Front Page Titles (by Subject) A.: Recently Discovered Additions to Early Christion Literature. - Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume 9: The Gospel of Peter, Apocalypses and Romances, Commentaries of Origen
Return to Title Page for Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume 9: The Gospel of Peter, Apocalypses and Romances, Commentaries of Origen
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
Also in the Library:
A.: Recently Discovered Additions to Early Christion Literature. - A. Cleveland Coxe, Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume 9: The Gospel of Peter, Apocalypses and Romances, Commentaries of Origen 
Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume 9: The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Vision of Paul, the Apocalypse of the Virgin and Sedrach, the Testament of Abraham, the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, the Narrative of Zosimus, the Apology of Aristides, the Epistles of Clement (complete text), Origen’s Commentary of John, Books 1-10, and Commentary on Matthew, Books 1, 2, and 10-14, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Revised and Chronologically arranged with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland Coxe (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896-97).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
Recently Discovered Additions to Early Christion Literature.
WORKS CONNECTED WITH THE GOSPELS.
THE GOSPEL OF PETER
The important fragment of which Mr. J. Armitage Robinson’s translation here follows was discovered by the French Archæological Mission, Cairo, in a grave (supposed to be a monk’s) in an ancient cemetery at Akhmîm (Panopolis), in Upper Egypt, in 1886. It was published in 1892 under the care of M. Bouriant in vol. ix., fasc. i., of the Memoirs of the French Archæological Mission at Cairo. The same parchment which contained this fragment also contained a fragment of the Revelation of Peter and a fragment of the Book of Enoch in Greek. The parchment codex is assigned to a date between the eighth and the twelfth century.
Before this discovery the following is all that was known of the Gospel of Peter: 1. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch 190-203, writing to the church at Rhossus, says (Eusebius, H. E., vi., 12, 2): “We, brethren, receive Peter and the other Apostles even as Christ; but the writings that go falsely by their names we, in our experience, reject, knowing that such things as these we never received. When I was with you I supposed you all to be attached to the right faith; and so without going through the gospel put forward under Peter’s name, I said, ‘If this is all that makes your petty quarrel,1 why then let it be read.’ But now that I have learned from information given me that their mind was lurking in some hole of heresy, I will make a point of coming to you again: so, brethren, expect me speedily. Knowing then, brethren, of what kind of heresy was Marcion— [Here follows a sentence where the text is faulty.] . . . From others who used this very gospel—I mean from the successors of those who started it, whom we call Docetæ; for most of its ideas are of their school—from them, I say, I borrowed it, and was able to go through it, and to find that most of it belonged to the right teaching of the Saviour, but some things were additions.” From this we learn that a Gospel of Peter was in use in the church of Rhossus in the end of the second century, but that controversy had arisen as to its character, which, on a careful examination, Serapion condemned.
2. Origen († 253 ad), in commenting on Matthew x. 17, says: “But, proceeding on the tradition that is recorded in the Gospel according to Peter or in the Book of James, they say that there are certain brothers of Jesus, the sons of Joseph by a former wife, who lived with him before Mary.”
3. Eusebius (H. E., iii., 3, 2) says: “As to that work, however, which is ascribed to him, called ‘The Acts,’ and ‘The Gospel according to Peter,’ and that called ‘The Preaching and the Revelations of Peter,’ we know nothing of their being handed down as Catholic writings; since neither among the ancient nor the ecclesiastical writers of our own day has there been one that has appealed to testimony taken from them.” And in H. E., iii., 25, 6 sq., he includes the Gospel of Peter among the forged heretical gospels—“those that are adduced by the heretics under the name of the apostles, . . . of which no one of those writers in the ecclesiastical succession has condescended to make any mention in his works; and, indeed, the character of the style itself is very different from that of the apostles; and the sentiments, and the purport of those things that are advanced in them, deviating as far as possible from sound orthodoxy, evidently proves they are the fictions of heretical men; whence they are not only to be ranked among the spurious writings, but are to be rejected as altogether absurd and impious.” It is, however, uncertain whether Eusebius himself was acquainted with the Gospel of Peter.
4. Theodoret († c. 455), in his Religious History, ii., 2, says that the Nazarenes used “the gospel called ‘according to Peter.’ ” Later references in Western literature, e.g., Jerome, De vir. ill., i., and the Decretum Gelasianum, condemning the book, are based upon the judgement of Eusebius, and not upon direct knowledge (cf. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristl. Lit., I. Th., p. 11).
This was all that was known of the Gospel of Peter till the publication of the Akhmîm fragment. The latter extends to about 174 stichi, counting 32 words to the stichus. It begins in the middle of the history of the Passion, just after Pilate has washed his hands of all responsibility, and ends in the middle of a sentence, with the departure of the disciples into Galilee at the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, exactly a week after the crucifixion, the ostensible author, Peter, and Andrew, his brother, taking their nets and going to the sea; “and there was with us Levi the son of Alphæus, whom the Lord . . .”
