(6)

    Where a word, phrase, or passage is totally missing from the Vulgate, or no compliant translation pattern can be found, a search was made for similar parts of speech in similar contexts, using equivalent declensions, and with the aid of a dictionary, an attempt was made at a meaningful translation, and this was then compared with the Arabic. This is the most dangerous area, and is so coloured dark red.
    Where there is knowledge that the Diatessaron is at varience with the accepted accounts, the vulgate verse or group of verses was scrupulously examined, and in a few cases, the Vulgate is found to agree with the Diatessaron against the accepted account, and the Douay translation. Such translations are noted as perverse, and corrected in red.
Modification of spelling is in this wise:
    In the Latin manuscript, there is some variability in spelling, and the diphthong <æ> is sometimes represented by an <e> with a tail, and sometimes without a tail. Sometimes also, the diphthong is split into individual letters <ae>. Where appropriate, I have standardised the spelling to the diphthong form. Where the diphthong is in a Latin word borrowed by English or Old High German, the diphthong is retained.
    In the Old High German, there are in the manuscript, paired <vv> and paired <uu> in many words. According to useage in G. Ronald Murphy, S.J., ‘The Saxon Savior’, isbn 0-19-506042-3, the paired <uu> is preferred to be replaced by <w>, whereas he lets the paired <vv> stand. An exception is the group <uur> which is replaced by <vur>. See page 50 in his book, with reference to 19,1. I have chosen to follow his lead.
My Knowledge of Latin and Old High German
    My knowledge of Latin was virtually non-existant when I started this project, and the method used is alone responsible for the excellency of the result. Indeed, it would be a fair assessment that my knowledge of Latin has improved by more than a hundred-fold in the course of this translation. My knowledge of Old High German is equally sorrowful, depending on a tiny smattering of Modern German, and the basic similarity to Old English.
Fragment Substitution
    I cannot claim to be the inventor of this translation method: I believe it was the method used by Ibn-At-Tayyib to translate his Syriac into Arabic, and the author of the brief biography of Victor believes that this method was used in Latinizing Tatian’s work. An obvious side effect of the technique is that the destination language Gospel leaves its fingerprints all over the resulting text, giving the impression that the text has been deliberately synchronised with those Gospels, that is, it has been ‘normalised’. My contention is that this was not the primary aim, merely an artefact of the method.
Quality
    The accepted view is that the Arabic is translated from Syriac, being a dialect of Aramaic. Thus logically, according to the theory of a Syriac original, the Arabic has only undergone one stage of translation. — Yet it is grossly corrupted, and riddled with translation errors.
    Further, it contains translations, and transliterations of the Master’s words. In an Aramaic/Syriac original, this detail is not to be expected. Not only does it contain a conflation of the books of the Peshitta, but also of the Vulgate.
    The Codex Fuldensis, however is not badly corrupted. There are a couple of omissions and awkward sutures, but these are more in keeping with copying errors, than with translational errors.
    Either the Codex is in very much more original condition than the Arabic, or it has been very skillfully re-worked. Though the Latin resembles closely, the Vulgate version, there are minor differences from the present version of the Vulgate, which suggests that the Old Latin is being preserved.
A Few Relevant Documents and Extracts

There follows, starting on page (8), a couple of pages taken from Hemphill’s study of Ephraem Syrus.
Next on page (10) is a chapter from Aloysius Roche: In the track of the Gospel, "The Coming of the Monks."
After this, on page (14) is an extract from a Chronology I found on the net, of the history of the Church (of Rome) from 1 AD to 1994 AD. My extract is from 170 AD to 731 AD, from Tatian to Gregory II.