Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why did Rabulla make his own Aramaic gospels?
#31
Dave Wrote:Does anyone grasp what I'm getting at?

Yes, Dave, I understand what you're saying, and I'm glad to see that you've decided to investigate the history of the Diatessaron. It's a fascinating although very difficult subject.

Of course, in my view, Tatian was _not_ the author of the Diatessaron.

The basic question that you're raising is, Which came first, variability or standardisation? This is one of the most fundamental questions in biblical studies.

Let's look at our 3 Synoptic gospels (Mt, Mk, Lk) in any version. Regardless of which version we're examining, we often see the same story from the life of Jesus told in two or even three different ways. I can cite dozens of examples here... And sometimes, a story can even be told differently again in the same gospel! (These are the so-called "doublets" in Mt, for example.)

Thus, I submit that even if we compare the Peshitta texts of these stories, still we see variability at the very heart of the gospels.

I conclude that textual variability was definitely present in early Christianity.

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
#32
Shlama Akhi Dave,

I'm not asking that you dismiss Ephraem because he belonged to the western arena. I'm asking that you just make note that in his western arena, many different textual families were circulating (for whatever reason.)

When you talk Peshitta, you are talking eastern, not western. Ephraem did not use the Peshitta - he was a Westerner. That's comparing the old apples and oranges thing.

The Arabic Diatesseron (translated directly from the Syriac) reads exactly like the Peshitta....so that tells me that the Syriac it was translated from read exactly like the Peshitta. So then that Aramaic copy of the Diatesseron proves that the harmony was created from the Peshitta gospels.

This is, again, an eastern copy and not a western one like Ephraem used. I don't care what happened in the west, in his arena. People have gone insane trying to figure that out. I'm not going to do any better than the millions of people who have pondered what the heck the western church was thinking at the time it was responsible for that big mess. That's their mess, not mine.

You have to seperate the two textual traditions as they are not the same historical entity!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#33
Hello Yuri <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Quote:The basic question that you're raising is, Which came first, variability or standardisation? This is one of the most fundamental questions in biblical studies.

Yes, exactly! That is what confuses me. The shorter text form I would feel came in later as a condensed version. Mostly in the attempt to rid the text of interpolations that crept in the text throughout the years from mishandling. Undoughtedly, the cleaner text is The Peshitta.
Reply
#34
shlomo oh Dave,

in the Greek western tradition, when discussing the origin of the Synpotic Gospels, they claim that the original Gospel was that of Mark, and that Matthew was Mark, but expanded, because Matthew has similar readings to Mark. Some go as far as saying that the sayings of Jesus come from a lost text called Q.

So according to Greek Western thought, then the Matthew Gospel took the Mark Gospel and added to it.

poosh bashlomo,
keefa-moroon

Dave Wrote:Hello Yuri :D

Quote:The basic question that you're raising is, Which came first, variability or standardisation? This is one of the most fundamental questions in biblical studies.

Yes, exactly! That is what confuses me. The shorter text form I would feel came in later as a condensed version. Mostly in the attempt to rid the text of interpolations that crept in the text throughout the years from mishandling. Undoughtedly, the cleaner text is The Peshitta.
Reply
#35
Quote:I'm not asking that you dismiss Ephraem because he belonged to the western arena. I'm asking that you just make note that in his western arena, many different textual families were circulating (for whatever reason.)

No problemo Paul. I would think that if he had a copy of Tatian's Diatesseron, then why would his be different in that respect? Were talking only a couple of centuries from it's creation, at a good guess. I can't see why Ephrems would be different than the original at that particular timeframe. Were talking 3rd century.

Such a mix-up. I must say there is some major drama in this.
Reply
#36
Quote:in the Greek western tradition, when discussing the origin of the Synpotic Gospels, they claim that the original Gospel was that of Mark, and that Matthew was Mark, but expanded, because Matthew has similar readings to Mark. Some go as far as saying that the sayings of Jesus come from a lost text called Q.

Yes Keefa, one can surmise that Marks text was not completed. There is the probability of interpolations at the end of it (many have conjectured). It is possible that Mark was expanding on what Matthew skipped over and vice versa.
Reply
#37
I'll catch you guys tomorrow, it's almost midnight here in DG.
Reply
#38
Shlama Akhi Dave,

Would you buy a used car from a salesman who changed the terms of the contract 1% as often as the western texts change?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#39
Why yes I would Paul, wouldn't you?

NOT! hehe

I'm not sure if that is a fair analogy. For one, we don't have a known original in anyones hands. We have copies and a bunch of statements from people who were suppose to be there during that timeframe, but nothing for sure.

We also had our fair share of folks doing the revising thing in many areas.

Here is an example:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol1No1/MsVatSyr268.html">http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol1No1/MsVatSyr268.html</a><!-- m -->

One manuscript made it through that did not receive the major revising that the other 3 did. Why were they revising in the first place? Wasn't the old reading the preferred one? Etc, etc, etc. Too many folks playing around with things.

Just happens that the revisors were tailoring the texts to the shorter condensed received text, IE vulgate. Thomas of Harkle didn't make the texts with the apparatus from any Syriac version, he made it from the known greek western text version he had on hand. Others came in years later and changed it. Now what for? Why would anyone think that it was needed?

This change to the shorter style text, the standardization, was happening all over the place after a while. My only possible answer to it would be that too much of the Old Latin free paraphrasing entered into the texts in areas, and these folks thought they were doing a service by condensing all texts to the this "safer" version that arose. Luckily, some texts slipped by their hands.

Anyways, the drama continues huh?
Reply
#40
Shlama Akhi Dave,

Heheh. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

In all seriousness, you said that we probably don't know anything for sure. Well - let me just say one thing I know for sure:

I know for sure that if all I had as a primary witness to Meshikha was the myriad of Greek texts, I would have converted to Judaism or Islam a loooong time ago.

Thank God for the Peshitta, and the rock-solid textual history behind it.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#41
Paul, you have a point my friend <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

My intrigue is in this "western" text, The Lord keeps witnessing it to me. I think the challenge for me is in the search for the archaic readings that these texts tend to have at times. It is a puzzle for sure.

EDIT: I had related a personal experience here but decided to remove it Paul. Some things are exactly at the letter. For me the supernatural witness must be the witness. I must use the gifts and tools given to me to use to continue to receive insight into this. I didn't feel like I should bring that into the picture at the moment though.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)