Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T20:11:25.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘And they thought that the time of his decease…had come’ [TA XXIV:5–6]*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2012

Tjitze Baarda
Tjitze Baarda
Affiliation:
Troskerslaan 27, 1185 BV Amstelveen, The Netherlands. email: tj.baarda@planet.nl.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Arabic Diatessaron has often been neglected in research on the New Testament, and understandably so. It is, indeed, a late and remote witness, written in a language that does not belong to the usual outfit of most theologians. Moreover, its text sometimes presents readings that are not easy to explain. One of these readings occurs in the Transfiguration Narrative and has found its way into the apparatus of the large Oxford edition of Luke's Gospel. This short study is an attempt to evaluate this variant reading and to clarify its origin.

Keywords

Matthew 17.3Mark 9.4Luke 9.30–31Arabic DiatessaronSyriac Diatessaron

Information

Type
Short Study
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 453 - 461
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

1. Introduction

By chance I was asked to give attention to a remarkable phrase in the Arabic Diatessaron (TA) which thus far had escaped my eye. It is found in chapter XXIV:5–6:Footnote 1

وترآءى لهم موسى وايليا مخاطبين لايسوع

وظّنّوا ان وقت وفاته المزمعة ان تتِمّ باورشليم بلغت ٠

‘And there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking to Jesus.

And they thought that the time of his decease which was to be accomplished at Jerusalem had come’.

The editors of the Oxford edition of Luke, however, thought it worthwhile to make mention of the second line:Footnote 2 ‘εδοξαν τον καιρον της εξοδου αυτου ην εμελλε πληρουν εν ιερουσαλημ εληλυθεναι’,Footnote 3 as the reading of Dta, i.e. the Arabic Diatessaron. Since the wording deviates from our Greek text, the question may be posed, whether these words were part of the original Diatessaron. What was the precise text in the Syriac Diatessaron? Was there a Greek text of this kind in Tatian's Greek harmony? It seems quite probable that these two lines were part of the original harmony, because they combine two or perhaps even three synoptic Gospel verses.

2. An Interesting Textual Variant

Before entering into a more detailed study of this text we must first establish the Arabic text, because there are a few differences between the manuscripts of TA. In the editio princeps, published by Ciasca,Footnote 4 the text reads: ‘and there appeared to him’ (له) instead of ‘to them’ (لهم), as found in Marmardji's text.Footnote 5 Marmardji followed Ms. E, whereas Ciasca adopted the reading of Ms. B; both editors have registered the omission of either reading in Ms. A in their apparatus.Footnote 6 The singular form was adopted by all early translators of the Arabic text,Footnote 7 although Hamlyn Hill had already expressed some doubt, because ‘there is no such reading in any other MS’.Footnote 8 One can understand Hill's remark, but the first question is whether lack of evidence elsewhere can decide whether there existed a reading ‘to him’ at all in TA; second, Hill's remark might have been understandable in the year that he wrote this, but now we know that ‘to him’ is found in the Sahidic ($naf$)Footnote 9 and Bohairic ($erof$)Footnote 10 versions, in some Arabic texts (له),Footnote 11 further in a Greek manuscript of Mark (28: αὐτῷ), in a Lectionary with Matthew's text (l 184: αὐτῷ), and at least in one OL manuscript of Matthew (g2: ‘ei’, and perhaps a: ‘illi’).Footnote 12 But, of course, the fact that there was such a variant readingFootnote 13 does not necessarily have to imply that ‘to him’ was the original reading in TA. It is necessary to deal with it again in our comments on the various elements of the Arabic text.

3. ‘And they Appeared…’ (وترآءى)

  1. a) The omission of the particle ίδού agrees with the text in Mark,Footnote 14 but also with some witnesses in Matthew (28 BohMs B VulgR Geo2), especially in the Syriac versions (Syc.p.pal). It is likely that the Arabic Diatessaron has preserved here the text of the Syriac Diatessaron.Footnote 15

  2. b) The Arabic wording (رأى - Perf. VI du.) can be a rendering of either $yzjta$ (Matt: Syc.h; Mark: Syh)Footnote 16 or $wyzjta$ (Matt: Syp; Mark: Sys.p);Footnote 17 the fact that EphraemFootnote 18 quotes the verb in the plural form makes it quite probable that $wyzjta$ was the reading of the Syriac Diatessaron.

