(who is in heaven [margin] though omitted by a number of early MSS should probably be left in the text. Jesus revealed the life of God, which exists in heaven, whilst He was upon earth. His permanent dwelling place is there; He only ‘dwelt among us . . .’ [cf. 1:14].)
I will let the quote speak for itself.
Jn 3:13 “son of man” (p66, p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Fayyumic Coptic, some Georgian, Diatessaron, today: NIV, Wuest, NASB, UNASB, RSV, NRSV) vs. “son of man who is in Heaven” (5 words) (perhaps original Alexandrinus, Byzantine Lectionary vs. “son of God who is in Heaven” Italic, Curetonian Syriac, Palatine Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, some Georgian, Chrysostom today: KJV, NKJV, Green, NIV footnote, RSV footnote)
ReplyDeleteWonder which fragment of Diatessaron?
Here's a dissertation about Diatessaron MSS: file:///C:/Users/G%20Foster/Downloads/WeirGA_1969redux.pdf
ReplyDeleteD.A. Black discusses the MSS evidence for 3:13 (including the Diatessaron) in this article: https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/ntesources/ntarticles/gtj-nt/black-jn3-gtj-85.pdf
Peter Head has this note in one paper regarding Tatian:
ReplyDeleteThe ordering of the different versions [of the Diatessaron] is clearly tabulated in L. Leloir, ‘Le Diatessaron de Tatian’, Or. Syr. 1 (1956) 216-227; for a reconstructed order see I. Ortiz de Urbina, Vetus Evangelium Syrorum, et exinde excerptum Diatessaron Tatiani (BPM VI; Madrid: CSIC, 1967) XIIf.
Joosten refers to two independent versions.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure which two versions he means, but I have read about the Latin, Syriac, and Armenian versions and a possible Greek one. Black refers to the Syriac text in his John 3:13 article.
ReplyDeleteOne that may not be from Tataian. Still looking into this though.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I have just come across this observation:-
The Diatessaron and Johannine Material
"In his review of Perrin's Thomas and Tatian (TC 8, 2003, http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol08/Perrin2003rev.html), David Parker wrote:
It strikes me as very strange that, if the author was working from a harmony, he produced a text with no discernible Johannine source material. Since, if this was the form of Gospel narrative known to him, he would have had no criteria for discerning Johannine material, this result would have to be an incredible coincidence.
I had hoped that Perrin might deal with this problem in the book, but it is not mentioned, so I flag it up again here. While the Gospel of Thomas features extensive parallels with the Synoptic Gospels, it has no major parallels with the Gospel of John (only arguably a phrase here, a thought there -- nothing clear cut or extended). If Thomas's major source is the Diatessaron, this is surprising. It won't do to say that Thomas simply removed the Johannine material, because then we would be back to Thomas's familiarity with the four canonical Gospels, and the apparent economy of the Thomas and Tatian theory would be negated. Perrin's thesis is that Thomas's knowledge of the Gospels is mediated via the Diatessaron, and if his knowledge of the Gospels is mediated via the Diatessaron, why does he not feature Johannine material?"
http://ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/nicholas-perrin-thomas-other-gospel_23.html
More to investigate.
If I understand the blogger correctly, I agree that it would be very strange for Tatian to write a harmony of the Gospels without using authentic Johannine material. However, Tatian was not averse to changing the Gospel texts where he saw fit. A famous example is his emendation made to John the Baptizer's diet recorded in the NT.
ReplyDeleteThe Gospel of Thomas would have to be dated fairly late in order to use Tatian as a source. That would place it well outside the first-century date that some prefer. See https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/ask-a-scholar/gospel-of-thomas
On the Diatessaron issue, there's also an Arabic version which was produced in the 19th century, but the original source language of Diatessaron is uncertain.
"changing the Gospel texts" - Unproven & the assumption is because of being vegetarian!
ReplyDeleteI would mark this as a potential textual variant at the very least, not to mention its relationship to the Torah's Milk and honey.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/248919
ReplyDeleteWhat is the textual justification for saying that John ate "milk and honey"? Of course, it's related to Torah, but that does not mean it's a justified or plausible reading. See https://books.google.com/books?id=DD8cPKAzkrMC&pg=PA443&lpg=PA443&dq=tatian+wild+honey+and+locusts&source=bl&ots=XvjhO-0dPc&sig=TdiOS3z742U64zW7UcDa-m817n0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQyqiHoo_ZAhXmuFkKHd2vD4AQ6AEIQzAF#v=onepage&q=tatian%20wild%20honey%20and%20locusts&f=false
ReplyDeleteKLelhoffer calls Tatian's interpretation, a "vegetarian emendation" of the relevant texts.
