_TATIAN'S 'DIATESSARON.'_
I need not reply at any length to Dr. Lightfoot's essay on the
_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and I must refer those who wish to see what
I had to say on the subject to _Supernatural Religion_. [145:1] I may
here confine myself to remarks connected with fresh matter which has
appeared since the publication of my work.
An Armenian translation of what is alleged to be the Commentary of
Ephraem Syrus on Tatian's _Diatessaron_ was published as long ago as
1836, but failed to attract critical attention. In 1876, however, a
Latin translation of this work by Aucher and Moesinger was issued, and
this has now, naturally introduced new elements into the argument
regarding Tatian's use of Gospels. Only last year, a still more
important addition to critical materials was made by the publication
in Rome of an alleged Arabic version of Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself,
with a Latin translation by Ciasca. These works were not before
Dr. Lightfoot when he wrote his Essay on Tatian in 1877, and he only
refers to them in a note in his present volume. He entertains no doubt
as to the genuineness of these works, and he triumphantly claims that
they establish the truth of the "ecclesiastical theory" regarding the
_Diatessaron_ of Tatian.
In order to understand the exact position of the case, however, it will
be well to state again what is known regarding Tatian's work. Eusebius
is the first writer who mentions it. He says--and to avoid all dispute I
give Dr. Lightfoot's rendering:--
"Tatian composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not
how ([Greek: ouk oid' hopôs]), of the Gospels, and called it
_Diatessaron_. This work is current in some quarters (with some
persons) even to the present day." [146:1]
I argued that this statement indicates that Eusebius was not personally
acquainted with the work in question, but speaks of it from mere
hearsay. Dr. Lightfoot replies--
"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, [146:2] where it
commonly refers to Celsus' work which he had before him, and very
often to passages which he himself quotes in the context." [146:3]
If this signification be also attached to the expression, it is equally
certain that [Greek: ouk oid' hopôs] is used to express ignorance,
although Dr. Lightfoot chooses, for the sake of his argument, to forget
the fact. In any case some of the best critics draw the same inference
from the phrase here that I do, more especially as Eusebius does not
speak further or more definitely of the _Diatessaron_, amongst whom
I may name Credner, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Reuss and Scholten; and
should these not have weight with him I may refer Dr. Lightfoot to
Zahn, [147:1] and even to Dr. Westcott [147:2] and Professor Hemphill.
[147:3] Eusebius says nothing more of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian
and gives us no further help towards a recognition of the work.
Dr. Lightfoot supposes that I had overlooked the testimony of the
_Doctrine of Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, published in 1876
by Dr. Phillips after _Supernatural Religion_ was written. I did
not overlook it, but I considered it of too little critical value
to require much notice in later editions of the work. The _Doctrine
of Addai_ is conjecturally dated by Dr. Lightfoot about the middle
of the third century, [147:4] and it might with greater certainty
be placed much later. The passage to which he points is one in which
it is said that the new converts meet together to hear, along with
the Old Testament, "the New of the _Diatessaron_." This is assumed to
be Tatian's "Harmony of the Gospels," and I shall not further argue
the point; but does it bring us any nearer to a certain understanding
of its character and contents?
The next witness, taking them in the order in which Dr. Lightfoot cites
them, is Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of the
twelfth century. In his commentary on the Gospels he writes:--
"Tatian, the disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr,
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." [148:1]
This information regarding Ephraem--who died about A.D. 373--be it
remembered, is given by a writer of the twelfth century, and but for
this we should not have known from any ancient independent source that
Ephraem had composed a commentary at all, supposing that he did so. It
is important to note, however, that a second _Diatessaron_, prepared by
Ammonius, is here mentioned, and that it was also described by Eusebius
in his Epistle to Carpianus, and further that Bar-Salibi speaks of a
third, composed on the same lines by Elias. Dr. Lightfoot disposes of
the _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius in a very decided way. He says:
"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 parallel passages
from the other Gospels. The principle of the one 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." [148:2]
Doubtless, no one comparing the two works here described could confuse
them, but it is far from being so clear that anyone who had not seen
more than one of these works could with equal certainty distinguish it.
