The Original Long Gospel

Please take note of what I paraphrased from Peters about all extant textwitnesses to the Diatessaron, except only for fragmentary bits of the Latin in quotations in commentaries or other mediaeval European works, being adapted to some extent in the direction of the Catholic & Roman Four. This means that when you read the English translation of the Arabic you must always remind yourself that the original Diatessaron was further away from the Canonical Four than what is in front of you. I think this rule might free you from some longstanding difficulties. Remember that this rule is based on extensive detailed examination of all the evidence by many scholars over many years. It is not a matter of opinion. If you want to cite the reference, it is Curt Peters, Das Diatessaron Tatians, Rome 1939, reprinted 1960, ch. XXIII (the last chapter). Remember to say that Peters refers to studies by many scholars as well as his own, and that there is no disagreement on the matter. It is in this chapter as well that Peters gives the evidence (from his own studies and others) that the base of the Diatessaron was the Gospel of the Hebrews, not the Canonical Four.