selected and patched together from the Four Gospels and constructed
a Gospel, which he called _Diatessaron_, that is _Miscellanies_. On
this work Mar Ephraem wrote an exposition; and its commencement
was--_In the beginning was the Word_. Elias of Salamia, who is also
called Aphthonius, constructed a Gospel after the likeness of the
_Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, mentioned by Eusebius in his prologue to
the Canons which he made for the Gospel. Elias sought for that
Diatessaron and could not find it, and in consequence constructed
this after its likeness. And the said Elias finds fault with
several things in the Canons of Eusebius, and points out errors in
them, and rightly. But this copy (work) which Elias composed is not
often met with.
This statement is explicit and careful. The writer distinguishes two
older works, bearing the name of _Diatessaron_, composed respectively by
Tatian and Ammonius. In addition he mentions a third, composed at a
later date by this Elias. Of the work of Ammonius of Alexandria (about
A.D. 220) Eusebius, as Bar-Salibi correctly states, gives an account in
his _Letter to Carpianus_, prefixed to his Canons. It was quite
different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. The
_Diatessaron_ of Tatian was a patchwork of the Four Gospels, commencing
with the preface of St John. The work of Ammonius took the Gospel of St
Matthew as its standard, preserving its continuity, and placed side by
side with it the parallel passages from the other Gospels [281:1]. The
principle of the one work was _amalgamation_; of the other,
_comparison_. No one who had seen the two works could confuse them,
though they bore the same name, _Diatessaron_. Eusebius keeps them quite
distinct. So does Bar-Salibi. Later on in his commentary, we are told,
he quotes both works in the same place [281:2]. When therefore he
relates that Ephraem wrote a commentary on the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian,
he is worthy of all credit. From the last witness we have learnt that
the _Diatessaron_ was commonly read in the churches of Edessa; and it
was therefore most natural that this famous Edessan father should choose
it for commenting upon.
It is quite true that other Syrian writers have confused these two
_Diatessarons_ [281:3]. But this fact is only valid to show that
confusion was possible; it is powerless to impugn the testimony of this
particular author, who shows himself in this passage altogether
trustworthy. Who would think of throwing discredit on Lord Macaulay or
Mr Freeman, because Robertson or Hume may be inaccurate?
4. Our next witness is more important than any. The famous Greek father
Theodoret became bishop of Cyrus or Cyrrhus, near the Euphrates, in the
year 420 or 423 according to different computations, and held this see
till his death, which occurred A.D. 457 or 458. In the year 453 he wrote
his treatise on _Heresies_, in which he makes the following statement:--
He (Tatian) composed the Gospel which is called _Diatessaron_,
cutting out the genealogies [282:1] and such other passages as show
the Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh.
This work was in use not only among persons belonging to his sect,
but also among those who follow the apostolic doctrine, as they did
not perceive the mischief of the composition, but used the book in
all simplicity on account of its brevity. And I myself found more
than two hundred such copies held in respect in the churches in our
parts ([Greek: tais par' hêmin ekklêsiais]). All these I collected
and put away, and I replaced them by the Gospels of the Four
Evangelists.
The churches to which he refers were doubtless those belonging to his
diocese of Cyrrhestice, which contained eight hundred parishes [283:1].
The proportion of copies will give some idea of the extent of its
circulation in these parts.
It is vain, in the teeth of these facts, to allege the uncritical
character of the father as discrediting the evidence. The materials
before Theodoret were ample; the man himself was competent to form a
judgment; and the judgment is explicit. Neither can there be any
reasonable doubt, considering the locality, that the _Diatessaron_ here
mentioned is the same which is named in the _Doctrine of Addai_, and the
same which was commented on by Ephraem Syrus. When the author of
_Supernatural Religion_ argues that Theodoret does not here regard this
_Diatessaron_ as patched together from the four canonical Gospels, it is
unnecessary to follow him. This point may be safely left to the
intelligence of the reader.
