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

Original Language of Tatian's Diatessaron

Expand Messages
  • steelcurtain40
    I am new to this group and wish to find out some language giants here that will help me find out why scholars arrive to the conclusion on which SPECIFIC
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 24, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I am new to this group and wish to find out some "language giants" here that will help me find out why scholars arrive to the conclusion on which SPECIFIC LANGUAGE the New Testament writers and Early church writers (Clement of Rome; Polycarp; Justin Martyr; Ireneaus and the Ante Nicene writers) originally penned their letters in. So, I am basically just picking up "an arrow" and staring with Tatian. Stick with me now, please: Some time (rather recently) I had come across some communication that the original language of Tatian's Diatessaron was debated. I should say that unfortunately I did not pursue this trail. The debate was that Tatian originally penned his Diatessaron in Greek vs. Syriac (or understood today as Aramaic).

      Is this topic on the Diatessereon still debated?? Or have scholars pretty much come to the conclusion that Tatian's Diatessaron was originally penned in Aramaic(Syriac; I understand that the two can be interchanged). What is the status of this debate as of now??

      Also, more broadly, how do New Testament language scholars arrive to the conclusion that Tatian originally wrote in Syriac (or Greek) seeing that we have no Greek (or Syriac) copies of Tatian's writing (of the Diatessaron)?? To my understanding we have only translation of the Diatessaron in some Arabic dialect and some Latin manuscripts (unless some believe that Tatian wrote his work in Latin. Is this even in the equation?!)

      I would like to know some "paths" I can go to and wish to find out solutions other than the common answer, "well, Greek was the lingua franca of the region." AS for now, I will take anything. Any link, any source, any article or ANYTHING that can steer me in the right direction regarding this pursuit. You can tell me what you know. Please feel free to be brief or in depth as you would.

      Thanks folks!

      Mike Karoules
    • Vox Verax
      Mike, Greetings in Christ! Regarding your questions about the Diatessaron: MK: Is this topic on the Diatessaron still debated? Yes. Tatian s mentor Justin
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 24, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Mike,

        Greetings in Christ! Regarding your questions about the Diatessaron:

        MK: "Is this topic on the Diatessaron still debated?"

        Yes. Tatian's mentor Justin Martyr wrote in Greek, and it rather looks like Tatian built upon a foundation laid by Justin; the idea is that Tatian blended the (Greek) text of John into Justin's (Greek) Synoptics-Harmony. Which would mean that the Diatessaron was initially made using Greek. But it's still a possibility that one of the steps that Tatian took in the process of making the Diatessaron was to translate his predecessor's material into Syriac. Or perhaps he did the blending-work using Greek materials, but what he published as the Diatessaron was his own formal Syriac translation of the end-result of that blending-work. (Btw, please do not confuse Syriac and Aramaic; they are not the same thing. The "Palestinian Syriac" really should be renamed the "Palestinian Aramaic.")

        Decades ago it was thought that a small scrap found at Dura-Europos was a piece of a Greek copy of the Diatessaron, but some rather insightful analysis has drawn that view (which was presented by Metzger as if it was a plain fact!) into serious question. (See briefly http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/dura.html .)

        MK: "How do New Testament language scholars arrive to the conclusion that Tatian originally wrote in Syriac (or Greek) seeing that we have no Greek (or Syriac) copies of Tatian's writing (of the Diatessaron)??"

        It comes down to gauging probabilities, and in the case of the initial language of the Diatessaron I'd say the probabilities are closely balanced -- slightly in favor of the Diatessaron being initially released in Syriac. But it doesn't matter all that much; we could figure that the Diatessaron was initially bilingual and it wouldn't make much difference. It was certainly much more /popular/ in Syriac than it was in Greek.

        MK: "To my understanding we have only translation of the Diatessaron in some Arabic dialect and some Latin manuscripts (unless some believe that Tatian wrote his work in Latin. Is this even in the equation?!)"

