From: Dexter Garnier (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jun 29 1998 - 07:35:26 EDT
Mark Goodacre wrote:
>Actually the Dura-Europos fragment may well not be a fragment of
>Tatian. We have been working on the fragment here in Birmingham and
>shortly our article on this should be published. It features a new
>reconstruction of the text as well as documentation of the
>unlikelihood that this is part of the Diatessaron.
>All the best
Many thanks for the interesting reply. W. Petersen on pp. 199-200 of
his book on the Diatessaron which I referred to previously, cites
D. Plooij as being "less than certain" that the fragment was from the
Diatessaron. The possibility is suggested that the fragment might be
from a passion harmony originally in Syriac translated into Greek.
The evidence as presented does seem to indicate a Syriac original.
One example being the spelling of Arimathea as *E*RI*N*MAQAIA[S]
in the fragment vs. canonical ARIMAQAIAS, with the *E* being due
to aural confusion in Syriac between alaf and ain, and the *N* being
due to confusion between Syriac yud and nun which are very similar
So there should be much interest in the forthcoming article. I will
second the request I have just read from Larry Swain that you inform
us when it is published.
PS The bibliography for the D. Plooij comments is (from Petersen):
D. Plooij _A Fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron in Greek_ ET 46 (1934/35),
--- b-greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek To post a message to the list, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org To subscribe, mailto:email@example.com To unsubscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=[email@example.com]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:50 EDT