Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Introduction.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Introduction.
————————————
The aim of the following
introductory paragraphs is neither to furnish a detailed restatement of
facts already known, nor to offer an independent contribution to the
discussion of the problems that arise, although in other circumstances
such an attempt might be made with advantage. All that is needed
and practicable here is to describe briefly, if possible, the nature of
the connection between the English treatise forming the next part of
this volume and the ancient work known as the Diatessaron of
Tatian; and then to indicate in a few words some of the more important
or interesting features of the work itself, and some of the historical
and other problems that are in one way or another connected with
it.
1 The Text Translated.—What is
offered to the reader is a translation into English of an Arabic text,
published at Rome in 1888, in a volume entitled in Arabic
Diatessaron, which Titianus Compiled from the Four Gospels, with
the alternative Latin title, Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniæ,
Arabice. The Roman volume consists of two parts—the
text, covering a little over 209 very clearly printed Arabic pages, and
a Latin half, comprising a scholarly introduction (pp. v.–xv.), a
Latin translation (pp. 1–99), and a table showing the order in
which the passages taken from the gospels occur in the text. The
editor is P. Agostino Ciasca, a well known Orientalist,
“scriptor” at the Vatican Library.
2 Former Translations.—In his
Introduction (p. xiv. f.) Ciasca explains that in his translation he
aimed at preserving quantum, salva fidelitate, integrum fuit,
indolem stylumque Clementinæ Vulgate. This Latin version
was in its turn translated into English by the Rev. J. Hamlyn Hill,
B.D., and published in 1894 in a volume entitled The Earliest Life
of Christ, with an interesting introduction and a number of
valuable appendices. The ms. of Mr.
Hill’s translation of the Latin of Ciasca was compared with the
Arabic original by Mr. G. Buchanan Gray, M.A., lecturer in Hebrew and
the Old Testament in Mansfield College, Oxford.
3 The Present Translation.—The
translation offered here is quite independent of either of these
two. Ciasca’s Latin was seldom consulted, except when it
was thought the Arabic might perhaps be obscured by a misprint.
After the translation was completed, Hill’s English was compared
with it to transfer Mr. Hill’s valuable system of references to
the margin of this work, and to lessen the risk of oversights passing
the last revision unnoticed. In two or three cases this process
led to the adoption of a different construction, and in a few of the
more awkward passages a word was borrowed as being less harsh than that
which had originally been written. Speaking generally, the
present version appears to differ from Mr. Hill’s in adhering
more closely to the original.17
| 17 For further explanation of
the method followed see 20. |
4 The Arabic Text.—Only two Arabic
mss. are known to exist. Ciasca tells us
(p. xiv.) that he took as the basis of his text that ms. which is more careful in its orthography, the Cod. Vat.
Arab. No. 14. He, however, printed at the foot of the page the
variants of the other ms., and supplied from it
two lacunæ in the Cod. Vat.,18
| 18 See notes to § 7, 47,
and § 52, 36, of the present translation. | substituted its
readings for those of the Cod. Vat. where he thought them preferable,
and followed its testimony in omitting two important passages.19
Here and there Ciasca has emended the
text, but he does not profess to have produced a critical
edition.20
| 20 See also below, 6, and
20. |
5 The Arabic mss.—Unfortunately, the present writer has not
had an opportunity of examining these two mss.;
but they have been described at some length by Ciasca; Codex XIV. in
Pitra’s Analecta Sacra, iv., 465 ff., and the other codex
in the volume with which we are dealing, p. vi. ff. I. The
former, which we shall call the Vatican ms. (in
Ciasca’s footnotes it is called A), was brought to the Vatican
from the East by Joseph S. Assemani21
about a.d. 1719. It was described by Stephen E.