The accompanying Synoptical Table shows where the Petrine narrative agrees with and where it varies from those supplied by the canonical gospels. Of that part of the Passion history which it narrates, it gives an account which follows the main lines of the canonical tradition, but with important variations in detail. Of the events between the burial and the resurrection of our Lord, its account is much more ample and detailed than anything in the canonical tradition.
Harnack (Texte und Untersuchungen, ix., 2, 2d ed., p. 76) gives the following list of new traits contained in the Petrine account of the history of the Passion and burial:
The whole narrative of the resurrection is so different from that of the canonical gospels that it would be useless to go into details; but it is important to notice the prominence assigned to Mary Magdalene, and:
Moreover, according to section 13 (see sec. 5), the author puts the resurrection and ascension on the same day, or, rather, did not know of the latter as a separate event. He makes the angel say, “He is risen and gone away thither whence he was sent.”
Whether the author used any other sources than the canonical gospels is a matter still in doubt. He is certainly influenced by views which are foreign to these gospels, and which are known from other quarters in early Christian literature. As between the Synpotists and the Fourth Gospel, the narrator is generally more closely akin both in matter and in manner to the Synoptists, but he agrees with the author of the Fourth Gospel in regard to the chronology of the crucifixion and several of the events at the cross, and in his general attitude towards the Jews and Pilate. With regard to the last two points, the Petrine Gospel seems to present a later and more exaggerated form of the tendency perceptible in the Johannine, and fully worked out in the Acts of Pilate, to blame the Jews and exculpate Pilate.
Of the new features in this fragment some are at least liable to a Docetic interpretation, e.g., the silence on the cross “as though he had no pain” (sec. 4), the cry, “My power, my power” (sec. 5), and “he was taken up” (sec. 5). This fact was recognised in subsequent times and condemned this gospel in the eye of the church. The date of the work is variously fixed by different scholars; Harnack assigns it to the first quarter of the second century, while Mr. Armitage Robinson and other scholars place it later.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER.
Note.—This translation is based on that which I published in The Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter: Two Lectures, etc (Camb., 1892). It is now carefully revised in accordance with the photographic facsimile. A corrected Greek text will be found in Dr. Swete’s edition (1893).
1 But of the Jews none washed his hands, neither Herod nor any one of his judges. And when they had refused to wash them, Pilate rose up. And then Herod the king commandeth that the Lord be taken,1 saying to them, What things soever I commanded you to do unto him, do.
2 And there was standing there Joseph the friend of Pilate and of the Lord; and, knowing that they were about to crucify2 him, he came to Pilate and asked the body of the Lord for burial. And Pilate sent to Herod and asked his body. And Herod said, Brother Pilate, even if no one had asked for him, we purposed to bury him, especially as the sabbath draweth on:3 for it is written in the law, that the sun set not upon one that hath been put to death.
3 And he delivered him to the people on the day before the unleavened bread, their feast. And they took the Lord and pushed him as they ran, and said, Let us drag away the Son of God, having obtained power over him. And they clothed him with purple, and set him on the seat of judgement, saying, Judge righteously, O king of Israel. And one of them brought a crown of thorns and put it on the head of the Lord. And others stood and spat in his eyes, and others smote his cheeks: others pricked him with a reed; and some scourged him, saying, With this honour let us honour the Son of God.
4 And they brought two malefactors, and they crucified the Lord between them. But he held his peace, as though having no pain. And when they had raised the cross, they wrote the title: This is the king of Israel. And having set his garments before him they parted them among them, and cast lots for them. And one of those malefactors reproached them, saying, We for the evils that we have done have suffered thus, but this man, who hath become the Saviour of men, what wrong hath he done to you? And they, being angered at him, commanded that his legs should not be broken, that he might die in torment.
5 And it was noon, and darkness came over all Judæa: and they were troubled and distressed, lest the sun had set, whilst he was yet alive: [for] it is written for them, that the sun set not on him that hath been put to death. And one of them said, Give him to drink gall with vinegar. And they mixed and gave him to drink, and fulfilled all things, and accomplished their sins against their own head. And many went about with lamps, supposing that it was night, and fell down.4 And the Lord cried out, saying, My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me. And when he had said it he was taken up. And in that hour the vail of the temple of Jerusalem was rent in twain.5
6 And then they drew out the nails from the hands of the Lord, and laid him upon the earth, and the whole earth quaked, and great fear arose. Then the sun shone, and it was found the ninth hour: and the Jews rejoiced, and gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it, since he had seen what good things he had done. And he took the Lord, and washed him, and rolled him in a linen cloth, and brought him into his own tomb, which was called the Garden of Joseph.
7 Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, perceiving what evil they had done to themselves, began to lament and to say, Woe for our sins: the judgement hath drawn nigh, and the end of Jerusalem. And I with my companions was grieved; and being wounded in mind we hid ourselves: for we were being sought for by them as malefactors, and as wishing to set fire to the temple. And upon all these things we fasted and sat mourning and weeping night and day until the sabbath.
