Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Greek vs. Aramaic
#1
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.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#2
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

yuku Wrote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.)

Quote: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.

Quote: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. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Quote: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. <!-- sConfusedhock: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="Confusedhock:" title="shocked" /><!-- sConfusedhock: --> 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. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Quote: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? <!-- sConfusedhock: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="Confusedhock:" title="shocked" /><!-- sConfusedhock: -->

Quote: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:

Quote: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:

Quote: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.

Quote: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. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Take care!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
Shlama Akhi Paul,

PAUL: 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.

YURI: Well, I though that "independent of one another" means "disunited", but I guess I was wrong...

Also, Re: the later Church authorities making efforts to destroy the Diatessaron.

According to his own account, in the late 4th century, Theodoret of Cyrus gathered and destroyed over 200 copies of the Diatessaron, and replaced them with copies of the individual Gospels. I can provide an exact citation if you wish.

PAUL: Then show me direct quotes from either the Diatesseron or Old Scratch in any writing from Mar Aphrahat.

YURI: How about this case, Lk 1:13?

Here, the Peshitta reads exactly like the canonical Greek,

(Greek Lk 1:13) dioti eishkousqh h dehsiV sou
"for thy prayer is heard"

(Peshitta Lk 1:13) mTl d)$tm(t clwtk
"for thy prayer is heard"

But, on the other hand, Aphrahat and Ephrem read differently here, and they agree exactly with each other. (Actually, Ephrem uses this same phrase 3 times!)

(Aphrahat, Demonstrations 57:04) )$tm(t clwtk qdm )lh)
"Thy prayer hath been heard _before God_."

So this obviously comes from the Diatessaron, and God is mentioned here explicitly.

And the OS Sinaitic agrees with Aphrahat here, because, in the OS, God is also explicitly mentioned as hearing Zacharias' prayer.

(Old Syriac Luke 1:13) h) gyr $m( )lh) bql clwtk
_God_ hath hearkened to the voice of thy prayer.

So what we see in this case is that Aphrahat, Ephrem, the Diatessaron, and the OS all agree, because they all mention God in this verse. But the Peshitta agrees with the Greek, and neither mentions God in this verse.

I'm sure there are a lot more such cases that could be found.

Shlama,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#4
Shlama Akhi Yuri!

yuku Wrote:PAUL: 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.

YURI: Well, I though that "independent of one another" means "disunited", but I guess I was wrong...

"Dis-united" carries a negative connotation that I did not intend to convey in my original statement.

You and I may be "independent" roofing contractors, but being independent does not necessarily mean that we are not on good terms.

The word "dis-united" contains imagery of separation and bad feelings towards one another.

The 2 churches of the 2 empires were independent of one another, until about 70 years after Ephesus - when they became dis-united. <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Quote:Also, Re: the later Church authorities making efforts to destroy the Diatessaron.

According to his own account, in the late 4th century, Theodoret of Cyrus gathered and destroyed over 200 copies of the Diatessaron, and replaced them with copies of the individual Gospels. I can provide an exact citation if you wish.

None needed - Theodoret of Cyrus was born in Antioch and a Western Christian. He happened to be a bishop of the Western Church - Cyrus was NOT in the Persian empire. He never had anything to do with the Church of the East. Neither did Nestorius, for that matter. This is all a western myth.

I ask for references from the Church of the East, and you keep telling me what the Greeks did. What do I care what the bishop of Cyrus, in the Roman empire - subject to Pope Leo, did or did not do?

How is that relevant to the original argument - about the Church of the East?

You need to demonstrate to me 2 things - (1) that the Church of the Persian Empire used the Diatesseron (or Old Scratch) - (2) and then you need to demonstrate to me that they suppressed it (either the Diatesseron or the Old Scratch.)

So far, you have done neither. :?

Quote:PAUL: Then show me direct quotes from either the Diatesseron or Old Scratch in any writing from Mar Aphrahat.

YURI: How about this case, Lk 1:13?

Here, the Peshitta reads exactly like the canonical Greek,

(Greek Lk 1:13) dioti eishkousqh h dehsiV sou
"for thy prayer is heard"

(Peshitta Lk 1:13) mTl d)$tm(t clwtk
"for thy prayer is heard"

But, on the other hand, Aphrahat and Ephrem read differently here, and they agree exactly with each other. (Actually, Ephrem uses this same phrase 3 times!)

(Aphrahat, Demonstrations 57:04) )$tm(t clwtk qdm )lh)
"Thy prayer hath been heard _before God_."

So this obviously comes from the Diatessaron, and God is mentioned here explicitly.

