tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post1728341528245453699..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: Tatian and Mark 16:9-20James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-36851358959800804102022-11-10T23:29:41.584-05:002022-11-10T23:29:41.584-05:00Peter Head,
What are your answers to the points r...Peter Head, <br />What are your answers to the points raised in this post?<br />Frankly it sounds like you suffer from arbitrary skepticism; you haven't given any concrete evidence to justify your reluctance; nor have you acknowledged that reference in McCarthy's translation of Ephrem that you overlooked (due to reading too quickly + it being mis-referenced in the index). <br /><br /><< It seems pretty clear to me that the Eusebian apparatus was originally produced for only Mark 1.1-16.8 (by Eusebius) >> <br /><br />Me too. But we're talking here about Tatian not Eusebius. Please don't try to fog the lens.<br /><br /><< and then in the subsequent tradition the same technique was applied to the Long Ending as a part of Mark and the Fourfold Gospel >><br /><br />Again: the subject at the moment is Tatian. Focus please! <br /><br /><< Do we have enough information and early source material for Tatian's Diatessaron to be highly confident that His Diatessaron had the Long Ending? >><br /><br />Yes. I just presented it in this post: Ephrem + Aphrahat + Ciasca's Arabic Diatessaron + Codex Fuldensis all point in the same direction: toward the answer, "Yes, Peter Head; Tatian included the contents of Mark 16:9-20 in the Diatessaron." And do we have anything that indicates that Tatian's Diatessaron did not include the contents of Mark 16:9-20? No we do not. <br /><br />JSJ<br /><br /><br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-72760767790154614502022-10-11T08:13:43.228-04:002022-10-11T08:13:43.228-04:00Thanks James,
I think my caution originates in a ...Thanks James, <br />I think my caution originates in a general caution about how much in the complex developing Diatessaronic tradition can be confidently ascribed to the originating influence of Tatian (with then a corresponding confidence about its time and location of origin) and how much should be ascribed to the onward development of the tradition. <br />For example, it seems pretty clear to me that the Eusebian apparatus was originally produced for only Mark 1.1-16.8 (by Eusebius), and then in the subsequent tradition the same technique was applied to the Long Ending as apart of Mark and the Fourfold Gospel (not necessarily a long time after Eusebius). So you have a developing tradition adapting to the widespread acceptance of the Long Ending. <br />Do we have enough information and early source material for Tatian's Diatessaron to be highly confident that His Diatessaron had the Long Ending? Or is it possible that the Diatessaronic tradition developed by the inclusion of that material? [Back of this is the question which seems pretty complex in Diatessaron research - did people simply copy Tatian's resultant text? or did people also copy Tatian's approach and technique?] <br />I am older and more cautious than I was in my younger days (cf. https://www.academia.edu/1175080/Tatians_Christology_and_its_Influence_on_the_Composition_of_the_Diatessaron_Tyndale_Bulletin_43_1992_121_137)<br />Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-14345925664365511442022-08-26T16:32:48.656-04:002022-08-26T16:32:48.656-04:00What , it's been ten years already since you s...What , it's been ten years already since you started publishing your TC research in reputable journals? So People should stop pestering you to do what you're already doing.Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.com