1 This observation originated as an oral remark by Tjitze Baarda. See Petersen, W., Tatian's Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 25; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1994) 51 n. 54CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is apparently derived from testimonia by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 3.12.81.1–3), Theodore Bar Koni (Liber Scholiorum, Siirt Recension 8.39) and their followers.

2 The Doctrine of Addai (34) identifies the Diatessaron with the New Testament. Theodoret of Cyrrhus claims to have discovered 200 copies being used liturgically in lieu of a tetraevangelion (Haer. Fab. Comp. 1.20). As late as the thirteenth century, ʿAbd Isoʿ Bar Berika could credit the Diatessaron with preserving the true sequence of the life of Jesus. For Bar Berika's Nomokanon, see Mai, A., Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e Vaticanis codicibus edita, vol. x (Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1831) 191Google Scholar (Text), 23 (Latin). On the problem of the gospel's name, see Crawford, M. R., ‘Diatessaron, a Misnomer? The Evidence from Ephrem's Commentary’, Early Christianity 4 (2013) 362–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Petersen, W. L., ‘New Evidence for the Question of the Original Language of the Diatessaron’, Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Heinrich Greeven (ed. Schrage, W. and Verheyden, J.; BZNW 47; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1986) 325–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Petersen, Tatian's Diatessaron, 428; Joosten, J., ‘Tatian's Diatessaron and the Old Testament Peshitta’, JBL 120 (2001) 501–23Google Scholar, at 502; Schmid, U., ‘The Diatessaron of Tatian’, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (ed. Ehrman, B. D. and Holmes, M. W.; New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents; Leiden: Brill, 2012 ²) 115–42Google Scholar, at 115; Crawford, M. R., ‘The Diatessaron, Canonical or Non-Canonical? Rereading the Dura Fragment’, NTS 62 (2016) 253–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 256 n. 9; Joosten, J., ‘Le Diatessaron syriaque’, Le Nouveau Testament en Syriaque (ed. Haelewyck, J.-C.; Études Syriaques 14; Paris: Geuthner, 2017) 67–117Google Scholar.

4 William Petersen, this method's chief advocate, provides a comprehensive history of this paradigm in Petersen, Tatian's Diatessaron, 84–356.

5 Plooij, D., A Further Study of the Liège Diatessaron (Leiden: Brill, 1925) 45–69Google Scholar; Petersen, ‘New Evidence for the Question of the Original Language of the Diatessaron’.

6 This development is best summarised in Schmid's own introduction to the discipline: see Schmid, ‘The Diatessaron of Tatian’, esp. 126–33. The case is further strengthened in his most recent piece, Schmid, U., ‘Before and After: Some Notes on the Pre- and Post-History of Codex Fuldensis’, The Gospel of Tatian: Exploring the Nature and Text of the Diatessaron (ed. Crawford, M. R. and Zola, N. J.; The Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries; London: Bloomsbury, 2019) 171–90Google Scholar.

7 Carl Kraeling, in the Dura fragment's editio princeps, and M.-J. Lagrange argue that Dura's precise agreement with Greek gospel manuscripts weigh against an intervening Syriac translation. Kraeling, C. H., A Greek Fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron from Dura (Studies and Documents 3; London: Christophers, 1935) 18Google Scholar; Lagrange, M.-J., ‘Deux nouveaux textes relatifs à l’Évangile’, RB 44 (1935) 321–43, at 324Google Scholar. Daniel Plooij and Anton Baumstark, on the other hand, noted that Dura's distinctive readings might be explained by grammatical ambiguities and a scribal error in Syriac. Plooij, D., ‘A Fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron in Greek’, The Expository Times 46 (1935) 471–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 475–6; Baumstark, A., ‘Das griechische “Diatessaron”-Fragment von Dura Europos’, Oriens Christianus 32 (1935) 244–52Google Scholar.