8 But the scribes and Pharisees and elders being gathered together one with another, when they heard that all the people murmured and beat their breasts saying, If by his death these most mighty signs have come to pass, see how righteous he is,—the elders were afraid and came to Pilate, beseeching him and saying, Give us soldiers, that we may guard his sepulchre for three days, lest his disciples come and steal him away, and the people suppose that he is risen from the dead and do us evil. And Pilate gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to guard the tomb. And with them came elders and scribes to the sepulchre, and having rolled a great stone together with1 the centurion and the soldiers, they all together who were there set it at the door of the sepulchre; and they affixed seven seals, and they pitched a tent there and guarded it. And early in the morning as the sabbath was drawing on, there came a multitude from Jerusalem and the region round about, that they might see the sepulchre that was sealed.
9 And in the night in which the Lord’s day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend from thence with great light and approach the tomb. And that stone which was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in.
10 When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders; for they too were hard by keeping guard. And, as they declared what things they had seen, again they see three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them: and of the two the head reached unto the heaven, but the head of him that was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, Thou hast preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yea.
11 They therefore considered one with another whether to go away and shew these things to Pilate. And while they yet thought thereon, the heavens again are seen to open, and a certain man to descend and enter into the sepulchre. When the centurion and they that were with him saw these things, they hastened in the night to Pilate, leaving the tomb which they were watching, and declared all things which they had seen, being greatly distressed and saying, Truly he was the Son of God. Pilate answered and said, I am pure from the blood of the Son of God: but it was ye who determined this. Then they all drew near and besought him and entreated him to command the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing of the things which they had seen: For it is better, say they, for us to be guilty of the greatest sin before God, and not to fall into the hands of the people of the Jews and to be stoned. Pilate therefore commanded the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing.
12 And at dawn upon the Lord’s day Mary Magdalen, a disciple of the Lord, fearing because of the Jews, since they were burning with wrath, had not done at the Lord’s sepulchre the things which women are wont to do for those that die and for those that are beloved by them—she took her friends with her and came to the sepulchre where he was laid. And they feared lest the Jews should see them, and they said, Although on that day on which he was crucified we could not weep and lament, yet now let us do these things at his sepulchre. But who shall roll away for us the stone that was laid at the door of the sepulchre, that we may enter in and sit by him and do the things that are due? For the stone was great, and we fear lest some one see us. And if we cannot, yet if we but set at the door the things which we bring for a memorial of him, we will weep and lament, until we come unto our home.
13 And they went and found the tomb opened, and coming near they looked in there; and they see there a certain young man sitting in the midst of the tomb, beautiful and clothed in a robe exceeding bright; who said to them, Wherefore are ye come? Whom seek ye? Him that was crucified?2 He is risen and gone. But if ye believe not, look in and see the place where he lay, that he is not [here]; for he is risen and gone thither, whence he was sent. Then the women feared and fled.
14 Now it was the last day of the unleavened bread, and many were going forth, returning to their homes, as the feast was ended. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, wept and were grieved: and each one, being grieved for that which was come to pass, departed to his home. But I Simon Peter and Andrew my brother took our nets and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphæus, whom the Lord . . .
SYNOPTICAL TABLE OF THE FOUR CANONICAL GOSPELS AND THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PETER
1 But of the Jews1 none washed his hands, neither Herod2 nor any one of his judges.3 2 And when they had refused to wash them, Pilate rose up. And then Herod the king commandeth that the Lord be taken, saying to them, What things soever I commanded you to do unto him, do.
3 And there was come there Joseph the friend of Pilate and of the Lord; and, knowing that they were about to crucify him, he came to Pilate and asked the body of the Lord for burial. 4 And Pilate sent to Herod and asked his body. 5 And Herod said, Brother4 Pilate, even if no one had asked for him, we purposed to bury him, especially as the sabbath draweth on: for it is written in the law, that the sun set not upon one that hath been put to death. And he delivered him to the people on the day before the unleavened bread, their feast.
6 And they took the Lord and pushed him as they ran, and said, Let us drag away the Son of God, having obtained power over him.
7 And they clothed him with purple, and set him on the seat of judgement, saying, Judge righteously, O King of Israel. 8 And one of them brought a crown of thorns and put it on the head of the Lord. 9 And others stood and spat in his eyes, and others smote his cheeks: others pricked him with a reed; and some scourged him, saying, With this honour let us honour the Son of God.
10 And they brought two malefactors, and they crucified the Lord between them.
But he held his peace, as though having no pain.
11 And when they had raised the cross, they wrote upon it, This is the King of Israel.
12 And having set his garments before him, they parted them among them, and cast lots for them.
[cf. v. 11.]
[cf. v. 12.]
13 And one of those malefactors reproached them, saying, We for the evils that we have done have suffered thus, but this man, who hath become the Saviour of men, what wrong hath he done to you?
14 And they, being angered at him, commanded that his legs should not be broken, that he might die in torment.
15 And it was noon, and darkness came over all Judæa:
and they were troubled and distressed, lest the sun had set, whilst he was yet alive: [for] it is written for them, that the sun set not on him that hath been put to death.
