Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mar Aphrahat and Mattai 1:23
#1
Shlama Akhay,

Mar Aphrahat (the "Persian Sage") lived c.280-367. He wrote extensively, but very little of his writings have survived to this day. One of these works is called "Demonstrations", and it is available in the CAL database.

It is commonly claimed that Mar Aphrahat used either the Diatesseron or Old Scratch in his scriptural commentaries, and not the Peshitta since it is commonly held that he lived before the time of the Peshitta.

But the reality is that Mar Aphrahat for the most part does not give direct scriptural quotes of any known version. Most of the time, he appears to be going from memory or paraphrasing from the Peshitta.

Mattai 1:23 is an example of this:

In the original Aramaic of Aphrahat, we read the following quote from Isaiah 7:14 and Mattai 1:23:

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rqtnw dl0tw N=bt Flwtb 0hd[/font]

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nm9 Jhl0 Yhwty0d Ly0wnm9 hm4 [/font]

"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear; and His name shall be called Emmanuel, that is, our God with us."

First of all, this verse exists nowhere in any version or translation of the Diatesseron - so we can rule out the Diatesseron completely.

There are 4 possibilities left:
  • (1) He was quoting the Peshitta of Isaiah 7:14 (he used the Peshitta Tanakh)
    (2) He was directly quoting Mattai 1:23 using Old Scratch
    (3) He was directly quoting Mattai 1:23 using the Peshitta
    (4) He was paraphrasing, or recalling the scriptures from memory

Which of these scenarios are the most likely?

Well, he could not have been quoting the Peshitta Tanakh - since the words "a Son" are not present in his quote. The Peshitta Tanakh has "she will bear a Son". So we can rule out #1 as a possibility.

Now, let's look at scenarios 2 and 3. Here is the reading of Mattai 1:23 from both versions:

[Image: mattai123.jpg]

We can rule out scenarios 2 and 3 altogether. Firstly, they both contain the "a Son" reading just like the Peshitta Tanakh of Isaiah 7:14. Secondly, they have [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Mgrttmd [/font](which is interepreted) instead of the word that Mar Aphrahat used [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Yhwty0d [/font](which is).

We are left with only one other possible, reasonable scenario. That is that Mar Aphraht freely paraphrases or in some cases may be recalling scripture from memory.

This leaves Mar Aphrahat's writings very vulnerable to attacks by Greek Primacists who insist that he used the Diatesseron - since the Diatesseron doesn't even exist anymore so that we could compare the readings and refute the Greek primacists. The argument that Mar Aphrahat used the Diatesseron is an argument from silence - an almost impossible charge to prove, or to defend against.

In this case, however, there is no valid translation of the Diatesseron (the Arabic or the Latin) which contains this reading. Tatian simply did not appear to include this passage in his harmony of the 4 Gospels.

Therefore I submit that Mar Aphrahat in this case was not directly quoting any known (or unknown) version, but it is very evident that he was simply "targumming." <!-- sConfusedatisfied: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/satisfied.gif" alt="Confusedatisfied:" title="Satisfied" /><!-- sConfusedatisfied: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#2
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhay,

Mar Aphrahat (the "Persian Sage") lived c.280-367. He wrote extensively, but very little of his writings have survived to this day. One of these works is called "Demonstrations", and it is available in the CAL database.

It is commonly claimed that Mar Aphrahat used either the Diatesseron or Old Scratch in his scriptural commentaries, and not the Peshitta since it is commonly held that he lived before the time of the Peshitta.

[snip]

First of all, this verse exists nowhere in any version or translation of the Diatesseron - so we can rule out the Diatesseron completely.

Sorry, Paul, but actually this verse is present in all the Diatessarons that I've consulted so far.

For example, this is what we find in the Arabic Diatessaron,

6166 Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, With us is our God.

But, in any case, the differences between the many different versions of this verse don't seem to be all that significant.

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
#3
yuku Wrote:Sorry, Paul, but actually this verse is present in all the Diatessarons that I've consulted so far.

For example, this is what we find in the Arabic Diatessaron,

6166 Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, With us is our God.

OK - I see it in the Arabic Diatesseron - but still that version reads "A Son" - which is absent in Mar Aphrahat.

This actually proves that Mar Aphrahat was not quoting the Diatesseron - otherwise the words "A Son" should be present! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

yuku Wrote:But, in any case, the differences between the many different versions of this verse don't seem to be all that significant.

I disagree - for a direct quote the words should be 100% the same. They are not - therefore Mar Aphrahat cannot be quoting the Diatesseron. He was, as I stated - paraphrasing.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)