        We have two major Arabic copies in Rome; one is better than the other. (Leslie McFall mentions some others in his 1994 online article, "Tatian's Diatessaron: Mischievous or Misleading?" but they sound extremely late.) And Codex Fuldensis, while containing a basically Vulgate text, essentially preserves the arrangement of the Diatessaron. In addition, we have Ephrem Syrus' Commentary on the Diatessaron, composed in the mid-300's and preserved (mostly) in Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 (from c. 500), and citations from the Diatessaron in some patristic compositions, and Gospels-citations that appear to have been conformed to readings found in the Diatessaron. (And, no; the idea that Tatian composed the Diatessaron in Latin is not in the equation.)

        MK: "I would like to know some "paths" I can go to and wish to find out solutions . . ."

        Then take in hand J. Rendel Harris' 1890 book, "The Diatessaron of Tatian: A Preliminary Study," which can be downloaded for free online. (A Word document version is among the Files over at the TC-Alternate discussion-list.) If you really want to dive into the subject then check out William Petersen's big blue "Tatian's Diatessaron." (Imho, Petersen was sometimes cautious when he should have been more confident, and confident when he should have been more cautious, but the book is still a colossal mine of information.) If you have a seminary library nearby, then perhaps you can consult databases or things like JSTOR and search for "Diatessaron" and "Baarda," etc. See also the article by Peter Head at http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Tatian.htm .

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
      • mikek
        James, Hey, tks for the reply and good answer. but a question comes to mind in something that you said in the first paragraph of your answer: . . . the
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 25, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          James,

          Hey, tks for the reply and good answer. but a question comes to mind in something that you "said" in the first paragraph of your answer: ". . . the idea is that Tatian blended the Greek text of John into Justin's Greek Synotpic's Harmony." First, I was unaware that Justin penned such a work. I thought that the (mainly) only surviving material we have from Justin is his "Dialgue w/ Trypho" (both parts) and one other work. So, do we have most or much of Justin's Synotic Harmony??

          But if I could I would ask that you would clear something up for me. I think you have mentioned a number of times in the discussion about the Long Ending of Mark (thread) you said (pretty clearly if memory serves me right) that Tatian used his own sources to write his Diatessaron and did not draw or employ from someone else, including Justin. IOW, you made the point that Tatian had is own independent source materials of the Gospels that he used to write his Diatessaron; and that it was his (Tatian's) own work through and through. So, I think we are led to believe that the Diatessaron was not a blending of Tatian with Justin's Synoptics. Would you clear this up for me James, please?

          Thanks so much for the links and references. I should be using them. Take care.

          Anyone - please feel free to jump in here and add to this discussion.

