Greek vs. Aramaic

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

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?

You're putting words in my mouth - and that's something I don't like at all. :x

I never said anyone was "disunited" - what I said, verbatim, was that these communities were independent of one another in scriptures, history, language, ecclesial authority, etc. That does not mean that they were "disunited" or that they viewed each other as anything less than "sister-churches."

The fact of the matter is that there has never been such a thing as "one Church" - this is a big myth propogated by the Western church. There have always been several churches in several different places - and there have always been disagreements between them (you can see this in the scriptures even, with Paul and Shimon fighting.)

According to the scriptures, there were believers from Mesopotamia there during Pentecost. These people went back to their homes and started communities of believers there. (You can see this from the Epistle of Keepa, 5:12.)

After that, there were two empires (Rome and Persia) with two distinct communities of believers. Each had their own language, tradition, scriptures, ecclessial authority, etc.

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.

The Diatesseron is NOT the Old Scratch. We were originally discussing Old Scratch. No CoE father has ever quoted Old Scratch. The Diatesseron had popularity early on because it was a combination of all four very nicely done - that does not mean it predates the Peshitta.

But again, we were originally talking about Old Scratch - not the Diatesseron. Nobody is arguing with you that some people seemed to use the Diatesseron - it was very popular just like some Gospel harmonies are popular today.

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...

Then show me direct quotes from either the Diatesseron or Old Scratch in any writing from Mar Aphrahat (I don't care about St. Ephraem or what the Western Syriac church fathers quoted.)

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.

Well, show the evidence. But again, you are talking about the Diatesseron now. In the original thread on the old forum, we were discussing Old Scratch. Why the switch? They are two totally different things.

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.

You just described the plight of the Peshitta, as well. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->

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?

First, you have to demonstrate that. <!-- shock: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="hock:" title="shocked" /><!-- shock: --> Then you can ask me why the Church of the East did not preserve the Diatesseron.

Right now, all I have is your claims that Mar Aphrahat directly quotes the Diatesseron.

I need you to prove this to me. First things first. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->

Didn't the earliest Fathers stand closer to the original tradition of Yeshua, compared to the later Church authorities?

In all cases? Absolutely not. That's a totally bad argument.

What? Did Arius stand closer to the original tradition of Yeshua - just because he lived earlier in time than Ephraem or Aphrahat? What kind of logic is this, Akhi? <!-- shock: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="hock:" title="shocked" /><!-- shock: -->

Yes, the later Church authorities made efforts to destroy the Diatessaron, but I don't see in this a cause for celebration.

First off, who made efforts to destroy the Diatesseron? Name names, places and prelates - don't just make blanket statements without any proof! :roll:

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.

I think that palimpsets are garbage - just like they were treated by those monks who "scratched" them off - but we can agree to disagree. If you find any value in scratch-paper - well, to each his own, right? :wink:

Because I'm a historian, and I do respect history.

I respect history, too. History tells me that somebody scratched the writing off for a reason. And logic tells me that the reason is because the manuscript was junk - scratch paper.

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.

Fair enough - I do think you will change your mind one day if you truly examine the evidence we've compiled here. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->

Take care!