07-08-2008, 11:46 PM
Further along this line, Moffett offers a few discussions regarding the Peshitta and even the early COE's usage of scripture. For instance, on page 125 of Moffett's book he gets into discussion about Aphrahat the "Persian Sage." Writing about Aphrahat's Demonstrations (written between 336 and 345), Moffett states:
The Diatessaron was of course translated and pieced together by Tatian circa 170. Moffett then states:
This follows his earlier comments that:
Moffett further details, not that the Peshitta was compiled far after Aphrahat, but that it was compiled into its finalized, authorized form "sometime before the schism of 431":
Like I said, I'm still not complete with his book but it has stirred some questions I would like addressed by the more knowledgeable. Particularly since Aphrahat has been used previously to support an early date for the Peshitta - I am not debating this, but it of course conflicts with Moffett's research. Additionally, Moffett makes some interesting claims regarding the Diatesseron's early use by the COE.
Thank you so much for the time and insight you all may share.
Quote:In the Gospels, he usues Tatian's Diatessaron, significantly including the disputed last twelve verses of Mark which contrain the Great Commission. (Moffett, pp 129)
The Diatessaron was of course translated and pieced together by Tatian circa 170. Moffett then states:
Quote:For the rest of the New Testament he generally follows the canon of the Syriac Peshitta... (Moffett, pp 129)
This follows his earlier comments that:
Quote:The Synod of Hippo Regius in 393 and of the Synod of Carthage in 397 made official what most Western churches by then had already accepted. But in the East, where the churches outside the Roman Empire were imperceptibly beginning to separate from the West, the process took longer. (Moffett, pp 73)
Moffett further details, not that the Peshitta was compiled far after Aphrahat, but that it was compiled into its finalized, authorized form "sometime before the schism of 431":
Quote:For two hundred years the Syrian and Persian churches had recognized Tatian's harmony of the Gospels as the preferred version, but early in the fifth century, a number of bishops ... opposed the use of the Diatessaron and favored a new, authorized Syriac New Testament, based on the old syriac "Separate Gospels" (the "Mepharreshe") of which different versions were in circulation. (Moffett, pp 187)
Like I said, I'm still not complete with his book but it has stirred some questions I would like addressed by the more knowledgeable. Particularly since Aphrahat has been used previously to support an early date for the Peshitta - I am not debating this, but it of course conflicts with Moffett's research. Additionally, Moffett makes some interesting claims regarding the Diatesseron's early use by the COE.
Thank you so much for the time and insight you all may share.