8 Mills, I. N., ‘The Wrong Harmony: Against the Diatessaronic Character of the Dura Parchment’, The Gospel of Tatian: Exploring the Nature and Text of the Diatessaron (ed. Crawford, M. R. and Zola, N. J.; The Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries; London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2019) 145–70Google Scholar. For the debate over the fragment's Tatianic character, see Parker, D. C., Taylor, D. G. K. and Goodacre, M. S., ‘The Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony’, Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts (Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press, 1999) 192–228Google Scholar; Joosten, J., ‘The Dura Parchment and the Diatessaron’, VC 57 (2003) 159–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Zahn, T., Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur. 1. Theil: Tatians Diatessaron (Erlangen: Andreas Deichert, 1881) 220–38Google Scholar; Harnack, A., ‘Tatians Diatessaron und Marcions Commentar zum Evangelium bei Ephraem Syrus’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 4 (1881) 471–505Google Scholar, at 494. Schmid's argument depends on no particular Tatianic source. He contends that ‘the bare mechanics of composing a gospel harmony appear to require sources and end product to be in one and the same language’. Schmid, ‘The Diatessaron of Tatian’, 115–16 n. 5. One recent treatment of the original language question not rooted in dubious sources is Joosten's argument from the Diatessaron's use of the Old Testament Peshitta as articulated in Joosten, ‘Le Diatessaron syriaque’. Joosten's case, however, is not compelling: on the supposition of a Greek original, Vulgatisation of the Diatessaron towards the Peshitta might occur either in its translation into Syriac or in (Ps.-)Ephrem's notoriously paraphrastic discussion of the text.

10 The cumbersome appellation ‘(Ps.-)Ephrem’ reflects the composite character of the commentary, as demonstrated in Lange, C., The Portrayal of Christ in the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron (Leuven: Peeters, 2005)Google Scholar.

11 Lyon, J. P., Syriac Gospel Translations: A Comparison of the Language and Translation Method Used in the Old Syriac, the Diatessaron, and the Peshitto (Leuven: Peeters, 1994) 203–6Google Scholar. Haelewyck, J.-C., ‘Les vieilles versions syriaques des Évangiles’, Le Nouveau Testament en syriaque (ed. Haelewyck, J.-C.; Études Syriaques 14; Paris: Geuthner, 2017) 67–117Google Scholar. See also Joosten, J., The Syriac Language of the Peshitta and Old Syriac Versions of Matthew: Syntactic Structure, Inner-Syriac Developments and Translation Technique (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 5–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 This nexus of Tatianic witnesses was first flagged by H. F. von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, vol. I, Part 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911) 1540. It has subsequently been treated in Gottheil, R. J. H., ‘Quotations from the Diatessaron’, JBL 11 (1892) 68–71Google Scholar, at 69–70; Harris, J. R., Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1895) 19Google Scholar; M. D. Gibson, ed., The Commentaries of Ishoʿdad of Merv, vol. i (Horae Semiticae 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911) xxix; Baarda, T., ‘The “Foolish” or “Deaf” Fig-Tree: Concerning Luke 19:4 in the Diatessaron’, NT 43 (2001) 161–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Kraeling, A Greek Fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron from Dura, 17.

14 There are three singular readings among the Old Latin witnesses: Vercellensis (a) reads arborem sycamori, the Latin column of Bezae (d) reads morum, and Palatinus (e) reads just arbore. Jülicher, A., Itala: Das Neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung, vol. iii (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1976) 210Google Scholar. Horner, G., The Coptic version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect, Otherwise Called Memphitic and Bohairic, vol. ii (Oxford: Clarendon, 1898) 248Google Scholar.

15 The Sahidic also uses ⲛⲟⲩϩⲉ for συκάμινος in Luke 17.6. Wells, J. W., Sahidic Coptic New Testament (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2011) 100Google Scholar. Horner also lists ⲃⲱ ⲛ̅ⲕⲉⲛⲧⲉ as a variant spelling. Horner, G., The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect Otherwise Called Sahidic and Thebaic, vol. ii (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911) 354Google Scholar.

16 On the third manuscript of the Old Syriac gospels, see S. Brock, ‘Two Hitherto Unattested Passages of the Old Syriac Gospels in Palimpsests from St Catherine's Monastery, Sinai’, Δελτίο Βιβλικών Μελετών 31Α (2016) 7–18; Haelewyck, ‘Les vieilles versions syriaques des Évangiles’. The reading is found at folio 10r in NF 39.

17 Beck, E., ed., Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymen de Fide (CSCO Scriptores Syri 154/73; Leuven: Imprimerie Orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1955) 87Google Scholar. Miller, D. and Hansbury, M., Jacob of Sarug's Homily on Zacchaeus the Tax Collector (bilingual edition; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2010) 35Google Scholar. Ephrem may also have known the reading found in the Syriac Diatessaron. In his Hymns on Nativity, Ephrem refers to the sycamore as  = ‘wounded fig-tree’ and then contrasts its fruit not with  = ‘flavourful/reasonable’ as in On Faith 25.14 but with  = ‘eloquent’ (4.41–2). This is more clearly the opposite of  = ‘deaf/mute’ than  = ‘tasteless/foolish’. E. Beck, ed., Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymen de Nativitate (Epiphania) (CSCO Scriptores Syri 186/82; Leuven: Imprimerie Orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1959) 29.

