09-11-2003, 06:33 PM
PAUL WROTE IN OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION (IN THE OLD FORUM):
I can very easily separate the Church of the Persian empire (a.k.a, the Church of the East) from all other branches of the Roman/Byzantine tradition (including Syriac-speaking components like the SOC, Melkites and the Maronites).
They were absolutely not the same church until the 5th-6th century. A simple reading of history will show you this. From day 1 at Pentecost, they were separate communities with separate leadership and language and culture and textual traditions.
YURI REPLIES:
Dear Paul,
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my impression that all the closest disciples of Yeshua, such as Peter, John and James Zebedees, and others were living in Jerusalem after the Pentecost. And it seems like up to 135 CE, all followers of Yeshua looked up to Jerusalem as the source of the true Christians tradition, and the main authority in the matters of faith.
So this is what I see in earliest Christianity, the unity of all true believers. But now you're saying that they were all disunited from the earliest time?
PAUL:
But just because one or two church fathers quoted the Diatessaron, if that's what they actually did, does not make it the de facto standard, or "official version" of any church.
YURI:
Well, as far as I know, the Diatessaron was almost always quoted by the early Syriac Fathers, whenever we can reconcile their citations with any known version.
PAUL:
Finally, St. Ephraem while revered by the Church of the East as a brilliant poet, was not part of our church - but part of the Church of the Western empire. He was a deacon in the church of Edessa, and that's not part of my church's history.
Mar Aphrahat is a different story - he was part of the Church of the East in the Persian empire, which was founded in Adiabene and in Babylon (not in Edessa!)
Mar Aphrahat's writings are very liberal and quote scripture in a manner that makes it very hard to determine what version he used - because rather than being direct quotes, they are free citations.
YURI:
But I don't think that they are always free citations...
PAUL:
Sometimes they look like the Peshitta - at other times like the Diatessaron - at other times they look like no extant version. The reason for this is that, most of the time, he was seemingly freely paraphrasing.
YURI:
But I think he quotes the Diatessaron a lot more often than the Peshitta.
PAUL:
So, while I agree with you that we should team up and slay the Alexandrian dragon - I would hope that you give some thought to how the Old Scratch fits into the enemy's arsenal against us.
YURI:
I don't really see how it is so. Hardly anyone today studies the Old Syriac versions. Hardly anyone knows anything about them. 99% of mainstream biblical scholars study the Greek text only.
So here's my question. Why did the Church of the East not preserve the Diatessaron, if it was overwhelmingly used by all the earliest Syriac Fathers, including Aphrahat?
Didn't the earliest Fathers stand closer to the original tradition of Yeshua, compared to the later Church authorities?
Yes, the later Church authorities made efforts to destroy the Diatessaron, but I don't see in this a cause for celebration.
And neither do I see a cause for celebration in the fact that the Old Syriac Sinaiticus MS is a palimpsest (i.e. the original writing on it was "scratched out"). I think the earliest MSS should be respected, even if they are palimpsests.
Because I'm a historian, and I do respect history.
PAUL:
That is, if you are an Aramaic primacist.
YURI:
Well, I would describe myself as an Aramaic _prioritist_, rather than as an Aramaic primacist.
I do believe that the Aramaic typically preserves _an earlier_ text of the gospels and epistles, compared to any standard Greek text. But I don't necessarily believe that everything in the NT was originally written in Aramaic.
This is where I stand.
Shlama,
Yuri.
I can very easily separate the Church of the Persian empire (a.k.a, the Church of the East) from all other branches of the Roman/Byzantine tradition (including Syriac-speaking components like the SOC, Melkites and the Maronites).
They were absolutely not the same church until the 5th-6th century. A simple reading of history will show you this. From day 1 at Pentecost, they were separate communities with separate leadership and language and culture and textual traditions.
YURI REPLIES:
Dear Paul,
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my impression that all the closest disciples of Yeshua, such as Peter, John and James Zebedees, and others were living in Jerusalem after the Pentecost. And it seems like up to 135 CE, all followers of Yeshua looked up to Jerusalem as the source of the true Christians tradition, and the main authority in the matters of faith.
So this is what I see in earliest Christianity, the unity of all true believers. But now you're saying that they were all disunited from the earliest time?
PAUL:
But just because one or two church fathers quoted the Diatessaron, if that's what they actually did, does not make it the de facto standard, or "official version" of any church.
YURI:
Well, as far as I know, the Diatessaron was almost always quoted by the early Syriac Fathers, whenever we can reconcile their citations with any known version.
PAUL:
Finally, St. Ephraem while revered by the Church of the East as a brilliant poet, was not part of our church - but part of the Church of the Western empire. He was a deacon in the church of Edessa, and that's not part of my church's history.
Mar Aphrahat is a different story - he was part of the Church of the East in the Persian empire, which was founded in Adiabene and in Babylon (not in Edessa!)
Mar Aphrahat's writings are very liberal and quote scripture in a manner that makes it very hard to determine what version he used - because rather than being direct quotes, they are free citations.
YURI:
But I don't think that they are always free citations...
PAUL:
Sometimes they look like the Peshitta - at other times like the Diatessaron - at other times they look like no extant version. The reason for this is that, most of the time, he was seemingly freely paraphrasing.
YURI:
But I think he quotes the Diatessaron a lot more often than the Peshitta.
PAUL:
So, while I agree with you that we should team up and slay the Alexandrian dragon - I would hope that you give some thought to how the Old Scratch fits into the enemy's arsenal against us.
YURI:
I don't really see how it is so. Hardly anyone today studies the Old Syriac versions. Hardly anyone knows anything about them. 99% of mainstream biblical scholars study the Greek text only.
So here's my question. Why did the Church of the East not preserve the Diatessaron, if it was overwhelmingly used by all the earliest Syriac Fathers, including Aphrahat?
Didn't the earliest Fathers stand closer to the original tradition of Yeshua, compared to the later Church authorities?
Yes, the later Church authorities made efforts to destroy the Diatessaron, but I don't see in this a cause for celebration.
And neither do I see a cause for celebration in the fact that the Old Syriac Sinaiticus MS is a palimpsest (i.e. the original writing on it was "scratched out"). I think the earliest MSS should be respected, even if they are palimpsests.
Because I'm a historian, and I do respect history.
PAUL:
That is, if you are an Aramaic primacist.
YURI:
Well, I would describe myself as an Aramaic _prioritist_, rather than as an Aramaic primacist.
I do believe that the Aramaic typically preserves _an earlier_ text of the gospels and epistles, compared to any standard Greek text. But I don't necessarily believe that everything in the NT was originally written in Aramaic.
This is where I stand.
Shlama,
Yuri.