Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mar Aphrahat, OS Mk 10:20, and the Diatessaron
#1
*The Rich Young Man episode*

Shlama Akhay,

In the following study, we will examine the accounts of this incident in 4 different ancient sources, the Commentary of Aphrahat, the Old Syriac gospels, the Syriac Peshitta, and the standard canonical Greek gospels.

And, because this incident of the Rich Young Man is preserved for us in all 3 Synoptic gospels, the total number of the relevant witnesses here is up to 10, which would double if we also compare the originals in each case, as well as the translations!

Understandably, these sorts of comparisons between 20 or more different versions of the same verse are very complex and time consuming. Among the hundreds of thousands of biblical scholars in the world, only a very small handful are competent enough in this Diatessaronic area, and familiar enough with these ancient sources and languages, to do these sorts of comparisons.

As I said before, it is a common view among the specialists in this area that Aphrahat mostly used the Diatessaron in his gospel commentaries. This view has been established for a very long time among scholars, and you can be sure that, at the time, they supported it with much textual evidence. Although some of these studies might be very old, and difficult to get hold of.

Well, if someone now wished to oppose the view that Aphrahat used the Diatessaron, I don't think I'll really get into this discussion too deeply, beyond this particular study that I've done.

Myself, I'd rather move on to new areas of study, rather than rehash the work that various scholars had already done long ago, and that's already well accepted in the field. I can probably find quite a few other examples such as the one below, but, as I say, I'd rather move on to new areas, and do things that no one has done before.

Especially the Diatessaronic field is notoriously difficult and confusing, as I wrote recently in my Diatessaron FAQ article (the last part of which is still to come). Hardly anyone has been working in this field recently! Thus, especially in this area there's a crying need for more new and fresh research, as opposed to redoing the studies that had already been done by others.

And also, it wouldn't be all that difficult to find more cases where Mar Aphrahat is using the text that's closer to the Old Syriac gospels, compared to the Peshitta. But neither this would be anything new for the scholars in the field...

In any case, what this particular study demonstrates is that Aphrahat seems to be using the text that's very similar to what we find in the Old Syriac Mark, but he also adds some Matthean elements in his citation. So this indicates that he was using an Old Syriac Diatessaron when commenting upon gospel text.

First, let us look at the standard canonical versions. Here's what the young man replies to Yeshua after being told about the importance of the Commandments of the Law, what to do in order to be saved.

(Mt 19:20 RSV) All these have I observed; what do I still lack?
(Mk 10:20 RSV) Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth.
(Lk 18:21 RSV) All these I have observed from my youth.

As we can see, each of the Synoptics has a slightly different version here. Only Mark adds the word "teacher" to young man's reply. Otherwise, both Mark and Luke have an identical reply.

Also, only Mt adds a question at the end of the young man's reply.

And here's how this quote is found in Aphrahat, and in the Old Syriac Sinaitic manuscript of Mark, the only one to preserve the text of Mark here (almost nothing of the Curetonian MS survives for Mark). I'm using Burkitt's translations below.

(Aphrahat, 392) These -- I have done them, lo, from when I was a child. But what lack I?

(Mk 10:20 SyS) Teacher, these -- I have done them, lo, from when I was a child.

Thus, we can see that most of this quote from Aphrahat is exactly identical to what we see in the OS Mark. But, similarly to Matthew's version, Aphrahat also omits the word "teacher" at the beginning of young man's reply. And again, similarly to Matthew's version, Aphrahat adds a question at the end of young man's reply.

And this is what the Old Syriac Curetonian Matthew has in this passage (the Sinaitic Mt is a bit different here, but we don't need to deal with it here).

(Mt 19:20 SyC) These all -- I have kept them, lo, from when I was a child. What yet lack I?

And now, the Aramaic texts.

Aphrahat, 392:

hlyn -- (bdt )nyn, h), mn dTl) )n), )l) mn) xsyr )n)
[Pronounced: haleyn -- abadat anyn, haw, myn d'tlaya enay, elay mana khasiyr enay]
"These -- I have done them, lo, from when I was a child. But what lack I?"