18 Chantraine, P. et al. , Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots (Paris: Klincksieck, 1968) 1032Google Scholar.

19 Baarda, ‘The “Foolish” or “Deaf” Fig-Tree’, 165.

20 PG 72.865; my translation. Interpretation 64 in Cramer's catena collection bears an initial similarity to Cyril's homily but lacks the relevant section. Cramer, J. A., ed., Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum edidit J. A. Cramer: Catenae in Evangelia S. Lucae et S. Joannis ad fidem Codd. Mss, vol. ii (Oxford: E Typographeo Academico, 1844) 137Google Scholar. Payne Smith argues that since the ‘foolish’ pun is based on a misspelling that did not exist in Cyril's time, the homily is probably spurious. This, as my treatment of Strabo and the Syriac translators makes clear, is baseless. Smith, R. Payne, S. Cyrilli Alexandriae archiepiscopi Commentarii in Lucae Evangelium quae supersunt Syriace e manuscriptis apud Museum Britannicum (Oxford: E Typographeo Academico, 1858) 587–8Google Scholar.

21 For similar interpretations, see Severian of Galba, De caeco et Zacchaeo in PG 59.603; (Ps.-)Chrysostom, In Zacchaeum publicanum 51, PG 72.865; Theodorus Prodromus, Epigrammata in Vetus et Novum Testamentum, PG 133.1202.

22 I know of only one potential piece of counter-evidence: in a homily attributed to John Chrysostom, the homilist evinces the omicron-spelling but, in a single sentence, puns with both μόρος and μώρος! On the Parable of the Fig Tree 59 (PG 61.767–8). There is no critical edition of this homily.

23 The verbal form of is used for μωραίνω at Matt 5.13/Luke 14.34 and ἄναλον γένηται at Mark 9.50.

24 Radt, S., Strabons Geographika, vol. iv (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005) 504Google Scholar. Wellmann, M., Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei De materia medica libri quinque, vol. i (Berlin: Weidmannos, 1907) 116Google Scholar. Theophrastus, the father of Greek botany, never uses συκόμ(ο/ω)ρ- terminology. Rather, he refers to the Ficus sycomorus as ἡ Αἰγυπτία συκάμινος or just συκάμινος (Theophrastus, Hist. plant. 4.2.1–2; cf. 1.1.7, 1.14.2, 4.1.5, etc.). Athenaeus mentions the συκόμορον and ἡ Αἰγυπτία συκάμινος in his discussion of the συκάμινον but does not comment on the etymology of the former (Deipn. 2.36).

25 That the omicron-spelling, not the omega, is the standard spelling is justified below.

26 Cyril's unfamiliarity is evinced by his misidentification of the tree (with other interpreters noted above) as Ficus carica. Likewise, the etymological translation, rather than use of , suggests that the Syriac translators were unfamiliar with the Greek term. This is corroborated by Ephrem's identification of with the fig-trees in Matt 21.18 (Faith 25.14) and Mark 11 (Virginity 35.2). By contrast, Strabo and Dioscorides describe distinctive features of the Ficus sycomorus.

27 Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, online at http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/, accessed 5 November 2018.

28 There are no other corrections in the majuscules or papyri but a few corrections in both directions among later minuscules. This scribal tendency is also corroborated by Strabo's text tradition (discussed below).

29 Stefan Radt provides the most recent and comprehensive critical edition of the Geographica. I adopt his assessment of the text tradition as expounded in S. Radt, Strabons Geographika, vol. i (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002) vii–xvii.

30 The latter, Vaticanus gr. 482, reads συκώμωρον.

31 Radt, Strabons Geographika, iv.504. Gustavus Kramer, in his earlier edition, also attributes the omega-spelling to Paris gr. 1394, not cited in Radt. G. Kramer, Strabonis Geographica, vol. iii (Berlin: Libraria Friderici Nicolai, 1852) 403.

