Diatessaron a Misnomer? The Evidence of Ephrem's Commentary

[stephan happy huller]

http://www.academia.edu/3524598/Diatess ... Commentary

1. Eusebius of Caesarea (early fourth century):
• “Tatian, their original founder, brought together—I do not know how—a certain combination
and collection of the gospels, and called this the ‘Gospel from Four’, which even
now is still in the hands of some.”
• ὁ μέντοι γε πρότερος αὐτῶν ἀρχηγὸς ὁ Τατιανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἶδ’
ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθείς, Τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων [εὐαγγέλιον] τοῦτο προσωνόμασεν, ὃ
καὶ παρά τισιν εἰς ἔτι νῦν φέρεται.
2. Rufinus’ Latin translation of Eusebius (c.402)
• “Nevertheless Tatian, their original founder, making a composition of the gospels, composed
in some way or other one gospel from the four, which is called ‘Diatessaron’, which
is even now possessed by many.”
• verumtamen prior eorum auctor Tatianus conlationem quandam faciens euangeliorum nescio quomodo conposuit euangelium
unum ex quattuor, quod Diatessaron nominavit, quod etiam nunc habetur a multis.
3. Anonymous Syriac translation of Eusebius (early fifth century)
• “He, then, this Tatianus their first leader, collected and mixed and composed a gospel and
called it ‘Diatessaron’, and this is [the Gospel] of the Mixed, the same that is in the hands
of many unto this day.”
• ܝ2 $? 3ܘܢ. * 8 > 'ܘܐ < ;ܘ :8 9ܘ 7 ) 6 .( * 54 3ܢܘ2 0ܪ ܣ. ) * + , ( 'ܗ & $ܕ ܘܗ
ܢܘ?A+$ܕ . .'ܗ &$ܕ (+8̈C5ܕ ('ܗ ܬ.Eܕ FG*>̈; ܝܗܘJ$ܐ ()5.*E (H54I .
4. Chester Beatty 709 (fifth or sixth century)
• “Commentary on the Gospel of Mar Ephrem, the Teacher”
• ()M85 <$?Lܐ ܝ?5ܕ ܢ.*8>'ܘܐܕ (K0.L
5. Florilegium attached to a letter from Andrew of Samosata (fifth-century)
• “Commentary on the Gospel Diastarun [sic]”
• ܢܘ?+A$ܕ ܢ.*8>'ܘܐܕ (K0.L
6. Moses bar Kepha (ninth century)
• “Commentary on the Gospel”
• ܢ.*8>'ܘܐܕ (K0.L
7. The Chronicle of Se‘ert (eleventh century)
• “Commentary on the Gospel called Diatessaron”
8. Dionysius bar Salibi (twelfth century)
• “Commentary on the Gospel”
• ܢ.*>'ܘܐܕ (K0.L
9. Ephrem, Commentary on the Gospel I.7
• “He [i.e., the evangelist] then continues by proclaiming the beginning of the economy
which was by the body, and he begins by saying that that one whom the darkness did not comprehend
(John 1:5) came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judea (Luke 1:5).”
International SBL, St. Andrews
9 July 2013
Matthew R. Crawford
m.r.crawford@durham.ac.uk
• ( H E ( 6. Q 9ܕ & 5ܕ ? 5G 'ܕ ܝ? 0ܘ .S? >L 4 * Rܕ ܗܬ. '? R4 5ܕ ( $ܪ. Q E ܝܗ. $ܙ? O 'ܕ N 3ܐ
26ܪܕܐ . Fܘܗ &$ܕ T5̈. Sܕܘ2$ܕ (O85 ܣܕܘܪܗ *R
10. Ephrem, Commentary on the Gospel I.7
• “again concerning this darkness we are able to understand from the Gospel (2 ) 5
ܢ.*8>'ܘܐܕ) when it says . . .”
11. Aphrahat, Demonstrations I.10 (first half of the fourth-century)
• “And also the word and the discourse of the Lord is the Christ, as it is written in the beginning
of the Gospel of our Life-giver, ‘In the beginning was the Word’ (John 1:1).”
• ܇ & ) * C 5ܕ ܗܬ? X ; 7 $? R W$J 6ܕ V$ܐ .ܘܗ ( C * Q 5 ( $? 5ܕ ܗ? 5G H 5ܘ ܗJ 8 5 ܦܐܘ
FJ85 Fܘܗ ܝܗܘJ$ܐ J*0?Rܕ
12. Mar Aba, catena fragments (late fourth century)
• “Commentary on the Gospel of Mar Aba, disciple of Mar Ephrem”
• ܢ.*8>'ܘܐܕ (K0.L &5 <$?Lܐ ܝ?5ܕ ܗ4*ZEܬ (Rܐ ܝ?5ܕ
13. Rabbula of Edessa (early fifth century)
• “The priests and deacons should exercise care that in all the churches a copy of the ‘Gospel
of the Separated’ ((0[M5ܕ ܢ.*8>'ܘܐ) shall be present, and shall be read.”
14. The Doctrina Addai (early fifth century)
• “Moreover, many people day by day assembled and came together for the prayer of the
service and for [the reading of] the Old Testament and the New, that [is], of the
‘Diatessaron’.”
15. Victor of Capua, preface to Codex Fuldensis (2 May 546)
• “When by chance one composite gospel out of the four came into my hands and since
there was no title, I could not find the name of the author, I diligently investigated who
brought the deeds and words of our Lord and Saviour back into an order in which they
seem to have followed each other after the gospel reading was disassembled.”
• Cum fortuito in manus meas incideret unum ex quattuor euangelium conpositum et absente titulo non inuenirem
nomen auctoris, diligenter inquirens quis gesta uel dicta domini et saluatoris nostri euangelica lectione discreta in ordinem
quo se consequi videbantur non minimo studii labore redegerit . . .
16. Theodoret, haer. I.20 (mid-fifth century)
• “This one [Tatian] also composed the Gospel called ‘From Four’ (τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων
καλούμενον συντέθεικεν Εὐαγγέλιον) by cutting out the genealogies and whatever goes to
prove the Lord to have been born of the seed of David according to the flesh.”
17. Epiphanius
• “It is said the ‘Gospel from Four’ was created by him [Tatian], which some call according
to Hebrews.”
• λέγεται δὲ τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων εὐαγγέλιον ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ὅπερ κατὰ Ἑβραίους τινὲς
καλοῦσι.

