Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] Jn 6:15 in the Diatessarons

Expand Messages
  • Frides Lameris
    Hi Yuri, I m back in town. Will look into past discussion with J. Gibson on architriklinos in weekend. If people get too sharp, remember: Littera occidit,
    Message 1 of 2 , May 29, 2002
      Hi Yuri,

      I'm back in town. Will look into past discussion with J. Gibson on
      architriklinos in weekend.

      If people get too sharp, remember:

      Littera occidit, Spiritus vivificat.

      Keep going

      Best wishes


      ----- Origineel Bericht -----
      Van: Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...>
      Datum: Donderdag, Mei 23, 2002 10:00 pm
      Onderwerp: [John_Lit] Jn 6:15 in the Diatessarons

      > Dear friends,
      > This article examines five versions of Jn 6:15, as found in the
      > canonicalGreek text, the ancient Old Syriac Sinaiticus manuscript
      > (SyrS), and three
      > Diatessaronic witnesses. And, later on, an interesting reading in the
      > Codex Bezae is also brought into the consideration.
      > The purpose of these comparisons is to demonstrate that the
      > Diatessaronicversions seem to be preserving an earlier text of
      > GJohn in this verse.
      > The following analysis is mostly based on Boismard's 1992 book LE
      > DIATESSARON: DE TATIEN A JUSTIN, as well as on some more analysis
      > suppliedby Plooij, in his magisterial commentary on the Liege
      > Diatessaron. Also,
      > this will permit a brief critique of WL Petersen's response to
      > Boismard'sanalysis, as found in Petersen's TATIAN'S DIATESSARON,
      > Brill, 1994:
      > 348-356. Petersen critiqued Boismard rather harshly, but it seems
      > like his
      > criticism was not so well based, especially in regard to this
      > particularpassage.
      > Below, you can see five versions of Jn 6:15a, starting with the
      > canonicalGreek. What we find is that the Arabic DT follows the
      > canonical version
      > pretty closely (although there are a couple of small differences
      > there,that I will examine below). But the other three versions --
      > SyrS, the
      > Magdalene Gospel, and the Liege Diatessaron -- seem to stay much
      > closertogether, and to contain some rather primitive elements.
      > (Also, according
      > to Boismard, the COMMENTARY by Ephrem the Syrian for this verse
      > followsSyrS pretty closely, so this can be counted as some
      > additional ancient
      > Syriac attestation for this verse.)
      > I have now counted five agreements between the Magdalene Gospel
      > and SyrS
      > for Jn 6:15a, which goes contrary to what Petersen asserted in his
      > reviewof Boismard. According to Petersen, in this reading, SyrS
      > was supposed to
      > agree with the Arabic, "or more so than with any other witness"
      > (1994:353). But, in actual fact, we find that SyrS and the Arabic
      > don'tagree here at all.
      > To these five agreements, I will also add two more as found in the
      > secondpart of this verse, that were not commented upon by
      > Boismard. All seven
      > can be classified as the Syro-Latin agreements against the canonical
      > Greek.
      > The Latin versions below are supplied by Boismard on pp. 110-111
      > of his
      > book.
      > _John 6:15a_
      > Canonical Greek: Jesus, therefore, knowing (gnous) that they were
      > about to
      > come and to take him by force (harpazein), that they may make him
      > king ...
      > Arabic DT: et Jesus scivit quia venturi erant ut tollerent eum et
      > facerenteum regem
      > [and Jesus knew they were about to come and take him, and make him
      > a king]
      > SyrS: et cogitabant ut raperent eum ut facerent eum regem; ipse autem
      > Iesus scivit
      > [and they reasoned among themselves that they would take him with
      > strength, and make him a king, but Jesus knew]
      > MG 49:21: they were talking among themselves that they would all
      > make him
      > their king by force. And, meanwhile, Jesus ...
      > [MG original text: thai speken amonges hem that hij wolden alle
      > maken hym
      > her kyng with strenkthe]
      > Liege DT: Then they agreed that they would seize him by force, and
      > makehim king over them. And when Jesus knew that ...
      > So here are the five agreements between SyrS and MG, which almost
      > all go
      > against the Arabic text. Since MG seems to depend on an ancient
      > Old Latin
      > Diatessaron, all these can be counted as Syro-Latin agreements. We
      > findthat the Liege DT also almost always goes along with these
      > Syro-Latin
      > readings.
      > 1. A simpler grammatical construction is found in SyrS, MG, and
      > the Liege.
      > ("They reasoned... Jesus knew...")
      > (At the same time, we can see that the Arabic also uses the simple
      > pasttense for "Jesus scivit", while the canonical version has
      > "Jesus sciens".
      > In this small detail, the Arabic text seems to go back to the old
      > Diatessaronic tradition, rather than depending on the canonical text.)
      > 2. In the same group of three texts, Jesus' actions follow after "the
      > people reasoned". But both in the canonical and the Arabic
      > versions, this
      > sequence is reversed.
      > 3. All the versions here, including even the canonical, use the
      > Latin word
      > "raperent = Greek harpazein" (meaning "to take with strength"),
      > but the
      > Arabic is using "tollerent", which does not have such a meaning.
      > Thus, the
      > Arabic text doesn't really indicate that Jesus will be compelled
      > to do
      > anything he wouldn't want to do. So, for this particular reading, the
      > Arabic doesn't really agree with _any_ of the above versions, let
      > alonethe Syriac.
      > 4. In SyrS, MG, and the Liege, the word "to come" is absent. So
      > this is