32 Since Strabo glosses -μ(ο/ω)ρ- with ἄτιμον, internal considerations favour the omega-spelling. The best manuscript of the Geographika, Parisinus gr. 1397, is not extant at this point. However, the combined testimony of Athous Vatop. 655 and Vaticanus gr. 482, considered alongside the scribal preference for the omicron (suggested by the correction of Marcianus gr. xi 6), is to be preferred on external grounds to the correction in the Marcianus manuscript.

33 Dioscorides refers to the sycamore once elsewhere in the same work. At De materia medica 5.33 the editor prints the omicron-spelling but notes that one important manuscript, Laurent. Gr. 74, 17, gives the omega-spelling. M. Wellmann, Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei De materia medica libri quinque, vol. iii (Berlin: Weidmann, 1914) 24.

34 J. Raeder, Oribasii collectionum medicarum reliquiae, vol. i.2, 6 (Amsterdam: A.M. Hakkart, 1964) 148.

35 Like Strabo, Dioscorides’ gloss of -μ(ο/ω)ρ- with ἄστομον suggests the omega-spelling. In Hortian terms, both intrinsic and transcriptional probabilities favour the priority of the omega-spelling.

36 Method of Medicine 14 at Galen, Galen: Method of Medicine, vol. iii: Books 10–14 (trans. I. Johnston and G. H. R. Horsley; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011) 458; K. G. Kühn, ed., Claudii Galeni opera omnia, vol. x (Leipzig: Officina Libraria Car. Cnoblochii, 1825) 616. Method of Medicine to Glaucon 2 at Galen, Galen: On the Constitution of the Art of Medicine: The Art of Medicine. A Method of Medicine to Glaucon (trans. I. Johnston; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016¹) 513; K. G. Kühn, ed., Claudii Galeni opera omnia, vol. xi (Leipzig: Officina Libraria Car. Cnoblochii, 1825) 115. Although there is some variation in Galen's text tradition, I have nowhere seen reason to overturn the judgement of the editors. Given Galen's etymology in the quoted passage, internal considerations are here reversed (in favour of the omicron-spelling).

37 Koch, K. et al. , eds., De sanitate tuenda, De alimentorum facultatibus, De bonis malisque sucis, De victu attenuante, De ptisana (Corpus Medicorum Graecorum 4.2; Berlin/Leipzig: Teubner, 1923) 302–3Google Scholar.

38 Most frequently, it is the fruit of the Morus nigra. It is also used for the fruit of the βάτος (Hippocrates, De mulierum affectibus 2.112; Aeschylus fr. 116) and of the συκομορέα (Ps.-Galen, Lexicon botanicum 390). Likewise, -μορον is appended to other plant names (e.g. κυνόμορον, αἰγόμορον, βόσμορον).

39 Koch et al., De sanitate tuenda, etc., 282–5.

40 Koch et al., De sanitate tuenda, etc., 302–3.

41 Petersen, Tatian's Diatessaron, 116.

42 On the relationship between these recensions, see Leloir, L., ‘Divergences entre l'original syriaque et la version arménienne du commentaire d’Éphrem sur Le Diatessaron’, Mélanges Eugene Tisserant 2 (1964) 303–31Google Scholar; Petersen, W. L., ‘Some Remarks on the Integrity of Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron’, Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen (New Testament Tools – Studies and Documents 40; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012) 103–9Google Scholar; Lange, The Portrayal of Christ in the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron.

43 Leloir, L., ed., Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant. Texte syriaque (Manuscript Chester Beatty 709) (Chester Beatty Monographs 8; Dublin: Hodges Figgis & CO LTD, 1963)Google Scholar; Leloir, L., ed., Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant. Texte syriaque (Manuscript Chester Beatty 709). Folios additionnels (Chester Beatty Monographs 8; Leuven/Paris: Peeters, 1990)Google Scholar; Leloir, L., Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant. Version arménienne (CSCO Scriptores Armeniaci 137/1; Leuven: Imprimerie Orientaliste L. Durbecq, 1953)Google Scholar.

44 My translation of the Syriac from Leloir, Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant. Texte syriaque (Manuscript Chester Beatty 709), 160. For another translation, see McCarthy, C., Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 241Google Scholar. The Armenian cited here is MS B from Leloir, Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant. Version arménienne, 218. The Armenian MS A reads, և ել նա խորչրդով խուլ ի թզենոի անդ = ‘And he ascended, with a deaf mind, in that fig-tree.’ Given the agreement between the Syriac and MS B, the reading in MS A is probably secondary. On the relationship of the two MSS, see L. Leloir, Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant. Version arménienne, vi–viii.