4. A Difficult Choice between Manuscripts A-T, B, and E-S?

When coming back to the problem mentioned above, we must try to decide whether we should read (a) the singular ‘to him’ (له) with Ms. B, i.e. to Jesus, (b) ‘to them’ (لهم) with Mss. E, and S, i.e. the disciples Peter, John, and James, or (c) omit either dative here following Mss. A and T. Marmardji chose the plural form, and there seems much to say for that reading, for we find the plural $~whl$ in the Syriac versions of Matthew (Syc.p.h) and Mark (Sys.p.h), which shows that it was a strong current in Syriac tradition. But did this reading go back to the Syriac Diatessaron? There is no Syriac witness for the singular form ($hl$), as far as I can see. So, if this were the original form in the Arabic Diatessaron it must have been the translator's own choice. Now it is interesting to compare here the quotations in Ephraem's Syriac commentary on the Diatessaron (TE-Sy), where we find various references to the text, namely (1) $hm[ Nyllmm dk ryg wyzjta$, ‘for they appeared while speaking with him’ (in XIV:5),Footnote 19 (2) $aylaw acwm Lykh wyz[ta dk$, ‘When, therefore, Moses and Elijah appeared’ (XIV:7),Footnote 20 (3) $htwl wyzjta aylaw acwm Nyd anm L[$, ‘Why then did Moses and Elijah appear with him’ (XIV:8),Footnote 21 and finally (4) $aylaw acwm htwl wyzjta$… ‘…appeared with him Moses and Elijah’ (XIV:8).Footnote 22 The first two references miss the usual dative construction, and thus they agree in that regard with Mss. A and T of TA. So we have to consider the possibility that the Syriac Diatessaron lacked a dative pronoun, either singular or plural. The two other references also omit an indirect object, but they seem to suggest that Ephraem read in his Diatessaron $htwl$, ‘with him’.

It may be useful first to compare the Armenian version of Ephraem's commentary (TE-arm)Footnote 23 to see whether it confirms the Syriac text. Unfortunately, it lacks the first of the four references, but it has the second one ($երևցան$, ‘appeared’) without a dative; in the third reference Ms. A reads $առ նա$, ‘with him’, in agreement with the Syriac text, but Ms. B reads here $նմա$, ‘to him’ (‘illi’); finally, in the fourth reference, Ms. B reads $առ նա$, ‘with him’, in agreement with the Syriac text, whereas here a dative is found in Ms. A: $նոցա$, ‘to them’. It is interesting to see that the copyists of the Armenian version tended to present here a dative, singular and plural. This tendency may also have played a role in the Arabic Diatessaron tradition to add either له (Ms. B) or لهم (Mss. E S). All in all, we must reckon with the possibility that Ms. A may actually have preserved the original wording of TA, the verb without any complement.Footnote 24 But then the question arises whether TA has preserved here the text of the original Syriac Diatessaron. Two of Ephraem's quotations seem to confirm this.

However, the last two references in Ephraem's commentary (with $htwl$) might suggest that Ephraem could have read the words ‘with him’ in his Diatessaron text. There is a passage in a treatise of AphrahatFootnote 25 that deals with the Transfiguration episode: ‘Jesus took three disciples with him and showed them the sign of his (second) coming, when he changed in his appearance like in his (second) coming, while Moses and Elijah (were) with him ($htwl aylaw acwm dk$)’; and shortly after this ‘…like Elijah who did not taste death and appeared with him ($htwl Yzjtaw$)’. So these two allusions in Aphrahat's work combined with the last two references in Ephraem's commentary might suggest that the original Syriac Diatessaron contained the phrase ‘appeared with him’, and not ‘appeared to him’ or ‘appeared to them’. If that is the case, the omission of such complements in Mss. A and T of TA may be original, but then it must be said that the translator did not render the words $htwl$, ‘with him’ or that they were absent in the Syriac copy of the Harmony that he used.

