1 For further explanation of the method followed see 20.

2 see notes to §7, 47, and §52, 36, of the present translation.

3 see below, 13, (2).

4 see also below, 6, and 20.

5 Bibl. Or., i., 619.

6 Mai, Vet. script. nova. collect., iv., 14.

7 cf. Zahn, Forschungen, i., 294 ff.

8 see below, §7, 47, note, and §52, 36, note.

9 see below, §28, 42, note.

10 see below, foot-notes, passim.

11 The first leaf bears a more pretentious Latin inscription, quoted by Ciasca, p. vi.

12 Can this be a misprint for 95?

13 see below, 13.

14 He does not state, in so many words, that the list is absolutely exhaustive.

15 see, e.g., below, §13, 42, note, and §14, 43, note.

16 see the valuable article of Guidi, Le traduzioni degli Evangelii in arabo e in etiopicodi scienze morali, storiclie e filologiche. Serie Quarta, 1888, Parte Prima-Memorie, pp. 5-38). Some of his results are briefly stated in Scrivener, A Plain Introd, to the Crit. of the N. T., 4th ed., ii., 162.

17 cf. the foot-notes passim, e.g., §13, 14, §14, 24.

18 see below, note to Subscription.

19 see a glaring case in §52, II.

20 The references to the readings of the Diatessaron in Ibn-at-Tayyib's own commentary on the gospels (see next note) are remarkably impersonal for one who had made or was to make a translation of it.

21 A specially important part of the general question is this, What are the mutual relations of the following: (1) a supposed version of at least Matthew and John made from the Syriac by Ibn-at-Tayyib, mentioned by Ibn-al-'Assai in the Preface to his scholarly recension of the gospels (MS. numbered Or. 3382 in Brit. Mus., folio 384b) and used by him in determining his text; (2) the gospel text interwoven with the commentary of Ibn-at-Tayyib on the gospels, a commentary which De Slane says the author wrote in Syriac and then translated into Arabic; (3) our present work. Of MSS. testifying to No. I we have some dating from the time of Ibn-al-'Assal himself; of No. 2 we have, in addition to others, an eleventh-century MS. in Paris, described by De Slane (catalogue No. 85) as being "un volume despareille du MS. original de 1'ouvrage"; of No. 3 we have of course the Vatican and Borgian MSS. What is the mutual relation of these texts; were any two of them identical? The Brit. Mus. MS. of the second has many points of contact with the third, but is dated 1805 A.D. Does the older Paris MS. stand more or less closely related? Did Ibn-at-Tayyib himself really translate any or all of these texts, or did he simply select or edit them? Space does not permit us to point out, far less to discuss, the various possibilities.

22 The text is given below in full at its proper place.

23 Prof. Gottheil, indeed, announced in 1892 in the Journal of Biblical Literature (vol. xi., pt. i., p. 71) that he had been privately informed of the existence of a complete copy of the Syriac Diatessaron. Unfortunately, however, as he has kindly informed me, he has reluctantly come to the conclusion that the MS. in question, which is not yet accessible, is "nothing more than the commentary of Isho'dad " mentioned in the text. A similar rumor lately circulated probably originated simply in the pamphlet of Goussen mentioned in the next note. S. Baumer, on the other hand, in his article, "Tatians Diatessaron, seine bisher. Lit, u, die Reconstruction des Textes nach einer neuentdeckten Handschrift" (Lrterarischer Handweiser, 1890, 153-169) which the present writer has not been able to see, perhaps refers simply to the Borgian MS.

24 Attention was called to these by Profs. Isaac H. Hall and R. J. H. Gottheil (Journ. of Bibl. Lit., X., 153 ff.: xi., 68 ff); then by Prof. J. R. Harris(Contemp. Rev., Aug., 1895, p. 271 ff, and, more fully, Fragments of the Can. of Fphr. Syr. on the Diatess., London, 1895) and by Goussen (Studia Theologica, fisc. i., Lips., 1895).

25 Prof. Harris promises an edition of this Harnack, Gesch commentary.

26 Harris, Fragments, p. 14, where the Syriac text is quoted.

27 Bib. Or., ii., I 59 f. Most of them are repeated again by Bar Hebr[ae]us (d. 1286), although some confusion is produced by his interweaving some phrases from Eusebius of C[ae]sarea. (Bib. Or., i., 57 f., and a longer quotation in English in Contemp. Rev., Aug., 1895, p. 274 f.)

28 Lagarde's statement (Nachrichten von der Konigl. Gesellsch. der Wiss., etc., zu Gottingen, 1891, No. 4, p. 153) that a ms. had been discovered, appears to have been unfounded. Prof. Rahlfs of Gottingen kindly tells me that he believes this is so.

29 Migne, Patrol. gr[ae]c., tom. lxxxiii., col. 369, 372.

30 Published at Venice in 1836.