And the OS Sinaitic agrees with Aphrahat here, because, in the OS, God is also explicitly mentioned as hearing Zacharias' prayer.

(Old Syriac Luke 1:13) h) gyr $m( )lh) bql clwtk
_God_ hath hearkened to the voice of thy prayer.

So what we see in this case is that Aphrahat, Ephrem, the Diatessaron, and the OS all agree, because they all mention God in this verse. But the Peshitta agrees with the Greek, and neither mentions God in this verse.

That is a very weak example!

First of all, you don't have the Syriac of the Diatesseron to compare it to. You don't know how it may have read. That's why you didn't give the reading from the Diatesseron!

Secondly, the quote is definitely NOT from Old Scratch! Just because Old Scratch has the word "God" in it means nothing - the word order in the Aramaic is completely different from the quotes you gave.

This is, at best, an argument from silence. It contains too many assumptions and holes - and it is not very scientific at all.

But again, the original point was about Old Scratch. Not about the Diatesseron.

It is obvious from this example that neither Mar Aphrahat nor St. Ephraem was quoting Old Scratch. Like I said before - nobody quoted Old Scratch - because it was just that - scratch paper.

And I'm not at all convinced that they were quoting the Diatesseron - because we don't have the reading for that.

Quote:I'm sure there are a lot more such cases that could be found.

Shlama,

Yuri.

Bring them on! <!-- sConfusedhock: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/shocked.gif" alt="Confusedhock:" title="shocked" /><!-- sConfusedhock: --> And take care, Akhi!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#5
Shlama Yuri,

Where did you get the Diatesseron reading from?

My sources (from the Arabic and Latin versions) read:

Quote:"But the angel said unto him, Be not agitated, Zacharias, for thy prayer is heard, and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shall call his name John;"

Where did you get the "Before God" reading?

See http://church-of-the-east.org/library/diatesseron.txt
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#6
A second source that disagrees with your reading!

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diatessaron.html">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... saron.html</a><!-- m -->

It seems that even the Diatesseron does not say "Before God!"

So it seems that Ephraem and Aphrahat are, like I SAID ORIGINALLY, freely and liberally expounding from scripture and NOT QUOTING DIRECTLY.

Definitely, they were NOT quoting the Diatesseron, let alone Old Scratch! <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#7
Paul Wrote:You need to demonstrate to me 2 things - (1) that the Church of the Persian Empire used the Diatesseron (or Old Scratch) - (2) and then you need to demonstrate to me that they suppressed it (either the Diatesseron or the Old Scratch.)

So far, you have done neither. :?

Shlama, Akhi Paul!

It is a general view among the Textual Scholars that Mar Aphrahat used the Diatessaron when he cited the gospels. For example,

(quote)

Aphraat
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/iii.i.xiii.htm">http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/iii.i.xiii.htm</a><!-- m -->

The language is Syriac, the quotations from the O.T. are taken from the Peshitta, but in the N.T. he quotes the Gospels from the Diatessaron.

(unquote)

More recently, the same conclusion has been reached by Baarda in the following volume.

T. Baarda, THE GOSPEL QUOTATIONS OF APHRAHAT, THE PERSIAN SAGE: Aphrahat's text of the Fourth Gospel. 2 vols. (Diss.). Amsterdam, 1975.

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.

yuku Wrote:(Aphrahat, Demonstrations 57:04) )$tm(t clwtk qdm )lh)
"Thy prayer hath been heard _before God_."

(Old Syriac Luke 1:13) h) gyr $m( )lh) bql clwtk
_God_ hath hearkened to the voice of thy prayer.

So what we see in this case is that Aphrahat, Ephrem, the Diatessaron, and the OS all agree, because they all mention God in this verse. But the Peshitta agrees with the Greek, and neither mentions God in this verse.

First of all, I have to correct myself here. I previously said that Ephrem and Aphrahat agree exactly on this quote, and I based that on Burkitt's comments in his 1904 edition of the Curetonian MS. But Burkitt only had access to the Armenian translation of Ephrem.

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.

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

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".

And so, they have this phrase in the same form as was used by Mar Aphrahat.

Paul Wrote:But again, the original point was about Old Scratch. Not about the Diatesseron.

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.

Shlama,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#8
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

yuku Wrote:It is a general view among the Textual Scholars that Mar Aphrahat used the Diatessaron when he cited the gospels. For example,

(quote)

Aphraat
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/iii.i.xiii.htm">http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/iii.i.xiii.htm</a><!-- m -->

The language is Syriac, the quotations from the O.T. are taken from the Peshitta, but in the N.T. he quotes the Gospels from the Diatessaron.