Here then we have the testimony of four distinct witnesses, all tending
to the same result. Throughout large districts of Syria there was in
common circulation from the third century down to the middle of the
fifth a _Diatessaron_ bearing the name of Tatian [283:2]. It was a
compilation of our Four Gospels, which recommended itself by its concise
and convenient form, and so superseded the reading of the Evangelists
themselves in some churches. It commenced, as it naturally could
commence, with the opening words of the Fourth Gospel--a gospel which,
as we have seen, Tatian quotes in his extant work. It was probably in
the main a fairly adequate digest of the evangelical narratives, for
otherwise it would not have maintained its grounds; but passages which
offended Tatian's Encratic and Gnostic views, such as the genealogies,
were excised; and this might easily be done without attracting notice
under cover of his general plan. All this is consistent and probable in
itself. Moreover the range of circulation attributed to it is just what
might have been expected; for Syria and Mesopotamia are especially
mentioned as the scene of Tatian's labours [284:1].
In this general convergence of testimony however, there are two
seemingly discordant voices, of which the author of _Supernatural
Religion_ makes much use. Let us see what they really mean.
1. Epiphanius was bishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, in the latter half of
the fourth century. In his book on _Heresies_, which he commenced A.D.
374, he writes of Tatian, 'The _Diatessaron_ Gospel is said to have been
composed by him; it is called by some _according to the Hebrews_'
[284:2].
Here then our author supposes that he has discerned the truth. This
_Diatessaron_ was not a digest of our Four Gospels, but a distinct
evangelical narrative, the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_. Of this
Gospel according to the Hebrews he says that 'at one time it was
exclusively used by the fathers.' I challenge him to prove this
assertion in the case of one single father, Greek or Latin or Syrian.
But this by the way. If indeed this Hebrew Gospel had been in its
contents anything like what our author imagines it, it would have borne
some resemblance at all events to the _Diatessaron_; for, wherever he
meets with any evangelical passage in any early writer, which is found
literally or substantially in any one of our Four Gospels (whether
characteristic of St Matthew, or of St Luke, or of St John, it matters
not) he assigns it without misgiving to this Hebrew Gospel. But his
Hebrew Gospel is a pure effort of the imagination. The only 'Gospel
according to the Hebrews' known to antiquity was a very different
document. It was not co-extensive with our Four Gospels; but was
constructed on the lines of the first alone. Indeed so closely did it
resemble the canonical St Matthew--though with variations, omissions,
and additions--that Jerome, who translated it, supposed it to be the
Hebrew original [285:1], of which Papias speaks. Such a Gospel does not
answer in any single particular, unless it be the omission of the
genealogy (which however does not appear to have been absent from all
copies of this Gospel), to the notices of Tatian's _Diatessaron_. More
especially the omission of all reference to the Davidic descent of
Christ would be directly opposed to the fundamental principle of this
Gospel, which, addressing itself to the Jews, laid special stress on His
Messianic claims.
How then can we explain the statement of Epiphanius? It is a simple
blunder, not more egregious than scores of other blunders which deface
his pages. He had not seen the _Diatessaron_: this our author himself
says. But he had heard that it was in circulation in certain parts of
Syria; and he knew also that the Gospel of the Hebrews was current in
these same regions, there or thereabouts. Hence he jumped at the
identification. To a writer who can go astray so incredibly about the
broadest facts of history, as we have seen him do in the succession of
the Roman Emperors [285:2], such an error would be the easiest thing in
the world. Yet it was perfectly consistent on the part of our author,
who in another instance prefers John Malalas to the concurrent testimony
of all the preceding centuries [285:3], to set aside the direct evidence
of a Theodoret, and to accept without hesitation the hearsay of an
Epiphanius.
2. 'Tatian's Gospel,' writes the author of _Supernatural Religion_, 'was
not only called _Diatessaron_, but according to Victor of Capua, it was
also called _Diapente_ ([Greek: dia pente]) "by five," a complication
which shows the incorrectness of the ecclesiastical theory of its
composition.'
