When he speaks of the recognition of the Canonical writings his
testimony must be regarded as directly representing three Churches at
least. In youth he was brought up, as we saw, in Asia Minor. In middle
life he stayed for some time in Rome, having gone there on an important
public mission [267:1]. Before and after this epoch he for many years
held a prominent position in the Church of Gaul. He was moreover
actively engaged from the beginning to the end of his public career in
all the most important controversies of the day. He gave lectures as we
happen to know; for Hippolytus attended a course on 'All the Heresies,'
delivered perhaps during one of his sojourns at Rome [267:2]. He was a
diligent letter-writer, interesting himself in the difficulties and
dissensions of distant Churches, and more than one notice of such
letters is preserved. He composed several treatises more or less
elaborate, whose general character may be estimated from his extant
work. The subjects moreover, with which he had to deal, must have forced
him to an examination of the points with which we are immediately
concerned. He took a chief part in the Montanist controversy; and the
Montanist doctrine of the Paraclete, as I have before had occasion to
remark [267:3], directly suggested an investigation of the promise in
the Fourth Gospel. He was equally prominent in the Paschal dispute, and
here again the relation between the narratives of St John and the
Synoptists must have entered largely into the discussion. He was
contending all his life with Gnostics, or reactionists against
Gnosticism, and how large a part the authority and contents of the
Gospels and Epistles must have played in these controversies generally
we see plainly from his surviving work against the Valentinians.
Thus Irenæus does not present himself before us as an isolated witness,
but is backed by a whole phalanx of past and contemporaneous authority.
All this our author ignores. He forecloses all investigation by
denouncing, as usual, the uncritical character of the fathers; and
Irenæus is not even allowed to enter the witness-box.
The truth is that, speaking generally, the fathers are neither more nor
less uncritical on questions which involve the historical sense, than
other writers of their age. Now and then we meet with an exceptional
blunderer; but for the most part Christian writers will compare not
unfavourably with their heathen contemporaries. If Clement of Rome
believes in the story of the phoenix, so do several classical writers of
repute. If Justin Martyr affirms that Simon Magus received divine
honours at Rome, heathen historians and controversialists make
statements equally false and quite as ridiculous with reference to the
religion and history of the Jews [268:1]. Even the credulity of a Papias
may be more than matched by the credulity of an Apion or an Ælian. The
work of the sceptical Pliny himself abounds in impossible stories. On
the other hand individual writers may be singled out among the Christian
fathers, whom it would be difficult to match in their several
excellences from their own or contiguous generations. No heathen
contemporary shows such a power of memory or so wide an acquaintance
with the classical literature of Greece in all its branches as Clement
of Alexandria. No heathen contemporary deserves to be named in the same
day with Origen for patience and accuracy in textual criticism, to say
nothing of other intellectual capacities, which, notwithstanding all his
faults, distinguish him as the foremost writer of his age. And again,
the investigations of Theophilus of Antioch, the contemporary of
Irenæus, in comparative chronology are far in advance of anything which
emanates from heathen writers of his time, however inadequate they may
appear in this nineteenth century, which has discovered so many
monuments of primeval history. There are in fact as many gradations
among the Christian fathers as in any other order of men; and here, as
elsewhere, each writer must be considered on his own merits. It is a
gross injustice to class the authors whom I have named with such
hopeless blunderers as Epiphanius and John Malalas, for whom nothing can
be said, but in whom nevertheless our author places the most implicit
confidence, when their statements serve his purpose.
Now Irenæus is not one whose testimony can be lightly set aside. He
possessed, as we have seen, exceptional opportunities of forming an
opinion on the point at issue. His honesty is, I think, beyond the reach
of suspicion. He is a man of culture and intelligence. He possesses a
considerable knowledge of classical literature, though he makes no
parade of it. He argues against his opponents with much patience. His
work is systematic, and occasionally shows great acuteness. His
traditions, no doubt, require sifting, like other men's, and sometimes
dissolve in the light of criticism. He has his weak points also, whether
in his interpretations or in his views of things. But what then? Who
refuses to listen to the heathen rhetorician Aristides or the apostate
Emperor Julian on matters of fact because they are both highly
superstitious--the one paying a childish deference to dreams, the other
showing himself a profound believer in magic? In short, Irenæus betrays
no incapacity which affects his competency as a witness to a broad and
comprehensive fact, such as that with which alone we are concerned.
And his testimony is confirmed by evidence from all sides. The
recognition of these four Gospels from a very early date is the one fact
which explains the fragmentary notices and references occurring in
previous writers. Moreover his contemporaries in every quarter of the
Church repeat the same story independently. The Old Latin Version,
already existing when Irenæus published his work and representing the
Canon of the African Christians, included these four Gospels, and these
only. The author of the Muratorian fragment, writing a few years before
him, and apparently representing the Church of Rome, recognizes these,
and these alone. Clement, writing a few years later, as a member of the
Alexandrian Church, who had also travelled far and wide, and sat at the
feet of divers teachers, in Greece, in Asia Minor, in Palestine, in
Italy, doubts the authenticity of a story told in an apocryphal writing,
on the ground that it was not related in any of the four Gospels handed
down by the Church [270:1]. What is the meaning of all this coincidence
of view? It must be borne in mind that the Canon of the New Testament
was not made the subject of any conciliar decree till the latter half of
the fourth century. When therefore we find this agreement on all sides
in the closing years of the second, without any formal enactment, we can
only explain it as the convergence of independent testimony showing
that, though individual writers might allow themselves the use of other
documents, yet the general sense of the Church had for some time past
singled out these four Gospels by tacit consent, and placed them in a
position of exceptional authority.
One other remark on the testimony of Irenæus suggests itself before
closing. Irenæus is the first extant writer in whom, from the nature of
his work, we have a right to expect explicit information on the subject
of the Canon. Earlier writings, which have been preserved entire, are
either epistolary, like the letters of the Apostolic Fathers, where any
references to the Canonical books must necessarily be precarious and
incidental (to say nothing of the continuance of the oral tradition at
this early date as a disturbing element); or devotional, like the
Shepherd of Hermas, which is equally devoid of quotations from the Old
Testament and from the New; or historical, like the account of the
martyrdoms at Vienne and Lyons, where any such allusion is gratuitous;
or apologetic, like the great mass of the extant Christian writings of
the second century, where the reserve of the writer naturally leads him
to be silent about authorities which would carry no weight with the
Jewish or heathen readers whom he addressed. But the work of Irenæus is
the first controversial treatise addressed to Christians on questions of
Christian doctrine, where the appeal lies to Christian documents. And
here the testimony to our four Gospels is full and clear and precise.
If any reader is really in earnest on this matter, I will ask him to
read Irenæus and judge for himself. He will find many things for which
perhaps he is not prepared, and which will jar with his preconceived
ideas; but on the one point at issue I have no fear that I shall be
accused of exaggeration. Indeed it is impossible to convey in a few
paragraphs the whole force of an impression which is deepened by each
successive page of a long and elaborate work.
IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON [272:1].
[MAY, 1877.]
All that is known of the life of Tatian can be soon told. He was an
Assyrian by birth, as he himself distinctly states. If other writers
call him a Syrian, the discrepancy may be explained by the common
confusion between the two nationalities; or possibly it should be
accounted for by his place of residence during the later years of his
life. As a heathen he exercised the profession of a sophist, and in this
capacity travelled far and wide. His mind was first turned towards
Christianity by reading the Scriptures, which impressed him greatly. As
a Christian he became the hearer--in some sense the disciple--of Justin
Martyr, doubtless at Rome; and when Crescens, the cynic, succeeded in
bringing about his master's death, Tatian's life also was imperilled by
the plots of this machinator. While he remained in the metropolis he had
among his disciples Rhodon, who in later years undertook to refute one
of his heretical works. Subsequently he left Rome, and seems to have
spent the remainder of his life in the East, more especially in Syria
and the neighbouring countries.
After the death of Justin Martyr--how soon after we do not know--his
opinions underwent a change. Hitherto he had been regarded as strictly
orthodox; but now he separated himself from the Church, and espoused
views closely allied to those of the Encratites. A leading tenet of his
new ascetic creed was the rejection of marriage as an abomination. But
he is stated also to have adopted opinions from Gnostic teachers, more
especially the doctrine of Æons, which he derived from the Valentinian
school [273:1]. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ further says that,
'although Tatian may have been acquainted with some of his (St Paul's)
Epistles, it is certain that he did not hold the Apostle in any honour,
and permitted himself the liberty of altering his phraseology' [273:2].
Where did he learn this 'certain' piece of information that Tatian
thought lightly of St Paul? Assuredly not from any ancient writer. It is
quite true that Tatian is stated to have mutilated some of St Paul's
Epistles and rejected others. But so did Marcion, who held the Apostle
in extravagant honour. And the motive was the same in both cases. The
Apostle's actual language did not square with their favourite tenets in
all respects, and therefore they assumed that his text must have been
corrupted or interpolated. So far from its being at all doubtful, as our
author seems to suggest, whether Tatian was acquainted with any of St
Paul's Epistles, we have positive evidence that he did receive some
[273:3]; and moreover one or two coincidences in his extant work point
to an acquaintance with the Apostle's writings. His leanings, like those
of Marcion and Valentinus, were generally in the opposite direction to
Judaism. His tendency would be not to underrate but to overrate St Paul.
At the same time such passages as 1 Tim. iv. 3, where the prohibition of
marriage is denounced as a heresy, were a stumbling-block. They must
therefore be excised as interpolations, or the Epistles containing them
must be rejected as spurious.
The date of Tatian is a matter of some uncertainty. He was a hearer, as
we have seen, of Justin Martyr in Rome; and if the chronology of this
father had been established beyond the reach of doubt, we should be
treading on firm ground. On this point however there has been much
variety of opinion. The prevailing view is, or was, in favour of placing
Justin's death as late as A.D. 163-165, on the authority of Eusebius;
but the most careful investigations of recent criticism have tended
towards a much earlier date [274:1]. The literary activity of Tatian
seems to have begun about the time of Justin Martyr's death; and after
this we have to allow for his own career, first as an orthodox
Christian, and then as a heretic. When Irenæus wrote his first book,
Tatian was no longer living, as may be inferred from the language of
this father [274:2]: and this book must have been written before A.D.
190, and may have 'been written as early as A.D. 178 [274:3]. Again, if
we may assume that the 'Assyrian,' whom the Alexandrian Clement mentions
among his teachers [274:4], was Tatian, as seems highly probable, we
have another indication of date. The first book of the _Stromateis_, in
which this fact is recorded, was itself written about A.D. 194 or 195;
and Clement there speaks of the Assyrian as one of his earlier masters,
whom he had met with in the East, before he settled down under the
tuition of Pantænus at Alexandria. In like manner Tatian's connection
with Rhodon would point roughly to the same conclusion. On the whole, we
shall perhaps not be far wrong if we place the literary activity of
Tatian at about A.D. 155-170. It may have begun some few years earlier,
or it may have extended some few years later.
Tatian was a voluminous writer; but of several writings mentioned by the
ancients only one has come down to us, his _Apology_ or _Address to the
Greeks_. It was written after the death of Justin, but apparently not
very long after. At all events it would seem to have been composed
before he had separated from the Church and set himself up as a
heretical teacher. Its date therefore is dependent on the uncertain
chronology of Justin. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ speaks of it
as 'generally dated between A.D. 170-175,' and seems himself to
acquiesce in this view. Though I think this date probably several years
too late, the point is not worth contending for.
