| << | Contents | >> |
The Diatessaron of Tatian
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 28
[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.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0343 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page