The Diatesseron's Peshitta Pedigree.

[Paul Younan]

Shlama Akhay,

Read almost any encyclopedia or commentary on the New Testament, and you are bound to come across a reference to Rabbula (died 433 A.D.), the Monophysite "Tyrant of Edessa", supposedly "suppressing" the Diatesseron - which they claim was the "earliest" gospel in Aramaic.

If we are to believe that, then how does one explain the following subscription to an Arabic translation of the Diatesseron made in the 11th century by the Church of the East?

Here endeth the Gospel which Tatianus compiled and named Diatessaron, i.e., The Fourfold, a compilation from the four Gospels of the holy Apostles, the excellent Evangelists (peace be upon them). It was translated by the excellent and learned priest, Abu'l Fa??ra??j ??Abdulla ibn-at-Tayyib (may God grant him favour), from Syriac into Arabic from an exemplar written by Isa ibn-Ali' al-Motatabbib, pupil of Honain ibn-Ishaq (God have mercy on them both). Amen.

A little history is in order here. This is from an Arabic translation of the Diatesseron made by Ibn-at-Tayyib (died 1043). He is a well known man, a Church of the East monk and scholar who was secretary to Eliyah I, Patriarch of the Church of the East (c.f., Ciasca's Introduction, p. xi. f. and Steinschneider's Polemische and apologetische Lit. in Arabische Sprache, pp. 52-55). Honain ibn-Ishaq (also mentioned in the subscription) was a famous physician, a member of the Church of the East who is well known for his contributions to modern medicine.

Of this Arabic translation today we have 7 manuscripts which survive. Four of them happen to contain the subscription above. The most well-known manuscript is called the "Borgian" and it currently resides in the Vatican Library (and is listed in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series.)

So here we have a translator living in the 11th century (a full 600 years after Rabbula died) who plainly states that he translated the Syriac (Aramaic) Diatesseron into Arabic.

Notice, also, that this is the only translation of the Diatesseron which explicitly states that it was made from the Syriac (Aramaic). No other manuscript makes this claim (not the Latin nor the Armenian.)

Also, notice that the Arabic harmony begins with John 1:1, which we know to be a trademark of Tatian's harmony (c.f., bar-Salibi (12th century in Bib. Or., ii., Volume I pp. 59) who states "Its commencement was, `In the beginning was the Word.'")

But I thought Rabbula "suppressed" the Diatesseron? At least the dated material in encyclopedias and commentaries state this. In fact, these are the words of Rabbula, verbatim:

"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.

The truth of the matter is: while it's possible that Rabbula had the power to suppress the Diatesseron in his little corner of the world called Edessa (in Byzantine territory), that hardly gives him the power to extend into Persia and destroy their copies of the Diatesseron.

The subscription to a 600-year later Arabic translation of the Aramaic Diatesseron proves that Rabbula did not suppress the Diatesseron - at least not in Persia where the Church of the East reigned independent of him and his maniacal rantings.

This Arabic translation so exactly matches the Peshitta AGAINST the so-called "Old Syriac", that F.C. Burkitt (remember him?) found it necessary to make the unfounded charge that the text of the Arabic translation must have been tampered with to make it read like the Peshitta. (c.f., Burkitt, Evangelion de-Mepharreshe (2 Vols; Cambridge; University Press, 1904, 1.200)

In Burkitt's worldview, the Peshitta couldn't have existed before Rabbula's time - so the Diatesseron (created ~175 A.D.) couldn't possibly read like it against the so-called "Old Syriac." All this accusation, by the way, without a shred of evidence to support his theory (like his "Rabbula created the Peshitta" theory, which has already been disproved by many scholars.)

It makes perfect sense that a harmony of the Gospels would necessarily require that the distinct 4 Gospels actually existed prior to the harmony. This is common sense. It makes ever more sense that an Aramaic harmony of the Gospels, which Tatian's Diatesseron was, was woven together from the 4 distinct Aramaic Gospels.

Of the 3 surviving translations of the Aramaic Diatesseron (Latin, Armenian and Arabic) the Arabic is the only one which was made in a sister Semitic tongue. The relationship of Latin to Aramaic (or even Armenian to Aramaic) is like the relationship of Chinese to English. The relationship of Aramaic and Arabic is well documented, and one is the daughter of the other.

Since the Arabic translation by Ibn-at-Tayyib is the only one we know for sure was made directly from the Aramaic, and since it reads like the Peshitta (so much so that it worried Burkitt), and since we know that a harmony necessitates a base of 4 distinct Gospels from which it must be drawn - I submit that Tatian's Aramaic Diatesseron was a harmony of the distinct Gospels in Aramaic we currently find today in the canon of scripture we know as the Peshitta.

Occam's Razor is a logical principle which states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the best.

The simplest explanation is that Tatian created a harmony of the Peshitta gospels. This harmony existed in Persia until at least the 11th century, when it was translated into Arabic. It then fell out of popular use. This was not a problem - since they had the distinct Gospels in Aramaic from day one. Tatian's harmony was popular at one time in the life of the church - just as any number of contemporary gospel harmonies are popular today. But that doesn't mean that it predates the Peshitta Gospels.

In fact, if we are to believe the textual evidence in the Arabic translation (and not Burkitt's personal opinion) - the Peshitta Gospels were the base of the Diatesseron which history attributes to Tatian.

And this places the Peshitta Gospels at or before 175 A.D. Exactly what Burkitt refused to believe.