Assemani,22
| 22 Mai, Vet. script. nova.
collect., iv., 14. | Rosenmüller, and Akerblad,23
| 23 cf. Zahn,
Forschungen, i., 294 ff. | and then at length by Ciasca, to whose account the reader must be
referred for the details. It consists of 123 folios, of which the
first seven are somewhat spoiled, and of which two are
missing,24
| 24 See below, § 7, 47,
note, and § 52, 36, note. | and is supposed by Ciasca, from the character
of the writing, and from the presence of certain Coptic
letters25
| 25 See below, § 28, 43,
note. | by the first hand, to have been written in
Egypt. S. Assemani assigned it to the twelfth century, and Ciasca
accepts his verdict, while Akerblad says the thirteenth or fourteenth
century. The text of the ms. is pretty
fully vocalised, but there are few diacritical points. There are
marginal notes, some of them by a later hand,26
| 26 See below,
foot-notes, passim. | which
Ciasca classifies as (1) emendations, (2) restorations, (3)
explanations. II. The second ms., which
we shall call the Borgian (in Ciasca’s footnotes it is called B),
was brought to the Borgian Museum from Egypt in August, 1886. It
has at the end the following inscription in Arabic: “A
present from Halim Dos Ghali, the Copt, the Catholic, to the Apostolic
See, in the year of Christ 1886.”27
Antonius Morcos, Visitor Apostolic of the Catholic Copts, when, in the
beginning of 1886, he was shown and informed about the Vatican
ms., told of this other one and was the means
of its being sent to Rome. The Borgian ms., which Ciasca refers to the fourteenth century,
consists of 355 folios. Folios 1–8528
| 28 Can this be a misprint for
95? | contain
an anonymous preface on the gospels, briefly described by Ciasca, who,
however, does not say whether it appears to have been originally
written in Arabic or to have been translated into that language.
With folios 96b, 97a, which are reproduced in phototype
in Ciasca’s edition, begins the Introductory Note given in full
at the beginning of the present translation. The text of the
Diatessaron ends on folio 353a, but is followed by
certain appendices, for which see below, §55, 17, note. This
ms. is complete, and has, as we shall
see,29
in some respects a better text, though it is
worse in its orthography than the Vatican ms.
6 Condition of the Arabic
Text.—Ciasca’s text does not profess to be critically
determined, for which purpose a more careful study of each of the
mss. and an estimate of their respective texts
would be indispensable. Although the Borgian ms. is supposed by Ciasca to be a century or two later than
the Vatican ms. it is clearly not a copy of the
latter, for not only does it sometimes offer more original readings,
but, as we shall see, its text in some points coincides more exactly in
scope with the original work. The list of various readings
supplied by Ciasca,30
| 30 He does not state, in so
many words, that the list is absolutely exhaustive. | which is equal to about
a fifth or a quarter of the text itself, ought to yield, on being
analysed, some canons of criticism. The footnotes of the present
edition are enough to show that a number of the peculiar features of
Ciasca’s text do not belong to the original Arabic ms.; and further study would dispose of still more.
On the other hand, there are unfortunately some indications31
| 31 See, e.g., below, §
13, 42, note, and § 14, 43, note. | that the common ancestor of both mss., though perhaps less than two centuries removed from
the original, was not the original itself, and therefore emendation may
be necessary even where both mss. agree.
From first to last it has to be borne in mind that a great deal of work
was done at Arabic versions of the gospels,32
| 32 See the valuable article
of Guidi, “Le traduzioni degli Evangelii in arabo e in
etiopico” (Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei; Classe di
Scienze Morali, Storiche e filologiche. Serie Quarta,
1888, Parte Prima—Memorie, pp.
5–38). Some of his results are briefly stated in Scrivener,
A Plain Introd. to the Crit. of the N.T., 4th ed., ii.,
162. | and the
text of the copy from which our two mss. are
descended may already have suffered from contact with other versions;
while the special activity of the thirteenth century may have left its
mark in some places on the text of the Borgian ms., supposing it to be chronologically the later.