[Peter Kirby]

Could you extract the argument you want us to understand here, for our sake? So far, it's a mess.

[stephan happy huller]

There is no argument. I was just providing people with a list of known references to the Diatessaron to establish the question of whether or not it was so called.

[Peter Kirby]

Was it?

[spin]

Just out of curiosity, am I the only one who sees all of the text cited from Syriac sources in Stephan's o.p. as an unintelligible string of boxes interspersed with a few recognizable characters?

[MrMacSon]

I saw
"9 July 2013
"Matthew R. Crawford"

[Peter Kirby]

Relevant here (and much more readable):

http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku/bbl/tatian.htm

DID HE REALLY DO IT?

The only real evidence for Tatian producing the Diatessaron is just one short quote from Eusebius, and even this is disputed, because the original wording is not so clear. This passage survives in Greek, Syriac, and Latin, and each version is somewhat different (Petersen supplies and discusses all three versions in his Tatian's Diatessaron, 1994, p. 36).

Here is the translation of the Greek version of Eusebius' comment, which seems to be considerably more dismissive of the Diatessaron that the other two versions,


[Tatian, the first leader of the Encratites] "... arranged a kind of joining together and compilation of the Gospels, I know not how, to which he gave the title The Diatessaron; and it is still to this day to be found in the hands of some." (Eusebius, The History of the Church, IV.29.6, Lawlor and Oulton translation)

To be noted here is a clear political colouring of Eusebius' comment, viz. Tatian is firmly identified as an Encratite heretic. As a result, this necessarily casts doubt on the Diatessaron itself, and on its validity as a gospel text.

Indeed, this may have been the main idea behind this whole comment by Eusebius. Right away, we see that there may have been some political agenda that was being pursued in saying what he was saying. It stands to reason that his aim in writing what he wrote (whatever it was, exactly) may have been -- at least in part -- apologetical, and that his real intention was to dismiss the Diatessaron as a "heretical gospel" that should be viewed with suspicion.

