Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Greek vs. Aramaic
Shlama, Akhi Paul!

First, let me clarify some of these issues, before we go into any new material.

Paul Younan Wrote:I'm not interested in what the "scholarly consensus" is

Well, some of these people spent years studying the writings of Mar Aphrahat, so I thought their opinion might be relevant. What obvious reason do they have to make up things about whether or not Aphrahat used the Diatessaron?

In a typical scholarly investigation, it is considered important to cite the work of previous scholars. Otherwise, we'll be forced to reinvent the wheel over and over again.

yuku Wrote:I don't know if the Church of the East suppressed the Diatessaron, but the fact that the Syriac Diatessaron no longer exists speaks for itself, and certainly tends to give grounds for such a suspicion.

Paul Wrote:You can be suspicious all you want - but unless you name names, dates and places - it's only that, suspicion.

But you started by dogmatically proclaiming that the Church of the East suppressed the Diatesseron. By doing so, you place the burden of proof on yourself - you must demonstrate scientifically with solid evidence that this is the case. You have not.

So my original question was, Was didn't the Church of the East preserve the Diatessaron? Especially if, as seems likely, it was used by Mar Aphrahat?

Paul Wrote:And we only have access to the Latin and Arabic translations of the Diatesseron!

No, we actually have many more translations of the Diatesseron, including the Persian and the medieval English.

yuku Wrote:Well, now we do have the Syriac Ephrem (published since the 1960s), and according to McCarthy [C. McCarthy, ST. EPHREM'S COMMENTARY ON TATIAN'S DIATESSARON, Oxford, 1993], this is how Ephrem cited this verse 3 times,

"God has heard the voice of your prayer".

So this looks the same as the OS Sinaiticus version. And since Ephrem cited this verse 3 times, the possibility of a mistake is very small.

Paul Wrote:...the entire Syriac version of Ephraem's commentary on the Diatesseron is available to us at the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon page here:

I find NO such reading as McCarthy has given. Please show me where it reads anything of the sort!

Yes, I'm familiar with that CAL website, and what they have of Ephrem. It seems to me as if they only have some parts of Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron.

What I have here is a printed English translation, and, in it, Ephrem repeats this same phrase 3 times in 3 different passages. Paragraphs 10, 20, and 22.

yuku Wrote:Therefore, since Ephrem and the OS Sinaiticus agree, this must be a valid version as used by the ancient Syriac Church.

Paul Wrote:By the ancient WESTERN Syriac Church. NOT the ancient PERSIAN Church - also known as the Church of the East.

You have to distinguish between the two different, independent churches of the two, independent empires - otherwise you are being deceptful, whether intentionally or not.

Sorry, instead of "used by the ancient Syriac Church", I should have said "used by the ancient Edessene Church".

yuku Wrote:You also asked me where I found this verse in the Diatessaron. I have found it both in the Persian Diatessaron, and in the Magdalene Gospel (the English Diatessaron). They both say that Zacharias' prayer "was heard before God".

Paul Wrote:There is no such thing as the Persian Diatesseron. <!-- sSleepy --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sleepy.gif" alt="Sleepy" title="Sleepy" /><!-- sSleepy --> There is the Arabic and the Latin Diatesseron.

There surely are more than 2. See the brief info at the beginning of this page,

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Paul Wrote:And EVERY translation that I've read disagrees with you and does not include the "Before God" reading.

That's right, it's not in the Arabic or Latin Diatessarons. But this quote is present in the Persian Diatessaron, and in the Magdalene Gospel. It may also be found in some other versions, although I haven't yet checked.

yuku Wrote:It is widely agreed among Textual Scholars that Aphrahat, the Diatessaron, and the Old Syriac gospels have many areas of agreement between them in those passages where the Peshitta goes with the Greek text. Many examples of that can be cited.

Paul Wrote:You keep telling me that many examples can be cited

Here's what Aphrahat cites in his Commentary on the story of the "Rich Young Man" (Mk 10:20),
hlyn (bdt )nyn, h), mn dTl) )n)
(Approximate pronunciation:
haleyn abadat anyn, haw, mn d'tlaya enay)
"These -- I have done them, lo, from when I was a child."

And this is almost the same as what we have in the Old Syriac Sinaitic version of Mk 10:20. There are many differences there with the Peshitta. Details to follow later on.


Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Messages In This Thread
Greek vs. Aramaic - by yuku - 09-11-2003, 06:33 PM
Re: Greek vs. Aramaic - by Paul Younan - 09-14-2003, 09:52 PM
[No subject] - by yuku - 09-17-2003, 07:02 PM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 09-17-2003, 07:37 PM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 09-17-2003, 08:19 PM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 09-17-2003, 08:27 PM
[No subject] - by yuku - 09-19-2003, 06:32 PM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 09-19-2003, 07:52 PM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 09-20-2003, 02:54 AM
[No subject] - by yuku - 09-20-2003, 04:20 PM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 09-20-2003, 04:42 PM
[No subject] - by yuku - 09-22-2003, 08:49 PM
[No subject] - by Paul Younan - 09-22-2003, 09:14 PM
. - by drmlanc - 09-22-2003, 09:20 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)