7. Tatian's _Diatessaron._ This is something more than a version. It
was originally a harmony of the four goepels made by Tatian, the pupil
of Justin Martyr, towards the end of the 2nd century. In its original
form it is no longer extant, but it exists in Arabic (published by
Ciasca) and Latin (_cod. Fuldensis_) translations, in both of which
the text has unfortunately been almost entirely conformed to the
ordinary type. These authorities are, therefore, only available for
the reconstruction of the order of the selections from the gospels,
not for textual criticism properly so called. For the latter purpose,
however, we can use an Armenian translation of a commentary on the
Diatessaron by Ephraem, and the quotations in Aphraates. The
Diatessaron appears to have been the usual form in which the gospels
were read until the beginning of the 5th century, when the Peshito was
put in its place, and a systematic destruction of copies of the
Diatessaron was undertaken.
[The Diatessaron may be studied in Zahn, "Evangelien-harmonie,"
article in the _Protestantische Realencyklopaedie_ (1898); J.H. Hill,
_The Earliest Life of Christ_ (Edinburgh, 1893); J. Rendel Harris,
_Fragments of the Commentary of Ephraim the Syrian_ (London, 1895);
F.C. Burkitt, _Evangelion da Mepharreshe_ (Cambridge, 1904, vol.
ii.).]
_Inter-relation of Syriac Versions._--The relations which subsist
between the various Syriac versions remain to be discussed. There is
little room for doubt that the Harklean was based on the Philoxenian,
and the Philoxenian was based on the Peshito, the revision being made
in each case by the help of the Greek MSS. of the day, but the
relations which subsist between the Old Syriac, the Diatessaron and
the Peshito are a more difficult question. There are now but few, if
any, scholars who think that the Peshito is an entirely separate
version, and the majority have been convinced by Burkitt and recognize
(1) that the Peshito is based on a knowledge of the Old Syriac and the
Diatessaron; (2) that it was made by Rabbula with the help of the
contemporary Greek text of the Antiochene Church. But there is not yet
the same degree of consensus as to the relations between the Old
Syriac and the Diatessaron. Here it is necessary to distinguish
between the original text of the Old Syriac and the existing MSS. of
it--Cur. and Sin. There is no question that many passages in these
show signs of Diatessaron influence, but this is only to be expected
if we consider that from the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the
5th century the Diatessaron was the popular form of the gospels. A
large discount has therefore to be made from the agreements between
Diatessaron and Syr. S and C. Still, it is improbable that this will
explain everything, and it is generally conceded that the original
Diatessaron and the original Old Syriac were in some way connected.
The connexion is variously explained, and efforts have been made to
show on which side the dependence is to be found. The most probable
theory is that of Burkitt. He thinks that the first Syriac translation
was that of Tatian (c. A.D. 175), who brought the Diatessaron from
Rome and translated it into Syriac. There, in the last days of the 2nd
century, when Serapion was bishop of Antioch (A.D. 190-203), a new
start was made, and a translation of the "separated Gospels"
(_Evangelion da Mepharreshe_) was made from the MSS. which was in use
at Antioch. Probably the maker of this version was partly guided,
especially in his choice of renderings, by his knowledge of the
Diatessaron. Nevertheless, the Diatessaron remained the more popular
and was only driven out by Theodoret and Rabbula in the 5th century,
when it was replaced by the Peshito. If this theory be correct the
Syriac versions represent three distinct Greek texts:--(1) the
2nd-century Greek text from Rome, used by Tatian; (2) the 2nd-century
Greek text from Antioch, used for the Old Syriac; (3) the 2nd-century
Greek text from Antioch, used by Rabbula for the Peshito.
[The best discussion of this point is in vol. ii. of Burkitt's
_Evangelion da Mepharreshe._]
Coptic.
_Egyptian Versions._--Much less is known at present about the history
of the Egyptian versions. They are found in various dialects of
Coptic, the mutual relations of which are not yet certain, but the
only ones which are preserved with any completeness are the Bohairic,
or Lower Egyptian, and Sahidic, or Upper Egyptian, though it is
certain that fragments of intermediate dialects such as Middle
Egyptian, Fayumic, Akhmimic and Memphitic also exist. The Bohairic has
been edited by G. Horner. It is well represented, as it became the
official version of the Coptic Church; its history is unknown, but
from internal evidence it seems to have been made from good Greek MSS.
of the type of [Hebrew: alef]BL, but the date to which this points
depends largely on the general view taken of the history of the text
of the New Testament. It need not, but may be earlier than the 4th
century. The Sahidic is not so well preserved. G. Homer's researches
tend to show that the Greek text on which it was based was different
from that represented by the Bohairic, and probably was akin to the
"Western" text, perhaps of the type used by Clement of Alexandria.
