Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western?
Hi Chuck,
from were you got the information that the Diatessaron agrees with the Peshitta?

In an introduction from an latin version i found this information, quote from Philip Schaff:
Statements about the Diatessaron.?One of the most widely known is that of Isho?dad
himself, who, in his Preface to the Gospel of Mark, says: ?Tatian, disciple of Justin, the philosopher
and martyr, selected from the four gospels, and combined and composed a gospel, and called it
Diatessaron, i.e., the Combined,?and upon this gospel Mar Ephraem commented.? Dionysius
Bar Salibi (twelfth century) repeats each of these phrases, adding, ?Its commencement was, ?In the
beginning was the Word.? These statements identify the author of the Diatessaron with a man
otherwise known, and tell us that the great Syrian father Ephraem (d. 373) wrote a commentary on
it. Unfortunately, no Syriac MS. of Ephraem?s work is known to have survived;but quotations
from it, or allusions to it, are being found in other Syriac writers. One further reference will suffice
for the present. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, four hundred years before Isho?dad, wrote thus in
his book on Heresies (written in 453): ?Tatian the Syrian.?This [writer] also composed the gospel
which is called Diatessaron, cutting out the genealogies and whatever other passages show that
the Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.?

We have no Aramaic version, so how can someone say for sure it agrees with the Peshitta?

Kind regards
Michael
Reply
Quote:from were you got the information that the Diatessaron agrees with the Peshitta?

Mic,

I checked the wording of the Diatessaron's text, in many places, and there are certain readings and features only found in the Peshitta, which are also found in the text of the Diatessaron. This tells me that they came from the same source text. The Greek versions do not have these things, but the Aramaic does.

Go find the text of the Diatessaron and compare it's readings with that of The Peshitta's readings... and then you can see what I see there. I'm not going to do all the work for you, Mic...You need to do it yourself. For you, it's better that way.



Quote:We have no Aramaic version, so how can someone say for sure it agrees with the Peshitta?

Mic,

We don't, and we can't...but the scribe who translated it into the Arabic did...and he did a fine job too. He was an Aramaic speaker who also knew Arabic. His translation is available in the English language if you can't read Arabic.

We also don't have any Greek copies of the NT from the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd centuries, so how do we know that the readings we find in the extant texts that we can study today, are the original readings of the original Greek version? How can we say for sure if what we have today agrees with the original form of the Greek version that Christians used in the 1st century?

Mic, are you like the Apostle Thomas, who needed to put his fingers in the wounds...before he could believe?

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
Hi Chuck,
i found something interesting about Tatian's Gospel Harmony, please have a look!

http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/bbl/tatian.htm

What do you think about that?

Kind regards
Michael
Reply
Thirdwoe Wrote:
Quote:from were you got the information that the Diatessaron agrees with the Peshitta?

Mic,

I checked the wording of the Diatessaron's text, in many places, and there are certain readings and features only found in the Peshitta, which are also found in the text of the Diatessaron. This tells me that they came from the same source text. The Greek versions do not have these things, but the Aramaic does.

Go find the text of the Diatessaron and compare it's readings with that of The Peshitta's readings... and then you can see what I see there. I'm not going to do all the work for you, Mic...You need to do it yourself. For you, it's better that way.



Quote:We have no Aramaic version, so how can someone say for sure it agrees with the Peshitta?

Mic,

We don't, and we can't...but the scribe who translated it into the Arabic did...and he did a fine job too. He was an Aramaic speaker who also knew Arabic. His translation is available in the English language if you can't read Arabic.

We also don't have any Greek copies of the NT from the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd centuries, so how do we know that the readings we find in the extant texts that we can study today, are the original readings of the original Greek version? How can we say for sure if what we have today agrees with the original form of the Greek version that Christians used in the 1st century?

Mic, are you like the Apostle Thomas, who needed to put his fingers in the wounds...before he could believe?

Shlama,
Chuck

Yes Chuck,
I wish to be like Saint Thomas, he died for his believe in our Lord Yeshua in India,
that was the other side of the coin,please do not forget this!!!
The oldest fragment of the Greek John is from 125 AD, by the way as you said by yourself,
we have no original text's not in Greek and not in Aramaic!
But have a look on this list:
We now have early and very early evidence for the text of the New Testament. A classified list of the most important manuscripts will make this clear. Numbers preceded by a P refer to papyri, the letters refer to parchment manuscripts.

ca. A.D. 200 250 300 350 450

Matthew P45 B Sin.
Mark P45 B Sin. A
Luke P4,P45,P75 B Sin. A
John P66 P45,P75 B Sin. A
Acts P45 B Sin. A
Romans-Hebrews P46 B Sin. A
James-Jude P72,B Sin. A
Apocalypse P47 Sin. A

No Greek texts between 100 and 300? There are some as you can see click this link please as well:
http://www.usefulcharts.com/religion/old...ripts.html

Kind regards
Michael
Reply
Hi Chuck some news for you:
quote from Daniel Wallace:
On 1 February 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today. This was our third such debate, and it was before a crowd of more than 1000 people. I mentioned that seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered?six of them probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world?s leading paleographers. He said he was ?certain? that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John?s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark?s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. AD 200?250). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

Kind regards
Michael
Reply
Quote:probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

Probably? Maybe not though. Could be, might not be. Who can say for certain? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Quote:seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered

Where, by whom, and can I see them please... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Quote:we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first.

