Boid on some important original readings in the Luik Diatessaron

I’ve just acquired this book: Daniel Plooij, A Further Study of the Liège Diatessaron, Leiden, 1925. There are a lot of original readings listed. There is also a chapter on the resemblance to Marcion’s text. I might have to scan some pages and send you them, and then explain them as needed. For the moment, have a look at these:
(a) Matthew XXIX: 15. “And when you see the abomination of which Daniel the prophet spoke, which is to be the sign of the world’s destruction, standing in the holy city…… Remember that the Flood didn’t reach the top of Mt. Gerizim. Presumably the flood of fire won’t either.
(b) Verse 16. ….flee to the Mountain (singular)….. Then insertion of reminiscence of Luke 2XXI: 28 meaning in the context “feel relief” and also “look up” while on the mountain.

What if the destruction did happen? What if the re-capture of Jerusalem and the end forever of any Davidic kingship and the end forever of the temple service was the end of the old world? This would answer the otherwise inexplicable fact that the Jews unanimously accepted that the era of the Mosaic temple service had ended forever, except that in some unimaginable future the situation is to change with the re-institution of a temple of UNDEFINED CHARACTER . Have a look at the modern Jewish liturgy. No Jewish sect considered re-instituting whatever part of the old system could be practised on the temple site. (The modern Ultras that want to do this practice a modern heresy, not traditional Judaism. I know they could have been thinking this since the 18th c., but that is still modern in this context). In this respect all Jews took on the Samaritan practice. This suggestion doesn’t stop the assumption that Agrippa still ruled. What if he was Vice-Roy but not King? A Vice-Roy or a Duke or a Grand-Duke or even a Prince by definition owes allegiance to a King or Emperor. Luxembourg is an independent country, ruledby a Grand-Duchess, but she owes allegiance to the King of Belgium. Agrippa was not strictly speaking a King (I could be wrong), so could we guess that he rose in rank by formally becoming a Prince? A vassal King is still a King in his own right, but a vassal Prince has the rank by allegiance (I think). I’m not satisfied with this so far. What if Agrippa planned to be King but it didn’t work out quite as expected? Is this the expectation in the verse?
(c) In another passage (details later) it is made clear that Jerusalem is NOT holy at the present time, but that it can be made holy. It seems to me that this is part of the rationale behind the welcoming of the “abomination” in the temple. I think this means The desecration has to be completed before it can be ended. Does this sound Sabbatean to you?

Now, getting back to the sign of the destruction of the world. I’ve had a better look at the context, and I think there are three or four separate times, or at least two. There is the setting up of the abomination, which is a sign that the end times within history and the end of days outside history must come. This makes three times. I think there is a more immediate historical time, when Jerusalem is encircled by armies. The key to the understanding is in the word “sign”. The setting up of the abomination is not the time of all the rest: it is the sign of all the rest, and perhaps the start of the capture of Jerusalem and its immediate consequences. Now we can see a deeper reason for leaving the important phrase out. All connection with expected events is lost, as the historical and eschatological are fused. Everything is conveniently vague.

As said, there is extensive Syriac evidence for watered-down forms of this phrase. Efrem has “When you see the sign of the terror of its (Jerusalem’s) desolation”. Pseudo-Efrem has “the frightful sign of the destruction of Jerusalem”. (The Syriac texts tend to render shomem as “frightening” or “terror”). The Old Syriac Gospel, under the influence of the Diatessaron, has “the sign of abomination” in Matthew and “the sign of abomination of desolation” in Mark. Efrem in another place has “the unclean sign”.

The singular “mountain” is supported by the Arabic Diatessaron, as well as the Old Syriac and the Peshitta.

The insertion of the reminiscence of Luke XXI: 18, which radically changes the meaning or at least the implications, is supported by the the Western Text of the Greek in in Matthew, and also by the Arabic Diatessaron.

The conclusion is that the Luik Diatessaron is the best witness to the original in this passage. Also, its readings can be relied on completely, since there are watered-down traces of its readings elsewhere. My reading so far indicates that this is frequently the case. I think you will have to get access to the English translation eventually --- or perhaps soon.

I have done my best to work out the form of the prefatory note to the Arabic Diatessaron in ms. A (the Vatican ms.) from what Euringer quotes in German and Latin. My conclusion is that the English translation you’re using is accurate, but not quite literal enough.

Euringer’s quote of the Arabic preface in ms. B shows the four letters are the Arabic (and therefore Syriac) equivalents of Mem Resh Qof H.et (not He). Sorry about that. But the implications of the wording in ms. B are important. I agree the omission of the word “anointed” or “Christ” is original. This doesn’t worry me theologically one bit. This word “Christ” is misunderstood so often we might be better off without it. Jesus himself didn’t like it, and the ms. evidence for Chrestos is overwhelming. There is good ms. evidence for the omission of the word “Christ” in Mark XIV: 61. Jesus accepted the term Christ from the Samaritan woman, but she meant it in the sense of an anointed High Priest, that is, the second and greater Moses, which amounts to the Chrestos anyway. Anyway, the anointed or Christ in Daniel was seen not to be Jesus by the totality of all early Christian authors. If it didn’t worry them it needn’t worry me. As you see, I’m indefatigably and incurably Protestant: you follow the truth wherever it leads.

This is the ultimate reproach to the Roman Church: everyone has to believe what they’re told, even if it was only invented at the Council of Trent. Not that I’m prejudiced.