Greek vs. Aramaic

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

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?

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.

(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!

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: -->

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.

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. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sleepy.gif" alt="" title="Sleepy" /><!-- s --> 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.

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! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sleepy.gif" alt="" title="Sleepy" /><!-- s -->

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! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->