45 The Armenian ժանտաթզենի or ժանդաթզենի reflects an etymological translation similar to the Syriac tradition. Künzle, B. O., L’Évangile arménien ancien = Das altarmenische Evangelium, vol. xxx (Linguistik und Indogermanistik 21; Bern: Peter Lang, 1984) 197Google Scholar.

46 Ephrem, in the Hymns on Nativity (but not the Hymns on Fidelity), may also know this reading at Luke 19.4. See the discussion in n. 17.

47 Baarda, ‘The “Foolish” or “Deaf” Fig-Tree’, 169. Ishoʿ Bar Ali has no equivalent entry. Hassan Bar Bahlul, Lexicon Syriacum (3 vols.; ed. R. Duval; Paris: Leroux, 1901) i.64.

48 Bar Bahlul, Lexicon Syriacum, i.64.

49 See ὄλυνθος in Lampe, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961) 950Google Scholar.

50 In Sahdona's Book of Perfection, refers to an unfruiting tree (13.48). Presumably, Sahdona uses the adjective  = ‘deaf/mute’ to connote lack of productivity. A. de Halleux, ed., Martyrius (Sahdona) oeuvres spirtuelles, vol. iii:Livre de la perfection, 2ème Partie: Ch. 8–14 (CSCO Scriptores Syri 252/110; Leuven: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1965) 144.

51 On its language and date, see Joosse, P., ‘An Introduction to the Arabic Diatessaron’, Oriens Christianus 83 (1999) 98–117Google Scholar. On its Vulgatisation towards the Syriac Peshitta, see Joosse, N. P. G., The Sermon on the Mount in the Arabic Diatessaron (Amsterdam: Centrale Huisdrukkerij VU, 1997) 345Google Scholar; Joosse, ‘An Introduction to the Arabic Diatessaron’, 120–1.

52 A recent catalogue of manuscripts can be found in Lancioni, G., ‘The Arabic Diatessaron Project: Digitalizing Encoding Lemmatization’, Journal of Religion, Media and Digital Culture 5 (2016) 205–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an explanation of the problems with current editions, see Joosse, ‘An Introduction to the Arabic Diatessaron’, 80–5.

53 A. S. Marmardji, Diatessaron de Tatien. Texte arabe établi, traduit en français, collationné avec les anciennes versions syriaques, suivi d'un évangéliaire diatessarique syriaque (Beyrouth: Imprimerie Catholique, 1935) 242–4. This reading is found in Family A of the Arabic gospels. There is variation between families, but none consulted supply فجّة. I am grateful to Robert Turnbull, Mina Monier, Josh Mugler and Fady Atef Mekhael for their help with the Arabic gospels.

54 Marmardji, Diatessaron de Tatien, 296.

55 There is a fourth parallel to this etymology in Bar Hebraeus but it omits the Tatianic testimony. Carr, W. E. W., ed., Bar-Hebraeus: Commentary on the Gospels from the Horreum Mysteriorum (London: SPCK, 1925)Google Scholar Eng 49, Syr 60. In any case, Bar Hebraeus’ use of these earlier authors is well established. Sauma, A., ‘Bar-Hebraeus's Use of Bar-Salibi’, The Harp 23 (2008) 271–9Google Scholar.

56 The last phrase literally means ‘did not comprehend’ but this is an idiom for immaturity. R. Gottheil, The Syriac–Arabic Glosses Of Ishoʿ Bar Ali, Part ii; vol. ii (Rome: Tipografia D. R. Academia Dei Lincei, 1910) 15. Thanks to Fady Atef Mekhael for help with the Arabic.

57 Bar Bahlul, Lexicon Syriacum, ii.1486. Thanks to Fady Atef Mekhael for help with the Arabic.

58 de Lagarde, P., Praetermissorum libri duo (Göttingen: Officina academica Dieterichiana, 1879) 51Google Scholar. On Eliya's lexicon, see McCollum, A., ‘Prolegomena to a New Edition of Eliya of Nisibis's Kitāb al-turjumān fī taʿlīm luġat al-suryān’, JSS 58 (2013) 297–322Google Scholar.

59 Tatian's gospel is first so named in the Syriac of Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.29.6.

60 Baarda simply asserts that each is an independent witness to an earlier tradition. Baarda, ‘The “Foolish” or “Deaf” Fig-Tree’, 172.