7 Origin of the Arabic Text.—If some
of the uncouthness of the Arabic text is due to corruption in the
course of transmission, much is also due to its being not an original
work, but a translation. That it is, in the main, a translation
from Syriac is too obvious to need proof.33
| 33 cf.the
foot-notes passim, e.g., § 13, 14, § 14,
24. |
The Introductory Notice and Subscription to the Borgian ms., moreover, expressly state that the work was translated
by one Abu’l Faraj ‘Abdulla ibn-at-Tayyib,34
| 34 See below, note to
Subscription. | an “excellent and learned priest,”
and the inferiority of parts of the translation,35
| 35 See a glaring case in
§ 52, 11. | and
entire absence of any confirmatory evidence,36
| 36 The references to
the readings of the Diatessaron in Ibn-at-Tayyib’s own
commentary on the gospels (see next note) are remarkably impersonal for
one who had made or was to make a translation of it. | hardly
suffice to refute this assertion. Still, the Borgian ms. is a late witness, and although it most probably
preserves a genuine tradition as to the author of our work, its
statement need not therefore necessarily be correct in every point.
8 The Arabic Editor and his
Method.—Ibn-at-Tayyib (d. 1043) is a well known man, a
Nestorian monk and scholar, secretary to Elias I., Patriarch of Nisibis
(for references to sources see, e.g., Ciasca’s Introduction, p.
xi. f. and Steinschneider’s long note in his Polemische und apologetische Lit. in Arabische Sprache,
pp. 52–55). As we are here concerned with him simply as a link in the chain connecting our
present work with its original source, the only point of interest for
us is the method he followed in producing it. Did he prepare an
independent translation or did he make use of existing Arabic versions,
his own or others’? Until this question which space forbids
us to discuss here, has been more thoroughly investigated,37
| 37 A specially
important part of the general question is this, What are the mutual
relations of the following: (1) a supposed version of at least
Matthew and John made from the Syriac by Ibn-at-Tayyib, mentioned by
Ibn-al-‘Assal in the Preface to his scholarly recension of the
gospels (ms. numbered Or. 3382 in Brit. Mus.,
folio 384b) and used by him in determining his text; (2) the
gospel text interwoven with the commentary of Ibn-at-Tayyib on the
gospels, a commentary which De Slane says the author wrote in Syriac
and then translated into Arabic; (3) our present work. Of
mss. testifying to No. 1 we have some dating
from the time of Ibn-al-‘Assal himself; of No. 2 we have, in
addition to others, an eleventh-century ms. in
Paris, described by De Slane (catalogue No. 85) as being
“un volume dépareillé du
ms. original de
l’ouvrage”; of No. 3 we have of course the
Vatican and Borgian mss. What is the
mutual relation of these texts; were any two of them identical?
The Brit. Mus. ms. of the second has many
points of contact with the third, but is dated 1805 a.d. Does the older Paris ms.
stand more or less closely related? Did Ibn-at-Tayyib himself
really translate any or all of these texts, or did he simply select or
edit them? Space does not permit us to point out, far less to
discuss, the various possibilities. | it must suffice to say that in view of the
features in the present text that have not yet been shown to exist in
any other Arabic version, it is still at least a tenable hypothesis
that Ibn-at-Tayyib’s ms. constituted to a
considerable extent a real translation rather than a sort of Arabic
parallel to the Codex Fuldensis (see below, 12).
9 The Syriac Text Translated—The
eleventh century ms. of Ibn-at-Tayyib, could we
reach it, would bring us face to face with the more interesting
question of the nature of his Syriac original. The Subscription
to the Borgian ms. states, probably copying the
statement from its exemplar, that this was a. Syriac ms. in the handwriting of ‘Isa ibn-‘Ali al
Motatabbib, pupil of Honain ibn Ishak. This Honain was a famous
Arabic physician and medical writer of Bagdad (d. 873), whose school
produced quite a number of translations and translators, among whom
Ibn-‘Ali, supposed to be identical with the Syriac lexicographer
of the same name, is known to have had a high place. The Syriac
ms., therefore, that Ibn-at-Tayyib translated
takes us back to about the year 900. But the Subscription to each
of our mss.38
| 38 The text is given below in
full at its proper place. | states that the
work ended is the gospel called Diatessaron, compiled from the
four gospels by Titianus; while the Introductory Note to the Borgian
ms. adds that this Titianus was a Greek.