This is not a very accurate statement. If our author had referred to the
actual passage in Victor of Capua, he would have found that Victor does
not himself call it _Diapente_, but says that Eusebius called it
_Diapente_. This makes all the difference.
Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an
anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels [286:1], and began in
consequence to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in
Eusebius of such Harmonies; one in the _Epistle to Carpianus_ prefixed
to the Canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the
_Ecclesiastical History_, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that the
work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in favour
of the latter, because it does not give St Matthew continuously and
append the passages of the other evangelists, as Eusebius states
Ammonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in the preface to this
anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin dress.
There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship;
for, though the work is constructed on the same general plan as
Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke i. 1, and it
does contain the genealogies. It belongs therefore, at least in its
present form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius.
But we are concerned only with the passage relating to Tatian, which
commences as follows:--
Ex historia quoque ejus (_i.e._ Eusebii) comperi quod Tatianus vir
eruditissimus et orator illius temporis clarus unum ex quatuor
compaginaverit Evangelium cui titulum _Diapente_ imposuit.
Thus Victor gets his information directly from Eusebius, whom he
repeats. He knows nothing about Tatian's _Diatessaron_, except what
Eusebius tells him. But we ourselves have this same passage of Eusebius
before us, and find that Eusebius does not call it _Diapente_ but
_Diatessaron_. This is not only the reading of all the Greek MSS without
exception, but likewise of the Syriac version [287:1], which was
probably contemporary with Eusebius and of which there is an extant MS
belonging to the sixth century, as also of the Latin version which was
made by Rufinus a century and a half before Victor wrote. About the text
of Eusebius therefore there can be no doubt. Moreover Victor himself,
who knew Greek, says _ex quatuor_, which requires _Diatessaron_, and the
work which he identifies with Tatian's Harmony is made up of passages
from our Four Gospels alone. Therefore he can hardly have written
_Diapente_ himself; and the curious reading is probably due to the
blundering or the officiousness of some later scribe [287:2].
Thus we way safely acquiesce in the universal tradition, or as our
author, [Greek: ouk oid' hopôs], prefers to call it, the 'ecclesiastical
theory,' respecting the character and composition of Tatian's
Diatessaron [287:3].
* * * * *
[The actual _Diatessaron_ of Tatian has since been discovered, though
not in the original language, so that no doubt can now remain on the
subject. The history of this discovery has been given in the careful and
scholarly work of Prof. Hemphill of Dublin (_The Diatessaron of Tatian_
1888), where (see esp. p. xx sq) full information will be found.
Ephraem's Commentary exists in an Armenian translation of some works of
this Syrian father, which had been published in Venice as early as 1836.
I had for some years possessed a copy of this work in four volumes, and
the thought had more than once crossed my mind that possibly it might
throw light on Ephraem's mode of dealing with the Gospels, as I knew
that it contained notes on St Paul's Epistles or some portion of them. I
did not however then possess sufficient knowledge of Armenian to sift
its contents, but I hoped to investigate the matter when I had mastered
enough of the language. Meanwhile a Latin translation was published by
Moesinger under the title of _Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a
Sancto Ephraemo doctore Syro_ Venet. 1876, just about the time when I
wrote the above article; but it was not known in England till some years
after. Later still an Arabic translation of the _Diatessaron_ itself has
been discovered and published in Rome by Ciasca (_Tatiani Evangeliorum
Harmoniae Arabice nunc primum etc._, 1888). On the relation of Victor's
_Diatessaron_, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent
of Tatian, and for the quotations in Aphraates, etc., see Hemphill's
_Diatessaron_. Thus the 'ecclesiastical theory'--the only theory which
was supported by any sound continuous tradition--is shown to be
unquestionably true, and its nineteenth century critical rivals must all
be abandoned.]
APPENDIX
_The following paper has no reference to the work entitled 'Supernatural
Religion'; but, as it is kindred in subject and appeared in the same
Review, I have given it a place here._
DISCOVERIES ILLUSTRATING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
[MAY, 1878.]
