05-14-2004, 06:45 PM
From Persia, we have the Persian Diatessaron (Diatessaron Persiano, ed. G. Messina, "Biblica et Orientalia" 14, Rome, 1951).
This Persian Diatessaron was translated from Aramaic into Persian, and it reads very differently from the Arabic Diatessaron just about in every passage.
There are many different versions of the Diatessaron that survive at this time. From the scientific perspective, there can be no a priori reason to prefer any of these versions to any other version.
The whole question of the Diatessaron is extremely complex. Even if one approaches this area with complete objectivity, and even if one has studied this area for years, having had appropriate prior training, there are still many puzzles there.
Bringing any prior theological presuppositions, or the appeals to authority, into this complex area will certainly not help.
Shlama,
Yuri.
This Persian Diatessaron was translated from Aramaic into Persian, and it reads very differently from the Arabic Diatessaron just about in every passage.
There are many different versions of the Diatessaron that survive at this time. From the scientific perspective, there can be no a priori reason to prefer any of these versions to any other version.
The whole question of the Diatessaron is extremely complex. Even if one approaches this area with complete objectivity, and even if one has studied this area for years, having had appropriate prior training, there are still many puzzles there.
Bringing any prior theological presuppositions, or the appeals to authority, into this complex area will certainly not help.
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 -->