renders the wé\evs of Mat. by loz. In Mt 14 he translates éxéracev by two synonyms, the one (AC2.2) being taken from Matthew, and the other
(cake) from the parallel Mk 61. The dependence of T is no less clear in Lk 18, where Ss renders 6é:é71 elonxovobn 7 dénots cov quite freely by ‘ For, behold, God has hearkened to the voice of thy prayer “3 for; though he has restored the passive construction of the Greek, he has also retained the addition of Ss in the form ‘exaudita est deprecatio tua ante Dewm.’ Jn 3*- offers a number of interesting Syriac vari- ants ;* but of these the rendering of T (ov yap ek MeéTpou dlwot [Td rveHua 6 raryp|t TO vig abrod dyard dé avrév) seems to be based on that of Ss (ov yap ex pérpou dldwow 6 Oeds 6 warp, ayama Oe Tov vlov avrod), the order of which he has slightly varied. Other passages in which Ss has preserved the more original reading are: Mt 4° (for Bade ceavrdy kdtw), 5 (the order of the second and third Beatitudes), 10° (for mpds ra mpdBara rau drodwddra Tov oko "Iopahd), 16% 172 (for dua thy darioriay Uudy), 18° 2176-81 (Ss here presents a ‘ Western’ text), Mk 74 9%, Lk 2" (the rendering of evédoxia), 6° 1771 (evrds tudv), Jn 2 (omission of rodroy after Tov vaov), 41° (omission of % yuv%), 6% 89 111-25 (omis- sion of kal 4 fw).
In consideration of these facts we are justified in ignoring a large number of those passages which were formerly brought forward by Zahn + in support of his theory of the priority of T to Ss." For, though the majority of these attest the close affinity of the two texts, they do not of themselves furnish any evidence as to the origin of this affinity, i.e. as to the priority of T or Ss. Zahn’s view, however, finds its main support in those traces of harmonistic readings which he discovered in Ss, which he naturally ascribed to the influence of T. Briefly, Zahn’s theory was as follows: Ss and Sc are un- doubtedly closely related, and may be described as two recensions of a single version. Their variations, in which Se, as a rule, agrees with the Peshitta, are for the most part of a grammatical, lexical, and_ stylistic character; in others the agreement of Sc and P against Ss can be explained only by the supposition that the free, or less accurate, translation of Ss was altered in Se and P, and brought into closer conformity with the Greek text. But Sc has also been shown to have much in common with T; hence it was natural to expect that Ss and T should be closely allied. The conclusion arrived at by Zahn, after an examina-
*See Burkitt, S. Ephraem’s Quotations from the Gospel, p. 50f.; Zahn, Iorsch. i. p. 129.
} So Aphraates, 123 ; Moesinger, 105, omits these words,
{t Uheol. Littbl. 1895, Nos. 1, 2, 8.
¥
DIATESSARON
JOSEPHUS 461
tion of the text of Ss, was that the latter was even more closely allied to T than Sc. The instances cited by Zahn in proof of his contention for the riority of T have been carefully examined by jelt,* who has shown that in the majority of cases the alleged dependence of Ss on T rests on insufficient evidence. A few traces of harmoniza- tion, it is true, are to be found in Ss, but these are probably to be ascribed to later interpolation.
Our examination, therefore, of the relation of the Diatessaron to the two codices of the Old Syriac version leads to the following conclusions as to the history of Tatian’s Harmony. The two texts are closely related to each other, but a com- parison of the two shows clearly that the Old Syriac is the earlier version : hence the latter must have been in existence before A.D. 172. At this date Tatian compiled his Diatessaron, or Harmony of the four Gospels, in Syriac from the older version, which it quickly superseded, revising it with the help of a ‘Western’ copy of the Greek text, and introducing a number of arbitrary changes in accordance with his theological views. Down to the end of the 4th cent. the Diatessaron was universally accepted by the Syriac Church, the extent of its influence being reflected in the later recension of the Old Syriac version repre- sented by Sc. In A.D. 411 the Old Syriac version was revised, in conformity with the current Greek text, under the auspices of Rabbila, who forcibly removed the Diatessaron from church use in order to make room for his new version, viz. the Peshitta. As the result of Rabbila’s action, the Diatessaron practically disappeared from the knowledge of the Syrian Church, the references to it in later writers being mainly connected with the better known commentary of St. Ephraem. All interest, however, in Tatian’s work did not cease with its banishment as a service-book, for about the begin- ning of the 6th cent. it was translated, or rather transferred, into Latin by anunknownauthor. This translation, as preserved by Victor of Capua in the Codex Fuldensis, probably formed the basis of the German version made c. 820-830 A.D., and this again was utilized by the author of the Old Saxon poem known as Heliand. ‘The last stage of the history of the Diatessaron was not reached until the llth cent., when it was once more rescued from obscurity, this time in the form of an Arabic translation.