5. ‘Moses and Elijah’ (موسى وايليا)

The Arabic text has the order ‘Moses and Elijah’ in agreement with Matthew (and Luke), whereas Mark reads Ἠλίας σὺν Μωϋσεῖ. The Arabic text is in agreement with $aylaw acwm$ in Syc.p.h (Matt), Sys (Mark),Footnote 26 and Sys.c.p.h (Luke), contra $acwmw ayla$ in Syp (Mark) or $acwm M[ ayla$ in Syh (Mark). In Ephraem's commentary (TE-Sy ch. XIV: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)Footnote 27 the same order is found. This was most likely the order in the Syriac Diatessaron.

6. ‘Talking to/with Jesus’ (مخاطبين لايسوع)Footnote 28

The verb خطب III, meaning ‘to talk/to speak’,Footnote 29 is a rendering of Syriac $Llm$ (Pa.) ‘to speak’. The wording in the Syriac versions is: $hm[ Nyllmm dk$ (Matt: Syc,p; Mark: Sys, cf. Luke: Sys.c.p.h),Footnote 30 but the Arabic variant reading ‘to/with Jesus’ follows Mark (Syp: ${wcy M[ Nyllmm dk$).Footnote 31 The original Diatessaron reading is probably ‘with him’, for Ephraem alludes to the text with $hm[$, ‘with him’ twice, namely in ch. XIV:5: $hm[ Nyllmm dk ryg wyzjta$, ‘for they appeared while speaking with him’, and ch. XIV:11: $hm[ wllm$…, ‘(Moses and Elijah) spoke with him’.Footnote 32

7. ‘And they thought’ (وظنوا)

‘And they thought’ is a quite unexpected reading in this connection. One would have expected وقالوا, ‘and they said’,Footnote 33 in accordance with καὶ ἔλεγον, ‘they said’Footnote 34 and with $wwh NyRmaw$ (Luke: Sys.c). Is it possible that the translator interpreted the Syriac verb $rma$ as ‘to think’? It is indeed, but it seems quite unlikely.Footnote 35 I prefer another solution: if I am not mistaken, we have here a misinterpretation on the side of the Arabic translator: he probably read the verb $Nyrbsmw$ (part. pa‘el) which has three shades of meaning: (a) ‘and (were) hoping’, (b) ‘and (were) announcing/ declaring/telling’, and finally (c) ‘and (were) considering/thinking’. The gist of the reading in the Syriac Diatessaron was that Moses and Elijah were announcing or telling about his decease, but the translator misunderstood it as if the disciples,Footnote 36 confronted with the transfiguration, were thinking that Jesus' last hour had come.Footnote 37

8. ‘The Time of his Decease’ (وقت وفاته)

With respect to these words there was at first some confusion. Ciasca had rendered it as ‘tempus adventus eius futuri’. As so often he was slavishly followed by Hill, who rendered with ‘the time of his coming’.Footnote 38 This rendering was probably due to a misinterpretation of the word wafah (وفاة).Footnote 39 It is interesting to see what a mistranslation can cause. Adolf Resch,Footnote 40 who had paid due attention to the Arabic Diatessaron in his trilogy on extra-canonical Gospel traditions, was quite surprised by the text in Ciasca's translation and tried to give a meaning to it. However, since we know now that Ciasca's translation was wrong, we still have to ask which Syriac word the translator had before him, when he rendered here with ‘the time of his decease’. In the Syriac versions two expressions are found: first, $hndnw[ L[$, ‘about his transference/departure/decease’ (in Sys.c), $adnw[$ being a wordFootnote 41 that in Syriac-Arabic lexica has been rendered with وفاة, the very word that we have here in TA; secondly, $hnqpm L[$, ‘about his departure’, which is found in Syp: $anqpm$ means ‘departure’, ‘migration’, and then ‘death, decease’.Footnote 42 The correct translation of this latter word is مخرج, ‘exit’, ‘way out’, cf. the rendering علی مخرجه, ‘about his departure’ found in some Arabic Gospels. So it is not unlikely that the Syriac Diatessaron contained the wording $hndnw[$, in casu ‘his decease’, as did the Old Syriac versions.

