05-02-2004, 12:07 PM
Interesting Paul!
I'm not sure if I can accept that as a correct determination though, I get a check inside, and I have to trust The Lord foremost, in all things.
You were right though, Ephrem is quoting Tatian's Diatesseron, but the quotes that can be attributed to actual scripture he says, are sometimes closer to the OS or western text, and at other times closer to The Peshitta, and sometimes different than both!
The particular book that I have is from the Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2: Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron
An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with introduction and notes. by Carmel McCarthy Oxford University Press 1993
This has a very thorough discussion and translation of the Syriac text with the Armenian differences and fill-ins over the missing folios within the Syriac.
From everything I gather, Tatian's Diatesseron is the oldest according to the scholarly world, at least from what bits and pieces they have dating to around 170 AD. The problem is that the quotes that can be attributed to scripture here from Ephrem, only line up with The Peshitta infrequently.
What I'm trying to figure out is what happened here? There is a considerable gap. If I look at this from a distance and remain unbiased (of which that is quite easy for me to do), then I'm noticing a couple things:
1) there was several of these "western" style texts in many languages (IE, Old Latin, Old Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian, Old Dutch, Western text Greek = Bezae, etc, and these were spread out over many, many countries). Eventually, down through the centuries, all these types were re-written and replaced with what we have witnesses for the most now, the traditional/Byzantine/majority vulgate type text. This simplification process does agree with what most people tend to do naturally. Mankind just loves to simplify things, this is common in many areas, doesn't make it right in this sense, but it just tends to happen. If we look at the Hebrew OT, there we see this sort of "standardization" or simpification that happened there also in places. This standardization of the Hebrew OT can be seen more in comparison with the DSS. Really, I'm being nice here, there is also the heretics that would removes sections that didn't agree with their form of belief, in the new testament.
2) With the knowledge that this old text was prevalent throughout many countries in this "western" form, and the natural tendacies that mankind has towards "simplifying" things, one has to ask how this longer version came about, if we are to believe it was not there in the first place???
The Peshitta is uniform and dated. But,.....and a big but here...., why would mankind (Westener, Greek, Aramean, no difference here in the tendacy inherited within the person of mankind), take something that they would know to be uniform and "original" and lengthen it in structure (/boggle), then turn-around years later and condense it back to it's roots??? This again makes no sense whatsoever.
Also, all of these "western" style texts in all of these different languages have the semetic idiom underlying it! Every single one! It's quite noticable in some.
Again, where is the textual proof here? The majority of the church fathers from the apostolic times are quoting the western style text. Ephrem was around the timeframe of approx 363 AD (give or take) and is quoting the Diatesseron with no mention that he quotes from The Peshitta. He does make quotes from the Greek and states it as such in his commentary, and he appears to read it well.
Anyways, if we are to say that the whole biblical scholarly world is completly wrong, then we are wrong. The process of taking old manuscripts and rewriting them to comform with the vulgate style version is verifiable, all over the place. Hence, the simplifying process.
So what happened around the 3rd and 4th century?? It seems that was the timeframe when everything changed. Again, where did this condensed version come from? Who made this?
I'm not sure if I can accept that as a correct determination though, I get a check inside, and I have to trust The Lord foremost, in all things.
You were right though, Ephrem is quoting Tatian's Diatesseron, but the quotes that can be attributed to actual scripture he says, are sometimes closer to the OS or western text, and at other times closer to The Peshitta, and sometimes different than both!
The particular book that I have is from the Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2: Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron
An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with introduction and notes. by Carmel McCarthy Oxford University Press 1993
This has a very thorough discussion and translation of the Syriac text with the Armenian differences and fill-ins over the missing folios within the Syriac.
From everything I gather, Tatian's Diatesseron is the oldest according to the scholarly world, at least from what bits and pieces they have dating to around 170 AD. The problem is that the quotes that can be attributed to scripture here from Ephrem, only line up with The Peshitta infrequently.
What I'm trying to figure out is what happened here? There is a considerable gap. If I look at this from a distance and remain unbiased (of which that is quite easy for me to do), then I'm noticing a couple things:
1) there was several of these "western" style texts in many languages (IE, Old Latin, Old Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian, Old Dutch, Western text Greek = Bezae, etc, and these were spread out over many, many countries). Eventually, down through the centuries, all these types were re-written and replaced with what we have witnesses for the most now, the traditional/Byzantine/majority vulgate type text. This simplification process does agree with what most people tend to do naturally. Mankind just loves to simplify things, this is common in many areas, doesn't make it right in this sense, but it just tends to happen. If we look at the Hebrew OT, there we see this sort of "standardization" or simpification that happened there also in places. This standardization of the Hebrew OT can be seen more in comparison with the DSS. Really, I'm being nice here, there is also the heretics that would removes sections that didn't agree with their form of belief, in the new testament.
2) With the knowledge that this old text was prevalent throughout many countries in this "western" form, and the natural tendacies that mankind has towards "simplifying" things, one has to ask how this longer version came about, if we are to believe it was not there in the first place???
The Peshitta is uniform and dated. But,.....and a big but here...., why would mankind (Westener, Greek, Aramean, no difference here in the tendacy inherited within the person of mankind), take something that they would know to be uniform and "original" and lengthen it in structure (/boggle), then turn-around years later and condense it back to it's roots??? This again makes no sense whatsoever.
Also, all of these "western" style texts in all of these different languages have the semetic idiom underlying it! Every single one! It's quite noticable in some.
Again, where is the textual proof here? The majority of the church fathers from the apostolic times are quoting the western style text. Ephrem was around the timeframe of approx 363 AD (give or take) and is quoting the Diatesseron with no mention that he quotes from The Peshitta. He does make quotes from the Greek and states it as such in his commentary, and he appears to read it well.
Anyways, if we are to say that the whole biblical scholarly world is completly wrong, then we are wrong. The process of taking old manuscripts and rewriting them to comform with the vulgate style version is verifiable, all over the place. Hence, the simplifying process.
So what happened around the 3rd and 4th century?? It seems that was the timeframe when everything changed. Again, where did this condensed version come from? Who made this?