Tatian

“ On the other hand, the relationship of the Armenian and Arabic texts to the original Diatessaron must be determined by weighing very multifarious evidence that cannot be even cited here (see above 6 ff.) . The two texts depend, as we have seen, on late mss. but all the earlier references and quotations go to show that the Armenian text [41] stands much more closely related to the original than does the Arabic.
16 Checkered History of the Diatessaron.—What use the Arabic edition of Ibn-at-Tayyib was put to when made we do not know. ”

“ We seem thus to detect a process of gradual accretion of material drawn from the ordinary gospel text. (2) The genealogies illustrate the same process. In the Vatican ms. they form part of the text. [39] But in the Borgian ms., although they precede the Subscription, and therefore may have been already in the ninth century Syriac ms. used by Ibn-at-Tayyib, they are still placed by themselves, after a blank space, at the end of the volume, with a title of their own. ”

“ 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.↑ The text is given below in full at its proper place.↑ 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. ”

“ Bar Salibi’s, that Tatian’s Diatessaron began with “In the beginning was the Word”; [37] (2) Theodoret’s, that Tatian cut out the genealogies; and (3) the same writer’s, that Tatian also cut out “whatever other passages show that the Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.” Of these statements 1 conflicts with the Arabic text, which begins with Mark, and the Codex Fuldensis, which begins with Luke, but agrees with the Ephraem source; the same is true of 2; while 3 conflicts with all three texts. Our limits do not admit of our discussing these points in detail. ”

“ A Latin translation of this work, published in 1876 by Moesinger, [32] formed the main basis of Zahn’s attempt [33] to reconstruct the Diatessaron. Appendix X in Hill’s Diatessaron (pp. 334–377) contains an English translation of the texts commented on by Ephraem, made from Moesinger’s Latin, but collated with the Armenian by Professor J. Armitage Robinson, of Cambridge. A comparison of this document with our Arabic text shows a remarkable agreement in the order and contents, but just as remarkable a lack of agreement in the kind of text presented. ”

“ Still, the Borgian ms. is a late witness, and although it most probably preserves a genuine tradition as to the author of our work, its statement need not therefore necessarily be correct in every point.
8 The Arabic Editor and his Method.—Ibn-at-Tayyib (d. 1043) is a well known man, a Nestorian monk and scholar, secretary to Elias I., Patriarch of Nisibis (for references to sources see, e.g., Ciasca’s Introduction, p. xi. f. and Steinschneider’s long note in his Polemische und apologetische Lit. in Arabische Sprache, pp. 52–55) . ”

“ The text of the Diatessaron ends on folio 353a, but is followed by certain appendices, for which see below, §55, 17, note. This ms. is complete, and has, as we shall see, [13] in some respects a better text, though it is worse in its orthography than the Vatican ms.
6 Condition of the Arabic Text.—Ciasca’s text does not profess to be critically determined, for which purpose a more careful study of each of the mss. and an estimate of their respective texts would be indispensable. Although the Borgian ms. is supposed by Ciasca to be a century or two later than the Vatican ms. ”

“ But the leaders of the Syrian church had not always thought so. Theodoret (loc. cit.) some nine hundred years earlier had written thus: “...Even those that follow the apostolic doctrines, not perceiving the mischief of the composition,” used “the book too simply as an abridgment.” ”

“ Speaking generally, the present version appears to differ from Mr. Hill’s in adhering more closely to the original. [1]
4 The Arabic Text.—Only two Arabic mss. are known to exist. Ciasca tells us (p. xiv.) that he took as the basis of his text that ms. which is more careful in its orthography, the Cod. Vat. Arab. No. 14. ”

“ 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. ”

“ If our work can help any one to take a step in advance, we shall not regret the toil.
Oxford, 21st December, 1895.
Footnotes ↑ For further explanation of the method followed see 20.↑ See notes to § 7, 47, and § 52, 36, of the present translation.↑ See below, 12, (2) .↑ See also below, 6, and 20.↑ Bibl. Or., i., 619.↑ Mai, Vet. script. nova. collect., iv., 14.↑ cf. Zahn, Forschungen, i., 294 ff.↑ See below, § 7, 47, note, and § 52, 36, note.↑ See below, § 28, 43, note.↑ See below, foot-notes, passim.↑ The first leaf bears a more pretentious Latin inscription, quoted by Ciasca, p. ”