As some of you may recall, in my Apr 25, 2000 "Anointing Scene" post,
I have argued for the priority of the Anointing Scene pericope in Lk,
compared to Mt/Mk versions. Also I argued that the Pepysian Gospel (PG)
preserves this pericope in a more primitive form compared even to Lk,
because PG preserves better the shape of the anointing story, and its
immediate context. At the same time, both Lk and PG preserve better its
general context within the story of Jesus, where the call to discipleship
naturally would belong in its early part. And also, both Lk and PG
preserve better the original uninterpolated sequence of the narrative of
the assembly of the rulers, and their contact with Judas.
Also, Lk preserves the Anointing primarily as a moral tale, but its
conclusion appears to have been changed rather arbitrarily in Lk, where
the conclusion does not really agree so well with the tale itself, while
the conclusion is preserved better in PG.
But now I'm pleased to report that, in the course of researching different
versions of the Diatessaron, I have recently found even more textual
substantiation for the above ideas.
First of all, in my previous analysis I had overlooked an additional
important item of evidence from PG, itself, that the story as presented by
PG is actually more logical and coherent. This is the question of Jesus,
Lk 7.42 "When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them
will love him more?"
Thus, in the canonical version this question is preserved as follows,
"which of them will love him more?"
But PG preserves this question in a different sense,
"Whether loued he most?" (p. 32. line 30), i.e. "Which of them he loved
The difference is important because this question in PG is quite in accord
with the conclusion of the story as given in PG. Or, to put it
differently, if PG preserves the earlier version of this whole episode,
then the way this question is formulated in PG is clearly co-ordinated
with PG's conclusion of the story, and the whole story is then rather
coherent in PG. So then in the canonical Lk, both the question and the
conclusion would have been changed in a co-ordinated way.
And now I have also found very substantial external confirmation that this
whole episode existed in the Diatessaron in the shape very similar to PG.
I found this evidence in the book by G. Quispel, DIATESSARON AND THE
GOSPEL OF THOMAS, Brill, 1975, p. 135.
Quispel assembled evidence from a few other versions of DT, and also from
Irenaeus, supporting the existence of PG version of this question in
Tatian's DT. While these DT variants are mostly from the medieval European
versions of DT, importantly, Quispel also found this variant in one of the
Eastern versions of DT, the Persian DT. Thus, this appears to be strong
confirmation that this variant existed in Tatian's DT. Which seems to
increase the chances that this was indeed a pre-canonical version of this
story, before it was included in the canonical Lk, and later inserted into
Mt and Mk where it precedes the Passion Narrative. The existence of such a
variant in Irenaeus also seems like additional good evidence to support
Quispel's additional evidence is from the Old High German DT, Munich DT,
Saelden Hort (a poem of the life of Jesus, ca 1320), and also from a
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian