The separated Gospels in Syriac

I went looking up Syriac Gospel studies over the past year. I don't know that David Taylor has yet published New Finds 37+39 or the Sinaiticus. I did however see Haelewyck's 2017 Status Quaestionis. Done with knowledge of New Finds; but before the bolsterment of the Curetonian Gospels.

We do get the Palaestinian Jargon of Joosten, bolstered by Lyon 1994. Only the lyt thing seems overthrown.

Baethgen 1885(!) remains the textbook for how Curetonian (alone) went about translating the Greek Gospels, presumably before those later tweaks which have plagued the text on its way to us. The translation is not Aquila. The Matthew, in particular, has taken on glosses to tell us which personage is meant by a pronoun. So word order and prepositions are not to be trusted; but whole omissions are to be trusted. Intergospel harmonies might point to the Diatesseron.

The Acts of Thomas, by the way, quotes the Lord's Prayer from the Curetonian Matthew... not Peshitta. The Diatesseron has the same text but the Acts - developing its own harmonies of content - doesn't use Diatesseron there. Use of harmonised text can actually be tested: not just against other witnesses to Diatesseron, but also against Aphrahat.

Sinaiticus is considered oldest, as the freest translation, even by comparison with Curetonian. S also lacks that Marcan ending; that might be because S's base text had bracketed out that sus passage, but still - the bracketing would have to be early.

On topic of the four gospels: Hjelt 1903 found the Sinaiticus was translated by four people who did not have access to one anothers' work. Matthew's translator, furthermore, was a Jew by upbringing perhaps still trying to evangelise Jews, based on the glosses.

Lagrange 1920-1 claimed all four were done in Egypt, explaining how they did not get accepted by Aphrahat or Ephrem even if they'd already existed. Maybe. Acts of Thomas would suggest at least Matthew did get over at least to west-Syria, in its Curetonian form.

Although most seem to think Diatesseron preceded Curetonian, we may still have debate about where earlier Sinaiticus sits. Also at issue is if gospel-harmonies preceded the Diatesseron. I'd wait for Taylor's publications.