The next step, therefore, is to inquire whether any traces exist of
such a Syriac work, or any statements by which we can check the account
just given of it.
10 Other Traces of a Syriac Text.—No
copy of a Syriac Diatessaron has yet been shown to have
survived.39
| 39 Prof. Gottheil,
indeed, announced in 1892 in the Journal of Biblical Literature
(vol. xi., pt. i., p. 71) that he had been privately informed of the
existence of a complete copy of the Syriac Diatessaron.
Unfortunately, however, as he has kindly informed me, he has
reluctantly come to the conclusion that the ms.
in question, which is not yet accessible, is “nothing more than
the commentary of Isho‘dad” mentioned in the text. A
similar rumor lately circulated probably originated simply in the
pamphlet of Goussen mentioned in the next note. S. Bäumer,
on the other hand, in his article, “Tatians Diatessaron, seine bisher. Lit. u. die Reconstruction des
Textes nach einer neuentdeckten Handschrift” (Literarischer Handweiser, 1890,
153–169) which the present writer has not been able to see,
perhaps refers simply to the Borgian ms. | A number of quotations40
| 40 Attention was called
to these by Profs. Isaac H. Hall and R. J. H. Gottheil (Journ. of
Bibl. Lit., x., 153 ff.; xi., 68 ff.); then by Prof. J. R. Harris
(Contemp. Rev., Aug., 1895, p. 271 ff., and, more fully,
Fragments of the Com. of Ephr. Syr. on the Diatess., London,
1895) and by Goussen (Studia Theologica, fasc. i., Lips.,
1895). |
from such a work have, however, been found in a Syriac commentary on
the New Testament by Isho‘dad of Merv (circ. 852), a
contemporary of Honain, Ibn-‘Ali’s teacher.41
| 41 Prof. Harris promises an
edition of this commentary. | The value of these extracts is apparent,
for they take us back one generation earlier than Ibn-at-Tayyib’s
Syriac exemplar. More important still, they do not entirely agree
with the text of our Arabic version. To solve the problem thus
raised, we must examine some of the statements about the
Diatessaron to be found in ecclesiastical writers.
11 Statements about the
Diatessaron.—One of the most widely known is that of
Isho‘dad himself, who, in his Preface to the Gospel of Mark,
says: “Tatian, disciple of Justin, the philosopher and
martyr, selected from the four gospels, and combined and composed a
gospel, and called it Diatessaron, i.e., the Combined,…and
upon this gospel Mar Ephraem commented.”42
| 42 Harris,
Fragments, p. 14, where the Syriac text is quoted. |
Dionysius Bar Salibi (twelfth century) repeats each of these phrases,
adding, “Its commencement was, ‘In the beginning was the
Word.’”43
| 43 Bib. Or.,
ii., 159 f. Most of them are repeated again by Bar Hebræus
(d. 1286), although some confusion is produced by his interweaving some
phrases from Eusebius of Cæsarea. (Bib. Or., i., 57
f., and a longer quotation in English in Contemp. Rev., Aug.,
1895, p. 274 f.) | These statements
identify the author of the Diatessaron with a man otherwise
known, and tell us that the great Syrian father Ephraem (d. 373) wrote
a commentary on it. Unfortunately, no Syriac ms. of Ephraem’s work is known to have
survived;44
| 44 Lagarde’s statement
(Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellsch. der
Wiss., etc., zu Göttingen, 1891, No. 4, p. 153)
that a ms. had been discovered, appears to have
been unfounded. Prof. Rahlfs of Göttingen kindly tells me
that he believes this is so. | but quotations from it, or allusions to it,
are being found in other Syriac writers. One further reference
will suffice for the present. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, four
hundred years before Isho‘dad, wrote thus in his book on Heresies
(written in 453): “Tatian the Syrian.…This [writer]
also composed the gospel which is called Diatessaron, cutting
out the genealogies and whatever other passages show that the Lord was
born of the seed of David according
to the flesh.”45
| 45 Migne, Patrol.
græc., tom. lxxxiii., col. 369, 372. | Before examining
the testimonials we have now adduced, we must notice certain more
remote sources of information.