(unquote)

More recently, the same conclusion has been reached by Baarda in the following volume.

T. Baarda, THE GOSPEL QUOTATIONS OF APHRAHAT, THE PERSIAN SAGE: Aphrahat's text of the Fourth Gospel. 2 vols. (Diss.). Amsterdam, 1975.

<!-- s:tellme: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/tellme.gif" alt=":tellme:" title="Tell Me" /><!-- s:tellme: --> Huh?

I'm not interested in what the "scholarly consensus" is, or what these people think. I'm interested in examples from you - solid examples that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mar Aphrahat used the Diatesseron.

Do you have any?

Quote: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.

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.

You have proven that the Western Church, under Theodoret of Cyrus (and others, like Rabbula of Edessa) suppressed the Diatesseron. <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: --> I say, hats off to them! It's not the first time they suppressed anything, anyway! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> What does that have to do with me and my church? <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

You haven't yet given a tiny little example, let alone proven, that the Church of the East ever even used the Diatesseron. You have to do that first before you make claims that we suppressed it.

yuku Wrote:
Quote:(Aphrahat, Demonstrations 57:04) )$tm(t clwtk qdm )lh)
"Thy prayer hath been heard _before God_."

(Old Syriac Luke 1:13) h) gyr $m( )lh) bql clwtk
_God_ hath hearkened to the voice of thy prayer.

So what we see in this case is that Aphrahat, Ephrem, the Diatessaron, and the OS all agree, because they all mention God in this verse. But the Peshitta agrees with the Greek, and neither mentions God in this verse.

First of all, I have to correct myself here. I previously said that Ephrem and Aphrahat agree exactly on this quote, and I based that on Burkitt's comments in his 1904 edition of the Curetonian MS. But Burkitt only had access to the Armenian translation of Ephrem.

And we only have access to the Latin and Arabic translations of the Diatesseron! <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: --> So keep that little problem in mind!

Quote: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.

Firstly, I already explained to you that St. Ephraem was not part of the Church of the East - he was part of the Edessene Church (What later evolved into the SOC.) So even if he did quote Old Scratch - that means nothing to me - Old Scratch was found in the Western empire and not the Eastern. We are the church of the Eastern empire - and my original challenge to you was to find an reference to the Church of the East using Old Scratch.

Secondly, Ephraem wrote a commentary on the Diatesseron - not on the Old Scratch. The quote you give is from his commentary on the Diatesseron - and every English translation of the Latin/Arabic Diatesseron that I've read does not contain the "Before God" reading that Ephraem gives here.

Thirdly, not that it matters any to the argument, but the entire Syriac version of Ephraem's commentary on the Diatesseron is available to us at the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon page here:

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/showsubte...1&R1=Roman

I find NO such reading as McCarthy has given. Please show me where it reads anything of the sort! <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

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

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.

Quote: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".

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.

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

Can you post either the Arabic or the Latin - and prove that either of those two translations of the Diatesseron contain the "Before God" reading? Remember - you stated that it contains that reading, so the burden of proof is on you - not on me. I've checked several English translations and NONE of them agree with you here.

Quote:And so, they have this phrase in the same form as was used by Mar Aphrahat.

<!-- s:tellme: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/tellme.gif" alt=":tellme:" title="Tell Me" /><!-- s:tellme: --> Huh?

Ephraem didn't even quote this, let alone Aphrahat! <!-- sSleepy --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sleepy.gif" alt="Sleepy" title="Sleepy" /><!-- sSleepy -->

Quote:
Paul Wrote:But again, the original point was about Old Scratch. Not about the Diatesseron.

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.

Shlama,

Yuri.

You keep telling me that many examples can be cited - and so far you have only provided one single example that wasn't even legitimate and not worth the time you spent typing it.

So please, stop telling me about how many examples you can cite - and just cite them, already! <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#9
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

I'm confused. <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: --> Which version are you saying Ephraem quoted here?

You see, the quote you give comes from his commentary on the Diatesseron (which, BTW, I cannot verify from the Aramaic found in CAL.)

But you seem to be claiming that he's quoting Old Scratch. Which one is it? He cannot be quoting both - Old Scratch and the Diatesseron are two completely different things.

How can he quote Old Scratch in his commentary dedicated to the Diatesseron? <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#10
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:

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/showsubte...1&R1=Roman

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,

THE MAGDALENE GOSPEL: Bibliography
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.styx.org/yuku/pepys/w3h.htm">http://www.styx.org/yuku/pepys/w3h.htm</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.