The statement of Dr. Lightfoot quoted above, that the _Diatessaron_ of
Ammonius "took the Gospel of St. Matthew as its standard, preserving its
continuity," certainly does not tend to show that it was "quite
different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian," on the
supposition that the Arabic translation lately published represents the
work of Tatian. I will quote what Professor Hemphill says regarding it,
in preference to making any statement of my own:--
"On examining the _Diatessaron_ as translated into Latin from this
Arabic, we find in by far the greater portion of it, from the Sermon
on the Mount to the Last Supper (§§ 30-134) that Tatian, like his
brother harmonist Ammonius, took St. Matthew as the basis of his
work ... St. Mark, as might be expected, runs parallel with St.
Matthew in the _Diatessaron_, and is in a few cases the source out
of which incidents have been incorporated. St. Luke, on the other
hand, is employed by Tatian, as also in a lesser degree is St. John,
in complete defiance of chronological order." [149:1]
This is not quite so different from the description of the _Diatessaron_
of Ammonius, which Dr. Lightfoot quotes:--
"He placed side by side with the Gospel according to Matthew the
corresponding passages of the other Evangelists, so that as a
necessary result the connection of sequence in the three was
destroyed so far as regards the order (texture) of reading." [149:2]
The next witness cited is Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, writing about A.D.
453, and I need not quote the well-known passage in which he describes
the suppression of some 200 copies of Tatian's work in his diocese,
which were in use "not only among persons belonging to his sect, but
also among those who follow the Apostolic doctrine," who did not
perceive the heretical purpose of a book in which the genealogies and
other passages showing the Lord to have been born of the seed of David
after the flesh were suppressed. It is a fact, however, which even Zahn
points out, that, in the alleged _Diatessaron_ of Ephraem, these
passages are not all excised, but still remain part of the text, [150:1]
as they also do in the Arabic translation. This is the only definite
information which we possess of the contents of the _Diatessaron_ beyond
the opening words, and it does not tally with the recently discovered
works.
I need not further discuss here the statement of Epiphanius that some
called Tatian's _Diatessaron_ the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
Epiphanius had not seen the work himself, and he leaves us in the same
ignorance as to its character.
It is clear from all this that we have no detailed information regarding
the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. As Dr. Donaldson said long ago: "We should
not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it
told us something reliable about itself." [150:2]
We may now come to the documents recently published. The MS. of the
Armenian version of the commentary ascribed to Ephraem is dated A.D.
1195, and Moesinger declares that it is translated from the Syriac, of
which it is said to retain many traces. [150:3] He states that in the
judgment of the Mechitarist Fathers the translation dates from about the
fifth century, [150:4] but an opinion on such a point can only be
received with great caution. The name of Tatian is not mentioned as the
author of the "Harmony," and the question is open as to whether the
authorship of the commentary is rightly ascribed to Ephraem Syrus. In
any case there can be no doubt that the Armenian work is a translation.
The Arabic work published by Ciasca, and supposed to be a version of
Tatian's _Diatessaron_ itself, is derived from two manuscripts, one
belonging to the Vatican Library and the other forwarded to Rome from
Egypt by the Vicar Apostolic of the Catholic Copts. The latter MS.
states, in notes at the beginning and end, that it is an Arabic
translation of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian, made from the Syriac by the
presbyter Abû-l-Pharag Abdullah Ben-at-Tib, who is believed to have
flourished in the first half of the eleventh century, and in one of
these notes the name of the scribe who wrote the Syriac copy is given,
which leads to the conjecture that it may have been dated about the end
of the ninth century. A note in the Vatican MS. also ascribes the
original work to Tatian. These notes constitute the principal or only
ground for connecting Tatian's name with the "Harmony."
So little is known regarding the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian that even the
language in which it was written is matter of vehement debate. The name
would, of course, lead to the conclusion that it was a Greek
composition, and many other circumstances support this, but the mere
fact that it does not seem to have been known to Greek Fathers, and
that it is very doubtful whether any of them, with the exception of
Theodoret, had ever seen it, has led many critics to maintain that it
was written in Syriac. Nothing but circumstantial evidence of this can
be produced. This alone shows how little we really know of the
original. The recently discovered works, being in Arabic and Armenian,
even supposing them to be translations from the Syriac and that the
_Diatessaron_ was composed in Syriac, can only indirectly represent the
original, and they obviously labour under fatal disability in regard to
a restoration of the text of the documents at the basis of the work.
