viz. the Diatessaron.’ In the Syriac exemplar, used by the Arabic translator, the original title was probably obscured by the substitution of ‘the Son of God’ (Mk 12) for ‘viz. the Diatessaron,’ while later still the insertion of another marginal gloss from Mk 11 (ea Marco dic : Initiwm) caused even further confusion.
* Gesch. ii. p. 5808.
follow Hjelt in his theory—which is undoubtedly supported by the fact of this llth cent. Arabic translation—that the Diatessaron was retained in church use by the Nestorians down to the Middle Ages. For, had such been the case, the accepted text of the Peshitta could not have failed in course of time to exercise a marked influence on the older text. Hjelt’s further suggestion, that the refer- ence in the colophon of the Borgian MS to the work of ‘Isa ibn “Ali al-Mutatabbib, i.e. Jesus bar- Ali, possibly contains a hint as to the authorship of that final revision of the Syriac Diatessaron, which is embodied in the Arabic version, can only be described as an ingenious conjecture. But, whatever its genesis, it is clear that the Arabic translation possesses far greater value for restoring the original work of Tatian, more especially in relation to its internal structure, than the Latin Harmony of Victor. Moreover, since a comparison with the quotations of Ephraem and Aphraates attests its trustworthiness in those parts for which the Syriac writers are available, we should be justi- fied in admitting its evidence, even where the latter are silent. In such cases, however, some doubt would naturally exist, and it is therefore in this connexion that the importance of the sister Latin version is most apparent. For if, as can be shown, the Codex Fuldensis is in entire agreement with the Arabic version in passages which are otherwise attested by Syriac evidence, we may infer that their agreement elsewhere is also due to the fact that both have preserved the original form of the Diatessaron. This is the more certain, as the Arabic translation of the 11th cent. cannot be dependent on the Latin version of Victor in the 6th cent., while the theory of a common source for both is excluded by a comparison of their variations from the original.*
The testimony of the Arabic Harmony has natur- ally enabled Zahn to supplement his former work to a very considerable extent, while at the same time confirming in the most striking manner his reconstruction of the Diatessaron. In one respect only is a correction necessary in the chronological scheme (see above), viz, the omission of the first Passover (Jn 2%) +: otherwise the changes involved are confined to a few cases in which the order of the individual sections varies in the Arabic version.+ Of these the majority are accepted by Zahn when the order of the Arabic Harmony is confirmed by that of the Codex Fuldensis.§
iv. RELATION OF THE DIATESSARON TO THE OLD Syr1ac.—The term ‘ Old Syriac’ is here used to denote that early form of the Syriac Gospels which existed alongside of the Diatessaron down to the beginning of the 5th cent., but which was then revised in conformity with the Greek by Rabbila, with the result that the new version, the Peshitta, speedily became the accepted ecclesias- tical text.|| We have already seen (§ il. 6) that this version, with its separate Gospels, was fre- quently described as Evangelion da-Mépharréshé (Gospel of the Separated [ones]), to distinguish it from the Diatessaron or Hy. da-Méhallété (Gospel of the Mixed). Of this version we now possess two codices, viz. that called the Curetonian Syriac (Sc), a Nitrian MS of about the middle of the 5th cent., which was published by Cureton in 1858, and the Sinai palimpsest (Ss), dating from the beginning of the 5th cent., which was edited by the late Prof.
3ensly, J. Rendel Harris, and F. C. Burkitt. in
* Zahn, Gesch. ii. 535 f.
t Lorsch. i. 250.
t Hamlyn Hill, Harliest Life of Christ, App. ix.
§ In two cases at least it would seem that Zahn has insisted too rigidly on the absolute agreement of the Arabic and Latin versions ; see Hjelt, op. cit. p. 70.
| For a fuller account, see an article by the present writer in The Church Quarterly Review, April 1903, pp. 143-171.
DIATESSARON DIATESSARON 459
1893. The two codices agree so closely—though they also display some important textual varia- tions—that they may be suitably described as two recensions of one and the same translation. Of the two texts Ss is decidedly the purer, and may be regarded as a faithful witness to the text of the 2nd cent. ; Sc, on the other hand, probably represents a later recension of the 3rd century. The question that naturally arises from a con- sideration of these two MSS of the Old Syriac is that of their relation to the Harmony of Tatian, which also involves the further question of the relation of the Old Syriac to the Diatessaron.
As the result of his exhaustive investigations in connexion with the Diatessaron, Zahn concluded that Tatian had based his Harmony on the text of the Old Syriac, which must have been made about the middle of the 2nd cent. ; but had also made use of a Greek text of a similar type to that of the Codex Bezz and of the oldest Itala MSS. This conclusion was, in reality, based on two miscon- ceptions. For from a comparison of the text of Sc with that of the Diatessaron (T), Zahn argued that the former had influenced, and was therefore prior to, the latter ; but, since he also identified Sc with the Old Syriac, the two errors did not affect the correctness of his main contention, that the Old Syriac was prior to T. The real relation of T to Se was first established by F. Baethgen,* who, as Zahn admits, has shown conclusively that T clearly influenced, and was therefore prior to, Sc. The arguments adduced by Baethgen are, briefly: (1) the presence of an extraordinarily large num- ber of harmonistic readings in Sc, which must be derived from the Harmony; (2) the numerous cases of abridgment which are to be explained in a similar way ; (3) the specifically ‘Alexandrine’ readings, which point to a later date than the 2nd cent.; (4) the great freedom of rendering, which frequently lapses into paraphrase, and may be recognized as due to Tatian; (5) the dogmatic character of Se.