Shlama,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#11
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

You have me totally perplexed. <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

I ask you for proof of anyone from the CoE quoting from the Old Scratch or Diatesseron - and you give me quotes from St. Ephraem (of Edessa!)

I ask you for proof of the CoE surpressing the Diatesseron - and you give me the names of Theodoret of Cyrus and Rabbula of Eddessa (!)

I ask you where "before God" is found in the Diatesseron - and you point me to the Magdelene gospel and some medieval English version, whatever those things are <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: --> - instead of the two oldest surviving, and most trustworthy translations in Latin and Arabic.

I ask you to show me where in the CAL database that the original Aramaic of St. Ephraem contains the "before God" reading - and you point me to an English translation where only GOD knows how he ended up with that reading. I know for a fact that the reading is not present in the original Aramaic of Ephraem - because all of it is right there on CAL and I can read it like you can read this English.

I ask you how it is possible for Ephraem to be quoting Old Scratch in his commentary on the Diatesseron <!-- s:whatthat: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whatsthat.gif" alt=":whatthat:" title="Whats That" /><!-- s:whatthat: --> - and I get no answer. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

I ask you how Mar Aphrahat the Persian could be quoting Old Scratch when the word order is completely different, and I get no answer. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> And then you give me "scholarly" references to his quoting the Diatesseron. So which one is it, Yuri? Is Mar Aphrahat quoting the Diatesseron or is he quoting Old Scratch? I get no answer from you! You are being very slippery! <!-- sConfusedly: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sly.gif" alt="Confusedly:" title="Sly" /><!-- sConfusedly: -->

Akhi Yuri,

I've been following you and your posts on Yahoo for a long time. You are absolutely a brilliant man and like I said back on the old forum - I am a big fan of yours.

But this type of argument for this example is not in your league (or mine). You have to switch to something else and really demonstrate this Old Scratch theory - because that's the one thing I disagree with you most about, and I would love for you to be able to convince me that these two junk manuscripts belong in the same category as 350 beautifully-preserved manuscripts from the 5th-9th century which all agree with one another, and which have at least 1,600 years of documented custodialship in all the Aramaic-speaking churches.

You have a big task - but I know if anyone can convince me otherwise, it'll be you. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#12
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Yuri,

You have me totally perplexed. <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

I ask you for proof of anyone from the CoE quoting from the Old Scratch or Diatesseron - and you give me quotes from St. Ephraem (of Edessa!)

Just give me some time, Akhi Paul! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Paul Wrote:I ask you where "before God" is found in the Diatesseron - and you point me to the Magdelene gospel and some medieval English version, whatever those things are <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: --> - instead of the two oldest surviving, and most trustworthy translations in Latin and Arabic.

Actually, most Diatessaronic scholars don't think that the Latin and Arabic Diatessarons are the most trustworthy translations. It's true that the Latin Fulda Diatessaron is our oldest complete copy though...

Paul Wrote:I ask you to show me where in the CAL database that the original Aramaic of St. Ephraem contains the "before God" reading - and you point me to an English translation where only GOD knows how he ended up with that reading. I know for a fact that the reading is not present in the original Aramaic of Ephraem - because all of it is right there on CAL and I can read it like you can read this English.

As far as I know, what they have of Ephrem at the CAL website is incomplete. <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

Paul Wrote:I ask you how it is possible for Ephraem to be quoting Old Scratch in his commentary on the Diatesseron <!-- s:whatthat: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whatsthat.gif" alt=":whatthat:" title="Whats That" /><!-- s:whatthat: --> - and I get no answer. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

Well, now this is a really difficult question...

What I'm planning to do pretty soon is to write some sort of a general FAQ about the Diatessaron, a sort of a brief and basic intro. I've already written some of it, so please give me a bit of time. Then we can come back to this issue.

Paul Wrote:I ask you how Mar Aphrahat the Persian could be quoting Old Scratch when the word order is completely different, and I get no answer.

There's a change there from the active voice into the passive voice, not a big deal... The meaning is still the same.

Paul Wrote:And then you give me "scholarly" references to his quoting the Diatesseron. So which one is it, Yuri? Is Mar Aphrahat quoting the Diatesseron or is he quoting Old Scratch? I get no answer from you! You are being very slippery! <!-- sConfusedly: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sly.gif" alt="Confusedly:" title="Sly" /><!-- sConfusedly: -->

OK, I promise to come back to this issue after I write that Diatessaron FAQ.

Paul Wrote:Akhi Yuri,

I've been following you and your posts on Yahoo for a long time. You are absolutely a brilliant man and like I said back on the old forum - I am a big fan of yours.