Mk 10:20 SyS:

mlpn), hlyn (bdt )nyn, h), mn dTl) )n)
[Pronounced: Malpana, haleyn -- abadat anyn, haw, myn d'tlaya enay.]
"Teacher, these -- I have done them, lo, from when I was a child."

Mt 19:20 SyC:

hlyn klhyn -- nTrt )nyn, h), mn dTl) )n). mn) twb xsyrn)
[Pronounced: haleyn kolahyn -- nitrat anyn, haw, myn d'tlaya enay. mana tuwb khasiyrna?]
"These all -- I have kept them, lo, from when I was a child. What yet lack I?"

And now, let's look at what the Syriac Peshitta has here, according to Murdock's translation,

(Mt 19:20 Peshitta) All these have I kept from my childhood. What do I lack?
(Mk 10:20 Peshitta) Teacher, all these have I kept from my childhood.
(Lk 18:21 Peshitta) All these have I kept, from my childhood.

Thus, we can see that Mk 10:20 is very different here in the Peshitta version, as compared to the Old Syriac. Here's this comparison in Aramaic,

(Mk 10:20 Peshitta) Malpana, haleyn kolahyn nitrat anyn, myn tlywty.
(Mk 10:20 Sinaitic) Malpana, haleyn -- abadat anyn, haw, myn d'tlaya enay.

And below, we can confirm that the central part of Aphrahat's citation indeed reads exactly the same as the OS Mk.

(Aphrahat)
haleyn -- abadat anyn, haw, myn d'tlaya enay
(Mk 10:20 SyS)
haleyn -- abadat anyn, haw, myn d'tlaya enay

But Aphrahat reads very differently from the Peshitta Mark,

(Aphrahat)
haleyn -- abadat anyn, haw, myn d'tlaya enay
(Peshitta Mk 10:20)
haleyn kolahyn nitrat anyn, myn tlywty

Here are the English translations again,

(Aphrahat)
"These -- I have done them, lo, from when I was a child."
(Peshitta Mk 10:20)
"all these have I kept from my childhood."

Among the differences between Aphrahat and the Peshitta Mk, we can note the absence in the Aphrahat's citation of the word "all" = /kolahyn/, his use of the verb "done" instead of "kept" (abadat/nitrat), and his addition of the word "lo" = /haw/. All these differences are paralleled exactly in the OS Mark.

Actually, this passage was commented upon previously by Boismard, the famous French NT scholar, so my analysis is based in part on what he wrote in the following study,

M-E Boismard, LE DIATESSARON: DE TATIEN A JUSTIN, Gabalda, Paris, 1992 (pp. 117-118).

Boismard also notes that, in his own Commentary on the Diatessaron, Ephrem the Syrian also gives a reading that is quite similar to the Old Syriac Mark.

While I haven't yet checked the Syriac text of Ephrem (again, I couldn't find this verse in the CAL database), this is what he says according to McCarthy's translation of Ephrem's Commentary,

"These things have I done from my youth." (Book 11, Par. 16, p. 182)

We can note the use of the word "done" by both Ephrem and Aphrahat, instead of "kept" as in the Peshitta.

And, finally, here's the comparison for the concluding phrase, as used by Aphrahat,

(Aphrahat) elay mana khasiyr enay
"But what lack I?"

(Mt 19:20 Peshitta) mana khasiyr enay
"What do I lack?"

(Mt 19:20 SyC) mana tuwb khasiyrna?
"What yet lack I?"

We can note that, similarly to the OS Curetonian Matthew's use of the adverb /tuwb/ = "yet", Aphrahat uses the conjunction /elay/ = "but". (The Greek Mt uses the adverb /eti/ = "yet, still" here.) But the Peshitta's text is shorter in this passage.

CONCLUSION

When compared with various other versions of this passage, this citation from Mar Aphrahat seems to demonstrate a very close connection of the gospel text, as used by Mar Aphrahat, with the Old Syriac Mark, as preserved for us in the Sinaiticus palimpsest ("The Old Scratch"). On the other hand, the Peshitta reads very differently here.

Also, this study demonstrates that Mar Aphrahat probably based his Commentary on the Old Syriac Diatessaron, rather than on the separate Old Syriac gospels. This is the most economical way to explain why the Markan and the Matthean elements are combined so closely in this citation from Mar Aphrahat.