16 And one of them said, Give him to drink gall with vinegar. And they mixed and gave him to drink, 17 and fulfilled all things, and accomplished their sins against their own head.
18 And many went about with lamps, supposing that it was night, and fell down. 19 And the Lord cried out, saying, My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me.
And when he had said it he was taken up.
20 And in that hour the vail of the temple of Jerusalem was rent in twain.
21 And then they drew out the nails from the hands of the Lord, and laid him upon the earth, and the whole earth quaked, and great fear arose. 22 Then the sun shone, and it was found the ninth hour: 23 and the Jews rejoiced, and
gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it,
since he had seen what good things he had done.
24 And he took the Lord, and washed him, and wrapped him in a linen cloth, and brought him into his own tomb,
which was called the Garden of Joseph.
25 Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, perceiving what evil they had done to themselves, began to lament and to say, Woe for our sins: the judgement hath drawn nigh, and the end of Jerusalem.
26 And I with my companions was grieved; and being wounded in mind we hid ourselves: for we were being sought for by them as malefactors, and as wishing to set fire to the temple.
27 And upon all these things we fasted1 and sat mourning2 and weeping2 night and day until the sabbath.
28 But the scribes and Pharisees and elders being gathered together one with another, when they heard that all the people murmured and beat their breasts, saying, If by his death these most mighty signs have come to pass, see how just he is,— 29 the elders were afraid and
came to Pilate, beseeching him and saying, 30 Give us soldiers, that we may guard his sepulchre for three days, lest his disciples come and steal him away, and the people suppose that he is risen from the dead and do us evil.
31 And Pilate gave them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to guard the tomb. And with them came the elders and scribes to the sepulchre,
32 And having rolled a great stone together with the centurion and the soldiers, they all together who were there set it at the door of the sepulchre;
33 And they affixed seven seals, and they pitched a tent there and guarded it.
34 And early in the morning as the sabbath was drawing on, there came a multitude from Jerusalem and the region round about, that they might see the sepulchre that was sealed.
35 And in the night in which the Lord’s day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; 36 and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend from thence with great light and approach the tomb. 37 And that stone which was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in.
38 When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders,—for they too were hard by keeping guard; 39 and, as they declared what things they had seen, again they see three men coming forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. 40 And of the two the head reached unto the heaven, but the head of him that was led by them overpassed the heavens. 41 And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, Hast thou preached to them that sleep? 42 And a response was heard from the cross, Yea.
43 They therefore considered one with another whether to go away and shew these things to Pilate. 44 And while they yet thought thereon, the heavens again are seen to open, and a certain man to descend and enter into the sepulchre. 45 When the centurion and they that were with him saw these things, they hastened in the night to Pilate, leaving the tomb which they were watching, and declared all things which they had seen, being greatly distressed and saying, Truly he was the Son of God. 46 Pilate answered and said, I am pure from the blood of the Son of God: but ye determined this.
47 Then they all drew near and besought him and entreated him to command the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing of the things which they had seen: 48 For it is better, say they, for us to incur the greatest sin before God, and not to fall into the hands of the people of the Jews and to be stoned. 49 Pilate therefore commanded the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing.
50 And at dawn upon the Lord’s day, Mary Magdalen, a disciple of the Lord, fearing because of the Jews, since they were burning with wrath, had not done at the Lord’s sepulchre the things which the women are wont to do for those that die and for those that are beloved by them—51 she took her friends with her and came to the sepulchre where he was laid.
52 And they feared lest the Jews should see them, and they said, Although on the day on which he was crucified we could not weep and lament, yet now let us do these things at his sepulchre.
53 But who shall roll away for us the stone that was laid at the door of the sepulchre, that we may enter in and sit by him and do the things that are due? 54 For the stone was great, and we fear lest some one see us. And if we cannot, yet if we but set at the door the things which we bring for a memorial of him, we will weep and lament, until we come unto our home.
55 And they went away and found the tomb opened,
and coming near they looked in there;
and they see there a certain young man sitting in the midst of the tomb, beautiful and clothed in a robe exceeding bright; who said to them, 56 Wherefore are ye come? Whom seek ye? Him that was crucified? He is risen and gone. But if ye believe not, look in and see the place where he lay, that he is not [here]; for he is risen and gone away thither, whence he was sent.
57 Then the women feared and fled.
58 Now it was the last day of the unleavened bread, and many were going forth, returning to their homes, as the feast was ended. 59 But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, mourned and were grieved: and each one, being grieved for that which was come to pass, departed to his home. 60 But I, Simon Peter and Andrew my brother, took our nets and went to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphæus, whom the Lord . . .
THE DIATESSARON OF TATIAN
The aim of the following introductory paragraphs is neither to furnish a detailed restatement of facts already known, nor to offer an independent contribution to the discussion of the problems that arise, although in other circumstances such an attempt might be made with advantage. All that is needed and practicable here is to describe briefly, if possible, the nature of the connection between the English treatise forming the next part of this volume and the ancient work known as the Diatessaron of Tatian; and then to indicate in a few words some of the more important or interesting features of the work itself, and some of the historical and other problems that are in one way or another connected with it.