12 Non-Syriac Texts of the
Diatessaron.—Although Ephraem’s Syriac commentary on
the Diatessaron is for the present lost, there is an Armenian
version of it46
extant in two
mss. dating from about the time of Bar Salibi
and our Vat. ms.47
| 47 The two Armenian
mss. are dated a.d.
1195. | A
Latin translation of this work, published in 1876 by
Moesinger,48
| 48 Evangelii Concordantis
Expositio, facta a S. Ephraemo (Ven., 1876). | formed the main basis
of Zahn’s attempt49
| 49 Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen
Kanons, I. Theil. | to reconstruct the
Diatessaron. Appendix X in Hill’s Diatessaron
(pp. 334–377) contains an English translation of the texts
commented on by Ephraem, made from Moesinger’s Latin, but
collated with the Armenian by Professor J. Armitage Robinson, of
Cambridge. A comparison of this document with our Arabic text
shows a remarkable agreement in the order and contents, but just as
remarkable a lack of agreement in the kind of text presented. The
same phenomenon is met with when we compare our Arabic text with a
document that carries us back three hundred years before the time of
Isho‘dad, and therefore more than six hundred years before the
Armenian mss.—the Codex Fuldensis of the
Vulgate.50
| 50 Edited by Ernestus Ranke,
Marb. and Lips., 1868. | This ms.
contains an arrangement of the gospel matter that its discoverer and
publisher, Bishop Victor of Capua (d. 554), rightly concluded must
represent the Diatessaron of Tatian, but for the text of which
was apparently substituted that of the Vulgate.51
| 51 For other forms of
the Diatessaron, of no critical importance, see S. Hemphill,
The Diatessaron of Tatian (London, 1888), Appendix D and the refs.
there. | We
are now ready to weigh the testimony we have gathered.52
| 52 Further references,
chiefly repetitions in one form or another of the statements we have
quoted, may be found in a convenient form in Harnack, Gesch. d. altchrist. Lit. bis. Euseb.,
493–496; cf. also the works mentioned by Hill (op.
cit.) p. 378 f. |
13 Accretions to the Diatessaron.—The
statements we are to consider are: (1) Bar Salibi’s, that
Tatian’s Diatessaron began with “In the beginning
was the Word”;53
| 53 cf. the words
of Aphraates, senior contemporary of Ephraem: “As it is
written in the beginning of the Gospel of our Vivifier: In the
beginning was the Word.” (Patrol. Syr., pars i.,
tom. i., 21, lines 17–19). | (2) Theodoret’s,
that Tatian cut out the genealogies; and (3) the same writer’s,
that Tatian also cut out “whatever other passages show that the
Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.”
Of these statements 1 conflicts with the Arabic text, which begins with
Mark, and the Codex Fuldensis, which begins with Luke, but agrees with
the Ephraem source; the same is true of 2; while 3 conflicts with all
three texts. Our limits do not admit of our discussing these
points in detail. It must suffice to say (1) that, although a
more careful examination at firsthand of the introductory notices in
the two Arabic mss. seems needed before one can
venture to propound a complete theory, a comparison of the two texts,
and a consideration of the descriptions given by Ciasca and
Lagarde,54
| 54 Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellsch. der Wiss.,
etc., March 17, 1886, No. 4, p. 151 ff. | make it almost certain that the genuine Arabic
text of Ibn-at-Tayyib began with John i. 1. Similarly the first
four verses of Luke (on which see also below, § 1. 6, note) were
probably not in the original text of the ms.
that Victor found, for they are not mentioned in the (old) table of
contents. We seem thus to detect a process of gradual accretion
of material drawn from the ordinary gospel text. (2) The
genealogies illustrate the same process. In the Vatican
ms. they form part of the text.55
| 55 See notes to § 1, 81,
and § 4, 29. | But in the Borgian ms., although they precede the Subscription, and therefore
may have been already in the ninth century Syriac ms. used by Ibn-at-Tayyib, they are still placed by
themselves, after a blank space, at the end of the volume, with a title
of their own.56
Here, therefore,
we actually see stages of the process of accretion. (3) It is
therefore possible that the same account must also be given of 3,
although in this case we have no direct proof.