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
C'MON Yuri,

Can't you come up with a better example than this?

You're actually proving my hypothesis that Mar Aphrahat was paraphrasing.

The fact is that his citation matches no known version 100%, especially not Old Scratch because it lacks the word "Teacher" and includes the words "But what lack I?" Both of which go to prove that he was paraphrasing! and not quoting anything! Isn't this exactly what I have been saying from the start?

And again - you have taken the liberty to stray here and go to Old Scratch - when in your previous post all you quoted were scholars who boldly proclaimed that Mar Aphrahat used the Diatesseron.

He definitely wasn't quoting the Diatesseron - about which the scholars you pointed to are so "conclusive."

Now, you are back-pedaling and saying that Mar Aphrahat used the Diatesseron "most of the time", and the "Old Scratch" the other times (when it suits your purpose.)

You have to make up your mind - did Mar Aphrahat quote the Diatesseron or Old Scratch? So far, you have demonstrated no direct quote from either of those two versions. You're still being slippery. <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->

I have to thank you for this example - it is actually going in the "Patristic Quotes" forum to prove that Mar Aphrahat always paraphrased rather then quoting directly! (along with the other example)

Finally, you say:

yuku Wrote:Also, this study demonstrates that Mar Aphrahat probably based his Commentary on the Old Syriac Diatessaron, rather than on the separate Old Syriac gospels. This is the most economical way to explain why the Markan and the Matthean elements are combined so closely in this citation from Mar Aphrahat.

You have just very slyly re-worded my original position of his paraphrasing by using elements from both Mattai and Markus - and then you attribute this behaviour to a "probability" that he was using a "Old Syriac Diatesseron" - a text which you don't even have anymore (if it ever existed at all!)

Again, this begs the question - is he quoting Old Scratch or the Diatesseron?

Your combination of their names under "Old Syriac Diatesseron" is not only patently false, it is misleading. It implies that there was some sort of relationship between those two versions, which of course is wrong.

I want direct quotes by Mar Aphrahat from either Old Scratch or the Diatesseron - that was the original challenge, after all - got any? <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#3
I see, Paul... So what you're saying is that Aphrahat did have his own trusty copy of the Peshitta by his side when he was writing his Demonstrations, he just didn't feel like opening it up. Instead, he cites this whole long Parable of the Rich Man from memory, but somehow manages to get the whole sequence of 7 words, letter for letter, the same as in the OS Mark, which, of course, could never have existed in Persia. Well, OK...

I don't think anyone is actually denying that Aphrahat paraphrased a lot. Of course he paraphrased a lot, as is evident from taking even one brief look at his gospel citations. But when he gets the whole long sequence of 7 words the same as in the OS Mark, one might wonder if there's something more going on there other than paraphrasing.

As I already said, we don't have a copy of the "original Diatessaron". In fact, one might even wonder if such a thing ever existed. So all arguments in this area would have to be based on probabilities rather than certainties. If his citations look harmonised, then it might just be that it was a gospel harmony that he quoted from.

And what about all the other parallels in this same pericope between Aphrahat and the Old Syriac Sinaiticus? Don't you see them yourself?

This whole citation from Aphrahat seems harmonised between Mk and Mt.

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
yuku Wrote:I see, Paul... So what you're saying is that Aphrahat did have his own trusty copy of the Peshitta by his side when he was writing his Demonstrations, he just didn't feel like opening it up. Instead, he cites this whole long Parable of the Rich Man from memory, but somehow manages to get the whole sequence of 7 words, letter for letter, the same as in the OS Mark, which, of course, could never have existed in Persia. Well, OK...

Akhi Yuri, we have Mshamshane (deacons) alive today who can recite you the entire Gospel from memory, and top it off with the Psalms, too.

Didn't you ever hear of Muslims memorizing the entire Koran verbatim? Where did you think they got that tradition from?

Akhi, please - Mar Aphrahat, whether or not he had a copy of the Peshitta next to him - could probably recite it to you word for word and not even break a sweat, if he wanted to.

