DCHindley wrote: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.
Peter Kirby wrote: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.