61 Although both discuss the ‘crossroads’ definition, their vocabulary differs substantially.

62 Bar Bahlul, Lexicon Syriacum, iii.xiii–xxiv. Given the subject matter of Bar Bahlul's Book of Signs, it is unsurprising that Ishoʿdad is not cited there either. Habbi, J., ‘Les Sources du Livre des signes d'al-Ḥasan Ibn Al-Bahlūl’, Actes du Deuxième Congrès International d’Études Arabes Chrétiennes (ed. Samir, K; OCA 226; Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1986) 193–203Google Scholar.

63 A testimony to the Diatessaron, not found in Ishoʿdad or any earlier source, attributes the name ‘Jesus’ to Barabbas at Matt 27.16 in the  = ‘Separated Gospels’ as opposed to its omission by ‘the Evangelist’. Bar Bahlul, Lexicon Syriacum, i.423. I follow Burkitt's conclusion that ‘separated’ would only distinguish a tetraevangelion from the Diatessaron, here attributed – reminiscent of Ephrem's usage – to a singular, anonymous evangelist. Burkitt, F. C., Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe: Introduction and Notes, vol. ii (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904) 177–9Google Scholar. Bar Salibi repeats this tradition. See Vaschalde, A., Dionysii Bar Salibi Commentarii in Evangelia, vol. ii (CSCO 95 (Syr 47); Leuven: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1953) 106Google Scholar.

64 Gibson, Commentaries of Ishoʿdad of Merv, ii.204.

65 These can be found at Gibson, Commentaries of Ishoʿdad of Merv, ii.22–3, 39, 45 134–5, 208; M. D. Gibson, ed., The Commentaries of Ishoʿdad of Merv, vol. iii (Horae Semiticae 7; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911) 6. Ishoʿdad's testimony concerning Matt 3.3//Mark 1.2 and Matt 3.4//Mark 1.6 can be confirmed with reference to (Ps.-)Ephrem's Commentary. The testimonies concerning Matt 1.20 and the disciple lists cannot be evaluated by any diatessaronic source. Finally, Ishoʿdad's testimony concerning the diet of John the Baptist – repeated by Bar Salibi, Bar Hebraeus and Ishaq Shbadnaya – is apparently contradicted by Aphrahat, Demonstrations 6.13.

66 My translation of the text from Gibson, The Commentaries of Ishoʿdad of Merv, ii.134–5.

67 Ishoʿdad refers to Zacchaeus’ perch only as  = ‘fig-tree’ in his comment on Luke 19. Gibson, Commentaries of Ishoʿdad of Merv, iii.73.

68 Gibson, The Commentaries of Ishoʿdad of Merv, i.xxix; Baarda, ‘The “Foolish” or “Deaf” Fig-Tree, 171–2, 174.

69 See, for example, Ishoʿdad's comments at Gibson, The Commentaries of Ishoʿdad of Merv, i.207, 264.

70 Baarda tentatively proposes that is a transliteration of φηγός = ‘oak’ but gave up on explaining this element of Ishoʿdad's testimony. Baarda, ‘The “Foolish” or “Deaf” Fig-Tree’, 175. This is not supported in any Greek (or versional) witness to Luke. Additionally, it makes Ishoʿdad's initial gloss  = ‘tasteless fig-trees’ for incomprehensible.

71 As argued in M. R. Crawford, ‘The Fourfold Gospel in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian’, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 18 (2015) 25–37.

72 A. Delatte, Anecdota Atheniensia, vol. ii:Textes grecs relatifs à l'histoire des sciences (Liège: Bibliothèque de la Faculté de philosophie et lettres de l'Université de Liège, 1939) 390. For the meaning of ξάνθη, see Delatte, Anecdota Atheniensia, ii.316. This is the second usage of μόρoν with συκομορ-.

73 An expansive catalogue of translation and textual differences (as well as agreements) between Tatian and the Old Syriac is provided in G. A. Weir, ‘Tatian's Diatessaron and the Old Syriac Gospels’ (PhD diss., The University of Edinburgh, 1969).

74 Crawford, ‘The Fourfold Gospel in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian’, 25–37.

75 Scher, A., Theodorus Bar Koni: Liber Scholiorum, ii (Syr. ii, 66) (CSCO 69, Scriptores Syri 26; Leuven: Peeters, 1912) 159Google Scholar.

76 Scher, Theodorus Bar Koni, 305.