      > yet another broad agreement against the Arabic, which in this case
      > closelyfollows the canonical text.
      > 5. The Syriac and MG both go against the Arabic in describing the
      > actionsof the people. Because, in the Syriac and MG, the crowds of
      > people only
      > _discuss_ making Jesus king against his will; they haven't actually
      > decided to do anything as yet.
      > We can see that, in this case, the Liege follows the canonical and the
      > Arabic versions. (And yet, as Plooij documents in his commentary
      > on the
      > Liege DT, there's yet another medieval Dutch text, Hned, that
      > seems to
      > have a version almost identical to MG, indicating the conversation
      > betweenthe people: "worden si te rade")
      > This fifth agreement between SyrS and MG is quite interesting,
      > because it
      > implies the greater powers of Jesus to see other people's inner
      > thoughts.But also, it may indicate a greater respect for Jesus on
      > the part of the
      > people of Israel.
      > As I said, there are also two more agreements in Jn 6:15b that can be
      > classified as Syro-Latin agreements. I will come back to them further
      > below but, first, some more comments about Petersen's critique of
      > Boismard.
      > In the same passage as cited above, Petersen also critiqued a
      > couple of
      > other textual comparisons that he found in Boismard, all part of "the
      > Multiplication of the Loaves" pericope. (These are the various
      > versions of
      > Lk 9:15a, and Jn 6:11; Petersen numbers them as #5 and #9). Just
      > like with
      > the preceding example, Petersen's critiques of these are likewise very
      > problematic. (I can supply more details if someone is interested.)
      > Overall, it seems like there are no big problems with Boismard's
      > analysisof these passages.
      > Basically, Boismard's purpose in his analysis of "the
      > Multiplication of
      > the Loaves" pericope was to demonstrate that SyrS has textual
      > affinitieswith Justin's Harmony, rather than with the later
      > versions of the
      > Diatessaron, such as the Arabic DT. He certainly seems to be
      > correct about
      > this in regard to Jn 6:15a, as well as more generally in this whole
      > section of his book. These textual affinities are there, just like
      > Boismard says they are. But in so far as interpreting these
      > affinities,and determining how they originated, of necessity, this
      > will be a lot more
      > conjectural. Myself, I don't necessarily agree with Boismard as
      > far as his
      > larger interpretation of these affinities goes.
      > Now, the following two Syro-Latin agreements have not been noted
      > either by
      > Boismard or by Petersen. They have been noted by Plooij, however,
      > in his
      > apparatus for the Liege DT, although his analysis remained somewhat
      > incomplete.
      > At the end of Jn 6:15, according to the canonical version, Jesus
      > withdraws"to the mountain by himself". Here is how we find this
      > text in our 4
      > extra-canonical witnesses,
      > Arabic: he ... went up into the mountain alone for prayer.
      > Syriac: ascended to the hill alone.
      > MG: Jesus was up on the mountain in order to pray.
      > Liege: went up into a mountain to say his prayer.
      > So here are the other two Syro-Latin agreements that can be noted
      > in these
      > texts.
      > 6. Both MG and the Liege add a very interesting detail that Jesus
      > goes up
      > to the mountain in order to pray. This detail is lacking in the
      > canonicalAlexandrian text, and yet it's actually present in the
      > Western text of the
      > Codex Bezae, in both its Greek and Latin versions,
      > Jn 6:15 in the Greek Bezae: kakei proseukheto
      > Latin Bezae: et ibi orabat
      > Plooij does note this agreement with Bezae, but he only does this
      > for the
      > Liege DT. The only other version he cites is the Sahidic. And yet he
      > neglected the Magdalene version, as well as the agreement with the
      > ArabicDT that, as we can see above, is also present there. This
      > parallel with
      > the Arabic should make this a Syro-Latin agreement, because the Arabic
      > text is believed to depend on the Syriac version. Interestingly
      > enough,the Old Syriac text, itself, seems to have lost this
      > detail, while it was
      > retained by the Arabic DT.
      > 7. And, finally, another Syro-Latin agreement that can be noted is the
      > detail that Jesus goes _up_ to the mountain, i.e. the idea of
      > ascent. This
      > is present in all four of our extra-canonical witnesses.
      > (MG has a somewhat different version here, but the idea of ascent
      > is still
      > present there. In MG, as different from all other texts, there's
      > no sense
      > that Jesus is escaping from the people. It remains open how can this
      > variant reading be interpreted.)
      > Now, if it's accepted that these textual agreements between SyrS
      > and the
      > Western Diatessarons indeed fall into the category of the Syro-Latin
      > agreements, then they should precede the canonical Greek text.
      > After all,
      > great many eminent textual critics expressed the opinion that the
      > Syro-Latin agreements tend to indicate the more primitive textual
      > layer in
      > NT gospels. Among these scholars are B.F. Westcott (1896), F.C.
      > Burkitt(1899), E. Nestle (1901), A. Souter (1909), C.H. Turner
      > (1928), and A.
      > Voobus (1951).
      > Best wishes,
      > Yuri.
      > Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
      > Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
      > it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain
      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-
      > unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.