As a rule, the early Apologies abstain from quotations, whether from the
Old Testament or from the New. The writers are dealing with Gentiles,
who have no acquaintance with and attribute no authority to their sacred
books, and therefore they make little or no use of them [275:1]. Thus
the _Apologeticus_ of Tertullian does not contain a single passage from
the New Testament, though his writings addressed to Christians teem with
quotations from our Canonical books. Hence it is not in this extant work
that we should expect to obtain information as to Tatian's Canon of the
Scriptures. Any allusion to them will be purely incidental. As regards
our Synoptical Gospels, the indications in Tatian's Apology are not such
that we can lay much stress on them. But the evidence that he knew and
accepted the Fourth Gospel is beyond the reach of any reasonable doubt.
The passages are here placed side by side:--
TATIAN. | ST JOHN.
|
'God is a Spirit' ([Greek: pneuma ho | 'God is a Spirit' ([Greek: pneuma
Theos]), § 4. | ho Theos]), iv. 24.
|
'And this then is the saying | 'And the light shineth in the
([Greek: to eirêmenon]); The | darkness, and the darkness
darkness comprehendeth not the light'| comprehended it not'
([Greek: hê skotia to phôs ou | ([Greek: kai hê skotia auto ou
katalambanei]), § 13. | katelaben]), i. 5.
|
'Follow ye the only God. All things |'All things were made through
have been made by Him, and apart | Him, and apart from Him was
from Him hath been made no one thing'| made no one thing' ([Greek: panta
([Greek: panta hup' autou kai chôris | di' autou egeneto kai chôris
autou gegonen oude hen]), § 19. | autou egeneteo oude hen]), i. 3.
In the last passage from St John I have stopped at the words [Greek:
oude hen], because the earliest Christian writers universally punctuated
in this way, taking [Greek: ho gegonen k.t.l.] with the following
sentence, 'That which hath been made was life in Him.'
Besides these passages there are other coincidences of exposition, with
which however I need not trouble the reader, as they may fairly be
disputed.
It is difficult to see how any one can resist coincidences like these;
and yet the author of _Supernatural Religion_ does resist them.
The first passage our author has apparently overlooked, for he says
nothing about it. If it had stood alone I should certainly not have
regarded it as decisive. But the epigrammatic form is remarkable, and it
is a characteristic passage of the Fourth Gospel.
Of the second passage it should be noticed that Tatian introduces it
with the expression ([Greek: to eirêmenon]), which is used in the New
Testament in quoting the Scriptures (Luke ii. 24, Acts ii. 16, xiii. 40,
Rom. iv. 18); that in the context he explains 'the Word' (Logos) to be
'the light of God,' and 'the darkness' to be 'the unintelligent soul;'
that this use of [Greek: katalambanein] is very peculiar, and has caused
perplexity to interpreters of St John, being translated variously
'comprehended' or 'surprised' or 'overcame;' that the passage in the
Fourth Gospel here again is highly characteristic, and occurs in its
most characteristic part; and lastly, that the changes made by Tatian
are just such as a writer would make when desiring to divest the saying
of its context and present it in the briefest form. On the other hand,
the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has nothing to allege against this
coincidence; he can produce nothing like it elsewhere; but he falls back
on 'the constant use of the same similitude of light and darkness,' and
other arguments of the kind, which are valueless because they do not
touch the point of the resemblance.
On the third passage he remarks that, unlike the author of the Fourth
Gospel, 'Tatian here speaks of God, and not of the Logos.' Just so; but
then he varies the preposition accordingly, substituting [Greek: hupo]
for the Evangelist's [Greek: dia] to suit his adaptation. Our author
also refers to 'the first chapters of Genesis;' but where is there any
language in the first chapters of Genesis which presents anything like
the same degree of parallelism? Here again, he is unable to impugn the
coincidence, which is all the more remarkable because the words are
extremely simple in themselves, and it is their order and adaptation
which gives a character of uniqueness to the expression.
So much for the individual coincidences. But neither here nor elsewhere
does our author betray any consciousness of the value of cumulative
evidence. It is only necessary to point to the enormous improbability
that any two writers should exhibit accidentally three such resemblances
as in the passages quoted; and the inference will be plain.
