The Diatessaron & The Eastern Peshitta Text - Printable Version +- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for) +-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7) +--- Thread: The Diatessaron & The Eastern Peshitta Text (/showthread.php?tid=2695) |
The Diatessaron & The Eastern Peshitta Text - Thirdwoe - 09-25-2011 : I have noticed that for Luke 22:17-18 and John 7:53-8:11, which are not in the Eastern Text of The Aramaic Peshitta New Testament Scriptures...The Diatessaron of Tatian also does not contain those verses. And it being from the time of about 160 A.D. tells me that The Eastern Peshitta Text is the most ancient and true Aramaic Text of the two versions, rather than the Western Peshitto Text, which has these verses in it....which looks to have come from the Greek text it used to incorparate these verses into the Aramaic Text. Since Tatian does not find these verses in his Aramaic Text, he used to interweave the 4 Gospels, then the Eastern Peshitta readings in these two places must go back to at least 160 A.D....and since Tatian would have used the best and oldest copies...there is little doubt in my mind that it and the Eastern Peshitta is witness to the Autographs, rather than the Westen Peshitto for these two verses. Blessings, Chuck Re: The Diatessaron & The Eastern Peshitta Text - gbausc - 10-21-2011 But Tatian omitted far more than those verses: Quote:First, a close examination of the Diatessaron reveals that Tatian has omitted only 56 versesTHE DIATESSARON OF TATIAN Roberts-Donaldson Translation I think it is a mistake to argue that because a harmony of the Gospels like Tatian's omits something, that this is evidence that the omitted material is not original. It may be evidence that the 2nd century Peshitta Tatian used did not contain the Pericope, but that does not prove the passage was not in the original. Dave Re: The Diatessaron & The Eastern Peshitta Text - Thirdwoe - 10-22-2011 Thanks for the list Dave...I'll be checking it out. His omissions of the geneologies is understandable, and certainly does not mean that they were not part of his source text/texts. I'll look into the others you showed. As to the adulterous woman account...this is placed in numerous places in various Manuscripts...it floats around, as if no one is certain where it belonged in the Gospel texts. I am leaning to the conculsion in what is said about it by a very early witness to is orgins, that is was transfered from "The Gospel of the Hebrews" which is no longer extant. But saying that does not mean that the account never happend. It may have, just as written, but recorded in that early writting that was not included as a whole with the rest of the books which later became the cannon of the Western Church. .. |