The only question then is, why the Arabic translator added the word وقت, ‘the time (of)’ before ‘his decease’. The words for ‘time’ (وقت) in Syriac are $Nbz$ and $and [$. There is in none of our Syriac witnesses a trace of either word. But what perhaps may strike us, is that the latter word ($and [$), meaning ‘moment’, ‘season’, or ‘period’ (√‘dn’), contains the same characters as $andnw[$, ‘departure, death’ (√’nd). Is it possible that the Arabic translator, when looking up his word lists, first found $and [$, ‘time, season’—وقت, i.e. ‘time, moment’—, then realized that he had to render $andnw [$, ‘departure, decease’—i.e. وفاة, ‘decease’—, a word on the same page of his word list, and then combined the two terms? Of course, this is only guess work, but sometimes interpreting texts requires some imagination. For one has to explain why he had to introduce the word وقت in his translation of the Syriac text, an addition that was not necessary for a good translation.

9. ‘Which was to be Effected at Jerusalem’ (المزمعة ان تتم باورشليم)

Here we have a close rendering of the Syriac phrase $Mlcrwab Mltcnd awh dyt [ d$ (Sys.c.p). The passive participle $dyt [$ has the meaning ‘ready, prepared’, and often expresses the idea that something is about to happen or is necessarily imminent;Footnote 43 the Syriac-Arabic lexica present as one of its renderings: مزمع (or مزمعة), as given here in TA, ‘determined’ or ‘imminent, forthcoming’.Footnote 44 Likewise, ان تتم is a close rendering of the Ethpa. $Mltcnd$, ‘that it will be accomplished’.Footnote 45

10. ‘Had Come’ (بلغت)

The last word ‘had come’ (بلغت)Footnote 46 is quite unexpected in this connection, since there is no trace of such a variant reading in any text, except for the Arabic Diatessaron. Did the translator find such a verb in his Syriac harmony? In my view there was no Syriac equivalent. The insertion of the noun ‘the time’ (cf. § 7) in the Arabic version may have required the addition of the verb ‘had come’. The result of the addition ‘the time…had come’ is that it could lead to the wrong idea that then, at that moment, the ‘departure’, or ‘the decease’, was realized.Footnote 47 However, although وقت is often used in the sense of ‘moment’, it also can be used in the sense of ‘season’ or ‘period’; the sense is then that from now on the time has come that leads to his death.Footnote 48

11. A Tentative Reconstruction of the Syriac ‘Vorlage’ of TA XXIV:5–6

It is tempting—after the preceding attempt at interpreting the Arabic text—to give a reconstruction of the Syriac text behind the Arabic verses:

$hm[ Nyllmm dk htwl aylaw acwm wyzjtaw$

$. Mlcrwab Mltcnd awh dyt[d hndw[ L[ Nyrbsmw$

And there appeared Moses and Elijah with him, while speaking with him and telling about his decease that had to be accomplished in Jerusalem.

This wording differs in some respects from the Arabic text that we found in the manuscripts, but I cherish the hope that this short note has explained why that is the case.Footnote 49

References

1 Here I quote the edition of Marmardji, A. S., Diatessaron de Tatien (Beyrouth: Imprimerie Catholique, 1935) 228:13–230Google Scholar:1 (tr. ibid., 229:17–18–231:1: ‘Et Moïse et Elie apparurent à eux, s'entretenant avec Jésus. Et ils crurent que le temps de sa mort, qui devait avoir lieu à Jerusalem, était arrivé’).