It is not however in this testimony which his extant work bears to the
Fourth Gospel, however decisive this may be, that the chief importance
of Tatian consists. Ancient writers speak of him as the author of a
Harmony or Digest of the four Gospels, to which accordingly he gave the
name of _Diatessaron_. This statement however has been called in
question by some recent critics, among whom the author of _Supernatural
Religion_ is, as usual, the most uncompromising. It is necessary
therefore to examine the witnesses:--
1. In the first place then, Eusebius states definitely [277:1]--'Tatian
composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not how, of the
Gospels, and called it the _Diatessaron_ ([Greek: sunapheian tina kai
sunagôgên ouk oid' hopôs tôn euangeliôn suntheis to dia tessarôn touto
prosônomasen]). This work is current in some quarters (with some
persons) even to the present day.'
This statement is explicit; yet our author endeavours to set it aside on
the ground that 'not only is it based upon mere hearsay, but it is
altogether indefinite as to the character of the contents, and the
writer admits his own ignorance ([Greek: ouk oid' hopôs]) regarding
them' [278:1].
His inference however from the expression 'I know not how' is altogether
unwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius had no personal
knowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in speaking of
books where they are perfectly acquainted with the contents, but do not
understand the principles or do not approve the method. In idiomatic
English it signifies 'I cannot think what he was about,' and is
equivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so that, if anything, it
implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the contents. I have noticed
at least twenty-six examples of its use in the treatise of Origen
against Celsus alone [278:2], where it commonly refers to Celsus' work
which he had before him, and very often to passages which he himself
quotes in the context. It is not ignorance of the contents, but
disparagement of the plan of Tatian's work, which the expression of
Eusebius implies. The _Diatessaron_ was commonly current, as we shall
see presently, in the neighbouring districts: and it would be somewhat
strange if Eusebius, who took a special interest in apocryphal
literature, should have remained unacquainted with it.
2. Our next witness is overlooked by the author of _Supernatural
Religion_. Yet the testimony is not unimportant. In the _Doctrine of
Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, which professes to give an account of
the foundation and earliest history of Christianity at Edessa, the new
converts are represented as meeting together to hear read, along with
the Old Testament, the New (Testament) of the _Diatessaron_' [278:3]. It
seems clear from this notice that, at the time when the writer composed
this fiction, the form in which the Evangelical narratives were commonly
read in the churches with which he was best acquainted was a
_Diatessaron_, or _Harmony of Four Gospels_. From internal evidence
however it is clear that the work emanated from Edessa or its
neighbourhood. The date of the fiction is less certain; but it is
obviously an early writing. The St Petersburgh MS containing it is
assigned to the sixth century, and the British Museum MSS to the fifth
or sixth century [279:1]; while there exists an Armenian version said to
have been made as early as the fifth century. The work itself therefore
must have been written much earlier than this. There is indeed no good
reason for doubting that it is the very Syriac document to which
Eusebius refers as containing the correspondence of our Lord with
Abgarus, and preserved among the archives of Edessa, and which therefore
cannot have been very recent when he wrote, about A.D. 325 [279:2]. At
the same time it contains gross anachronisms and misstatements
respecting earlier Christian history, which hardly allow us to place it
much earlier than the middle of the third century [279:3]. Whatever may
be its date, the fact is important that the writer uses _Diatessaron_,
adopted from the Greek into the Syriac, as the familiar name for the
Gospel narrative which was read in public. Of the authorship of this
work however he says nothing. This information we have to seek from
other sources. Nor is it far to seek.
3. We are told that the most famous of the native Syrian fathers,
Ephraem, the deacon of Edessa (who died A.D. 373 [280:1]), wrote a
commentary on the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. Our informant is Dionysius
Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of the twelfth century, and
died A.D. 1207. In his own Commentary on the Gospels, he writes as
follows [280:2]:--