Probably...but who can be certain? They might be, or they might not be. And where are they? Can I see them please? I want to see what the words are, so I can compare them with the Aramaic Peshitta readings. And do these "manuscripts", (really just fragments though, if they really exist,) agree with what the Alexandrian or the Byzantine textual families show...or the other Greek textual families...it would be nice to know.

Quote:He said he was ?certain? that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist.

"If this is true"...hummm Why not just believe the Man? He said he is "certain". So why are the others not so "certain". Maybe it is not true after all...maybe it is just his best guess. Let?s take a look at it...and read it's words to see what they say. Has anyone seen it? I haven?t.

Quote:This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

Note of caution: Just because something seems to be "older", whether it can be proven or not, does not make it "better" or more "original" as to it's reading. It could be corrupted; it could be scribed by a heretic, who changed the verse to suit his false doctrine...and so forth. One must be careful not to just think it is more faithful to the Autograph, just because it is "older".

Mic,

I have heard about these "discoveries" for some time now...and as yet, I have not seen them, have you? If you have, can you please show them to me, so I can study their readings? I am very curious. Where are they? Who has them? Can I see them?


See Mic,...I'm like Apostle Thomas too, in that I want to see the evidence, before I just go along with what others are saying...but like Him, I have a measure of Faith also.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
:

Also, notice this statement on that list of Greek NT fragments.

Quote:Jesuit scholar Jose O'Callaghan claims that this is a fragment of Mark 6:53-53, however most scholars have concluded that it is not. If it is, it would date to around the same time that the original gospel was possibly written.

There are alot of claims...and some will say one thing and some will say another thing. Again "probably" "possibly" and "if" are the words to look for...because they all know that it's not certain.

What is certain...is that God has made it so that He has given us His Message of salvation through His Son...and it has been transmitted in the Aramaic, Greek, and Latin...as well as thousands of other languages.

Peace,
Chuck
Reply
Thirdwoe Wrote:
Quote:probably from the second century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year.

Probably? Maybe not though. Could be, might not be. Who can say for certain? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Quote:seven New Testament papyri had recently been discovered

Where, by whom, and can I see them please... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Quote:we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first.

Probably...but who can be certain? They might be, or they might not be. And where are they? Can I see them please? I want to see what the words are, so I can compare them with the Aramaic Peshitta readings. And do these "manuscripts", (really just fragments though, if they really exist,) agree with what the Alexandrian or the Byzantine textual families show...or the other Greek textual families...it would be nice to know.

Quote:He said he was ?certain? that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist.

"If this is true"...hummm Why not just believe the Man? He said he is "certain". So why are the others not so "certain". Maybe it is not true after all...maybe it is just his best guess. Let?s take a look at it...and read it's words to see what they say. Has anyone seen it? I haven?t.

Quote:This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

Note of caution: Just because something seems to be "older", whether it can be proven or not, does not make it "better" or more "original" as to it's reading. It could be corrupted; it could be scribed by a heretic, who changed the verse to suit his false doctrine...and so forth. One must be careful not to just think it is more faithful to the Autograph, just because it is "older".

Mic,

I have heard about these "discoveries" for some time now...and as yet, I have not seen them, have you? If you have, can you please show them to me, so I can study their readings? I am very curious. Where are they? Who has them? Can I see them?


See Mic,...I'm like Apostle Thomas too, in that I want to see the evidence, before I just go along with what others are saying...but like Him, I have a measure of Faith also.

Shlama,
Chuck

Chuck,
First: do not get me wrong this was FYI only, you are right, we have to wait till the new discoveries are all published!
Second: i posted the link and the examples to show you that there are some Greek texts between 100 and 300 AD, you said there are not! And i agree as well with you, the older texts could be more authentic but must not always, for some reasons!

May the peace of Yeshua be with you!
Michael
Reply
Mic,

I was speaking about Manuscript copies...like those of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, where we can study their text. These few fragments, of uncertain date, are not what I was thinking of. If it's true as the person said, that all these possible 2nd century fragments, and possible 1st century fragment make up 43% of the Greek version of the NT, then, I say put them out and compare them with what is found in the Manuscripts of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries. I would love to see the picture they give.

Quote:I found something interesting about Tatian's Gospel Harmony, please have a look!

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/bbl/tatian.htm">http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/bbl/tatian.htm</a><!-- m -->

What do you think about that?