Between doubtful accuracy of rendering and evident work of revision,
the original matter cannot but be seriously disfigured.
It is certain that the name of Tatian did not appear as the author of
the _Diatessaron_. [152:1] This is obvious from the very nature of the
composition and its object. We have met with three works of this
description and it is impossible to say how many more may not have
existed. As the most celebrated, by name at least, it is almost certain
that, as time went on and the identity of such works was lost, the
first idea of anyone meeting with such a Harmony must have been that it
was the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. What means could there be of
correcting it and positively ascertaining the truth? It is not as if
such a work were a personal composition, showing individuality of style
and invention; but supposing it to be a harmony of Gospels already
current, and consequently varying from similar harmonies merely in
details of compilation and arrangement, how is it possible its
authorship could remain in the least degree certain, in the absence of
an arranger's name?
An illustration of all this is aptly supplied in the case of Victor of
Capua, and I will allow Dr. Lightfoot himself to tell the story.
"Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an
anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels, 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."
[153:1]
How this reasoning would have fallen to the ground had the Harmonist, as
he might well have done in imitation of Tatian, commenced with the
words, "In the beginning was the Word"! The most instructive part is
still to come, however, for although in May 1887 Dr. Lightfoot says:
"There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship,"
&c., in a note now inserted at the end of the essay, after referring to
the newly-discovered works, he adds: "On the relation of Victor's
_Diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of
Tatian_ ... See Hemphill's _Diatessaron_." [153:2] On turning to
Professor Hemphill's work, the following passage on the point is
discovered:--
"It will be remembered that Victor, Bishop of Capua, in the year
543, found a Latin Harmony or compilation of the four Gospels
without any name or title, and being a man of enquiring mind he at
once set about the task of discovering its unknown author. I have
already mentioned the way in which, from the passage of Eusebius, he
was led to ascribe his discovery to Tatian. This conclusion was
generally traversed by Church writers, and Victor was supposed to
have made a mistake. He is now, however, proved to have been a
better judge than his critics, for, as Dr. Wace was the first to
point out, a comparison of this Latin Harmony with the Ephraem
fragments demonstrates their substantial identity, as they preserve
to a wonderful degree the same order, and generally proceed _pari
passu_." [153:3]
But how about Luke i. 1 as the beginning? and the genealogies? Nothing
could more clearly show the uncertainty which must always prevail about
such works. Shall we one day discover that Victor was equally right
about the reading _Diapente_?
I have thought it worth while to go into all this with a view of showing
how little we know of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and, I may add, of the
Commentary of Ephraem Syrus and the work on which it is based. It is not
at present necessary to examine more closely the text of either of the
recently published works, but, whilst leaving them to be tried by time,
I may clearly state what the effect on my argument would be on the
assumption made by Dr. Lightfoot that we have actually recovered the
_Diatessaron_ of Tatian, and that it is composed upon a text more or
less corresponding with our four Gospels. Neither in the "Harmony"
itself nor in the supposed Commentary of Ephraem Syrus is the name of
any of the Evangelists mentioned, and much less is there any information
given as to their personality, character, or trustworthiness. If these
works were, therefore, the veritable _Diatessaron_ of Tatian and the
Commentary of Ephraem upon it, the Gospels would not be rendered more
credible as the record of miracles nor as witnesses for the reality of
Divine Revelation.
* * * * *
It may not be uninstructive if I take the liberty of quoting here some
arguments of Dr. Lightfoot regarding the authenticity of the "Letter of
the Smyrnaens," giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. [154:1]
"The miraculous element has also been urged in some quarters as an
objection to the genuineness of the document. Yet, considering all
the circumstances of the case, we have more occasion to be surprised
at the comparative absence than at the special prominence of the
supernatural in the narrative. Compared with records of early
Christian martyrs, or with biographies of mediaeval saints, or with
notices of religious heroes at any great crisis, even in the more
recent history of the Church--as, for instance, the rise of
Jesuitism or of Wesleyanism--this document contains nothing which
ought to excite a suspicion as to its authenticity.
