The statements of Bar-Hebrzeus (d. 1286 A.D.) in like manner appear to be mainly borrowed from the works of earlier writers, especially Bar-Salibi. He follows the latter in reproducing Ishodad’s notice concerning Tatian with the same omission and insertion, but by a strange misunderstanding of his author applies the language of Eusebius with regard to the Diatessaron of Ammonius to Tatian’s work.
Even at the end of the 13th cent. we still find striking evidence of the continued existence of the Diatessaron. The NT commentary of the cele- brated ‘Abd-isho (Ebedjesu) bar-Berika (d. 1318), metropolitan of Nisibis and Armenia, has not been preserved, but in the preface to his Nomocanon§ he describes Tatian’s Harmony as the example of completeness and trustworthiness which he has endeavoured to imitate. The description is as follows: ‘Tatian the philosopher having compre- hended the meaning of the words of the Evan- gelists and grasped the plan of their Divine narrative, composed one admirable Gospel out of the Four. This is what he called the Diatessaron, in which he preserved with all care the accurate order of the sayings and deeds of the Saviour with- out having added a single word of hisown.’ From this notice it seems clear that ‘Abd-isho was well acquainted with the Diatessaron and its contents, even though he elsewhere || confuses its author with Ammonius. The evidence of these later Syriac
* The passage runs as follows: ‘Eusebius of Czsarea took pains to compose the canons of the Gospel—and this, indeed, is known from his letter to Carpianus—and pointed out by their means the agreement of the Evangelists. Ammonius and Tatian had written a Gospel, the Diatessaron, ¢.e. of the Four, as we have said above, and when they came to the history of the resurrection, and saw that it varied, they gave up their works. But Eusebius took pains to make these canons and to point out in the same the agreement of the Evangelists’ (Hjelt, p. 43).
+ Theol. Littbl. 1896.
t ‘Others (say): in the book of the Diatessaron, which was composed in Alexandria, which the bishop Tatianus has Cae 7.e. the same gloss that appears in the lexicon of Bar-
ahlul.
§ Mai, Script, Vet. Nova Coll. x. 191.
|| Assemani, Bibl. Or. iii. 12.
DIATESSARON
DIATESSARON
455
writers, at least from the 12th cent. onwards, is no doubt somewhat discounted by the fact that they appear to have mainly derived their information from the works of their predecessors; but the secondary nature of their evidence is more than outweighed by the additional testimony furnished by the following translations of the Diatessaron.
iii. NON-SYRIAC VERSIONS OF THE DIATES- SARON.—The above sketch of the history of the Diatessaron proves beyond question: (1) That this form of the Gospels was very widely, if not ex- clusively, used in the Syrian Church during the 3rd and 4th cents. ; and (2) that the work continued to be known and read by Syriac writers down to the beginning of the 14th century. But the evidence of the existence and influence of Tatian’s Harmon is, as we have pointed out, not confined to the quotations and references of Syriac commentators ; for though the Syriac Diatessaron has unfortu- nately not been preserved to us, yet we possess both Latin and Arabic translations of Tatian’s work, together with an Armenian version of St. Ephraem’s commentary upon it. These versions in themselves furnish incontrovertible proof of the great esteem in which the Harmony was held, and in that respect form a most important addition to the evidence set forth above; but their chief value lies in the fact that by their means we are enabled to obtain some conception, not only of the order and arrangement of Tatian’s work but also of its actual text.
(a) The Armenian version of St. Ephraem’s com- mentary on the Diatessaron.—It has been already suggested that St. Ephraem’s commentary on the Diatessaron contributed in no slight measure to the preservation of the latter work. For the honour and esteem in which that writer and his works were held by the Syrian Church naturally extended to his Gospel commentary, and ensured the survival of Tatian’s work at least in that form. We may even go further, and assume that the example set by so prominent a writer as Ephraem exercised a considerable influence on his successors, who were thus led to study—and so to preserve— a work which otherwise seemed destined to dis- appear. But, whatever its influence in the past, it is undoubtedly true that in modern times the publication of a Latin translation of the Armenian version of this commentary has been the means of once more arousing the interest of scholars in the Diatessaron, and of rescuing it from that oblivion to which it had been so long assigned. The Ar- menian version of the commentary first appeared in the edition of St. Ephraem’s works issued in four volumes by the Mechitarist Fathers of St. Lazzaro in 1836. A Latin translation of the com- mentary was prepared by J. B. Aucher, one of the editors, as early as 1841, but was not published. The work was finally made accessible to scholars by Prof. Moesinger, who in 1876 published Aucher’s translation, which he had revised and corrected by the aid of another MS, under the title: Evangel Concordantis Expositio facta a Sancto Ephraemo Doctore Syro. Both the MSS on which this trans- lation is based date from the year 1195, but the version itself is assigned to the 5th cent. (Moesinger, p. xi). That the Armenian version was made from the Syriac commentary of St. Ephraem seems to be fully established,* and we are therefore justified in treating the work as genuine. |