The Diatesseron's Peshitta Pedigree.

[Paul Younan]

Good evening Conder.

Almost every citation you have given me from dated Encyclopedias, commentaries on the New Testament and the like have unanimously and decisively declared that Rabbula, the Monophysite Tyrant of Edessa, "suppressed" the Diatesseron.

If that is the case, can you please explain the following subscription to an Arabic translation of the Diatesseron made in the 11th century by the Church of the East?

Here endeth the Gospel which Tatianus compiled and named Diatessaron, i.e., The Fourfold, a compilation from the four Gospels of the holy Apostles, the excellent Evangelists (peace be upon them). It was translated by the excellent and learned priest, Abu'l Fa??ra??j ??Abdulla ibn-at-Tayyib (may God grant him favour), from Syriac into Arabic from an exemplar written by Isa ibn-Ali' al-Motatabbib, pupil of Honain ibn-Ishaq (God have mercy on them both). Amen.

A little history is in order here. This is from an Arabic translation of the Diatesseron made by Ibn-at-Tayyib (died 1043). He is a well known man, a Church of the East monk and scholar who was secretary to Eliyah I, Patriarch of the Church of the East (c.f., Ciasca's Introduction, p. xi. f. and Steinschneider's Polemische and apologetische Lit. in Arabische Sprache, pp. 52-55). Honain ibn-Ishaq (also mentioned in the subscription) was a famous physician, a member of the Church of the East who is well known for his contributions to modern medicine.

Of this Arabic translation today we have 7 manuscripts which survive. Four of them happen to contain the subscription above. The most well-known manuscript is called the Borgian and it currently resides in the Vatican Library (and is listed in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series.)

So here we have a translator living in the 11th century (a full 600 years after Rabbula died) who plainly states that he translated the Syriac (Aramaic) Diatesseron into Arabic.

Notice, also, that this is the only manuscript of the Diatesseron which explicitly states that it was translated from the Syriac (Aramaic) of the Diatesseron. No other manuscript makes this claim to translation from the Aramaic (not the Latin nor the Armenian.)

Also, notice that the Arabic harmony begins with John 1:1, which we know to be the trademark of Tatian's harmony (c.f., bar-Salibi (12th century in Bib. Or., ii., Volume I pp. 59) who states "Its commencement was, `In the beginning was the Word.'")

I thought Rabbula "suppressed" the Diatesseron? At least the dated materials you quoted from declare that he did. In fact, these are the words of Rabbula verbatim:

"Let the presbyters and deacons give heed that in all the churches there be provided and read a copy of the Distinct Gospel," i.e., not the harmonized or mixed gospel.

While it's possible that Rabbula had the power to suppress the Diatesseron in his little corner of the world called Edessa (in Byzantine territory), that hardly gives him the power to extend into Persia and destroy their copies of the Diatesseron, wouldn't you agree?

In fact, you don't have to agree. The subscription to a 600-year later translation of the Aramaic Diatesseron proves your sources wrong. Rabbula did not suppress the Diatesseron - at least not in Persia where the Church of the East reigned independent of him and his rantings.

This Arabic translation so exactly matches the Peshitta AGAINST the Old Syriac, that your friend F.C. Burkitt (remember him?) found it necessary to make the unfounded charge that the text of the Arabic translation must have been tampered with to make it read like the Peshitta. (c.f., Burkitt, Evangelion de-Mepharreshe (2 Vols; Cambridge; University Press, 1904, 1.200) You see, in his worldview the Peshitta couldn't have existed before Rabbula's time - so the Diatesseron (created ~175 A.D.) couldn't read like it against the so-called "Old Syriac." All this accusation, by the way, without a shred of evidence to support his theory (like his Rabbula theory which has already been disproved.)

It makes perfect sense that a harmony of the Gospels would necessarily require that the distinct 4 Gospels actually existed prior to the harmony. This is common sense. It makes ever more sense that an Aramaic harmony of the Gospels, which Tatian's Diatesseron was, was woven together from the 4 distinct Aramaic Gospels.

Of the 3 surviving translations of the Aramaic Diatesseron (Latin, Armenian and Arabic) the Arabic is the only one which was made in a sister Semitic tongue. The relationship of Latin to Aramaic (or even Armenian to Aramaic) is like the relationship of Chinese to English. The relationship of Aramaic and Arabic is well documented, and one is the daughter of the other.

And since the Arabic translation by Ibn-at-Tayyib is the only one we know for sure was made directly from the Aramaic, and since it reads like the Peshitta (so much so that it worried Burkitt), and since we know that a harmony necessitates a base of 4 distinct Gospels from which it must be drawn - I submit that Tatian's Aramaic Diatesseron was a harmony of the distinct Gospels in Aramaic we currently find today in the canon of scripture we know as the Peshitta.

Occam's Razor is a logical principle which states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the best.

I believe I have explained the relationship of the Peshitta Gospels to the Diatesseron harmony in the simplest of terms. And "simple" happens to be one definition of the Aramaic word "Peshitta."

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Paul Younan

[Paul Younan]

(About the dated materials he is quoting....)

These "dated" encyclopedias, as you call them, are no more than 1-7 years old, and all seem to agree on the basics of the Peshitta. As I stated in previous exchanges, you and I must rely on the scholarship of others, most of whom, quite frankly, have spent their entire adult lives working on biblical Greek and Aramaic idioms and corresponding history. They publish involved, lengthy hypotheses about these insignificant things, which are immediately attacked and disputed by others who have themselves likewise published lengthy dissertations. Circles and tail-chasing while the bigger picture is ignored!

