other (the Syriac, the Latin, the Arabic, the old English, etc.). Our evidence is thus that these harmonies seem to have been treated pretty freely - contrasting with most texts in most genres. Possibly the idea of a gospel harmony never had a strong sense of authorship attached to it; therefore, subsequent scribes felt free to adapt them to their own needs. In this respect they would be like the florilegia of patristic quotations or other such "anonymous" literature - a fairly common phenomenon in practical literature, which might be compared with the modern Wikipedia or open source movement in its disregard for the idea of authorship.

I'm not sure Tatian ever composed a gospel harmony, as that idea may have arisen simply to discourage the use of such a 'Diatessaron' (Tatian came to be declared a heretic).

Well written, concise, thanks, but at least two tomes worth of points to discuss. I will endeavor to write tersely, to spare bandwidth.
a. several other gospel harmonies, which we know about, because .... ?
b. scribal freedom to adapt..... ?? which we know because ?
c. "a" gospel harmony without strong sense of authorship? ? and our source for denying Tatian as author is ???
d. Are we sure about Irenaeus' writings? ? Tacitus ? Josephus ?? Marcion ?? I am uncertain even about Philo. Where's the data documenting the fact that no one modified his texts during 2000 years of political strife?

Main point is this: To what extent do these various gospel harmonies offer text that is closer to that found in Codex Sinaiticus, than to that found in later editions of the gospels, i.e. Byzantine versions?

For example, Mark 1:1 does NOT contain "son of God", in Codex Sinaiticus, but that phrase in Greek is explicit in the ancient texts from the sixth century on.
Another illustration:
Mark and Mathew, in Codex Sinaiticus, write "blood of the covenant" as words spoken by Jesus during the last supper.

The Byzantine version, however, conforms to the text found in "Paul's" epistles, by writing (Mark 14:24) :

Tοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου, τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης

i.e. new covenant. Why "new"? Do any of these various Gospel Harmonies preserve the original version, sans καινῆς?

For me, the most interesting aspect of the Diatessaron, is the fact that it excludes "Paul". How is that possible, if "Paul's" epistles predated the appearance of the gospels? I believe that the existence of the Diatessaron, without epistles, maintains harmony with the notion that the epistles did not exist at the time the Diatessaron was composed.

[Leucius Charinus]

Since then I've looked for ways of making these tables useful.

... I would suggest that you might consider introducing another attribute of data which I see as absolutely critical ... the date of the earliest manuscript that has been discovered for each of the texts.

The earliest-known surviving physical manuscript? ("hard copy"?)

That's right Mac. The date of the earliest-known surviving physical manuscript.

Correct me if I'm wrong PK but the current date is the "[HYPOTHETICAL] Earliest Authorship".
Other dates useful would be "EARLIEST ATTESTED DATE".

Check the entry for say "The Acts of Peter" in Writings Relating to the Apostles - Apocalypses and Related Subjects - edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Robert McLachlan Wilson.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... peter.html

Summary includes:

THE COPTIC FRAGMENT



This is preserved separately in an early papyrus manuscript (fourth-fifth century) now at Berlin; the other contents of it are Gnostic writings which have not yet been published. I follow C. Schmidt's rendering of it. It has a title at the end: The Act of Peter

[Peter Kirby]

a. several other gospel harmonies, which we know about, because .... ?

Because we have copies.

b. scribal freedom to adapt..... ?? which we know because ?

Because we have copies of these gospel harmonies, and they differ significantly.

c. "a" gospel harmony without strong sense of authorship? ? and our source for denying Tatian as author is ???

???

d. Are we sure about Irenaeus' writings? ? Tacitus ? Josephus ?? Marcion ?? I am uncertain even about Philo. Where's the data documenting the fact that no one modified his texts during 2000 years of political strife?

We don't have any manuscripts for Marcion.

For the others, they do not have the same kind of situation as the Diatessaron.

For me, the most interesting aspect of the Diatessaron, is the fact that it excludes "Paul". How is that possible, if "Paul's" epistles predated the appearance of the gospels? I believe that the existence of the Diatessaron, without epistles, maintains harmony with the notion that the epistles did not exist at the time the Diatessaron was composed.

Maybe we need to get you your own thread to talk about the mysteries of the Diatessaron...