In a former volume M. Renan declared his opinion that 'the author of the
Third Gospel and the Acts was verily and indeed (_bien réellement_)
Luke, a disciple of St Paul [291:1]. In the last instalment of his work
he condemns as untenable the view that the first person plural of the
later chapters is derived from some earlier document inserted by the
author, on the ground that these portions are identical in style with
the rest of the work [291:2]. Such an expression of opinion, proceeding
from a not too conservative critic, is significant; and this view of the
authorship, I cannot doubt, will be the final verdict of the future, as
it has been the unbroken tradition of the past. But at a time when
attacks on the genuineness of the work have been renewed, it may not be
out of place to call attention to some illustrations of the narrative
which recent discoveries have brought to light. No ancient work affords
so many tests of veracity; for no other has such numerous points of
contact in all directions with contemporary history, politics, and
topography, whether Jewish or Greek or Roman. In the publications of the
year 1877 Cyprus and Ephesus have made important contributions to the
large mass of evidence already existing.
1. The government of the Roman provinces at this time was peculiarly
dangerous ground for the romance-writer to venture upon. When Augustus
assumed the supreme power he divided the provinces under the Roman
dominion with the Senate. From that time forward there were two sets of
provincial governors. The ruler of a senatorial province was styled a
proconsul ([Greek: anthupatos]), while the officer to whom an
imperatorial province was entrusted bore the name of proprætor ([Greek:
antistratêgos]) or legate ([Greek: presbeutês]). Thus the use of the terms
'proconsul' and 'proprætor' was changed; for, whereas in republican
times they signified that the provincial governors bearing them had
previously held the offices of consul and prætor respectively at home,
they were now employed to distinguish the superior power under which the
provinces were administered without regard to the previous rank of the
governors administering them. Moreover, the original subdivision of the
provinces between the Emperor and Senate underwent constant
modifications. If disturbances broke out in a senatorial province and
military rule was necessary to restore order, it would be transferred to
the Emperor as the head of the army, and the Senate would receive an
imperatorial province in exchange. Hence at any given time it would be
impossible to say without contemporary, or at least very exact
historical knowledge, whether a particular province was governed by a
proconsul or a proprætor. The province of Achaia is a familiar
illustration of this point. A very few years before St Paul's visit to
Corinth, and some years later, Achaia was governed by a proprætor. Just
at this time, however, it was in the hands of the Senate, and its ruler
therefore was a proconsul as represented by St Luke.
Cyprus is a less familiar, but not less instructive, example of the same
accuracy. Older critics, even when writing on the apologetic side, had
charged St Luke with an incorrect use of terms; and the origin of their
mistake is a significant comment on the perplexities in which a later
forger would find himself entangled in dealing with these official
designations. They fell upon a passage in Strabo [292:1] where this
writer, after mentioning the division of the provinces between the
Emperor and the Senate, states that the Senate sent consuls to the two
provinces of Asia and Africa but prætors to the rest on their
list,--among which he mentions Cyprus; and they jumped at the
conclusion--very natural in itself--that the governor of Cyprus would be
called a proprætor. Accordingly Baronio [293:1] suggested that Cyprus,
though a prætorian province, was often handed over _honoris causa_ to
be administered by the proconsul of Cilicia, and he assumed therefore
that Sergius Paulus held this latter office; while Grotius found a
solution in the hypothesis that proconsul was a title bestowed by
flatterers on an official whose proper designation was proprætor. The
error illustrates the danger of a little learning, not the less
dangerous when it is in the hands of really learned men. Asia and
Africa, the two great prizes of the profession, exhausted the normal two
consuls of the preceding year; and the Senate therefore were obliged to
send ex-prætors and other magistrates to govern the remaining provinces
under their jurisdiction. But it is now an unquestioned and
unquestionable fact that all the provincial governors who represented
the Senate in imperial times, whatever magistracy they might have held
previously, were styled officially proconsuls [293:2].