1 The Text Translated.—What is offered to the reader is a translation into English of an Arabic text, published at Rome in 1888, in a volume entitled in Arabic Diatessaron, which Titianus Compiled from the Four Gospels, with the alternative Latin title, Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniæ, Arabice. The Roman volume consists of two parts—the text, covering a little over 209 very clearly printed Arabic pages, and a Latin half, comprising a scholarly introduction (pp. v.-xv.), a Latin translation (pp. 1-99), and a table showing the order in which the passages taken from the gospels occur in the text. The editor is P. Agostino Ciasca, a well-known Orientalist, “scriptor” at the Vatican Library.
2 Former Translations.—In his Introduction (p. xiv. f.) Ciasca explains that in his translation he aimed at preserving quantum, salva fidelitate, integrum fuit, indolem stylumque Clementinæ Vulgatæ. This Latin version was in its turn translated into English by the Rev. J. Hamlyn Hill, B.D., and published in 1894 in a volume entitled The Earliest Life of Christ, with an interesting introduction and a number of valuable appendices. The MS. of Mr. Hill’s translation of the Latin of Ciasca was compared with the Arabic original by Mr. G. Buchanan Gray, M.A., lecturer in Hebrew and the Old Testament in Mansfield College, Oxford.
3 The Present Translation.—The translation offered here is quite independent of either of these two. Ciasca’s Latin was seldom consulted, except when it was thought the Arabic might perhaps be obscured by a misprint. After the translation was completed, Hill’s English was compared with it to transfer Mr. Hill’s valuable system of references to the margin of this work, and to lessen the risk of oversights passing the last revision unnoticed. In two or three cases this process led to the adoption of a different construction, and in a few of the more awkward passages a word was borrowed as being less harsh than that which had originally been written. 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. He, however, printed at the foot of the page the variants of the other MS., and supplied from it two lacunæ in the Cod. Vat.,2 substituted its readings for those of the Cod. Vat. where he thought them preferable, and followed its testimony in omitting two important passages.3 Here and there Ciasca has emended the text, but he does not profess to have produced a critical edition.4
5 The Arabic MSS.—Unfortunately, the present writer has not had an opportunity of examining these two MSS.; but they have been described at some length by Ciasca; Codex XIV. in Pitra’s Analecta Sacra, iv., 465 ff., and the other codex in the volume with which we are dealing, p. vi. ff. I. The former, which we shall call the Vatican MS. (in Ciasca’s foot-notes it is called A), was brought to the Vatican from the East by Joseph S. Assemani5 about ad 1719. It was described by Stephen E. Assemani,6 Rosenmüller, and Akerblad,7 and then at length by Ciasca, to whose account the reader must be referred for the details. It consists of 123 folios, of which the first seven are somewhat spoiled, and of which two are missing,1 and is supposed by Ciasca, from the character of the writing, and from the presence of certain Coptic letters2 by the first hand, to have been written in Egypt. S. Assemani assigned it to the twelfth century, and Ciasca accepts his verdict, while Akerblad says the thirteenth or fourteenth century. The text of the MS. is pretty fully vocalised, but there are few diacritical points. There are marginal notes, some of them by a later hand,3 which Ciasca classifies as (1) emendations, (2) restorations, (3) explanations. II. The second MS., which we shall call the Borgian (in Ciasca’s foot-notes it is called B), was brought to the Borgian Museum from Egypt in August, 1886. It has at the end the following inscription in Arabic: “A present from Halīm Dōs Ghālī, the Copt, the Catholic, to the Apostolic See, in the year of Christ 1886.”4 Antonius Morcos, Visitor Apostolic of the Catholic Copts, when, in the beginning of 1886, he was shown and informed about the Vatican MS., told of this other one and was the means of its being sent to Rome. The Borgian MS., which Ciasca refers to the fourteenth century, consists of 355 folios. Folios 1-855 contain an anonymous preface on the gospels, briefly described by Ciasca, who, however, does not say whether it appears to have been originally written in Arabic or to have been translated into that language. With folios 96b, 97a, which are reproduced in phototype in Ciasca’s edition, begins the Introductory Note given in full at the beginning of the present translation. 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,6 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. it is clearly not a copy of the latter, for not only does it sometimes offer more original readings, but, as we shall see, its text in some points coincides more exactly in scope with the original work. The list of various readings supplied by Ciasca,7 which is equal to about a fifth or a quarter of the text itself, ought to yield, on being analysed, some canons of criticism. The foot-notes of the present edition are enough to show that a number of the peculiar features of Ciasca’s text do not belong to the original Arabic MS.; and further study would dispose of still more. On the other hand, there are unfortunately some indications8 that the common ancestor of both MSS., though perhaps less than two centuries removed from the original, was not the original itself, and therefore emendation may be necessary even where both MSS. agree. From first to last it has to be borne in mind that a great deal of work was done at Arabic versions of the gospels,9 and the text of the copy from which our two MSS. are descended may already have suffered from contact with other versions; while the special activity of the thirteenth century may have left its mark in some places on the text of the Borgian MS., supposing it to be chronologically the later.