"The one miraculous incident, which creates a real difficulty, is
the dove issuing from the wounded side of the martyr. Yet even this
might be accounted for by an illusion, and under any circumstances
it would be quite inadequate to condemn the document as a forgery.
But it will be shown hereafter (p. 627) that there are excellent
reasons for regarding the incident as a later interpolation, which
had no place in the original document. Beyond this we have the voice
from heaven calling to Polycarp in the stadium to play the man (§ 9).
But the very simplicity of the narrative here disarms criticism.
The brethren present heard the voice, but no one saw the speaker.
This was the sole ground for the belief that it was not a human
utterance. Again, there is the arching of the fire round the martyr
like a sail swelled by the wind (§ 15). But this may be explained as
a strictly natural occurrence, and similar phenomena have been
witnessed more than once on like occasions, notably at the
martyrdoms of Savonarola and of Hooper. Again, there is the sweet
scent, as of incense, issuing from the burning pyre (§ 15); but this
phenomenon also, however we may explain it, whether from the
fragrance of the wood or in some other way, meets us constantly. In
another early record of martyrdoms, the history of the persecutions
at Vienne and Lyons, a little more than twenty years later, we are
told (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1, § 35) that the heroic martyrs, as they
stepped forward to meet their fate, were 'fragrant with the sweet
odour of Christ, so that some persons even supposed that they had
been anointed with material ointment' ([Greek: hôste enious doxai
kai murô kosmikô kechristhai autous]). Yet there was no pyre and no
burning wood here, so that the imagination of the bystanders must
have supplied the incident. Indeed, this account of the Gallican
martyrs, indisputably written by eye-witnesses, contains many more
startling occurrences than the record of Polycarp's fate.
"More or less closely connected with the miraculous element is the
_prophetic insight_ attributed to Polycarp. But what does this
amount to? It is stated indeed that 'every word which he uttered was
accomplished and will be accomplished' (§ 16). But the future tense,
'will be accomplished,' is itself the expression of a belief, not
the statement of a fact. We may, indeed, accept this qualification
as clear testimony that, when the narrative was written, many of his
forebodings and predictions had not been fulfilled. The only example
of a prediction actually given in the narrative is the dream of his
burning pillow, which suggested to him that he would undergo
martyrdom by fire. But what more natural than this presentiment,
when persecution was raging around him and fire was a common
instrument of death? I need not stop here to discuss how far a
prescience may be vouchsafed to God's saints. Even 'old experience'
is found to be gifted with 'something like prophetic strain.' It is
sufficient to say here again that it would be difficult to point to
a single authentic biography of any Christian hero--certainly of any
Christian hero of the early centuries--of whom some incident at
least as remarkable as this prophecy, if prophecy it can be called,
is not recorded. Pontius, the disciple and biographer of Cyprian,
relates a similar intimation which preceded the martyrdom of his
master, and adds: 'Quid hac revelatione manifestius? quid hac
dignatione felicius? ante illi praedicta sunt omnia quaecunque
postmodum subsecuta sunt.' (_Vit. et Pass. Cypr._ 12, 13)" [156:1]
I am the more anxious to quote this extract from a work, written
long after the essays on _Supernatural Religion_, as it presents
Dr. Lightfoot in a very different light, and gives me an opportunity
of congratulating him on the apparent progress of his thought towards
freedom which it exhibits. I quite agree with him that the presence of
supernatural or superstitious elements is no evidence against the
authenticity of an early Christian writing, but the promptitude with
which he sets these aside as interpolations, or explains them away into
naturalism, is worthy of Professor Huxley. He now understands, without
doubt, the reason why I demand such clear and conclusive evidence of
miracles, and why I refuse to accept such narratives upon anonymous and
insufficient testimony. In fact, he cannot complain that I feel bound to
explain all alleged miraculous occurrences precisely in the way of which
he has set me so good an example, and that, whilst feeling nothing but
very sympathetic appreciation of the emotion which stimulated the
imagination and devout reverence of early Christians to such mistakes,
I resolutely refuse to believe their pious aberrations.