The circumstances indeed, so far as regards Cyprus, are distinctly
stated by Dion Cassius. At the original distribution of the provinces
(B.C. 27) this island had fallen to the Emperor's share; but the
historian, while describing the assignment of the several countries in
the first instance, adds that the Emperor subsequently gave back Cyprus
and Gallia Narbonensis to the Senate, himself taking Dalmatia in
exchange [293:3]; and at a later point, when he arrives at the time in
question (B.C. 22), he repeats the information respecting the transfer.
'And so,' he adds, 'proconsuls began to be sent to those nations also'
[294:1]. Of the continuance of Cyprus under the jurisdiction of the
Senate, about the time to which St Luke's narrative refers we have ample
evidence. Contemporary records bear testimony to the existence of
proconsuls in Cyprus not only before and after but during the reign of
Claudius. The inscriptions mention by name two proconsuls who governed
the province in this Emperor's time (A.D. 51, 52) [294:2]; while a
third, and perhaps a fourth, are recorded on the coins [294:3]. At a
later date, under Hadrian, we come across a proprætor of Cyprus
[294:4]. The change would probably be owing to the disturbed state of
the province consequent on the insurrection of the Jews. But at the
close of the same century (A.D. 198)--under Severus--it is again
governed by a proconsul [294:5]; and this was its normal condition.
Thus the accuracy of St Luke's designation is abundantly established;
but hitherto no record had been found of the particular proconsul
mentioned by him. This defect is supplied by one of General Cesnola's
inscriptions. It is somewhat mutilated indeed, so that the meaning of
parts is doubtful; but for our purpose it is adequate. A date is given
as [Greek: EPI PAULOU [ANTH]UPATOU], 'in the proconsulship of Paulus.'
On this Cesnola remarks: 'The proconsul Paulus may be the Sergius Paulus
of the Acts of the Apostles (chap. xiii.), as instances of the
suppression of one of two names are not rare' [294:6]. An example of the
suppression in this very name Sergius Paulus will be given presently,
thus justifying the identification of the proconsul of the Acts with the
proconsul of this inscription.
Of this Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, Dean Alford says that
'nothing more is known.' But is it certain that he is not mentioned
elsewhere? In the index of contents and authorities which forms the
first book of Pliny's Natural History, this writer twice names one
Sergius Paulus among the Latin authors to whom he was indebted. May not
this have been the same person? The name is not common. So far as I have
observed, only one other person bearing it [295:1]--probably a
descendant of this Cyprian proconsul--is mentioned, of whom I shall have
something to say hereafter; and he flourished more than a century later.
Only one test of identity suggests itself. The Sergius Paulus of Pliny
is named as an authority for the second and eighteenth books of that
writer. Now on the hypothesis that the proconsul of Cyprus is meant, it
would be a natural supposition that, like Sir J. Emerson Tennent or Sir
Rutherford Alcock, this Sergius Paulus would avail himself of the
opportunities afforded by his official residence in the East to tell his
Roman fellow-countrymen something about the region in which he had
resided. We therefore look with interest to see whether these two books
of Pliny contain any notices respecting Cyprus, which might reasonably
be explained in this way; and our curiosity is not disappointed. In the
second book, besides two other brief notices (cc. 90, 112) relating to
the situation of Cyprus, Pliny mentions (c. 97) an area in the temple of
Venus at Paphos on which the rain never falls. In the eighteenth book
again, besides an incidental mention of this island (c. 57), he gives
some curious information (c. 12) with respect to the Cyprian corn, and
the bread made therefrom. It should be added that for the second book,
in which the references to Cyprus come late, Sergius Paulus is the
last-mentioned Latin authority; whereas for the eighteenth, where they
are early, he occupies an earlier, though not very early, place in the
list. These facts may be taken for what they are worth. In a work, which
contains such a multiplicity of details as Pliny's Natural History, we
should not be justified in laying too much stress on coincidences of
this kind.