Unfortunately none of the MSS. seems to be good, and at present it is
impossible to make very definite use of the version. It is possible
that this is the oldest Coptic version, and this view is supported by
the general probabilities of the spread of Christianity in Egypt.
which suggest that the native church and native literature had their
strength at first chiefly in the southern parts of the country. It
must be noted that Westcott and Hort called the Bohairic Memphitic,
and the Sahidic Thebaic, and Tischendorf called the Bohairic Coptic.
[See G. Horner's _The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the
Northern Dialect_ (Oxford); Scrivener's _Introduction_ (ed. Miller),
vol. ii. pp. 91-144; and especially an article on "Egyptian Versions"
in Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. i. by Forbes Robinson.]
([beta]) Among the _secondary_ versions the only one of real
importance is the Armenian.
Armenian.
The Armenian Version.--The early history of this version is obscure,
but it seems probable that there were two translations made in the 4th
century: (1) by Mesrop with the help of Hrofanos (Rufinus?) based on a
Greek text; (2) by Sahak, based on Syriac. After the council of
Ephesus (A.D. 430) Mesrop and Sahak compared and revised their work
with the help of MSS. from Constantinople. The general character of
the version is late, but there are many places in which the Old Syriac
basis can be recognized, and in the Acts and Epistles, where the Old
Syriac is no longer extant, this is sometimes very valuable evidence.
[See Scrivener (ed. Miller) vol. ii. pp. 148-154; Hastings'
_Dictionary of the Bible_, article on "The Armenian Versions of the
New Testament," by F.C. Conybeare; J.A. Robinson, "Euthaliana" (_Texts
and Studies_, iii. 3), cap. 5; on the supposed connexion of Mark xvi.
8 ff. with Aristion mentioned in this version, see esp. Swete's _The
Gospel according to St Mark_ (London, 1902), p. cxi.]
Other secondary versions which are sometimes quoted are the Gothic,
Ethiopic, Georgian, Arabic, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish and Persic. None has
any real critical importance; details are given in Gregory's
_Prolegomena_ and in Scrivener's _Introduction_.
(C) _Quotations in Patristic Writings._--The value of this source of
evidence lies in the power which it gives us to date and localize texts.
Its limitations are found in the inaccuracy of quotation of the writers,
and often in the corrupt condition of their text. This latter point
especially affects quotations which later scribes frequently forced into
accord with the text they preferred.
All writers earlier than the 5th century are valuable, but
particularly important are the following groups:--(1) Greek writers in
the West, especially Justin Martyr, Tatian, Marcion, Irenaeus and
Hippolytus; (2) Latin writers in Italy, especially Novatian, the
author of the _de Rebaptismate_ and Ambrosiaster; (3) Latin writers in
Africa, especially Tertullian and Cyprian; (4) Greek writers in
Alexandria, especially Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius and
Cyril; (5) Greek writers in the East, especially Methodius of Lycia
and Eusebius of Caesarea; (6) Syriac writers, especially Aphraates and
Ephraem; it is doubtful whether the Diatessaron of Tatian ought to be
reckoned in this group or in (1). None of these groups bears witness
to quite the same text, nor can all of them be identified with the
texts found in existing MSS. or versions, but it may be said with some
truth that group 2 used the European Latin version, group 3 the
African Latin, and group 6 the Diatessaron in the gospels and the Old
Syriac elsewhere, while group I has much in common with _cod. Bezae_,
though the difference is here somewhat greater. In group 4 the
situation is more complex; Clement used a text which has most in
common with _cod. Bezae_, but is clearly far from identical; Origen in
the main has the text of [Hebrew: alef] B; Athanasius a somewhat later
variety of the same type, while Cyril has the so-called Alexandrian
text found especially in L. Group 4 has a peculiar text which cannot
be identified with any definite group of MSS. For further treatment of
the importance of this evidence see the section _Textual Criticism_
below.
[There is as yet but little satisfactory literature on this subject.
Outstanding work is P.M. Barnard's "Clement of Alexandria's Biblical
Text" (_Texts and Studies_, v. 5), 1899; Harnack's "Eine Schrift
Novatians," in _Texte und Untersuchungen_, xiii. 4; Souter's
"Ambrosiaster" in _Texts and Studies_, vii. 4; the Society of
Historical Theology's _New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers_; an
article by Kostschau, "Bibelcitate bei Origenes," in the _Zeitschrift
f. wissenschaftliche Theologie_ (1900), pp. 321-378; and on the
general subject especially Nestle's _Einfuehrung in das griechische
Neue Testament_ (Goettingen, 1909), pp. 159-167.] (K. L.)