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

RE: [textualcriticism] The genealogies and the Diatessaron

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    FYI: Also from Epiphanius: Panarion 8, 7, 10 After this, Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh. Manasseh was the father of Amon; Amon, of Josiah. Josiah was
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 24, 2013

      FYI: Also from Epiphanius: Panarion 8, 7, 10 After this, Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh. Manasseh was the father of Amon; Amon, of Josiah. Josiah was the father of Jeconiah, or Shallum, also called Amasiah. This Jeconiah was the father of the Jeconiah who is known as Zedekiah and Jehoiakim.


      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Buck
      Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:01 PM
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] The genealogies and the Diatessaron


      Codex Bezae exhibits a conflated genealogy--including not only all the data from Matthew (although the applicable portion of Matthew is not extant in D), and Adam through David from Luke, but the 3 consecutive kings missing from the Received Text of Matthew as well, along with Eliakim and his son Joakeim--supplied, ultimately, from 1 Chronicles 3, other than they failed to identify Eliakeim and Joakeim as the same ancestor (a common enough problem in genealogies).

      Looking at the textual affinity of D in this regard, we see Joakeim included in M U Theta Sigma f1 33 205 209 258 478 661 954 1006 1216 1230 1342 1354 1505 1604 al syrh* syrpal.

      That certainly doesn't sound like a Western reading. In fact, none of the Latin manuscripts appear to have it. Laparola lists several patristic sources, one of which is the Diatessaron, throwing doubt on the idea that any of them followed Bezae in its Lucan version of Matthew 1:11. But in fact we do have quotes (thanks Wieland) from Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Porphyry discussing this problem in Latin.

      Super haec autem nec Rex esse posset si quidem Joseph filius fuisset nec haeres secundum Hieremiam. Joseph enim Joacim et Jechoniae filius ostenditur quemadmodum et Matthaeus generationem ejus exponit. Jechonias autem et qui ab eo omnes abdicati sunt a Regno Hieremia dicente sic: Vivo ego dicit Doininus si factus fuerit Jechonias filius Joacim Rex Juda signaculum in manudextera mea inde abstraham eum et tradam eum in ni inu quaerentium animam tuam.

      Epiphanius (Pan.1.8.1-4):

      For St. Matthew enumerated the generations (of Christ‘s genealogy) in three divisions, and said that there were fourteen generations from Abraham till David, fourteen from David till the captivity, and fourteen from the captivity until Christ. The first two counts are plain to be seen with no lack of an item, for they include the times previous to Jechoniah. But we see that the third count no longer has the total of fourteen generations found in a succession of names, but the total of thirteen. This is because certain persons found a Jechoniah next to another Jechoniah, and thought that the item had been duplicated. It was not a duplication however, but a distinct item. The son had been named "Jechoniah the son of Jechoniah" for his father. By removing the one name as though for scholarship's sake, certain persons ignorantly made the promise (which is implied in the text) come short of its purpose with regard to the total of the fourteen names, and destroyed the regularity of the arrangement.

      :"Et ob hane causam in evang. sec. Matthaeum una videtur esse generatio (Matth. 1, 11. 12), quia secunda tessaradekas in Joacim  desinit filio Josiae, et tertia inc ipit a   Joacin filio Joacim. quod ignorans Porphyrius calumniam struit ecclesiae, suam ostendens imperitiam,  dum  evangelistae Matthaei arguere nititur falsitatem."

      This in itself is interesting: patristic sources from the 2nd through 4th century discussing a variant of which no trace exists in any Latin manuscripts, which are all later.

      Daniel Buck

      P.S. By the way, Jerome's reference to 'tessaradekas' (he writes it in Greek) signifies the triad of 14's in Matthew 1, which are rectified by the addition of Joakeim to the third triad.

      From: David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>



      Bob, thank you for the reply. I think there are various points to consider:

      1.       When were P4 and P75 written? As always, there’s a range of possible dates. If we accept Comfort & Barrett then P4 was probably written c. 150-175, but anything up to around 250 is possible, with a similar range for P75.

      2.       Both P4 and P75 (inevitably, it seems) came from Egypt. We have no way of knowing whether these mss were rare, or widespread. Similarly, supposing for a moment that there were earlier versions of Lk that did not contain the genealogy, where was it first added to Lk, and how long did this change spread to where Tatian was? Answer: we really have no idea.

      3.       Although Epiphanius clearly states that Marcion’s gospel did not contain the genealogy, Tertullian says nothing about it. As this is one of the most obvious links between Jesus and the OT, Tertullian’s failure to mention it in any way c. 207-8 is a strong indication that he didn’t know of it.


      Not that this is proof of anything, but I think it does show that simply comparing dates gives us very limited information regarding when information in any NT book may have first been seen by Tatian c 172 (in Rome, Greece, or Syria?), or anyone else.


      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA


      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Relyea
      Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 8:44 AM
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] The genealogies and the Diatessaron

      p4 and p75 both have luke's geneology. If it's a posr Tatian interpolation it would have had very rapid acceptance.


      David Inglis <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

      Apologies to anyone who has already seen a shorter version of this post on a different list. 

      The Diatessaron does not contain a genealogy. Is there any evidence to suggest that Tatian knew of one in either Mt or Lk when he wrote it? If not, what is the earliest evidence of a genealogy existing in either Mt or Lk? Is it possible they are both post-Tatian interpolations? Note: For anyone who would otherwise suggest it, Marcion's gospel does not contain a genealogy either. 

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

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