Death of A Sales(ofasonof)Man. Is The Diatessaron Evidence Of No Original Post Resurrection Story In Any Gospel?

[JoeWallack]

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

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]

Note that:

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.

provides a conclusion that there was no post resurrection harmony but by itself assumes the reason, the post resurrection stories "varied". Another possibility is that there were no post resurrection stories at the time, or at least Tatian knew/thought, none of them were original:

Diatessaron

The Diatessaron (Syriac: ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܚܠܛܐ, romanized: Ewangeliyôn Damhalltê; c. 160–175 AD)

Of course it's generally agreed that the original significant Christian author and original author of the Gospel narrative, Marko/Paulo, had no post resurrection narratives. It's also going to be relatively easy to argue that the possible second Gospel narrative, All About Ev, had no post resurrection narrative, at least not anything physical. So let's take a look at the commonly thought second Gospel narrative, GMatthew.

In Search Of goes in search of - The Original Non-Existent Post Resurrection Narratives. I'm your host:


Joseph

"if you are searching and searching for something and you just can't seem to find it anywhere, it may mean it doesn't exist." - Granny Wallack

The New Porphyry

[MrMacSon]

One has to wonder what the order of the first Christian texts was eg. was the Diatesseron earlier than is first thought?

eta:
(or when redactions of some key Christian texts were done in relation to other key texts)

.

[MrMacSon]

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

FWIW:

... Comments about the different attested endings date back to Eusebius’ Ad Marinum in the fourth century. Responding to the apparent discrepancy between the timing of the resurrection in Matthew and Mark, Eusebius notes one may solve the difficulty in one of two ways: either ignore the passage on the basis of the manuscript evidence or harmonize the two passages. Unfortunately, Eusebius’ comments are all too often viewed through the lens of the modern text-critical endeavor, and for that reason, his intent has largely been missed. This volume argues that Eusebius’ double solution can be read as recognizing the authority of both the Longer and the Abrupt conclusions to Mark’s Gospel. The solution represents his ecumenical synthesis of those authors who preceded him, the “faithful and pious” from whom the Scriptures have been received. Only with this understanding of the double solution may we fully appreciate Eusebius’ dual reception, which is indicative of a different approach to the issue—one that prioritizes the question of reception over authorship, and one that is comfortable affirming a pluriform canon.

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Do a search for "lost ending of mark":

https://www.google.com/search?q=lost+en ... s-wiz#ip=1

And hopefully it's not lost on you that there is no shortage of speculation, specious speculation and fecious on the subject. Comparing possibilities though, and considering how much subsequent Christianity would want a post resurrection story original to GMark and not want no post-resurrection story in original GMatthew, and considering there is no direct evidence for either, isn't it already more likely there was no original post-resurrection story in GMatthew than a lost ending in GMark even before we start to look at GMatthew?

In Search Of goes in search of - The Original Non-Existent Post Resurrection Narratives. I'm your host:


Joseph

"if you are searching and searching for something and you just can't seem to find it anywhere, it may mean it doesn't exist." - Granny Wallack

The New Porphyry

[andrewcriddle]

See viewtopic.php?p=157989#p157989

Andrew Criddle

[JoeWallack]

JW:

Comparing the relative textual timing of undoing GMark's original ending:

Measurement identifications are as follows:

• Edited = "Mark" is the base with limited editing.
  
  Neutral = Does not support or contradict
  
  Contradicts

Gospel	Measurement identification
Matthew	Mark 16:1-8-----Edited
Peter	Mark 16:1-8-----Edited
Luke	Mark 16:1-6---- Edited Mark 16:7------ Neutral Mark 16:8------ Contradict
John	Mark 16:1-5---- Edited Mark 16:6------ Neutral Mark 16:7-8--- Contradict
The Epistula Apostolorum	Mark 16:1-4--- Edited Mark 16:5-6--- Contradict Mark 16:7-8--- Neutral

Is evidence that GMatthew was next.


Joseph

[JoeWallack]

JW:

Mark 16:8 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

Matthew 28:8 And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word.

Thematically, "Mark" wanted to discredit supposed historical witness to supposedly resurrected Jesus while "Matthew" wanted to credit. If GMark was the only resurrection narrative at the time of GMatthew, "Matthew" would have incentive to minimize the editing and maximize the effect. The way to do that is just what extant GMatthew has at the end of 28:8. Just change the last few words, "did tell" from "did not tell".


Joseph

[Leucius Charinus]

In Search Of goes in search of - The Original Non-Existent Post Resurrection Narratives. I'm your host:


Joseph

"if you are searching and searching for something and you just can't seem to find it anywhere, it may mean it doesn't exist." - Granny Wallack

The New Porphyry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUPifXX0foU

Practically all the non canonical (apocryphal) narratives feature a post resurrection dude. Is you search restricted to canonical narratives? I could be wrong, but if you're right about these "long endings" not existing in the canonicals then my guess is that the heretics who wrote the "Other Jesus" narratives also couldn't find such. The heretics loved to add stuff. We tend to forget them but they're closer to the action and IMHO are trying to tell us stuff.