Diatessaron

[John]

Gorgias Press has the Diatessaron by J Hamlyn Hill. I bought this book. I like the idea of a single gospel account, and I think that the Peshitta's content can be interwoven in the same format. Paul, you talk of the Diatessaron's Peshitta pedigree, so that means it should be straightforward to reconstruct using the current Peshitta right?

Thanks

[judge]

Gorgias Press has the Diatessaron by J Hamlyn Hill. I bought this book. I like the idea of a single gospel account, and I think that the Peshitta's content can be interwoven in the same format. Paul, you talk of the Diatessaron's Peshitta pedigree, so that means it should be straightforward to reconstruct using the current Peshitta right?

Thanks

Hi , hope you don't mind if I butt in? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

Are you hopjng to reconstruct Tatians original work using the Arabic translation and the peshitta?

[John]

Hi Judge

No I dont mind at all bro <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

I do wish to do so but not based on both.

What do you think?

Thanks!

[The Lector]

Diatessaron is a fascinating area actually.

But I think Mr Yuku has done some important work in considering whether it was actually written by Tatian at all. I do also personally prefer the idea of one continuous Gospel account. Apparently, Syrian Churches used this for ages. Does anyone know if it actually formed part of the Pshitta, in a 'Bible' form as such.

Whoever did the Diatessaron actually did a fine job in getting round the problem of parallels and the like.

[judge]

Diatessaron is a fascinating area actually.

But I think Mr Yuku has done some important work in considering whether it was actually written by Tatian at all. I do also personally prefer the idea of one continuous Gospel account. Apparently, Syrian Churches used this for ages. Does anyone know if it actually formed part of the Pshitta, in a 'Bible' form as such.

If we are meaning the eastern peshitta, then I do not think it would have ever been part of the peshitta. As far as I am aware no COE monk ever quotes any text word for word except from the current peshitta.

The COE knew of the diatessaron and a COE monk even translated it in the 11th century but their is no evidecne anyone there ever considered it to be part of the peshitta.

The diatessaron was used in some areas such as edessa though, but the evidence is that the textual tradition in that area was subject to change and revision, whilst there is no such evidence of change and revision the COE.

Hope this helps <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

[The Lector]

Thanks Judge

Reason I ask is because very often I read that the Diatessaron is the 'earliest gospel' and the 'earliest life of Christ. Hence I wondered if the early bibles contained the Diatessaron instead of the 4 gospels separately.

As we know, the Pshitta does not contain the adultery story in John/Yohanan. Paul wrote a good article on the Diatessaron's Pshitta pedigree which seems to make good sense, but tell me, does the Diatessaron also omit this narrative too?

<!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> Thanks

[Zechariah14]

Thanks Judge

Reason I ask is because very often I read that the Diatessaron is the 'earliest gospel' and the 'earliest life of Christ. Hence I wondered if the early bibles contained the Diatessaron instead of the 4 gospels separately.

I'm also wondering if there are any scholars who think that the Diatessaron might be the real "Gospel of the Hebrews"?
Wayne

[The Lector]

There has been some confusion between the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of Matthew, which was also written in Hebrew. I refer the reader to the footnoted commentaries in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, in The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 159 for a full treatment of this question. In summary, what appears to have happened was that the original "Gospel of the Hebrews" was written by Matthew. It was later abridged to become our current Gospel of Matthew, as indicated by the missing story provided later by John's Gospel. What became the Gospel of the Hebrews in later centuries was itself an abridged edition of the original Gospel of the Hebrews retained by the Jerusalem Church. The later editions, as says Epiphanius, were "not complete, but spurious and mutilated" which reflected the increasingly sectarian and heretical views of the Ebionites. It should be added that Epiphanius identifies the "Diatessaron of Tatian" as "the Gospel According to the Hebrews". If that is true, then the Diatessaron precedes the Four Gospels. "Diatessaron" is a harmony of the Gospels. Tatian was a Syrian and a pupil of Justin Martyr, but later became heretical.

Zechariah, what do you think then?
In which case as mentioned above, the Diatessaron would have come before the 4 seperate gospels [of course, obviously not being called the Diatessaron then!] <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="" title="Huh" /><!-- s -->

[Dawid]

I have to agree with Lector in saying that the GOH is probably not the same as the Diatessaron. Look, for instance, at Jerome's quotations of the GOH. Many of them are from an entirely separate Gospel, not from the Diatessaron. The theory that it is from Matthew also seems unlikely. George Howard has pointed out the problems with that theory (I think Ray Pritz touched on them aswell).
However, I think that the GOH was preserved by the Nazarenes long after the Ebionites had mutilated it. This would be where Jerome and later Church writers got their quotations of it from.

Shalom,
David