14 Passages Lost from the
Diatessaron.—If the Diatessaron has thus been growing so as
to represent the ordinary text of the canonical gospels more
completely, we have also evidence that suggests that it has been at
some time or times purged of certain features that are lacking in these
canonical gospels. For one case of this kind see below, §4,
36, note.
15 Presentation of the Text of the
Diatessaron.—We have observed already that the Latin,
Armenian, and Arabic Diatessarons correspond pretty closely in
subject matter and arrangement, but differ markedly in text. The
Codex Fuldensis is really a ms. of the Vulgate,
although the text that Victor found was probably somewhat
different. The Armenian text differs materially from the ordinary
Syriac version of the New Testament (the Peshitta), showing a marked
connection with another type of Syriac text represented now by the
Curetonian and Sinaitic (Lewis) mss. The
Arabic text, on the other hand, almost systematically represents the
Peshitta. The explanation of the condition of text in the Codex
Fuldensis is obvious. On the other hand, the relationship of the
Armenian and Arabic texts to the original Diatessaron must be
determined by weighing very
multifarious evidence that cannot be even cited here (see above 6
ff.). The two texts depend, as we have seen, on late mss. but all the earlier references and quotations go to
show that the Armenian text57
| 57 The Armenian version of
Ephraem is supposed to date from the fifth century. | stands much more
closely related to the original than does the Arabic.
16 Checkered History of the
Diatessaron.—What use the Arabic edition of Ibn-at-Tayyib was
put to when made we do not know. ‘Abd Isho‘ (d. 1318)
speaks in the highest terms of Tatian’s work, saying,
“…With all diligence he attended to the utmost degree to
the right order of those things which were said and done by the
Saviour; of his own he did not add a single saying.”58
| 58 Mai, Script. vet.
nov. Coll., x., 191. | But the leaders of the Syrian church had
not always thought so. Theodoret (loc. cit.) some nine
hundred years earlier had written thus: “…Even those
that follow the apostolic doctrines, not perceiving the mischief of the
composition,” used “the book too simply as an
abridgment.” A few years earlier Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa
(d. 435), had said:59
| 59 Overbeck, S.
Ephraemi, etc., Opera Selecta, p. 220, lines
3–5. | “Let the
presbyters and deacons give heed that in all the churches there be
provided and read a copy of the Distinct Gospel,” i.e., not the
harmonized or mixed gospel. But obviously these men were trying
to suppress traditional practice due to very different views.
Theodoret (loc. cit.) found more than two hundred copies of the
work “held in respect in the churches”; and the Doctrine
of Addai (Edessa, third to fourth century) seems simply to identify
the Diatessaron and the New Testament.60
| 60 Phillips, Doct.
Add., p. 36, 15–17 [E. Tr. p. 34]. |
Outside of the Syriac speaking churches we find no signs of any such
use of the Diatessaron. It would seem, therefore, that at
a quite early stage the Diatessaron was very widely if not
universally read in the Syriac churches, and commented on by scholars
as the gospel; that in time it fell under the condemnation of some at
least of the church leaders, who made violent efforts to suppress it;
that it could not be suppressed; that a commentary on it was (perhaps
in the fifth century61
| 61 Moesinger, Evang.