          Cordially,

          Mike Karoules In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...> wrote:
          >
          > Mike,
          >
          > Greetings in Christ! Regarding your questions about the Diatessaron:
          >
          > MK: "Is this topic on the Diatessaron still debated?"
          >
          > Yes. Tatian's mentor Justin Martyr wrote in Greek, and it rather looks like Tatian built upon a foundation laid by Justin; the idea is that Tatian blended the (Greek) text of John into Justin's (Greek) Synoptics-Harmony. Which would mean that the Diatessaron was initially made using Greek. But it's still a possibility that one of the steps that Tatian took in the process of making the Diatessaron was to translate his predecessor's material into Syriac. Or perhaps he did the blending-work using Greek materials, but what he published as the Diatessaron was his own formal Syriac translation of the end-result of that blending-work. (Btw, please do not confuse Syriac and Aramaic; they are not the same thing. The "Palestinian Syriac" really should be renamed the "Palestinian Aramaic.")
          >
          > Decades ago it was thought that a small scrap found at Dura-Europos was a piece of a Greek copy of the Diatessaron, but some rather insightful analysis has drawn that view (which was presented by Metzger as if it was a plain fact!) into serious question. (See briefly http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/dura.html .)
          >
          > MK: "How do New Testament language scholars arrive to the conclusion that Tatian originally wrote in Syriac (or Greek) seeing that we have no Greek (or Syriac) copies of Tatian's writing (of the Diatessaron)??"
          >
          > It comes down to gauging probabilities, and in the case of the initial language of the Diatessaron I'd say the probabilities are closely balanced -- slightly in favor of the Diatessaron being initially released in Syriac. But it doesn't matter all that much; we could figure that the Diatessaron was initially bilingual and it wouldn't make much difference. It was certainly much more /popular/ in Syriac than it was in Greek.
          >
          > MK: "To my understanding we have only translation of the Diatessaron in some Arabic dialect and some Latin manuscripts (unless some believe that Tatian wrote his work in Latin. Is this even in the equation?!)"
          >
          > We have two major Arabic copies in Rome; one is better than the other. (Leslie McFall mentions some others in his 1994 online article, "Tatian's Diatessaron: Mischievous or Misleading?" but they sound extremely late.) And Codex Fuldensis, while containing a basically Vulgate text, essentially preserves the arrangement of the Diatessaron. In addition, we have Ephrem Syrus' Commentary on the Diatessaron, composed in the mid-300's and preserved (mostly) in Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 (from c. 500), and citations from the Diatessaron in some patristic compositions, and Gospels-citations that appear to have been conformed to readings found in the Diatessaron. (And, no; the idea that Tatian composed the Diatessaron in Latin is not in the equation.)
          >
          > MK: "I would like to know some "paths" I can go to and wish to find out solutions . . ."
          >
          > Then take in hand J. Rendel Harris' 1890 book, "The Diatessaron of Tatian: A Preliminary Study," which can be downloaded for free online. (A Word document version is among the Files over at the TC-Alternate discussion-list.) If you really want to dive into the subject then check out William Petersen's big blue "Tatian's Diatessaron." (Imho, Petersen was sometimes cautious when he should have been more confident, and confident when he should have been more cautious, but the book is still a colossal mine of information.) If you have a seminary library nearby, then perhaps you can consult databases or things like JSTOR and search for "Diatessaron" and "Baarda," etc. See also the article by Peter Head at http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Tatian.htm .
          >
          > Yours in Christ,
          >
          > James Snapp, Jr.
          >
        • Vox Verax
          Mike, MK: So, do we have most or much of Justin s Synoptic Harmony? No; the existence of a Synoptics-Harmony used by Justin is a deduction drawn from his
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 26, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Mike,

            MK: "So, do we have most or much of Justin's Synoptic Harmony?"

            No; the existence of a Synoptics-Harmony used by Justin is a deduction drawn from his consistent use of blended citations (i.e., citations that contain material from both Mt. and Lk, for example) when he quoted from the "Apostolic Memoirs." As far as his compositions go, we have his Dialogue with Trypho and his First Apology and Second Apology.

            MK: "I think you have mentioned a number of times in the discussion about the Long Ending of
            Mark (thread) you said (pretty clearly if memory serves me right) that Tatian used his own sources to write his Diatessaron and did not draw or employ from someone else, including Justin. . . . I think we are led to believe that the Diatessaron was not a blending of Tatian with Justin's Synoptics. Would you clear this up for me James, please?"

            Just point me specifically to the statements that you are referring to, and I'll be glad to amend whatever needs amending. But perhaps I simply did not write with sufficient clarity and my statements were misconstrued. Neither the Arabic Diatessaron nor Codex Fuldensis nor Ephrem's Commentary supports the notion that Tatian used, as sources for the Diatessaron, sources besides the four Gospels. At the same time, Justin's Synoptics-Harmony – consisting of three of the four Gospels, blended together without (much) repetition – was probably the main source from which he got the contents of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, already blended together.

            To illustrate: suppose I make a strawberry-banana puree. I say, "This puree was made from three bananas and strawberries." That is still true even if, before I started, someone else made a puree out of three bananas and I took that three-banana puree, added strawberries, and blended them together. In the way that I started with someone else's banana puree, and added strawberries, Tatian started with Justin's Synoptics-Harmony, and added the text of John.