Paul, I have relied on the research of such people because they agree on the historical basics of both Greek and Aramaic New Testaments, even if each have their diverse pet theories. Certainly, your questions about the Greek New Testament are warranted, but of themselves only expose the tangle of New Testament history. All of this goes back to my original question: what difference does it all make if the contents are in dispute, by which I mean the question of divine inspiration?

(about the subscription to the Arabic translation...)

You offer me something from the eleventh century AD, over a thousand years from the time your bible was supposedly composed, and imply this is proof? Where is the evidence that the "gospel" in question can be traced to an Aramaic prototype? Abu'l Faaraaj OAbdulla ibn-at-Tayyib? Certainly we can expect someone from your faith to extol the history of their holy book. This statement is worthless, unless you and I are prepared to accept the assurances of popes and other "excellent and learned priest[s]" of Western Christianity as"proof" of Greek MSS primacy.

Paul, have you ever heard of someone lying to further their cause? And, need I remind you that throughout the history of the Christian Church, lies, murder and every other vices known to man had a permanent home? (Judging by what one hears on the news today, it still does!) Sorry, I will not accept the word of someone, with plenty of motivation to lie, as anything more than a historical curiosity ??? no more than I have accepted the assurances of the Western Christian Church's so-called holy men about their history.

(more about dated resources....)

Paul, the Dictionary of New Testament Background, and other quoted sources, are not "dated". Indeed, if what you've quoted is so authoritative, then why isn't it considered, or at least mentioned, in most contemporary New Testament dictionaries, encyclopedias and other source materials?

(about Rabbula's jurisdiction ending at the Persian border....)

So far, I've found nothing to support your statements. You offer me legend from the eleventh century. If I were ready to believe in legend and mythology, then I would have remained a Christian and we wouldn???t be having this discussion.

(about the subscription proving the existence of the Aramaic Diatesseron in 11th century....)

No! What it proves in fact is that someone produced a Aramaic New Testament six hundred years after the fact, and penned a statement giving himself and it authority, you believe it, and I demand proof, which seems to be in short supply.

(about Burkitt being worried that it read like the Peshitta....)

Again Paul, where's the proof for any of this? If what you claim so far could withstand scholarly scrutiny, then it would be readily available in the contemporary sources I cited. Legends, hypotheses and wars. Here is the stuff on which your church is founded.

(about the Gospels being the basis for the harmony.....)

I agree. Logically, the Gospels would have to come first, if someone was trying to "harmonize" them. What it doesn???t prove is whether these Gospels were written in Greek or Aramaic, which is a question raised in most contemporary New Testament dictionaries and encyclopedias. To be blunt Paul, what doesn't make sense here is your refusal to discuss contents. We could dispose of your arguments in short order if you would agree to discuss the gospel stories and their claims, instead of playing tag by quoting some "holy" man a thousand years after these stories were supposedly penned.

(about Arabic being a sister-language to Aramaic....)

Okay. I will accept this. Now, show me the original first century AD Aramaic manuscripts of the New Testament, and you will have a potential convert to your theories, although I will then want proof of the NT's divine origins.

(about Tatian's harmony being based on the Peshitta Gospels...)

We know nothing of the sort. You make this statement based on the word of some "holy" man whose life was dedicated to promoting the Christian myth. You augment this by offering your own hypothesis. Even if I could verify Ibn-at-Tayyib???s history, which is likely impossible, I would still have to have faith in his words. Sorry, before I worship any of the ancient world's crucified savior-gods, I need more than the word of a priest, which is why I am no longer a Christian.

(about Occam's Razor.....)

No. You have only raised more questions.
Regards,
DWC

[Paul Younan]

Good evening Darrell,

You asked me for proof that Burkitt was worried about how the Arabic translation of Tatian's Diatesseron read exactly like the Peshitta, and how he charged without any basis that the text must have been tampered with. To this, I refer you to his own work entitled Evangelion de-Mepharreshe (2 Vols; Cambridge; University Press, 1904, 1.200) (you can pick up a copy here: http://www.gorgiaspress.com/Merchant2/me...Series-JSC or at your local university library)

The point I'm trying to make here is that there is a false belief, based on ONE man's hypothesis (Burkitt, who else?), that Rabbula "suppressed" the Diatesseron around 430 A.D.

But then 7 manuscripts are discovered - four of which have a subscription stating that it is an Arabic translation of Tatian's Aramaic Diatesseron. Most importantly, that it was made by someone who we know for a fact died in 1043 A.D. Not a no-name guy, either - Ibn-Tayyib was famous in his day. That's more than 600 years after Rabbula supposedly "suppressed" the Diatesseron.

You are a reasonable person. I think if you give a second look at this evidence, you will come to the logical conclusion that Rabbula suppressed the Diatesseron only where he could within his jurisdiction in Byzantium, but not in Persia where all evidence points to the Diatesseron's survival until at least 1043 A.D. I will be happy to supply you with any reference material you deem necessary about this translator and the Patriarch who commissioned his translation work.

I admire your ability to not be easily convinced - that's to your credit. But please be reasonable here. Why would somebody making an Arabic translation in the 11th century lie about the base text he was working with?

Regards,
Paul