THE READERS FOR WHOM MATTHEW WROTE HIS GOSPEL. 189 



Diatessaron in Syriac. As Tatian was a heretic, Eabbula com- 

 menced a crusade against the use of his work in Divine service. 

 So successful has this crusade been, that not a single copy has 

 come down to us in Syriac. Two Arabic translations were found 

 in the Vatican Library, and have since been translated. Another 

 source of information is found in the commentaries of Ephraim 

 Syrus, accessible to us only in an Armenian translation ; Ephraim 

 used the Diatessaron, and quotes from it as he proceeds. Another 

 factor in the question, however, had to be considered. Dr. Oure- 

 ton published, in 1858, a copy of the Gospels in Syriac, represent- 

 ing a very much older recension than the Peshitta. This discovery 

 was emphasized by the discovery some thirty years later of the 

 Sinaitic Palimpsest by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, a copy of the 

 Curetonian recension. Eabbula is credited with having had the 

 Gospels translated from the Greek to replace the Diatessaron. A 

 comparison of the Peshitta with the Curetonian does not confirm 

 this view ; it is rather a revision of the earlier, and so stands to it 

 very much as our Eevised does to the Authorised Version. 



This conclusion again brings us into conflict with Dr. Burkitt. 

 He holds that Tatian 's Diatessaron, or to give it its Syriac name, 

 Euangelion-da-Mehallete, was the earliest form in which the 

 Gospels reached Syria. His view on this matter is conditioned 

 by that which he has on the date at which Christianity reached 

 Edessa. We have, we think, exhibited the insufficiency of the 

 grounds on which he has come to his decision, and have advanced 

 reasons for claiming a date much earlier than his for the founding 

 of the Syrian Church. On literary grounds the priority of the 

 Euangelion-da-Mepharreshe may be shown. The dependence of 

 the Peshitta on the Curetonian suggests it as well known. There 

 is the difficulty of imagining the occasion for anyone undertaking 

 a translation of the separate Gospels to rival the Diatessaron used 

 in the Churches. Besides its obvious independence of the text of 

 the Diatessaron, there is the impossibility of anyone tearing to 

 pieces the Diatessaron, and assigning to each Gospel what belongs 

 to it, taking account of the fact that in duplicated narratives the 

 slight variations are preserved. The title given to the Diatessaron, 



the Gospel of the Mixed, " impeies to knowledge that the Gospel 

 existed in separate narratives. Convenience for liturgic purposes 

 would easily explain the adoption of the combined narrative, in 

 preference to the separate Gospels. 



A study of the Curetonian exhibits its strongly Semitic charac- 

 ter. This is more marked in the Gospel of Matthew, than in that 

 of either Mark or Luke or John. This impression is intensified 

 when it is compared with the parallel Matthaean passages in the 

 Palestinian Lectionary found by Mrs. Lewis. The form proper 

 names assume in the latter clearly proves that it has been trans- 