            Now, in the case of Justin's Synoptics-Harmony, it looks like he was not reluctant to add extra-canonical details here and there (the case of the fire in the Jordan at Jesus' baptism being one example), but this is analogous to sprinkling a bit of sugar on the puree; it does not constitute a watermelon (or a fifth document) in the recipe.

            Yours in Christ,

            James Snapp, Jr.
          • rslocc
            ... Hi James, You wouldn t happen to have a small list of examples where Justin gives blended citations would you? This is a very interesting observation and a
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 26, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...> wrote:
              >
              > Mike,
              >
              > MK: "So, do we have most or much of Justin's Synoptic Harmony?"
              >
              > No; the existence of a Synoptics-Harmony used by Justin is a deduction drawn from his consistent use of blended citations (i.e., citations that contain material from both Mt. and Lk, for example) when he quoted from the "Apostolic Memoirs."



              Hi James,

              You wouldn't happen to have a small list of examples where Justin gives blended citations would you? This is a very interesting observation and a common practice amongst Teachers & Preachers of the Bible. The very men who penned the gospel used this method of amalgamated referencing (by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit no less!). James, is it not more probable (however slightly) that Tatian could have simply picked up on this "strength" in Justin's teaching technique? Justin surely had notes and outlines which Tatian was privy to (as an ardent student) in some capacity. Would you oppose the notion that Tatian followed Justin in suit and this "Synoptic-Harmony" is more of thread throughout Justin's teaching, sermons, notes and writtings, than an actual singular work. The structure of which came into existence later by the hand of Tatian. Not that I disagreee with you in essence, I personally think you are on to something here. Yet I am weary of all the "lost" works, which, if we only had them would prove such and such theory. Not implying that your hypothesis comes into this arena. -Matthew M. Rose
            • Rory Crowley
              Hey guys and gals, Greetings. I must make my address here with brevity. Please forgive me for that. I had the honor of finding this group a few years back. I m
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 26, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Hey guys and gals, 

                Greetings. I must make my address here with brevity. Please forgive me for that.

                I had the honor of finding this group a few years back. I'm am currently concentrating in NTTC in my grad program and this group has provided me much-needed insight into the world of TC--esp. the LE, SEs, and all things that pertain to the ending of Mark....

                So, it needs to be stated that what I am about to say, really, has nothing (read: absolutely nothing) to do with my views of any ending of Mark and its claim to authenticity. Rather, it has to do with a grievance, an annoyance, a certain vein of indifference--which actually, has been fostered by such unabating discussions about the ending of Mark.

                With all due respect, I am glad we are engaging the issue. However, it is becoming very, very taxing to always have my inbox flooded with such discussions on the ending of Mark. I want to suggest a number of things here, and then get some feedback:

                (1) For those who are so very enthralled with the ending of Mark, why not start your own Ending-of-Mark-TC yahoo group? After all, this is the TC group, not the LE group;
                (2) this very yahoo group, that we are all a part of, could limit any particular discussion (I'm thinking of one specifically that deals with endings) to say, oh, one or two posts a month by any particular user;
                (3) those who love the ending of Mark discussions, as their own Magdalen, could cordially start respecting the fact that, to others, it is taxing to always be in the middle of such incessant, hobby-horse tennis matches of data; and
                (4) If all else fails, I could, sadly, leave the group. (Yes, it has come to this.)

                Cheers. Let me know your thoughts. 

                ~rpc


                On Sep 26, 2012, at 2:50 PM, rslocc wrote:

                 



                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...> wrote:
                >
                > Mike,
                >
                > MK: "So, do we have most or much of Justin's Synoptic Harmony?"
                >
                > No; the existence of a Synoptics-Harmony used by Justin is a deduction drawn from his consistent use of blended citations (i.e., citations that contain material from both Mt. and Lk, for example) when he quoted from the "Apostolic Memoirs."