7 Origin of the Arabic Text.—If some of the uncouthness of the Arabic text is due to corruption in the course of transmission, much is also due to its being not an original work, but a translation. That it is, in the main, a translation from Syriac is too obvious to need proof.10 The Introductory Notice and Subscription to the Borgian MS., moreover, expressly state that the work was translated by one Abu’l Fărăj ‘Abdulla ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib,11 an “excellent and learned priest,” and the inferiority of parts of the translation,12 and entire absence of any confirmatory evidence,13 hardly suffice to refute this assertion. 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-aṭ-Ṭayyib (d. 1043) is a well-known man, a Nestorian monk and scholar, secretary to Elias I., Patriarch of Nisībis (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). As we are here concerned with him simply as a link in the chain connecting our present work with its original source, the only point of interest for us is the method he followed in producing it. Did he prepare an independent translation or did he make use of existing Arabic versions, his own or others’? Until this question, which space forbids us to discuss here, has been more thoroughly investigated,1 it must suffice to say that in view of the features in the present text that have not yet been shown to exist in any other Arabic version, it is still at least a tenable hypothesis that Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s MS. constituted to a considerable extent a real translation rather than a sort of Arabic parallel to the Codex Fuldensis (see below, 12).
9 The Syriac Text Translated.—The eleventh-century MS. of Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib, could we reach it, would bring us face to face with the more interesting question of the nature of his Syriac original. The Subscription to the Borgian MS. states, probably copying the statement from its exemplar, that this was a Syriac MS. in the handwriting of ‘Isa ibn-‘Ali al Motaṭabbib, pupil of Ḥonain ibn Isḥāḳ. This Ḥonain was a famous Arabic physician and medical writer of Bagdad (d. 873), whose school produced quite a number of translations and translators, among whom Ibn-‘Ali, supposed to be identical with the Syriac lexicographer of the same name, is known to have had a high place. The Syriac MS., therefore, that Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib translated takes us back to about the year 900. But the Subscription to each of our MSS.2 states that the work ended is the gospel called Diatessaron, compiled from the four gospels by Titianus; while the Introductory Note to the Borgian MS. adds that this Titianus was a Greek. The next step, therefore, is to inquire whether any traces exist of such a Syriac work, or any statements by which we can check the account just given of it.
10 Other Traces of a Syriac Text.—No copy of a Syriac Diatessaron has yet been shown to have survived.3 A number of quotations4 from such a work have, however, been found in a Syriac commentary on the New Testament by Isho‘dad of Merv (circ. 852), a contemporary of Ḥonain, Ibn-‘Ali’s teacher.5 The value of these extracts is apparent, for they take us back one generation earlier than Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib’s Syriac exemplar. More important still, they do not entirely agree with the text of our Arabic version. To solve the problem thus raised, we must examine some of the statements about the Diatessaron to be found in ecclesiastical writers.
11 Statements about the Diatessaron.—One of the most widely known is that of Isho‘dad himself, who, in his Preface to the Gospel of Mark, says: “Tatian, disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr, selected from the four gospels, and combined and composed a gospel, and called it Diatessaron, i.e., the Combined, . . . and upon this gospel Mar Ephraem commented.”6 Dionysius Bar Ṣalibi (twelfth century) repeats each of these phrases, adding, “Its commencement was, ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ ”7 These statements identify the author of the Diatessaron with a man otherwise known, and tell us that the great Syrian father Ephraem (d. 373) wrote a commentary on it. Unfortunately, no Syriac MS. of Ephraem’s work is known to have survived;8 but quotations from it, or allusions to it, are being found in other Syriac writers. One further reference will suffice for the present. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus, four hundred years before Isho‘dad, wrote thus in his book on Heresies (written in 453): “Tatian the Syrian. . . . This [writer] also composed the gospel which is called Diatessaron, cutting out the genealogies and whatever other passages show that the Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.”1 Before examining the testimonials we have now adduced, we must notice certain more remote sources of information.
