The explanation that he offers is that the Diatessaron of Tatian was widely used and corrupted all extant texts, so that the Old Syriac, the Old Latin, the quotations of Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian and others may be regarded as various combinations of the Tatianic text and I-H-K.
From the beginning of the 3rd to the beginning of the 5th century Tatian's Harmony or Diatessaron - whether originally compiled in Syriac, or compiled in Greek and translated into Syriac - was the current form of gospel in the Syriac Church.
Or versions, but it may be said with some truth that group 2 used the European Latin version, group 3 the African Latin, and group 6 the Diatessaron in the gospels and the Old Syriac elsewhere, while group I has much in common with cod.
Hjelt) or the Diatessaron (so Burkitt) came first is uncertain.
A Latin version of the Armenian Diatessaron commentary has been made by Aucher and Mdsinger (Venice, 1876).
S and C. Still, it is improbable that this will explain everything, and it is generally conceded that the original Diatessaron and the original Old Syriac were in some way connected.
In particular he exerted himself to stamp out the use of the Diatessaron in favour of the four Gospels, the Syriac version of which probably now took the form known as the Peshitta.
For the latter purpose, however, we can use an Armenian translation of a commentary on the Diatessaron by Ephraem, and the quotations in Aphraates.
There is no question that many passages in these show signs of Diatessaron influence, but this is only to be expected if we consider that from the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the 5th century the Diatessaron was the popular form of the gospels.
And by a skilful piecing together of the date furnished by the oldest Syriac versions of the Bible - such as the derivation of the Old Testament version from the Jews, and the almost exclusive use of Tatian's Diatessaron as the gospel of the Syriac Church down to the beginning of the 5th century - F.