I just read it, and I say he is guessing, and has no proof. He says Tatian could not have made the Diatessaron, but says that Justin used an earlier Gospel harmony...of which there is 100% no proof...it's all guessing. He says that The Diatessaron is really the lost "Gospel of the Hebrews", which again there is 100% no proof, just a big guess. It's an interesting guess...but just a guess.

Again...we can't say for certain if Tatian made the Diatessorn, but then again, we can't say for certain if Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the authors of the Gospels that bear their names...we have only a passed down tradition to go on. Also true of all the other books of The Bible...OT & NT.

There is no argument that was raised when Eusebius stated that Tatian made the Diatessaron...not as far as I know. Was there ever a person who wrote and said?"Hey, it was not Tatian, it was this other person" Seems to me, that someone would have raised a cry, if Eusebius was lying about this?But not a peep.

Anyway...

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
Mic,

I forgot to mention that there are some quotations made by some early Church Father's that had seen copies of the "Gospel of the Hebrews" and they are not found in The Diatessaron's readings, which follows very closely that of the regular Gospel's readings, more so the Peshitta of course.

They say that it was 300 lines shorter than Matthews Gospel in the Greek version, so it could not be The Diatessaron, which is many times longer than Matthew.

You can check some of this out here...
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-mrjames.html">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... james.html</a><!-- m -->


Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
I have also taken a few mins and added those readings to the list on the 1st page of this thread, where The Diatessaron has in its text, those readings which agree with that of The Peshitta text, against those of the Peshitto version where it's aligned with the readings found in the Greek text that it was influenced by.

This shows that The Diatessaron could not be from the Greek text, but rather from the text of The Peshitta NT, which it agrees with against the Greek...and thus with the Western Peshitto version.
Reply
How exactly does the Diatesseron format its harmony? For example, in the Synoptic Gospels, does Tatian include each Gospel's account of an event that is recorded in at least two of the three, or does choose one and use it only? I have built part of my own Gospel harmony, but I haven't worked on it in a long time.
Reply
Hi Guys,
before and after each Gospel of the Murdock Peshitto translation i found this:

Matthew:
The Holy Gospel, the Announcement of Matthew the Legate.

Completion of the Holy Gospel as published by Matthew; and which he published in Hebrew, in the land of the Palestineans.

Mark:
The Holy Gospel, the Annunciation of Mark the Evangelist.

Completion of the Holy Gospels, the announcement of Mark; which he uttered and proclaimed in Latin at Rome.

Luke:

The Holy Gospel, the Annunciation of Luke the Evangelist;
which he uttered and preached, in Greek, at Great Alexandria.

Completion of the holy Gospel of Luke the Evangelist.

John:

The Holy Gospel, the Proclamation of John the Herald;
which he uttered and proclaimed, in Greek, at Ephesus.

Completion of the Holy Gospel, the announcement of John the Evangelist; which he uttered, in Greek, at Ephesus.

What you think about that? Is there any Peshitta version which have this in exact the same way as well?

Kind regards
Michael
Reply
Thirdwoe Wrote:Mic,

I forgot to mention that there are some quotations made by some early Church Father's that had seen copies of the "Gospel of the Hebrews" and they are not found in The Diatessaron's readings, which follows very closely that of the regular Gospel's readings, more so the Peshitta of course.

They say that it was 300 lines shorter than Matthews Gospel in the Greek version, so it could not be The Diatessaron, which is many times longer than Matthew.

You can check some of this out here...
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-mrjames.html">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... james.html</a><!-- m -->


Shlama,
Chuck

Yep Chuck,
we spoke already about the Hebrew gospel and that it is different from our Matthew today, do you remember?
Have a look on the top!

Kind regards
Michael
Reply
Thirdwoe Wrote:I have also taken a few mins and added those readings to the list on the 1st page of this thread, where The Diatessaron has in its text, those readings which agree with that of The Peshitta text, against those of the Peshitto version where it's aligned with the readings found in the Greek text that it was influenced by.

This shows that The Diatessaron could not be from the Greek text, but rather from the text of The Peshitta NT, which it agrees with against the Greek...and thus with the Western Peshitto version.

Hi Chuck,
you are sure about that? I came across other points of view about the Evangelion Damhalte, i am not sure about this!

Quote from Wiki:
How the Gospel text that was a standard in Syriac Christianity for possibly as long as two centuries should have utterly disappeared requires explaining. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus on the Euphrates in upper Syria in 423, suspecting Tatian of having been a heretic, sought out and found more than two hundred copies of the Diatessaron, which he "collected and put away, and introduced instead of them the Gospels of the four evangelists". Thus the harmonisation was replaced in the 5th century by the canonical four gospels individually, in the Peshitta version, whose Syriac text nevertheless contains many Diatessaronic readings. Gradually, without extant copies to which to refer, the Diatessaron developed a reputation for having been heretical.

Kind regards
Michael
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)