2 The New Testament in Greek. Vol. 3, The Gospel according to St. Luke (International Greek New Testament Project, Part 1; Oxford, Clarendon, 1984) 203; I am not sure who decided to mention TA here. Higgins, A. J. B., ‘The Arabic Diatessaron in the New Oxford Edition of the Gospel according to St. Luke in Greek’, Journal of Theological Studies NS 37 (1986) 415–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar, does not mention this varia lectio, nor is it mentioned in the Additional Note which J. K. Elliott gave, cf. J.T.St 38 (1987) 135.

3 It should be noted that this retranslation into Greek is not quite the same text as presented in the Arabic text.

4 Ciasca, A., Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniae Arabice (Rome: S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1888) [Arab.] 92:13–14 (Tr. 43, col. 1)Google Scholar. Ciasca noted the variant Ms. A: وترااى; Ciasca (for Ms. B: 'Alif instead of hèmza) and Marmardji (for Mss. B and E) observed for the second line that the conjunction ان,‘that’,was omitted before وقت,‘the time’, but that لان,‘so that/in order that’, was added before تتم; Marmardji wants to correct بلغت into بلغ, without support of any manuscript, but apparently because the word وقت, ‘time’, is masculine.

5 The plural is also found in Ms. S (i.e. Sbath 1020; a photocopy is preserved in the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). Cf. N. P. G. Joosse, ‘The Sermon on the Mount in the Arabic Diatessaron’ (Diss. Vrije Universiteit, 1997) 13.

6 The omission is also attested in Ms. T (i.e. Sbath 1280; a photocopy is preserved in the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam); cf. Joosse, The Sermon, 13.

7 Hill, J. Hamlyn, The Earliest Life of Christ ever Compiled from the Four Gospels, being the Diatessaron of Tatian (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1894) 138Google Scholar [21910, 98]: ‘And there appeared unto him Moses and Elijah’; H. W. Hogg, The Diatessaron of Tatian, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers 5, X (repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [1895] 1969) 80 (‘And there appeared unto him Moses and Elijah talking to Jesus’); Preuschen, E. and Pott, A., Tatians Diatessaron aus dem Arabischen übersetzt (Heidelberg: Winters, 1926) 137Google Scholar (‘Und es erschien ihm Mose und Elia, indem sie redeten mit Jesus’).

8 Hill, Earliest Life, 138 n. 2 [21910, 98 n. 2]: ‘ “Him” is apparently an error of the Arabic for “them”’.

9 Horner, W., The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect Otherwise Called Sahidic and Thebaic: I. S. Matthew and S. Mark (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911) 176Google Scholar (Matt).

10 Horner, W., The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect Otherwise Called Memphitic and Bohairic: I. S. Matthew and S. Mark (Oxford: Clarendon, 1898) 145 appGoogle Scholar. (Matthew Mss. Bpc Λc).

11 Walton, B., Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, V (London: Roycroft, 1657) 85 (Matt)Google Scholar; de Lagarde, P., Die vier Evangelien Arabisch (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1864) 22 (Matt)Google Scholar.

12 For Ms. a: Jülicher, A., Matzkow, W., and Aland, K., Itala I, Matthäusevangelium (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2d ed. 1972) 119 ([[a]])Google Scholar; for Ms. g2, cf. Legg, S. C. E., Nouum Testamentum Graece. Vol. 1, Euangelium secundum Matthaeum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940)Google Scholar, in loco.

13 We may note here that in Luke there is an addition of αὐτῷ after ὀφθέντες, namely in the Greek manuscripts Cc3 M 7 27 60 71 267 903 983 1194 1443 1458 1654 1685 2757 and many lectionaries.

14 However, in Mark it is added in some manuscripts (W fam13(-124) 28 69 543 565 700 788).

15 The fact that Mar Ephraem in his commentary (see below) does not present this particle seems to corroborate this assumption, but the mode of quoting of Ephraem does not allow us to be certain of this.

