Re: [textualcriticism] Diatessaron and Matt 17:21
- Thanks, Wieland,
I tend to agree with you that the Diatessaron by itself is an
unreliable witness in this passage due to the nature of its
composition. I am not familiar with all of the sources for the
Diatessaron at this place. The English translation provided in ANF
9:81: "But it is impossible to cast out this kind by anything except
by fasting and prayer."
I mention three peculiar observations:
(1) the term "impossible" seems to correlate more to Mark than to
(2) "cast out" appears to correlate more to Matthew (via _eicitur_ as
the united testimony of the OL) than to Mark (where _exire_ appears in
all the OL except f/10, which singularly has _expelli_);
(3) the presence of "fasting" here in A.D. 166 is strange if it is not
the earliest form of this Jesus saying (cf. Mark, but even there the
possibility that p45 has "fasting" would suggest the possibility that
it is the earliest attested form; cf. also Origen in this place in
Comm. Matt. 13.6-7 [ANF 9:478-9). Cf. also William L. Petersen's
similar pleadings with regard to the "fire" in the Jordan during
Jesus' baptismal episode in Tatian's Diatessaron: Its Creation,
Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship [Supplements
to Vigiliae christianae 25; New York: Brill, 1994], 16-7]).
A few comments from Diatessaronic scholars would be much appreciated.
Jonathan C. Borland
On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:02 PM, Wieland Willker wrote:
> It seems difficult to me to prove that it really comes from Mt.
> It could equally well come from Mk. It's a harmony, after all.
> Best wishes