Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Stephan Huller wrote:Well if we were to build up a theory like this the place to start is with a demolition of the suppositions of stupid people - namely that 'because' the three synoptic texts survived they 'must' have been the earliest texts.

No one has commented how much like Huller's Diatessaron-like Memoirs of the Apostles (or Gospel of the Hebrews, not mentioned by Huller) is my own Evolving Proto-Gospel hypothesis. I acknowledge that before any of the Synoptic gospels there existed a mixed-text Proto-Gospel that was basically our Triple Tradition and Double Tradition (which is usually misrepresented as "Q"). It was transcribed and where necessary translated towards Luke (thus a Proto-Luke, to which L was later added), but with some insertions in it that were added in to the source text before the original mixed text was returned for use towards Proto-Matthew that underlies the other two Synoptics. The returned mixed-text was translated where necessary and expanded by M material into Proto-Matthew. This was abridged towards Mark and rearranged towards Matthew.

See my Oct. 15 posting at Horizontal Synoptic Solution
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 2&start=60
the three paragraphs subsequent to the three links I list.

Remaining to be resolved is the conflict between my early dates (based on internal criticism) and the dates a century later Huller derives from external criticism.

I've made reference to the argument that Justin had a harmony from Hengel. I've made reference to Theophilus's text from Petersen. This is a highly specialized field of study and I am friends with the world's greatest authority on the subject, Tjitze Baarda. I can't bring you up to speed in a fortnight. This topic takes time and effort and above all familiarity with the sources. Read Petersen's book. That's a good start.

This is not primary evidence, but just learned opinions (more so for Hengel).
It looks one would need to be subjected to an ocean of words to be brainwashed into your theories (or be friend with Tjitze Baarda).
If I understand well, appeal to authorities but no evidence.
And can you demonstrate Justin had only a Diatessaron at his disposal, and not the four gospels? Or his Diaressaron, if any, was not edited from the synoptic gospels?

This is all in Petersen's book.

Does Petersen's book have a translation of that mysterious Diatessaron?
BTW, Petersen thought Tatian, not Justin, not Marcion wrote the original Diatessaron.
And Jerome said Theophilus wrote commentaries on the gospels in the form of a harmony.
As for Ephrem (4th cent.) (an anti-marcionite), it appears the Diatessaron he commented upon had a very few Marcionite elements. That's not sufficient to declare that Diatessaron to be Marcionite.

Come on. You can't expect to be an expert at something you haven't studied. Just shut the fuck up. The Arabic Diatessaron can be demonstrated to be different from second century text by comparing the relevant sections at Dura Europos etc. The text isn't imaginary. It dates to the third century because we have the Diatessaron fragment from Dura Europos and this certainly wasn't the exemplar.

"Just shut the fuck up" Who do think you are, some some of dictator who can take away my freedom of expression?
So third century Diatessarons material are a bit different than the one of the four canonical gospels: that's no surprise, Christians had the habit to modify texts during translation and editing. That does not mean Justin and Marcion had a Diatessaron.

A good start on this subject is Casey's ignored monograph on Eznik and the Marcionite Diatessaron - R. Casey, “The Armenian Marcionites and the Diatessaron,” JBL 57 (1938): 185–94. The evidence that a single long text was the norm before Irenaeus is just so weighty it justified the original title of this thread.

Eznik is 5th century. A lot of things can happen, such as later Marcionites fabricating their own Diatessaron, possibly influencing Ephrem's comments.

Cordially, Bernard

This is not primary evidence, but just learned opinions (more so for Hengel).

Oh God really. You have one group (Irenaeus's) actively preserving a set of four texts and actively condemning (and destroying) the rest and you want to pretend that's all there is. Well Justin's testimony witnesses the 'harmonized' readings of a 'Diatessaron-like' text and his beloved student Tatian is directly associated with a harmonized text. What more do you need? A photograph? This is silly. You can't look for evidence of homosexuality in Saudi Arabia and when you can't find men copulating in the streets conclude that no one is gay in that country. The same thing is true with all repressed traditions religious or otherwise. You are unfairly skewing the evidence in favor of 'what is firm and knowable' rather than 'what is true.' As a result your conclusions match your comfort level. Hengel wouldn't have come to that conclusion if it wasn't a reasonable one.

to Huller,

We even have a testimony from a single long gospel community making fun of Irenaeus's fourfold gospel.

Can you elaborate? Which community, which text?

Cordially, Bernard

I am trying to understand your concerns. So let's do this in reverse.

1. Irenaeus read Papias's testimony as pertaining to 'according to Matthew' but even you acknowledge that isn't true
2. Irenaeus argued that Marcion's gospel was a mutilated version of 'according to Luke' but the Marcionites denied that and said they had the text Paul refers to when he declares 'my gospel.' Why should we continue to believe Irenaeus when he is (as Ted) would say 'misguided' or you (at least when you are being honest) and I would say he is prone to misrepresent the origins of his sacred texts'?

As I have noted Gaius thought Irenaeus's 'according to John' (if not 'from Irenaeus's hand' at least 'according to John' which Irenaeus accepted) was fraudulent. Now we have testimonies connected with rival groups attesting to the same thing about 'according to Matthew' and 'according to Luke.' Why is a sure lie better than an uncertain truth?

We even have a testimony from a single long gospel community making fun of Irenaeus's fourfold gospel.

Marutha of Maiperqat. People in the east continued to use the Diatessaron until the time he wrote. The dating is irrelevant to the point being made.

to MrMacSon,

As far as Bernard's assertion that "internal evidence shows [Matthew] was out in the 1st century and part of its text appears in late 1st century writings and early 2nd century." - please elaborate.

I have a webpage on the gospels external evidence:
http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html
From it, I have links to part of other webpages about dating the gospels according to the internal evidence.

Cordially, Bernard

Marutha's testimony:

Those of the movement of Simon made for themselves a gospel in four parts and they called it the Book of the Quarters (of the world). They are all sorcerers. A thread of scarlet and of the rose (color) they bind at the neck like the priests (of Rome). The ancients plated the hair of their heads and were occupying themselves with incantations and strange affairs.

The description of plaiting their hair and the bit about roses describes the traditional Roman priesthood (hence an association with Rome). In the pertinent section of Irenaeus where the fourfold gospel is first introduced to the world:

For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds ... [Adv Haer 3.10.8]

Compare Marutha:

Those of the movement of Simon made for themselves a gospel in four parts and they called it the Book of the Quarters (of the world).

David Trobisch sent me the Syriac for this section of Marutha's text and what is interesting is that the term used to specifically describe the gospel of the quarters of the word ܦܢܝܬܐ is a geographical term. I just assumed that it was principally a mathematical term (i.e. 'quarter') but the root actually means 'region.' There is something interesting buried in this strangled tradition. When you do a Google search in Syriac for the term (!) you get a picture of http://arc.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DC%A9%DC ... C%AC%DC%90

Why would you assume it is a mathematical term (ie 'quarter') when the description was geographical by Iraeneas? ( four zones of the world ) ... no need to answer..

The timing is of course important since clearly they were later devotees of the single gospel. It's a meaningless argument for that reason. They provide no time marker on the origins of the 4 books though even.. Why do you muddy the waters with irrelevant information like this? What MIGHT be interesting is what the Marutha has to say about the origins of their single gospel and whether theirs preceded the 4. It would at least be more relevant.

to Huller,

Bernard has consistently identified the use of Papias as dishonest until he saw the trap that I was setting.

So, what does that have to do with your wild theories? You make it sound that I opened the flood gate for your speculations (with no evidence I can see).

Cordially, Bernard