| << | Contents | >> |
The Diatessaron of Tatian
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 62
[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.
[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).
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0343 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page