12 Non-Syriac Texts of the Diatessaron.—Although Ephraem’s Syriac commentary on the Diatessaron is for the present lost, there is an Armenian version of it2 extant in two MSS. dating from about the time of Bar Ṣalibi and our Vat. MS.3 A Latin translation of this work, published in 1876 by Moesinger,4 formed the main basis of Zahn’s attempt5 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. The same phenomenon is met with when we compare our Arabic text with a document that carries us back three hundred years before the time of Isho‘dad, and therefore more than six hundred years before the Armenian MSS.—the Codex Fuldensis of the Vulgate.6 This MS. contains an arrangement of the gospel matter that its discoverer and publisher, Bishop Victor of Capua (d. 554), rightly concluded must represent the Diatessaron of Tatian, but for the text of which was apparently substituted that of the Vulgate.7 We are now ready to weigh the testimony we have gathered.8
13 Accretions to the Diatessaron.—The statements we are to consider are: (1) Bar Ṣalibi’s, that Tatian’s Diatessaron began with “In the beginning was the Word”;9 (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. It must suffice to say (1) that, although a more careful examination at first-hand of the introductory notices in the two Arabic MSS. seems needed before one can venture to propound a complete theory, a comparison of the two texts, and a consideration of the descriptions given by Ciasca and Lagarde,10 make it almost certain that the genuine Arabic text of Ibn-aṭ-Ṭayyib began with John i. 1. Similarly the first four verses of Luke (on which see also below, § 1. 6, note) were probably not in the original text of the MS. that Victor found, for they are not mentioned in the (old) table of contents. 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.11 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-aṭ-Ṭayyib, they are still placed by themselves, after a blank space, at the end of the volume, with a title of their own.12 Here, therefore, we actually see stages of the process of accretion. (3) It is therefore possible that the same account must also be given of 3, although in this case we have no direct proof.
14 Passages Lost from the Diatessaron.—If the Diatessaron has thus been growing so as to represent the ordinary text of the canonical gospels more completely, we have also evidence that suggests that it has been at some time or times purged of certain features that are lacking in these canonical gospels. For one case of this kind see below, § 4, 36, note.
15 Preservation of the Text of the Diatessaron.—We have observed already that the Latin, Armenian, and Arabic Diatessarons correspond pretty closely in subject-matter and arrangement, but differ markedly in text. The Codex Fuldensis is really a MS. of the Vulgate, although the text that Victor found was probably somewhat different. The Armenian text differs materially from the ordinary Syriac version of the New Testament (the Peshitta), showing a marked connection with another type of Syriac text represented now by the Curetonian and Sinaitic (Lewis) MSS. The Arabic text, on the other hand, almost systematically represents the Peshitta. The explanation of the condition of text in the Codex Fuldensis is obvious. 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 text1 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-aṭ-Ṭayyib was put to when made we do not know. ‘Abd Isho‘ (d. 1318) speaks in the highest terms of Tatian’s work, saying, “. . . With all diligence he attended to the utmost degree to the right order of those things which were said and done by the Saviour; of his own he did not add a single saying.”2 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.” A few years earlier Rabbūlā, Bishop of Edessa (d. 435), had said:3 “Let the presbyters and deacons give heed that in all the churches there be provided and read a copy of the Distinct Gospel,” i.e., not the harmonized or mixed gospel. But obviously these men were trying to suppress traditional practice due to very different views. Theodoret (loc. cit.) found more than two hundred copies of the work “held in respect in the churches”; and the Doctrine of Addai (Edessa, third to fourth century) seems simply to identify the Diatessaron and the New Testament.4 Outside of the Syriac-speaking churches we find no signs of any such use of the Diatessaron. It would seem, therefore, that at a quite early stage the Diatessaron was very widely if not universally read in the Syriac churches, and commented on by scholars as the gospel; that in time it fell under the condemnation of some at least of the church leaders, who made violent efforts to suppress it; that it could not be suppressed; that a commentary on it was (perhaps in the fifth century5 ) translated into Armenian, that it was still discussed by commentators, and new Syriac MSS. of it made in the ninth century, and thought worth the labor of reproduction in Arabic in the beginning of the eleventh century; that MSS. of the Armenian volume continued to be made down to the very end of the twelfth century, and of the Arabic edition down to the fourteenth century; but that this long life was secured at the expense of a more or less rapid assimilation of the text to that of the great Syriac Bible which from the fourth century onwards became more and more exclusively used—the Peshitta.
17 The Author of the Diatessaron.—The Diatessaron is such an impersonal work that we do not need to know very much about its compiler.6 It will suffice here to say that he tells us himself that he was born “in the land of the Assyrians,” and brought up a heathen. After travelling in search of knowledge, he settled at Rome, where he became a pupil of Justin Martyr, professed Christianity, and wrote in Greek his Address to the Greeks,7 translated in vol. iii. of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. He was too independent in his attitude to maintain a permanent popularity, and after Justin’s death left Rome and returned to Mesopotamia. It was probably here that he issued in Syriac his most important work, the Diatessaron, which won such a warm place in the heart of the Syrian church. Among the Greek scholars, however, he became more and more regarded as a heretic, Encratite (ascetic), and Gnostic.
