Editing Diatessaron (section)

== Use of the word "God" ==
[[Robert F. Shedinger]] writes that in quotations to the Old Testament where the [[great uncial codices]] have [[Kyrios|''κύριος'']] and the Hebrew OT manuscripts [[Tetragrammaton|יהוה]] (YHWH), Tatian wrote the term "God". [[Pavlos D. Vasileiadis]] reports that "Shedinger proposed that the Syriac Diatessaron, composed some time after the middle of the second century CE, may provide additional confirmation of [[Howard's hypothesis]] (Tatian and the Jewish Scriptures, 136–140). Additionally, within the [[Syriac Peshitta]] is discernible the distinction between κύριος rendered as ܡܪܝܐ (''marya'', which means "lord" and refers to the God as signified by the Tetragrammaton; see Lu 1:32) and ܡܪܢ (''maran'', a more generic term for "lord"; see Joh 21:7)."{{sfn|Vasileiadis|2014|pp=64}} R. F. Shedinger holds that after יהוה, θεός could be a term before κύριος became the standard term in the New Testament Greek copies.{{sfn|Shedinger|2001|pp=138}}

Shedinger's work has been strongly criticized. Since Tatian's Diatessaron is known only indirectly from references to it in other works, Shedinger's dissertation is based on his collection of 69 ''possible'' readings, only two of which, in the judgment of William L. Petersen. reach the level of probability. Peterson complains of Shedinger's "inconsistent methodology" and says that the surviving readings do not support his conclusions.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.jstor.org/stable/3268458| title = Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 122, No. 2 Summer 2003), p. 391| jstor = 3268458}}</ref> Petersen thinks the dissertation should never have been accepted for a doctoral degree, in view of "the illogical arguments, inconsistent standards, philological errors, and methodological blunders that mar this book. [...] the errors are so frequent and so fundamental that this volume can contribute nothing to scholarship. What it says that is true has already been said elsewhere, with greater clarity and perspective. What it says that is new is almost always wrong, plagued [...] with philological, logical, and methodological errors, and a gross insensitivity to things historical (both within the discipline, as well as the transmission-history of texts). Reading this book fills one with dismay and despair. It is shocking that a work which does not rise to the level of a master's thesis should be approved as a doctoral dissertation; how it found its way into print is unfathomable. One shudders to think of the damage it will do when, in the future, it is cited by the ignorant and the unsuspecting as "demonstrating" what it has not."<ref>{{cite web| url = https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv6n2prpetersen| title = Reseña en ''Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies'' 6.2 (2003)}}</ref> Jan Joosten's review of Shedinger's work is also condemnatory. In his judgment "Shedinger's study remains unconvincing, not only in the final conclusions but also in the details of the argument."<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561595| title = ''Novum Testamentum'', Vol. 46, No. 3 (July 2004), p. 299| jstor = 1561595}}</ref>