                Hi James,

                You wouldn't happen to have a small list of examples where Justin gives blended citations would you? This is a very interesting observation and a common practice amongst Teachers & Preachers of the Bible. The very men who penned the gospel used this method of amalgamated referencing (by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit no less!). James, is it not more probable (however slightly) that Tatian could have simply picked up on this "strength" in Justin's teaching technique? Justin surely had notes and outlines which Tatian was privy to (as an ardent student) in some capacity. Would you oppose the notion that Tatian followed Justin in suit and this "Synoptic-Harmony" is more of thread throughout Justin's teaching, sermons, notes and writtings, than an actual singular work. The structure of which came into existence later by the hand of Tatian. Not that I disagreee with you in essence, I personally think you are on to something here. Yet I am weary of all the "lost" works, which, if we only had them would prove such and such theory. Not implying that your hypothesis comes into this arena. -Matthew M. Rose


              • Vox Verax
                Dear Matthew: Such a list (albeit not an exhaustive one) may be put together by sifting through A. J. Bellinzoni s The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 26, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Matthew:

                  Such a list (albeit not an exhaustive one) may be put together by sifting through A. J. Bellinzoni's "The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr." But here is one example, at least, drawn from a footnote on page 513 in Chapter 11 of "Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen" (Chapter 11 – Tatian's Dependence Upon Justin's APOMNHMONEUMATA – begins on page 130 and there is a good chance that if you consult the book at Google Books you will be able to read the whole chapter, which was initially published back in 1990.) --

                  "Dialogue 76:4 and 120:6 and 140:4 all utilize Mt. 8:11-12 with prefatory words from Lk. 13:29. Petersen observes: "Bellinzoni concluded that Justin mist have been using a written source to have quoted three times /exactly/ (with the sole exception of the transposition of DUSMWN and ANATOLWN in Dial. 76:4) a passage which runs 29 words; Bellinzoni also concluded that Justin must have been using a source which harmonized Luke 13:29 with Matt. 8:11-12, for it seems unlikely that one would, spontaneously and from memory, make exactly the same harmonization three times."

                  I would add a note of caution, however, when recommending this article: on page 150 of the same article/chapter, Petersen claims, "It has long been known that Tatian incorporated a `fifth source' (usually taken to be a non-canonical gospel, such as the Gospel according to the Hebrews) into his Diatessaron." As I mentioned before, that's fine if one considers floating oral traditions a source, but I would question the idea that this "fifth source" was a written document, because the evidence of such a thing is so very scanty: extra-canonical elements in the Diatessaron are few, and some of those that are discernible are traceable to Justin's Synoptics-Harmony, as Petersen's article shows.

                  MMR: "Would you oppose the notion that Tatian followed Justin in suit and this "Synoptic-Harmony" is more of thread throughout Justin's teaching, sermons, notes and writtings, than an actual singular work.?"

                  Yes.

                  Yours in Christ,

                  James Snapp, Jr.
                • mike karoules
                  James, then have the 2 works (that of Tatian s Diatessaron and that of Justin s Harmony ; or his quotes within the Harmony ) been compared? It would seem to
                  Message 8 of 10 , Sep 26, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    James, then have the 2 works (that of Tatian's Diatessaron and that of Justin's Harmony ; or his quotes within the Harmony ) been compared?

                    It would seem to me (just off the cuff ) that, if we compare the 2, we should be able to tell without a whole lot of difficulty if Tatian employed Justin's work(Justin's Harmony ). No? Even if Tatian did paraphrase some. Your thoughts?

                    Thanks alot for your answers and participation.