Concord., etc., p. xi. | ) translated into
Armenian; that it was still discussed by commentators, and new Syriac
mss. of it made in the ninth century, and
thought worth the labor of reproduction in Arabic in the beginning of
the eleventh century; that mss. of the Armenian
volume continued to be made down to the very end of the twelfth
century, and of the Arabic edition down to the fourteenth century; but
that this long life was secured at the expense of a more or less rapid
assimilation of the text to that of the great Syriac Bible which from
the fourth century onwards became more and more exclusively
used—the Peshitta.
17 The Author of the Diatessaron.—The
Diatessaron is such an impersonal work that we do not need to
know very much about its compiler.62
| 62 The latest
discussion of the question whether this really was Tatian is Mr. Rendel
Harris’s article in the Contemp. Rev., Aug.,
1895. | It will
suffice here to say that he tells us himself that he was born “in
the land of the Assyrians,” and brought up a heathen. After
travelling in search of knowledge, he settled at Rome, where he became
a pupil of Justin Martyr, professed Christianity, and wrote in Greek
his Address to the Greeks,63
| 63 Best ed. by Eduard
Schwartz, in Texte und Untersuchungen,
IV. Band, Heft 1. | translated in vol.
iii. of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. He was too
independent in his attitude to maintain a permanent popularity, and
after Justin’s death left Rome and returned to Mesopotamia.
It was probably here that he issued in Syriac his most important work,
the Diatessaron, which won such a warm place in the heart of the
Syrian church. Among the Greek scholars, however, he became more
and more regarded as a heretic, Encratite (ascetic), and Gnostic.
18 The Diatessaron as a Harmony.—Not
very much need be said on this subject, as every reader can collect the
facts for himself. In its present form the Harmony draws from all
the four canonical gospels, and from very little else. Opinions
differ as to whether it originally indicated the gospel from which any
given piece was drawn, and some uncertainty must remain in special
cases as to what gospel actually has been drawn upon. Professor
G. F. Moore, in a very interesting article on the
Diatessaron,64
| 64
“Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Analysis of the
Pentateuch,” Journ. of Bibl. Lit., vol. ix., 1890, pt.
ii., 201–215. | having counted the
references in the Arabic mss., states that the
Arabic text contains 50 percent of Mark, 66 percent of Luke, 76.5
percent of Matthew, and 96 percent of John. The summation of his
figures gives the following result: out of a total of 3780 verses
in the four gospels, the Diatessaron quotes 2769 and omits
1011. As to the order in which the whole is arranged, Moore
thinks that Matthew has chiefly been followed; while Zahn regards the
Fourth Gospel as normative. For a specimen of the way in which
words and phrases from the different gospels are woven together, we may
refer to § 52, 35 ff., and the notes thereon. In the Arabic
mss., and probably in the Syriac exemplar, the
work is divided into fifty-four almost equal chapters, followed by one
short one—a feature that agrees well with what we have learned of
the work as being of old the lectionary of the Syrian church.
19 Problems
Connected with the Diatessaron.—The Diatessaron opens
up a very wide field of study. A few points may be here
enumerated (see also above, 8, and note there). In what language
was it written? On the view favoured by an increasing majority of
scholars, that it was written in Syriac, was it a translation or simply
a compilation? What precisely is its relation to the Syriac
versions and the “Western” text generally? Then there
is its bearing on the date and formation of the canonical gospels; the
phenomenon of its so long supplying the place of those gospels; the
analogy it presents to the Pentateuch, according to the critical view
of the origin of the latter. These and other issues make the
Diatessaron an important and interesting study.
20 The Present Translation.—The work
of translation has been found much more tedious than was anticipated,
notwithstanding the fact that considerably more than half of it is the
work of my wife, which I have simply revised with special attention to
the many obscurities dealt with in the footnotes. We have,
however, worked so much together that it is very doubtful whether any
one could assign the various parts to their respective sources.
