Page:Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature (1911).djvu/950

 composition, but used the book in all simplicity on account of its brevity. And I myself found more than 200 such copies held in respect in the churches in our parts. All these I collected and put away, and I replaced them by the Gospels of the four Evangelists" (i. 20. Cf. Lightfoot, l.c.; Zahn, i. p. 35). This passage indicates a considerable circulation of the Diatessaron in the bishop's diocese and neighbourhood. The language of that district was Syriac (Zahn, i. pp. 39–44); therefore the book to which Theodoret refers was in Syriac and not Greek. This simple fact helps to explain the language of Eusebius and the blunder of Epiphanius; and is itself illustrated by the fact that the commentary on the Diatessaron was composed not by a Greek writer, but by Ephrem the Syrian. Epiphanius's statement that Tatian on leaving Rome went into Mesopotamia, points to a visit to Edessa, the only place in the district where Christianity had secure footing (see Zahn, i. p. 282 and Excursus ii.) and a city famous for its schools. To the same Tatian rumour assigned the Diatessaron which some called "the Gospel according to the Hebrews." How did Epiphanius confound two works so essentially different? Zahn's explanation seems perfectly satisfactory. The report was current that there was a Syriac book of the Gospels, called a Diatessaron, used in the Syrian churches, e.g. those of the diocese of Cyrrhus. Further, it was reported that there was another book of the Gospels, written in a kindred dialect and used e.g. at Beroea, i.e. in the neighbourhood of Cyrrhus, by the half-heretical Nazareans. An outsider like Epiphanius might very easily confound them and even identify them (i. p. 25. See Wace, Expositor for 1882, p. 165). Eusebius had not actually seen Tatian's Diatessaron. His statement, "I know not how" Tatian composed it, shews that he had not personally examined it, doubtless because of non-acquaintance or non-familiarity with Syriac.

Theodoret's language implies, moreover, that the Diatessaron had been current in his diocese for a very long period; and this is confirmed by an examination of the commentary of Ephrem Syrus († 378). Dionysius bar Salibi, bp. of Amida in Armenia Major († 1171 Mösinger and Bickell, or 1207 Assemani and Lightfoot, see Zahn, i. p. 98, n. 4), states in the preface to his own commentary on St. Mark (quoted in Assemani, Bibl. Or. i. 57, ii. 159; see Mösinger, p. iii.; Zahn, i. pp. 44, 99) that Tatian, the pupil of Justin, made a selection from the four Gospels (al. Evangelists), which he wove together into one Gospel, and called a Diatessaron, i.e. Miscellanies. This writing St. Ephrem interpreted. Its opening words were, "In the beginning was the Word." An Armenian version (5th cent.) of Ephrem's Commentary was printed at Venice in 1836, but remained unserviceable until a MS. Latin and literal translation of the Armenian made by J. B. Aucher, one of the Mechitarist monks of that city, together with one of the Armenian codices, was placed in the hands of a Salzburg professor, Dr. G. Mösinger, who revised, corrected, and published the Latin text at Venice in 1876. Internal and external evidence (see Mösinger, pp. vi–x) combine in justifying the conclusion that in this Latin translation of the Commentary of Ephrem is contained substantially Tatian's Diatessaron, and that from it Tatian's text may be in a great measure recovered.

The bearing of Mösinger's translation upon the corresponding portion of the Codex Fuldensis may be briefly summarized. Dr. Wace (Expositor for 1881, pp. 128 seq.) may be said to have proved that Victor of Capua's Harmony preserved in that Codex is not only very closely allied with Tatian's Diatessaron, but exhibits substantially the document on which Ephrem commented with some occasional alterations of order and few additions; the difference being remembered that in Victor's Evangelium Tatian has been transferred into the Latin text of St. Jerome, whereas Ephrem commented upon him in a Syriac translation. The Mösinger text and the Codex proceed pari passu, and agree in order where that order is certainly remarkable. The very interesting fact is thus established, that Tatian's Diatessaron found acceptance in the West as well as the East, and was transferred rather than translated into a Western version. This is not surprising. Theodoret's statement as to its popularity in his diocese may well account for its existence in a Latin form a century later.

It remains to indicate the manner in which the Syriac Diatessaron passed into Latin form, such as is preserved in the Codex Fuldensis (Zahn, i. pp. 298–328) The interesting fact comes out that this took place without the use of any intermediary Greek Diatessaron. In language and form the Latin Harmony is based upon St. Jerome's version; and the differences between the Codex and Tatian—such as alterations in chronological order, expansions and abbreviations, coincidences and deviations—indicative as they are of dependence of the Codex upon Tatian, do not require the explanation which an intermediate Greek text would easily supply. The Codex Fuldensis must be dated between 383 (when Jerome put forward his revision of the translation of the Gospels) and 546 (when Victor of Capua wrote down the Latin Harmony preserved in the Codex); or, more approximately, c. 500 (Zahn, i. p. 310). Translations from Syriac into Greek existed in 4th cent. (Eus. H. E. i. 13, iv. 30), and the fact—with its consequence, a further translation from Greek into Latin—might be quoted in proof of a more early date than 500 for the Codex Fuldensis; but, independently of other reasons, the age of Victor of Capua has yielded proofs of direct translations from Syriac into Latin, which render appeals to a Greek Diatessaron unnecessary. Kihn (Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus; see Zahn, i. p. 311) has shewn that in the days of Victor of Capua, , Quaestor sacri palatii at Constantinople (c. 545–552) sent to Primasius, bp. of Adrumetum, a Latin introduction to the Scriptures (Instituta regularia divinae legis) which was a free rendering of a work written (c. 533–544) by the Syrian Nestorian Paul, a pupil and teacher of the school of Nisibis.

(2) Recovery of the Diatessaron.—This is due to the energetic scholarship of Zahn. By the use principally of Ephrem's commentary (ed. Mösinger) and of the quotations in the