Emendation = "the process of making a revision or correction to a text."
An emendation by definition is a change.
An article from JBL back in the 1800s also states that the reading proposed by Tatian's Diatessaron "actually altered the reading of the Gospel to fit Tatian's Encratite tenets." See https://books.google.com/books?id=ZxlLAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=tatian+wild+honey+and+locusts&source=bl&ots=aOLVTkCFxy&sig=6_w_w-hsPWmfrBW-y5EF9HS_r_U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQyqiHoo_ZAhXmuFkKHd2vD4AQ6AEIRzAH#v=onepage&q=tatian%20wild%20honey%20and%20locusts&f=false
There has to be a good reason why a text is a potential variant as opposed to an interpolation or gloss.
The focus is milk but there is also the removal of wild.
ReplyDeleteAlready read the links you posted.
True, Tatian removes "wild" but also takes out "locusts." That qualifies as an emendation and I still think that while emendations might be proposed, there has to be some justification for them. Otherwise, I don't take them seriously.
ReplyDeleteIn the link I provided, the language "emendation" was used. But I won't beat a dead horse. Novatian was equally attracted to the Encratite lifestyle.
The OP concerned John 3:13 anyway and not Tatian's Diatessaron per se. I would like to focus on that subject if there's anything else to add. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteYou can call it an emendation - ok, but on the basis of vegetarianism?
ReplyDeleteAnyone who claims this would also have to demonstrate that they also had centrifuge technology (even in Tatians time). Eating honey in many ancient cultures and many still today is a case of tearing off a chunk of comb (with or without smoking the bees) and eating it whole - comb, honey and wiggling GRUBS. WE do have evidence of bee keeping in jars but this is no evidence of a change in consumption method.
This is another case of something that seems quite plausible to the modern ear has no basis in reality - in the evidence. Vegetarian though he might have been.
I have nothing more to say on this actual thread. I think the list i posted is fairly comprehensive & will leave it to others to add or remove.
My original comments emphasized the change/emending of the Gospel account more so than the vegetarian component. Actually, others used that explanation and I was quoting or alluding to their work. It seems clear that Tatian was an Encratite like Novatian, but the main point for me was that he altered scripture without good reason. According to Paul and Jesus, whether a man/woman is vegetarian or not is a personal decision. Please don't interpret my words as a jab at being vegetarian or vegan.
ReplyDeleteHere is an article on the Encratites: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05412c.htm
Maybe you've read this short entry on Tatian's textual alteration: http://sor.cua.edu/Bible/Diatessaron.html
Regarding bees, Virgil's Georgics has some interesting things to say.
Concerning John 3:13: which early text includes the added words? To my knowledge, none.
Lastly, I don't understand the connection between Tatian's alteration of the text on the basis of Encratism/vegetarianism and centrifuge technology. Why would he need CT in order to emend the account so that it would fit with his Encratite proclivities?
ReplyDeleteAre you focusing on the point that Tatian removed "wild," not just the reference to locusts?
I have read many works including scholarly that try to imply that Jesus & others named were vegetarian but I do not see a good reason or evidence to imply it. I had read these other works & I know where the supposed vegetarian link originated so I knew there was no offence in your comment :).
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the motivation of Tatian was vegetarian at all in this instance. The removal of "wild" brings the description more in line with OT - ρεουσαν γαλα και μελι.
Incidentally 'milk of the mountains' from the Hebrew could also be translated "fat of the mountains" which would be non descript - just indicating good things from the land. Cf Psa_72:16.
I am still mulling over what Tatian was trying to say here.
Just read Virgil's Georgics - he seems unaware of the grubs or the life cycle - he seems to be confusing bees with flys.
As an example more in line with ancient honey gathering see:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DsOjXWF-c0
I have extracted comb from domestic honey bees & you can see the grubs.
I realize that no early text have these words but that does not stop other papers hypothesizing lost textual variants from other ancient texts, when old enough.
By contrast - modern honey extraction using centrifuge:-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDqSMgj9xI
I'm conducting class now, so this comment will be very brief. You might agree that bringing a reading "into line" with OT descriptions is not necessarily a good reason to alter the text. Secondly, it doesn't explain the removal of locusts from the Gospel account. Nor does there seem to be a textual reason to expunge "locusts."