My wife also verified the Arabic references to the gospels printed on
the margin to the right of the text,65
| 65 The refs., except where
the foot-notes indicate otherwise, are to the verses of the English or
Greek Bible. The numbers of the Arabic verse refs. (which follow
the Vulgate and therefore in one or two passages differ from the
English numbers by one) may, however, have been occasionally retained
through oversight. It is only the name of the gospel that can
possibly be ancient. | and prepared the
Index to these references—an extremely laborious and perplexing
piece of work. This Index is inserted merely for the practical
purpose of enabling the reader to find any given gospel piece in the
Diatessaron. When a verse is not found in the Index, an
equivalent passage from some of the other gospels should be looked
for. On the margin to the left of the text are indicated the
pages of the Arabic text and the sections and verses in Hill’s
version.66
| 66 It may be mentioned that
it has been found very convenient to mark these figures on the margin
of the Arabic text. An English index (that given here, or that in
Hill’s volume) can then be used for the Arabic text also. |
The aim has been to make a literal translation. As
two freer translations already exist, it seemed best to incline to the
side of being overliteral. If, however, features due simply to
Arabic idiom have been preserved, this is an oversight.
Uniformity could only have been secured by devoting a much longer time
to the work than the editor was able to allow. The difficulties
are due to the corrupt state of the Arabic text,67
| 67 e.g., § 8, 10.
For a list of suggested emendations see at end of Index. | and
to the awkward reproduction68
or actual
misunderstanding69
of the Syriac original
by the author or authors of the Arabic translation. It has been
impossible to maintain consistency in dealing with these
phenomena. If any rendering seem strange, it will be well to
consult the Syriac versions before deciding that it is wrong. A
good deal of attention, too, has to be paid to the usage of the Arabic
text, which, though it has many points of contact with other Arabic
versions of the gospels, e.g., the ms.
described by Gildemeister (De evangg. in arab. e
simp. Syr., 1865), is as yet for us (see above, 8) a
distinct version, possessed of an individuality of its own, one
pronounced feature being its very close adherence to its Syriac
original. Another revision of the present translation, in the
light of a fuller study of these features, would doubtless lead to
changes both in the text and in the footnotes. The latter aim at
preventing misunderstanding and giving some examples of the
peculiarities of the text, and of the differences between the
mss. To have dealt systematically with
the text and various readings would have required much more time and
space than was available. The consequence of this incompleteness
has been some uncertainty at times what text to translate. As
already stated (paragraphs 4 and 6), Ciasca’s printed text
neither represents any one ms. nor professes to
be based in its eclecticism on any systematic critical
principles. On the whole Ciasca has here been followed somewhat
mechanically in deciding what to exhibit in the text and what to
relegate to the footnotes. As a rule conjectural emendations have
not been admitted into the text except where the ms. readings would hardly bear translation. Italics
in the text denote words supplied for the sake of English idiom; in the
footnotes, quotations from the mss. It is
to be noted that many linguistic usages said, for shortness, in the
footnotes to be characteristic of the present work, i.e., as compared
with ordinary Arabic, are common in Arabic versions.
“Syriac versions” means the three (Pesh., Cur., Sin.), or
as many of them as contain the passage in question; if the Peshitta
alone is quoted, it may be assumed that Cur. and Sin. are missing or
diverge.
In conclusion we may say that an effort has been made to
preserve even the order of words; but it must be emphasized that it is
very doubtful whether it is wise for any one to use the Arabic
Diatessaron for critical purposes who is not acquainted with
Arabic and Syriac. The tenses, e.g., are much vaguer in Arabic
than in Greek and English, and are, moreover, in this work often
accommodated to Syriac idiom. The Greek and the Revised Version
have been used to determine in
almost every case how the vague Arabic tenses and conjunctions should
be rendered. It is therefore only where it differs from
these that our translation can be quoted without investigation as
giving positive evidence.
This is not a final translation. Few books have
had a more remarkable literary history than the Diatessaron, and
that history is by no means done. Much careful argument will yet
be devoted to it, and perhaps discoveries as important as any hitherto
made are yet to shed light on the problems that encircle it. If
our work can help any one to take a step in advance, we shall not
regret the toil.
Oxford, 21st December,
1895. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