16 The singular ὤφθη is also found in many Greek manuscripts of Matthew (e.g. א B D Θ fam13) and in most manuscripts of Mark.

17 The plural ὤφθησαν is found in many Greek manuscripts of Matthew (C L W fam1) and a few in Mark (E M 124 pc.). In Luke we find a plural form (οἱ ὀφθέντες).

18 Leloir, L., Saint Éphrem, Commentaire de l'Évangile concordant, Texte Syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709) (Dublin: Hodges Figgis, 1963)Google Scholar 116:21, 118:7, 120:9.12.

19 Leloir, Commentaire (Syr.), 116:21.

20 Leloir, Commentaire (Syr.), 118:7

21 Leloir, Commentaire (Syr.), 120:9.

22 Leloir, Commentaire (Syr.), 120:12f..; a different version is found in ch. XV:18 (o.c., 156:4, ‘When however James and John saw Moses and Elijah with our Lord’ ($rm M[ aylalw acwml Nnjwyw Bwq[y wzj Nyd dk$).

23 Leloir, L., Saint Éphrem, Commentaire de l'Évangile concordant, Version Arménienne, CSCO 137, Arm.1 (Louvain: Durbecq, 1953)Google Scholar; for the passages mentioned here, cf. 188:10 (omission); 188:26.

24 de Urbina, I. Ortiz, Vetus Evangelium Syrorum et exinde excerptum Diatessaron (Madrid: Consejo superior de investgaciones cientificas, 1967)Google Scholar 250 also omits ‘to them’ or ‘to him’ ($hm[ Nyllmm dk aylaw acwm wyzjta$), but his choice is based only on two of the four references of Ephraem (194: nos. 1317–1318), which he combined.

25 Demonstratio XXIII:12, in: Parisot, J., Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstratio XXIII De Acino, in Patrologia Syriaca I: t. II (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907)Google Scholar 33(34)–7(38), esp. 36:12–15; 36:19–20. Zahn, T. (Tatians Diatessaron [FGNK I; Erlangen: Deichert, 1881])Google Scholar made a reference to this passage, without making any use of it for his reconstruction of the harmony, but he made the connection with the Transfiguration episode. (Parisot did not list it in his syllabus locorum Sacrae Scripturae, nor did Peter Bruns in his translation of the Demonstrationes [Aphrahat, Demonstrationes—Unterweisungen, I–II (Freiburg: Herder, 1991)]; M.-J. Pierre, however, paid attention to the passage in the ‘Index Biblique’ of the French translation [Aphraate le Sage Persan, Les Exposés, I–II (Paris: Cerf, 1988–1989)].)

26 However, the reading ‘Moses and Elijah’ is found in several manuscripts of Syp (2 5 8pr.m 11 13 17 21 40) and in some editions of the Syriac text.

27 Leloir, Saint Éphrem, Commentaire, 116:19, 21; 118:7, 10, 16f.; 120: 9, 12f., 18; 122: 21; 122:22f.

28 So Hill (‘with’), Hogg (‘to’), cf. Ciasca: ‘loquentes cum Iesu’, Preuschen: ‘indem sie redeten mit Jesus’, Marmardji: ‘s'entretenant avec Jésus’.

29 Cf. Lane, E. W., Arabic–English Lexicon, I:2 (London/Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 1865) 762, col. 2–3Google Scholar; usually constructed with accusative (cf. يخاطبانه, Mt-Lagarde), but here it is constructed with -ل, ‘to’/‘with’, apparently a tentative rendering of Syriac $M [$, ‘with’.

30 Matt: συλλαλοῦντες μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, cf. Luke 9.30: συνελάλουν αὐτῷ.

31 Mark: συλλαλοῦντες τῷ ᾽Ιησοῦ.

32 Leloir, Saint Éphrem, Commentaire, 116:21; 122:24.

33 Cf. وكانا يقولان, ‘and said’, in the Arabic Gospel of Luke (P. de Lagarde, Die vier Evangelien Arabisch [Leipzig: Brockhaus] 83).