Thank you, Akhi Paul, you make me blush. <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->

Paul Wrote:But this type of argument for this example is not in your league (or mine). You have to switch to something else and really demonstrate this Old Scratch theory - because that's the one thing I disagree with you most about, and I would love for you to be able to convince me that these two junk manuscripts belong in the same category as 350 beautifully-preserved manuscripts from the 5th-9th century which all agree with one another, and which have at least 1,600 years of documented custodialship in all the Aramaic-speaking churches.

You have a big task - but I know if anyone can convince me otherwise, it'll be you. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


But, Akhi Paul, it wasn't really my intention to change your mind about the Old Syriac gospels... What I really want to do OTOH was to point out where our real priorities lie.

You can still dislike the Old Syriac texts, but this shouldn't stop us from finding common areas of interest where we can co-operate productively.

The priority should be to go more mainstream, and to challenge the Egyptian Greek text where it hurts it most. There really must be a way to bring the Aramaic gospels to the attention of the scholarly mainstream in such a way that people sit up and take notice. So this is my real goal.

I will post in a separate thread a longer reply on this matter.

Also, I'm planning to post more evidence about that case of Mk 10:20/Mt 19:20/Lk 18:21, the "Rich Young Man". Just give me some time...

Shlama,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#13
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

You got all the time you need my man - you know where to find me. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Quote:Actually, most Diatessaronic scholars don't think that the Latin and Arabic Diatessarons are the most trustworthy translations. It's true that the Latin Fulda Diatessaron is our oldest complete copy though...

So the "scholarly consensus" about Mar Aphrahat quoting the Diatesseron is based on some pretty crappy evidence, eh? <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->

Quote:As far as I know, what they have of Ephrem at the CAL website is incomplete. <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

An email to the webmaster should tell us whether or not the manuscript is completely up. It is my belief that the manuscript evidence is fragmentary - otherwise, why would they have started with Chapter 2 on CAL?

I'll let you know what they say. If so - McCarthy is re-constructing from some other version, perhaps the Armenian - in which case you might as well throw the evidence out of your nearest window. <!-- sRolleyes --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif" alt="Rolleyes" title="Roll Eyes" /><!-- sRolleyes -->

Quote:
Paul Wrote:I ask you how it is possible for Ephraem to be quoting Old Scratch in his commentary on the Diatesseron <!-- s:whatthat: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/whatsthat.gif" alt=":whatthat:" title="Whats That" /><!-- s:whatthat: --> - and I get no answer. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->

Well, now this is a really difficult question...

What I'm planning to do pretty soon is to write some sort of a general FAQ about the Diatessaron, a sort of a brief and basic intro. I've already written some of it, so please give me a bit of time. Then we can come back to this issue.

Akhi Yuri - my only intention in bringing all of this up is so that the readers can rest assured that this "scholarly consensus" you talk about is based on non-scientific assumptions and theories that are impossible to prove.

I think from your statement above, people can "get my drift."

Quote:
Paul Wrote:I ask you how Mar Aphrahat the Persian could be quoting Old Scratch when the word order is completely different, and I get no answer.

There's a change there from the active voice into the passive voice, not a big deal... The meaning is still the same.

The point is that these are homilies and hymns - there is every reason to believe that they are not direct quotes of anything, like I originally said - Mar Aphrahat is simply PARAPHRASING - a very common thing to do in the ancient world - do the TARGUMS come to mind? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

When someone makes poetry, and is quoting something else, then it sometimes become necessary to add a syllable or two, a word or two, a sentence or two - so that your "diction", "assonance" and/or "rhyme" are complete.

When you are dealing with hymns or homilies - you better be real careful what you call a direct quote and what you call a "paraphrase" or a "poet's gloss." <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->

Quote:
Paul Wrote:And then you give me "scholarly" references to his quoting the Diatesseron. So which one is it, Yuri? Is Mar Aphrahat quoting the Diatesseron or is he quoting Old Scratch? I get no answer from you! You are being very slippery! <!-- sConfusedly: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sly.gif" alt="Confusedly:" title="Sly" /><!-- sConfusedly: -->

OK, I promise to come back to this issue after I write that Diatessaron FAQ.

Fair enough - I'll be waiting patiently.

About your statement regarding the Egyptian Greek texts - we can definitely find common ground in slaying the Greek dragon - if you wish to slay it, that is.

Frankly, you sound as if you only want to cut its toenails. I'm not into cosmetics - I am an Assyrian - and we are a very brutal people, remember? I want to cut out is entrails and roast them for dinner.

If that sounds like your forte, then this website will be a very enjoyable resource for you. <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#14
"I am an Assyrian - and we are a very brutal people"

Hey me too - I think...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)