                    Mike



                    ------------------------------
                    On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 12:31 PM EDT Vox Verax wrote:

                    >Mike,
                    >
                    >MK: "So, do we have most or much of Justin's Synoptic Harmony?"
                    >
                    >No; the existence of a Synoptics-Harmony used by Justin is a deduction drawn from his consistent use of blended citations (i.e., citations that contain material from both Mt. and Lk, for example) when he quoted from the "Apostolic Memoirs." As far as his compositions go, we have his Dialogue with Trypho and his First Apology and Second Apology.
                    >
                    >MK: "I think you have mentioned a number of times in the discussion about the Long Ending of
                    >Mark (thread) you said (pretty clearly if memory serves me right) that Tatian used his own sources to write his Diatessaron and did not draw or employ from someone else, including Justin. . . . I think we are led to believe that the Diatessaron was not a blending of Tatian with Justin's Synoptics. Would you clear this up for me James, please?"
                    >
                    >Just point me specifically to the statements that you are referring to, and I'll be glad to amend whatever needs amending. But perhaps I simply did not write with sufficient clarity and my statements were misconstrued. Neither the Arabic Diatessaron nor Codex Fuldensis nor Ephrem's Commentary supports the notion that Tatian used, as sources for the Diatessaron, sources besides the four Gospels. At the same time, Justin's Synoptics-Harmony – consisting of three of the four Gospels, blended together without (much) repetition – was probably the main source from which he got the contents of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, already blended together.
                    >
                    >To illustrate: suppose I make a strawberry-banana puree. I say, "This puree was made from three bananas and strawberries." That is still true even if, before I started, someone else made a puree out of three bananas and I took that three-banana puree, added strawberries, and blended them together. In the way that I started with someone else's banana puree, and added strawberries, Tatian started with Justin's Synoptics-Harmony, and added the text of John.
                    >
                    >Now, in the case of Justin's Synoptics-Harmony, it looks like he was not reluctant to add extra-canonical details here and there (the case of the fire in the Jordan at Jesus' baptism being one example), but this is analogous to sprinkling a bit of sugar on the puree; it does not constitute a watermelon (or a fifth document) in the recipe.
                    >
                    >Yours in Christ,
                    >
                    >James Snapp, Jr.
                    >
                    >
                  • Wieland Willker
                    If anybody has ideas, suggestions or an opinion regarding these issues, please send them to me in private. Thanks! Best wishes Wieland
                    Message 9 of 10 , Sep 26, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      If anybody has ideas, suggestions or an opinion regarding these issues,
                      please send them to me in private. Thanks!

                      Best wishes
                      Wieland
                      <><



                      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rory Crowley
                      Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:02 AM
                      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [textualcriticism] A Plea: End the Ending of Mark Discussions (or
                      at least 'shorten' them)



                      Hey guys and gals, 

                      Greetings. I must make my address here with brevity. Please forgive me for
                      that.

                      I had the honor of finding this group a few years back. I'm am currently
                      concentrating in NTTC in my grad program and this group has provided me
                      much-needed insight into the world of TC--esp. the LE, SEs, and all things
                      that pertain to the ending of Mark....

                      So, it needs to be stated that what I am about to say, really, has nothing
                      (read: absolutely nothing) to do with my views of any ending of Mark and its
                      claim to authenticity. Rather, it has to do with a grievance, an annoyance,
                      a certain vein of indifference--which actually, has been fostered by such
                      unabating discussions about the ending of Mark.

                      With all due respect, I am glad we are engaging the issue. However, it is
                      becoming very, very taxing to always have my inbox flooded with such
                      discussions on the ending of Mark. I want to suggest a number of things
                      here, and then get some feedback:

                      (1) For those who are so very enthralled with the ending of Mark, why not
                      start your own Ending-of-Mark-TC yahoo group? After all, this is the TC
                      group, not the LE group;
                      (2) this very yahoo group, that we are all a part of, could limit any
                      particular discussion (I'm thinking of one specifically that deals with
                      endings) to say, oh, one or two posts a month by any particular user;
                      (3) those who love the ending of Mark discussions, as their own Magdalen,
                      could cordially start respecting the fact that, to others, it is taxing to
                      always be in the middle of such incessant, hobby-horse tennis matches of
                      data; and
                      (4) If all else fails, I could, sadly, leave the group. (Yes, it has come to
                      this.)