The fact that he didn't recite it word-for-word, and just paraphrased it - creates a rich opportunity for people who like to theorize something to death.

Of course a bunch of paraphrasing and harmonizing looks like a quote from the non-existing Diatesseron to you! How could you possibly prove it, and at the same time how could you possibly be proven wrong?

You make an argument from silence (the Diatesseron is silent because it doesn't exist) - and, WALLA! You have a theory that nobody in their right mind can contest - let alone have the will and energy to contest!

yuku Wrote:I don't think anyone is actually denying that Aphrahat paraphrased a lot. Of course he paraphrased a lot, as is evident from taking even one brief look at his gospel citations. But when he gets the whole long sequence of 7 words the same as in the OS Mark, one might wonder if there's something more going on there other than paraphrasing.

So, what you're saying in a nutshell is agreeing with what I said all along - you agree that he paraphrased "a lot."

But then, you find a sequence of seven words (buried in a sequence of more words) that happen to match something that's not even closely related to the Diatesseron (in this case, a harmonization between OS© and OS(s)) and then you say "Aha! See, he was quoting here! - but not over there! I think!"

C'MON, Akhi.

You haven't even made up your mind what version you want to place in Aphrahat's hands - whether that version is Old Scratch or the Diatesseron. At least pick one and be consistent.

I've been consistent all along - Mar Aphrahat never quoted anything directly. He didn't have the scriptures open before him when he was writing his Demonstrations. Maybe he didn't own a copy of the scriptures at all. He sure as hell didn't have the internet to easily search for what verses he wanted to directly quote.

He was paraphrasing, Akhi. Stop searching for something that is not there.

yuku Wrote:As I already said, we don't have a copy of the "original Diatessaron". In fact, one might even wonder if such a thing ever existed. So all arguments in this area would have to be based on probabilities rather than certainties. If his citations look harmonised, then it might just be that it was a gospel harmony that he quoted from.

THERE! Now you are being very honest when you say that maybe it was a gospel harmony that he quoted from.

It's just as probable that he was using no version at all, no harmony at all. It's just as probable that he was paraphrasing from memory.

At least you've now opened up to the idea.

yuku Wrote:And what about all the other parallels in this same pericope between Aphrahat and the Old Syriac Sinaiticus? Don't you see them yourself?

This whole citation from Aphrahat seems harmonised between Mk and Mt.

Shlama,

Yuri.

Of course this whole citation seems harmonized. And "harmonization" and "paraphrasing" go hand-in-hand!

I told you that from the get-go. It's you who claimed that there were direct quotes from Mar Aphrahat from the Diatesseron - you even gave "scholarly" references to that effect - and you said that the "scholarly consensus" was that he used the Diatesseron (an impossiblity to prove since we don't have a copy of it to compare and see for ourselves.)

And now, with this example - you come out and say that he's quoting Old Scratch.

Again - which one is it, Akhi? Are we to believe the "scholarly consensus" about Mar Aphrahat quoting the Diatesseron - or are we to believe you about Mar Aphrahat quoting Old Scratch? You guys need to get together and make up your minds about which version he used.

I'm still waiting for an example from either the Diatesseron (which is impossible to prove) or from Old Scratch. This 7-word sequence you found just doesn't cut it in my opinion. He was paraphrasing - that is so evident that you even agree and call it a "harmonization" - the only problem with that is that even the "harmonization" between Mattai and Markus doesn't match the Old Scratch.

You're not being very convincing at all. At least the other scholars with their "scholarly consensus" can hide behind a version that doesn't even exist anymore. Thereby rendering themselves above criticism and impossible to prove wrong (or right.)

You, on the other hand have attributed these readings to Old Scratch - except when they disagree with your theory. Remember, we have Old Scratch and I can demonstrate that he didn't use it on at least as many examples (if not more) than you can show otherwise.

The only plausible theory is that he was paraphrasing - freely "targumming", and that theory matches ALL the evidence.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#5
Paul Younan Wrote:Akhi Yuri, we have Mshamshane (deacons) alive today who can recite you the entire Gospel from memory, and top it off with the Psalms, too.

What would be the singular of Mshamshane? Mshamshana correct? I was under the impression that the singular and plural of this word were the same (Mshamshana (sg+pl)).