All other attributions of the Diatessaron to Tatian are even later, and were probably based on what Eusebius said. Of course, it's well known that, soon after Eusebius, the Diatessaron will be rejected by most orthodox theologians; it will be seen as a "heretical Judaizing text".

Moreover, the validity of this remark by Eusebius tends to be diminished rather significantly, considering that elsewhere he actually says that someone else wrote the Diatessaron! Because in his EPISTLE TO CARPIANUS, Eusebius also said that the Diatessaron (to dia tessaron euaggelion) was written in Alexandria by one Ammonius (Petersen 1994:37). Ammonius flourished at the beginning of the third century, around the time of Origen, and thus some time after Tatian... So now it sure may seem like Eusebius, himself, was not all that sure who was it exactly that wrote the Diatessaron.


OTHER ANCIENT TESTIMONIES GO CONTRARY TO EUSEBIUS

And yet Tatian was certainly very well known within the movement even in his own time. For example, we have Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria -- all Tatian's contemporaries -- as well as Origen and Jerome, all referring to Tatian, and mentioning him writing his ORATION TO THE GREEKS (Contra Gentes, also known as AGAINST THE NATIONS). But never do they mention either the Diatessaron, or Tatian writing it (Metzger, EARLY VERSIONS, Oxford, 1977:32). And this would certainly be a most curious omission in their testimonies, seeing that many of these same writers travelled in Syria, and knew the affairs of Syrian Church quite well.

Moreover, in actual fact, Jerome (347-419 CE) says specifically -- or at least implies very strongly -- that, by his own time, out of all literary productions of Tatian, only the ORATION TO THE GREEKS still survived! So then why did he not mention the Diatessaron? If indeed Tatian wrote it, surely Jerome would have known about it?

This is what Jerome says,


"Tatian wrote ... innumerable volumes, one of which, a most successful book AGAINST THE NATIONS, is extant, and this is considered the most significant of all his works." (Jerome, LIVES OF ILLUSTRIOUS MEN, Ch. 29)

LIVES OF ILLUSTRIOUS MEN is believed to have been written by Jerome in 393, when the Diatessaron would have still been the main gospel of Syria, and perhaps elsewhere as well. So I think it stands to reason that, if Jerome knew anything about Tatian writing it, he would have seen it as "the most significant of all his works", rather than AGAINST THE NATIONS... (Writing long ago, T. Zahn, a leading Diatessaronic scholar of his time, already referred to this quote from Jerome in one of his articles [HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS, in "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge", v. 5], while, interestingly enough, also expressing some uncertainty that Tatian really wrote the Diatessaron.)


AN IMPORTANT QUOTE FROM EPIPHANIUS

Also, the testimony of Epiphanius about the Diatessaron is certainly most interesting. He wrote the following ca 400 CE,


"He [Tatian] is said to be the author of the Diatessaron, which some call the Gospel According to the Hebrews". (Epiphanius, PANARION, 46.1.9)

This identification, as was made by some commentators in Epiphanius' time, seems very important. So this may cast light on the real identity of the Diatessaron -- it was probably known early on as the Gospel According to the Hebrews.

[andrewcriddle]

<SNIP>

Moreover, the validity of this remark by Eusebius tends to be diminished rather significantly, considering that elsewhere he actually says that someone else wrote the Diatessaron! Because in his EPISTLE TO CARPIANUS, Eusebius also said that the Diatessaron (to dia tessaron euaggelion) was written in Alexandria by one Ammonius (Petersen 1994:37). Ammonius flourished at the beginning of the third century, around the time of Origen, and thus some time after Tatian... So now it sure may seem like Eusebius, himself, was not all that sure who was it exactly that wrote the Diatessaron.

the letter to Carpianus says

Ammonius the Alexandrian, having exerted a great deal of energy and effort as was necessary, bequeaths to us a harmonized account of the four gospels. Alongside the Gospel according to Matthew, he placed the corresponding sections of the other gospels. But this had the inevitable result of ruining the sequential order of the other three gospels, as far as a continuous reading of the text was concerned

This seems to have been a rather different sort of harmony to the Diatessaron attributed to Tatian.

Andrew Criddle

[Roger Pearse]

The letter to Carpianus introduces the tables of parallel passages known as the Eusebian canons. The earlier version of the same idea by Ammonius is, therefore, not a gospel harmony, and still less Tatian's?