                      Cheers. Let me know your thoughts. 

                      ~rpc


                      On Sep 26, 2012, at 2:50 PM, rslocc wrote:


                       


                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > Mike,
                      >
                      > MK: "So, do we have most or much of Justin's Synoptic Harmony?"
                      >
                      > No; the existence of a Synoptics-Harmony used by Justin is a deduction
                      drawn from his consistent use of blended citations (i.e., citations that
                      contain material from both Mt. and Lk, for example) when he quoted from the
                      "Apostolic Memoirs."

                      Hi James,

                      You wouldn't happen to have a small list of examples where Justin gives
                      blended citations would you? This is a very interesting observation and a
                      common practice amongst Teachers & Preachers of the Bible. The very men who
                      penned the gospel used this method of amalgamated referencing (by the
                      inspiration of the Holy Spirit no less!). James, is it not more probable
                      (however slightly) that Tatian could have simply picked up on this
                      "strength" in Justin's teaching technique? Justin surely had notes and
                      outlines which Tatian was privy to (as an ardent student) in some capacity.
                      Would you oppose the notion that Tatian followed Justin in suit and this
                      "Synoptic-Harmony" is more of thread throughout Justin's teaching, sermons,
                      notes and writtings, than an actual singular work. The structure of which
                      came into existence later by the hand of Tatian. Not that I disagreee with
                      you in essence, I personally think you are on to something here. Yet I am
                      weary of all the "lost" works, whic h, if we only had them would prove such
                      and such theory. Not implying that your hypothesis comes into this arena.
                      -Matthew M. Rose
                    • Wieland Willker
                      I received a lot of feedback. Thanks! Overall I get the impression that it is best to leave things as they are. If you don t like posts regarding certain
                      Message 10 of 10 , Sep 29, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment

                        I received a lot of feedback. Thanks!

                        Overall I get the impression that it is best to leave things as they are.

                        If you don't like posts regarding certain topics you can simply delete them, or you can use the filter function of your email program.

                        Generally I'd like to advise everybody to keep in mind that this is a scholarly mailing list and that everything you post will be read by 500+ people. Please avoid simple one-liners and full quotes. If you are uncertain if your reply is useful for the list there is always the possibility to reply to a certain person off-list.

                         

                        Regarding the issue of the Longer-Ending it would be useful to make yourself familiar with the complete evidence first!

                        You could read Jim Snapp's file:

                        http://www.textexcavation.com/snapp/PDF/snapporiginmkupdate.pdf

                        or my own file:

                        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf

                         

                        I agree with Jim Snapp that a lot of false or misleading information is floating around on the internet regarding the endings of Mark. But I think it is not the function of this list to point these out or to discuss them, except perhaps in extremely outstanding instances. It has been suggested that Jim could set up a website for this material.

                         

                        An important point that is often not seen is the distinction one has to make between a) the Long Ending being canonical and b) being an integral part of Mark's Gospel. A lot of churches (and scholars, e.g. Metzger!) consider the Long Ending canonical, i.e. they have it in their lectionary and read and preach it in the church. This canonical question cannot be answered by textual critics. In the end it is a question for the church.

                        On the other hand most textual critics consider the Long Ending to be somewhat separate from the Gospel of Mark. It may have been written by someone else, perhaps somewhat later. It makes a secondary impression on many counts and was probably not part of the oldest stratum of Mark's Gospel. This secondary nature is a matter of debate.

                         

                        So, if you have *interesting* new evidence regarding the Endings of Mark or have a question that is not answered in the above mentioned files, feel free to discuss that on the list.

                         

                        If you want to reply to this post, please do this off-list.

                         

                         

                        Best wishes

                            Wieland

                            <><

                        --------------------------

                        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany

                        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie

                        Textcritical commentary:

                        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

                         

                        Please check out the TC forum:

                        http://tcg.iphpbb3.com

                         

                         

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.