Mar Aphrahat, OS Mk 10:20, and the Diatessaron

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhi Yuri,

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.

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.

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.

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.