18 The Diatessaron as a Harmony.—Not very much need be said on this subject, as every reader can collect the facts for himself. In its present form the Harmony draws from all the four canonical gospels, and from very little else. Opinions differ as to whether it originally indicated the gospel from which any given piece was drawn, and some uncertainty must remain in special cases as to what gospel actually has been drawn upon. Professor G. F. Moore, in a very interesting article on the Diatessaron,8 having counted the references in the Arabic MSS., states that the Arabic text contains 50 per cent. of Mark, 66 per cent. of Luke, 76.5 per cent. of Matthew, and 96 per cent. of John. The summation of his figures gives the following result: out of a total of 3780 verses in the four gospels, the Diatessaron quotes 2769 and omits 1011. As to the order in which the whole is arranged, Moore thinks that Matthew has chiefly been followed; while Zahn regards the Fourth Gospel as normative. For a specimen of the way in which words and phrases from the different gospels are woven together, we may refer to § 52, 35 ff., and the notes thereon. In the Arabic MSS., and probably in the Syriac exemplar, the work is divided into fifty-four almost equal chapters, followed by one short one—a feature that agrees well with what we have learned of the work as being of old the lectionary of the Syrian church.
19 Problems Connected with the Diatessaron.—The Diatessaron open up a very wide field of study. A few points may be here enumerated (see also above, 8, and note there). In what language was it written? On the view favoured by an increasing majority of scholars, that it was written in Syriac, was it a translation or simply a compilation? What precisely is its relation to the Syriac versions and the “Western” text generally? Then there is its bearing on the date and formation of the canonical gospels; the phenomenon of its so long supplying the place of those gospels; the analogy it presents to the Pentateuch, according to the critical view of the origin of the latter. These and other issues make the Diatessaron an important and interesting study.
20 The Present Translation.—The work of translation has been found much more tedious than was anticipated, notwithstanding the fact that considerably more than half of it is the work of my wife, which I have simply revised with special attention to the many obscurities dealt with in the foot-notes. We have, however, worked so much together that it is very doubtful whether any one could assign the various parts to their respective sources. My wife also verified the Arabic references to the gospels printed on the margin to the right of the text,1 and prepared the Index to these references—an extremely laborious and perplexing piece of work. This Index is inserted merely for the practical purpose of enabling the reader to find any given gospel piece in the Diatessaron. When a verse is not found in the Index, an equivalent passage from some of the other gospels should be looked for. On the margin to the left of the text are indicated the pages of the Arabic text and the sections and verses in Hill’s version.2
The aim has been to make a literal translation. As two freer translations already exist, it seemed best to incline to the side of being overliteral. If, however, features due simply to Arabic idiom have been preserved, this is an oversight. Uniformity could only have been secured by devoting a much longer time to the work than the editor was able to allow. The difficulties are due to the corrupt state of the Arabic text,3 and to the awkward reproduction4 or actual misunderstanding5 of the Syriac original by the author or authors of the Arabic translation. It has been impossible to maintain consistency in dealing with these phenomena. If any rendering seem strange, it will be well to consult the Syriac versions before deciding that it is wrong. A good deal of attention, too, has to be paid to the usage of the Arabic text, which, though it has many points of contact with other Arabic versions of the gospels, e.g., the MS. described by Gildemeister (De evangg. in arab. e simp. Syr., 1865), is as yet for us (see above, 8) a distinct version, possessed of an individuality of its own, one pronounced feature being its very close adherence to its Syriac original. Another revision of the present translation, in the light of a fuller study of these features, would doubtless lead to changes both in the text and in the foot-notes. The latter aim at preventing misunderstanding and giving some examples of the peculiarities of the text, and of the differences between the MSS. To have dealt systematically with the text and various readings would have required much more time and space than was available. The consequence of this incompleteness has been some uncertainty at times what text to translate. As already stated (paragraphs 4 and 6), Ciasca’s printed text neither represents any one MS. nor professes to be based in its eclecticism on any systematic critical principles. On the whole Ciasca has here been followed somewhat mechanically in deciding what to exhibit in the text and what to relegate to the foot-notes. As a rule conjectural emendations have not been admitted into the text except where the MS. readings would hardly bear translation. Italics in the text denote words supplied for the sake of English idiom; in the foot-notes, quotations from the MSS. It is to be noted that many linguistic usages said, for shortness, in the foot-notes to be characteristic of the present work, i.e., as compared with ordinary Arabic, are common in Arabic versions. “Syriac versions” means the three (Pesh., Cur., Sin.), or as many of them as contain the passage in question; if the Peshitta alone is quoted, it may be assumed that Cur. and Sin. are missing or diverge.
In conclusion we may say that an effort has been made to preserve even the order of words; but it must be emphasized that it is very doubtful whether it is wise for any one to use the Arabic Diatessaron for critical purposes who is not acquainted with Arabic and Syriac. The tenses, e.g., are much vaguer in Arabic than in Greek and English, and are, moreover, in this work often accommodated to Syriac idiom. The Greek and the Revised Version have been used to determine in almost every case how the vague Arabic tenses and conjunctions should be rendered. It is therefore only where it differs from these that our translation can be quoted without investigation as giving positive evidence.
This is not a final translation. Few books have had a more remarkable literary history than the Diatessaron, and that history is by no means done. Much careful argument will yet be devoted to it, and perhaps discoveries as important as any hitherto made are yet to shed light on the problems that encircle it. If our work can help any one to take a step in advance, we shall not regret the toil.
Oxford, 21st December, 1895.