Also I'm guessing the word for messenger/angel is Malaka (sg) / Malake (pl)?

Finally, I just to make sure of something else, you said Zadokaya(e) is Sadduccee/s, but I just want to confirm that the plural retains the "ay", "Zadokaye" (plural)?

Shlama, Craig
Reply
#6
Craig Amanyahu Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:Akhi Yuri, we have Mshamshane (deacons) alive today who can recite you the entire Gospel from memory, and top it off with the Psalms, too.

What would be the singular of Mshamshane? Mshamshana correct? I was under the impression that the singular and plural of this word were the same (Mshamshana (sg+pl)).

Also I'm guessing the word for messenger/angel is Malaka (sg) / Malake (pl)?

Finally, I just to make sure of something else, you said Zadokaya(e) is Sadduccee/s, but I just want to confirm that the plural retains the "ay", "Zadokaye" (plural)?

Shlama, Craig

~Nods~ In 1st Century Aramaic and onwards, it's resolving the final "a/o" to "e" in the masculine. In older dialects it was "eyn" or "in" (much like the Hebrew "im").

Unlike earlier dialects, the plural is spelled exactly the same as the singular, discounting vowel markers.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o
Reply
#7
The Thadman Wrote:Unlike earlier dialects, the plural is spelled exactly the same as the singular, discounting vowel markers.

Thanks Thadman. I'm going to assume I didn't make any mistakes in my questions over malaka and Zadokaya, since those were left uncommented on.

Shlama w'burkate, Craig
Reply
#8
Shlama Akhi Craig,

Yes, the singular deacon is "Msham-sha-na" and the plural is "Msham-sha-ne".

For the most part what you wrote is accurate.

The rules for formation of plurals in Aramaic are very intricate and complex. For an extremely thorough treatment (and vocalizations), see lessons 63-70 here:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.assyrianlanguage.com">http://www.assyrianlanguage.com</a><!-- m -->

(the best site on the net for learning Aramaic! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> )
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#9
Paul Younan Wrote:C'MON, Akhi.

You haven't even made up your mind what version you want to place in Aphrahat's hands - whether that version is Old Scratch or the Diatesseron. At least pick one and be consistent.

Shlama, Akhi Paul,

In my view, Aphrahat used an Old Syriac Diatessaron when commenting on this particular story of the Rich Man. And, naturally, this OS Diatessaron would have been based on the separate OS gospels.

(Interestingly enough, Aphrahat never says that this was a _Young_ Rich Man.)

Thus, if Aphrahat is citing from the OS Diatessaron, his citation would look like a combination of the OS Mk and the OS Mt.

I think most people would agree that, for this particular pericope, the quote from Aphrahat is a lot closer to the Old Syriac than to the Peshitta.

If Aphrahat was merely paraphrasing, and nothing else, then why does his paraphrase look so close to the Old Syriac text?

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
#10
Shlama Akhi Yuri,

yuku Wrote:In my view, Aphrahat used an Old Syriac Diatessaron when commenting on this particular story of the Rich Man. And, naturally, this OS Diatessaron would have been based on the separate OS gospels.

Doesn't exist. This statement holds no scientific value, because it cannot be proven nor can it be disproven. It's an argument from silence.


yuku Wrote:Thus, if Aphrahat is citing from the OS Diatessaron, his citation would look like a combination of the OS Mk and the OS Mt.

Thus, if Aphrahat is paraphrasing, his citation would look like no other version 100%. And that's what the evidence holds.

yuku Wrote:I think most people would agree that, for this particular pericope, the quote from Aphrahat is a lot closer to the Old Syriac than to the Peshitta.

If it doesn't match any known version 100%, then it cannot be ruled out that he was paraphrasing.

yuku Wrote:If Aphrahat was merely paraphrasing, and nothing else, then why does his paraphrase look so close to the Old Syriac text?

Chance. Same reason why a lot of his other quotes look almost like the Peshitta, against the Old Scratch.

When you paraphrase 100 verses in scripture, chances are you're going to match some version's wording sometimes, other times another version (by chance) - and other times nothing at all.

That's what the evidence from Aphrahat shows us.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)