ReplyDeleteI have a colleague who also loves working with bees and she's taken classes on them and so forth. We've talked for quite some time about honey and there was a WT article some years ago concerning honey in the Promised Land, I think.
Will comment on the Georgics later. Read that work with my colleague.
I know that you mentioned reading Virgil's Georgics, but here is a translation that clearly indicates he's discussing bees and honey: http://classics.mit.edu/Virgil/georgics.4.iv.html
ReplyDeleteFor the Latin, see the text at Perseus.
Here is also another one of the better Georgics texts: http://www.theoi.com/Text/VirgilGeorgics2.html
See also https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/poem-week-bees-virgils-georgics-book-iv/
Yes, bees & honey, but I was referring to the life cycle as mentioned in your last link:-
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugonia
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0005772X.1994.11099214?journalCode=tbee20
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6mJ7e5YmnE
ReplyDeleteWhat an amazing process!
This is an interesting account:-
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xxIUDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=Generally+speaking,+there+was+nothing+out+of+the+ordinary+there,+but+there+were+a+lot+of+swarms+of+bees,+and+all+the+men+who+ate+honeycomb+became+deranged,+suffered+from+vomiting+and+diarrhoea,&source=bl&ots=xVjG5PEi0G&sig=vpBTg_hBEXVuPhvfPKdskGvLFCg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwioy4Ssl5TZAhWsLMAKHcbbBYUQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Generally%20speaking%2C%20there%20was%20nothing%20out%20of%20the%20ordinary%20there%2C%20but%20there%20were%20a%20lot%20of%20swarms%20of%20bees%2C%20and%20all%20the%20men%20who%20ate%20honeycomb%20became%20deranged%2C%20suffered%20from%20vomiting%20and%20diarrhoea%2C&f=false
Thanks, Duncan. I checked out the resources you posted about bees and honey. Virgil's writing about bees, if taken at face value, would seem absurd today. But scholars think his poetic language should be interpreted tropically rather than construed literally.
ReplyDeleteMy, how time flies! Tempus fugit! I found the WT article that dealt with an archaeological discovery regarding "milk and honey." See the 3/1/2011 WT, p. 15. From the article:
ReplyDeleteWhat conclusion do the archaeologists draw from this discovery?
“While the Bible tells us nothing about beekeeping in Israel at that time,” continues the press release, “the discovery of the apiary at Tel Rehov indicates that beekeeping and the extraction of bees’ honey and honeycomb was a highly developed industry as early as the First [Solomon's] Temple period. Thus, it is possible that the term ‘honey’ in the Bible indeed pertains to bees’ honey.”
An article that Duncan sent to me privately likewise references Tel Rehov.
http://www.huji.ac.il/cgi-bin/dovrut/dovrut_search_eng.pl?mesge118932754932688760
ReplyDeletehttp://drbeekeeper.com/2013/02/bees-throughout-the-ages-bees-in-ancient-egypt/
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallow#Biblical_mention
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallow#Candles
http://www.bugsfeed.com/western_honeybee
ReplyDeleteDuncan, thanks for enlightening me on beekeeping in the ancient world and other subjects. I finished the one article on beekeeping, and it was pretty good--but no mention of Vergil, from what I can tell. :-(
ReplyDeleteStill a good survey nonetheless.
Although fascinating, I will now moderate this thread and either ask that future comments here be confined to John 3:13 MSS or consider the thread concluded.
Best,
Edgar
I currently have a theory about Vergil's cow bees actually being cluster fly's. The ones in the UK lay there eggs in earthworms but I do not know what other variants exist. When they hatch as flys the fly to a high point and cluster.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.kiwicare.co.nz/assets/Uploads/cluster-flies-in-attic.jpg
Compare bees.
http://aabeeremovals.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/cluster.jpg
A certain similarity.
As for John 1:14, its a case of when rather than what.
You mean John 3:13? That is what this thread's about. I will have to consider your thoughts on Vergil later: sounds interesting.
ReplyDeleteI must confess that I am not sure what angle you are looking for in this post. I refer to John 1:4 as the commentator is using this as a justification for his understanding of 3:13 and the textual option he favoured. But 1:14 can be understood in more ways than one. I have posted the three options of 3:13 that I know of. Are there others?
ReplyDeleteOkay, I see why you referred to 1:14 now. We got off the main drag, so the verse slipped my mind, but 1:14 does not explicitly lend support to the kjv variant. The failure to understand why 1:14 was mentioned constituted a faux pas on my part.
ReplyDelete