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.
[17] For further explanation of the method followed see 20.
[18] See notes to § 7, 47, and § 52, 36, of the present translation.
[19] See below, 12, (2).
[20] See also below, 6, and 20.
[21] Bibl. Or., i., 619.
[22] Mai, Vet. script. nova. collect., iv., 14.
[23] cf. Zahn, Forschungen, i., 294 ff.
[24] See below, § 7, 47, note, and § 52, 36, note.
[25] See below, § 28, 43, note.
[26] See below, foot-notes, passim.
[27] The first leaf bears a more pretentious Latin inscription, quoted by Ciasca, p. vi.
[28] Can this be a misprint for 95?
[29] See below, 13.
[30] He does not state, in so many words, that the list is absolutely exhaustive.
[31] See, e.g., below, § 13, 42, note, and § 14, 43, note.
[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.
[33] cf.the foot-notes passim, e.g., § 13, 14, § 14, 24.
[34] See below, note to Subscription.
[35] See a glaring case in § 52, 11.
[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.
[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.
[38] The text is given below in full at its proper place.
[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 Ishodad" 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.
[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).
[41] Prof. Harris promises an edition of this commentary.
[42] Harris, Fragments, p. 14, where the Syriac text is quoted.
[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.)
[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.
[45] Migne, Patrol. græc., tom. lxxxiii., col. 369, 372.
[46] Published at Venice in 1836.
[47] The two Armenian mss. are dated a.d. 1195.
[48] Evangelii Concordantis Expositio, facta a S. Ephraemo (Ven., 1876).
[49] Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, I. Theil.
[50] Edited by Ernestus Ranke, Marb. and Lips., 1868.
[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.
[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.
[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).
[54] Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellsch. der Wiss., etc., March 17, 1886, No. 4, p. 151 ff.
[55] See notes to § 1, 81, and § 4, 29.
[56] See note to § 55, 17.
[57] The Armenian version of Ephraem is supposed to date from the fifth century.
[58] Mai, Script. vet. nov. Coll., x., 191.
[59] Overbeck, S. Ephraemi, etc., Opera Selecta, p. 220, lines 3-5.
[60] Phillips, Doct. Add., p. 36, 15-17 [E. Tr. p. 34].
[61] Moesinger, Evang. Concord., etc., p. xi.
[62] The latest discussion of the question whether this really was Tatian is Mr. Rendel Harris's article in the Contemp. Rev., Aug., 1895.
[63] Best ed. by Eduard Schwartz, in Texte und Untersuchungen, IV. Band, Heft 1.
[64] "Tatian's Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch," Journ. of Bibl. Lit., vol. ix., 1890, pt. ii., 201-215.
[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.
[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.
[67] e.g., § 8, 10. For a list of suggested emendations see at end of Index.
[68] e.g., § 52, 11.
[69] e.g., § 45, 33.
Introductory Notes.
------------------------
1. In the Borgian Ms.
In the name of the one God, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to him be the glory forever. We shall begin, with the help of God most high, the writing of the pure gospel, the blooming garden, called Diatessaron (a word meaning "fourfold"), the work compiled by Titianus the Greek out of the four evangelists--Matthew the elect, whose symbol is M, Mark the chosen, whose symbol is R, Luke the approved, whose symbol is K, and John the beloved, whose symbol is H. The work was translated from Syriac into Arabic by the excellent and learned priest Abu'l Faraj Abdulla ibn-at-Tayyib, [70] may God grant him his favour. He began with the first of [71] And he said: The Beginning [72] of the Gospel of Jesus the Son of the living God. John: [73] In the beginning, etc.
2. In the Vatican ms.
In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, giver of life, the God that is one in substance in his essence, and three in persons in his attributes. The first of his Gospel is He began the first of his Gospel with Mark. And he said: The Beginning [74] of the Gospel of Jesus the Son of the living God. John: In the beginning, etc.
[70] The ms. here has Tabib, but the name is correctly given in the Subscription (q.v.).
[71] i.e., simply He began with.
[72] The vowel signs as printed by Ciasca imply some such construction asAnd he said as a beginning: The Gospel, etc. But the vocalisation is of course not authoritative, and a comparison with the preface in the Vatican ms. suggests the rendering given above. The word translated Beginning in the two Introductory Notes is the very word (whichever spelling be adopted) used by Ibn-at-Tayyib himself in his comments on Mark i. (at least according to the Brit. Mus. ms.), although not in the gospel text prefixed to the Comments as it now stands, or indeed in any ms. Arabic gospel in the Brit. Mus. This would seem to militate against our theory of the original form of this much-debated passage in the Introductory Notes, as indicated by the use of small type for the later inserted phrases; and the difficulty appears at first to be increased by the following words in Ibn-at-Tayyib's comments on Mark i. (Brit. Mus. ms., fol. 190a), and some say that the Greek citation and in the Diatessaron, which Tatianus the pupil of Justianus the philosopher wrote, the quotation is not written, "Isaiah," but, "as it is written in the prophet." This is a remarkable statement about the Diatessaron. But the sentence is hardly grammatical. Perhaps the words printed in italics originally formed a complete sentence by themselves, possibly on the margin. If this conjecture be correct we might emend, e.g., by restoring them to the margin, and repeating the last three words or some equivalent phrase in the text. It would be interesting to know how the Paris ms. reads. See below, p. 138 (Suggested Emendations).
[73] Ciasca does not state whether the word John occurs here in the Borgian ms. or not.
[74] The vowel signs as printed by Ciasca imply some such construction asAnd he said as a beginning: The Gospel, etc. But the vocalisation is of course not authoritative, and a comparison with the preface in the Vatican ms. suggests the rendering given above. The word translated Beginning in the two Introductory Notes is the very word (whichever spelling be adopted) used by Ibn-at-Tayyib himself in his comments on Mark i. (at least according to the Brit. Mus. ms.), although not in the gospel text prefixed to the Comments as it now stands, or indeed in any ms. Arabic gospel in the Brit. Mus. This would seem to militate against our theory of the original form of this much-debated passage in the Introductory Notes, as indicated by the use of small type for the later inserted phrases; and the difficulty appears at first to be increased by the following words in Ibn-at-Tayyib's comments on Mark i. (Brit. Mus. ms., fol. 190a), and some say that the Greek citation and in the Diatessaron, which Tatianus the pupil of Justianus the philosopher wrote, the quotation is not written, "Isaiah," but, "as it is written in the prophet". This is a remarkable statement about the Diatessaron. But the sentence is hardly grammatical. Perhaps the words printed in italics originally formed a complete sentence by themselves, possibly on the margin. If this conjecture be correct we might emend, e.g., by restoring them to the margin, and repeating the last three words or some equivalent phrase in the text. It would be interesting to know how the Paris ms. reads. See below, p. 138 (Suggested Emendations).
The Text of the Diatessaron.
------------------------
[Section I]
[1] [75] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God is the [2,3] Word. [76] This was in the beginning with God. [77] Everything was by his hand, and [4] without him not even one existing thing was made. [78] In him was life, and the life [5] is the light of men. [79] And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not.