(1) Even if we exclude those cases in which a harmonistic reading is attested by either a single Greek MS or one of the old translations, or a Patristic quotation, Baethgen has shown that there still remain some 150 cases in which Se stands alone, except for the frequent agreement of T. This is the more remarkable, since such mixed texts are necessarily confined to passages for which there is a parallel account ; while Zahn’s restoration of the text of T, of which Baethgen makes use, is of a very fragmentary nature.
(2) It is of the very essence of a Harmony such as that compiled by Tatian that it should omit not only those incidents and sayings which are repeated by one or more of the Evangelists, but also many of the small clauses and words which, without affecting the sense, serve to characterize the narrative. But, though these omissions might naturally be expected to be restored in a transla- tion of the four separate Gospels, nearly a half of the (roughly) 270 readings which are peculiar to Se (excluding the harmonistic readings) belong to this category of abridgment or omission + hence we may infer that Sc has made use of the shorter text of '' wherever such a course does not affect either the meaning or the context. : hae
(3) As the result of an exhaustive examination, Baethgen pronounces the text of Sc to be of a decidedly ‘Western’ type, as 1s shown by its affinity ‘with D, in part also with & and some minuscules (especially 69), and, lastly, with the ‘ African’ text of the Old Latin. But Sc also dis- plays traces of ‘ Alexandrine’ influence, which seems, in fact, to be due to Origen. Hence the translation must certainly be assigned to a later
* Evangelienfragmente, Leipzig, 1885.
date than that of the Diatessaron, and cannot be earlier than the 3rd century.
(4) In his discussion on the method of the trans- lator of Sc, Baethgen (pp. 13-23) classifies the various expedients adopted in order to reproduce the sense of the Greek text. But similar examples occur with even greater frequency in T ; and though naturally some of the latter’s more striking trans- lations are no longer to be found in Se, yet the two so often agree that the dependence of the one on the other can hardly be denied (cf. Baethgen, p. 87). In view, therefore, of the priority of T which has been already established, it is highly probable that in this respect also Sc is dependent on the Diatessaron.
(5) It is, however, especially with regard to its ‘dogmatic’ character that Sc betrays the influence of Tatian. Clear traces of the latter’s anti-Jewish or universalistic views appear to be preserved in Mt 12) (mundwm for tov Aadv avrov), Jn 6” (rdvras for rods d5exa), 751 (the omission of judy after 6 véuos).* The omission of the possessive pronoun with ‘Father’ in Mt 6% 102, Lk 2%, Jn 6 147 is also, according to Baethgen, to be ascribed to a similar point of view. Further, Tatian’s Encratite views seem to be reflected in those renderings of Se which are clearly due to a desire to establish the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord. This is especially noticeable in Mt 1'**.
The above arguments do not all possess the same evidential value, but the cumulative evidence which they supply is more than sufficient to justify Baethgen’s conclusion as to the relative dates of Sc and T. It by no means follows, however, that the evidence which was conclusive in the case of Se necessarily applies to its archetype, viz. the Old Syriac: hence Baethgen’s further conclusion, that the Diatessaron was the earliest form of the Syriac Gospels, cannot be accepted without addi- tional proof. In this connexion the discovery of the Sinai palimpsest is of the greatest importance. For if it can be shown that this codex agrees with Sc in exhibiting the same traces of T’s influence, we can only infer that this agreement goes back to their common source, ¢.¢. the Old Syriac, and that the latter is therefore posterior to Tatian’s Harmony. That such is actually the case is main- tained, among others, by Zahn and Nestle ; but, in view of the arguments brought forward by Burkitt t and Hjelt, + the contrary opinion seems to be the more probable. For a comparison of the text of Ss with that of Sc shows that those peculiar features of the text which clearly pointed, in the case of the latter, to the influence of T, are by no means so strongly marked, if not entirely wanting, in the former. This divergence of text is especi- ally noticeable in respect to the harmonistic and ‘dogmatic’ readings which undoubtedly form the main support of Baethgen’s arguments as to the relation of Sc to T. With regard to the former, Burkitt notes that sixteen,§ or more than one- third, of the forty-three examples (quoted by Baethgen), where Sc stands alone (or with the Diatessaron), are not shared in Ss. Hence it is clear that, though Ss undoubtedly contains a large number of mixed readings, these by no means form such a distinctive feature of its text as they do in the case of Sc, and need not therefore be ascribed to the same cause. Their presence is more than sufficiently accounted for, whether we assign it to the well-known tendency of scribes to harmonize parallel passages unconsciously, or to the actual influence of the Diatessaron, which, as