34 So Mss. C3 M 27 71 213 827 1194 1458 1654 pc.

35 Sometimes Semitic ’mr can mean ‘to think’, but then construed with ‘in himself’ or ‘in his heart’ (אמר בלבו). For example in the expression $ñwhtw\blb wrma$, ‘they thought by themselves’ (R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, I [Oxford: Clarendon, 1889 (repr. 1981) col. 243]).

36 Not ‘Moses and Elijah’, as A. Resch assumed (see below n. 40).

37 My first thought, starting from the reconstruction in the IGNTP apparatus (ἔδοξαν), was that the mistake was made in the Greek stage of the Diatessaron tradition: the word ἔξοδον is transmitted as δόξαν in several manuscripts (6 726 827 954 1187 1200 1319 1424 1510) and in a Lectionary (211) and in the Ethiopic version. It could have created the word ἔδοξαν, if δόξαν had been noted in the margin as an alternative reading for ἔξοδον. However, this solution seems to me far-fetched now.

38 It was corrected in Hill's second edition (‘that his decease’), but then the words ‘the time of’ were forgotten; it is interesting that Preuschen (Tatians Diatessaron, 137) renders with ‘seines zukünftigen Todes’, a rendering which preserves the adjective ‘futuri’ of Ciasca's translation, and that for no reason.

39 This noun وفاة is derived from a root وفى (wafā), which in stem III means ‘to come’. Perhaps Ciasca was misled by this meaning, but one should expect that the Syriac wordings ($andnw [$, Sys.c or $anqpm$, Syp.h) could have warned Ciasca that he was wrong in his assumption.

40 Resch, A., Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien. II. Paralleltexte zu Lucas (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1895)Google Scholar 162f.: ‘Sehr merkwürdig ist der Text des arabischen Diatessaron, wonach die letzte Ankunft Jesu in Jerusalem geschehen müsste und die beiden Vertreter des A.T. irrthümlicher Weise der Meinung gewesen wäre, dass die Zeit für die letzte Parusie des Messias damals bereits gekommen sei. Hiernach wären Moses und Elias als die beiden Propheten gemeint, welch nach Apoc. 11,3ff. der Parusie vorausgehen würden und damals auf dem Berge der Verklärung irriger Weise zu bald erschienen wären’.

41 Cf. $dn [$, ‘to depart’, also ‘depart from life’; for the Syriac-Arabic word lists, cf. Smith, R. Payne, Thesaurus Syriacus, II (repr. Hildesheim/New York: Olms, 1981 [Fasc. VIII, Oxford: Clarendon, 1890])Google Scholar 2933.

42 Cf. $Qpn$, ‘to go out’, ‘proceed’, ‘leave’; $anqpm$ is rendered with مخرج, cf. Payne Smith, Thesaurus, II [Fasc. VII, 1886] 2427f.

43 The rendering of Preuschen (‘[der] jetzt vollendet werden sollte’) is not in the Arabic text.

44 Cf. the rendering in Lagarde's text: مخرجه الذى كان مزمعا, ‘his exit that was determined’.

45 The verb تم (tamma) is found in Syriac-Arabic lexica for $Mlc$ (Ethpa.); the 3rd p. sing. fem. (تتم) is due to the feminine word وفاة, ‘decease’.

46 Cf. ‘iam advenisse’ (Ciasca), ‘was already come’ (Hill), ‘erreicht sei’ (Preuschen), ‘était arrivé’ (Marmardji). Marmardji wants to correct the feminine verb بلغت into the masculine form بلغ, Technically, Marmardji was right, for the Arabic word for ‘time’ is masculine, but the verb is conformed to the feminine word for ‘decease’ (constructio ad sensum).

47 Cf. the idea expressed by Resch (see n. 40) ‘dass die Zeit für die letzte Parusie des Messias damals bereits gekommen sei’.

48 The same is valid for Syriac $and [$, ‘time, moment, season, or period’.

49 My attention was drawn to this text by Stephan Huller (in an email of July 2010).