Stephan Huller wrote:And FWIW I noticed the same phenomenon in Origen's Commentary on Matthew. The author is ostensibly writing a commentary on Matthew but the actual text is structured as a commentary on the Diatessaron which has been superficially reworked to read as if Origen is strangely interested in how the narrative is 'complemented' by things said in Mark, Luke and John. In other words, I strongly suspect that ancient writers had a habit of thinking in terms of the Diatessaron and this was later 'corrected' so as to read as if they thought in terms of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Even if Origen is using a harmony of the Gospels it is probably not Tatian's Diatessaron.
Ammonius of Alexandria apparently prepared a gospel harmony based on Matthew. It is more likely thaat Origen used this harmony than Tatian's.
Stephan Huller wrote:FWIW I think the history of the acceptance of the fourfold gospel is connected with Roman hegemony. We can already see the fourfold gospel tradition identified as a heresy in Marutha's anti-heretical treatise. It clearly comes from a Diatessaronic community (the Diatessaron was only replaced by the fourfold gospel in the fifth century in the lands of the East):
The heresy of the followers of Simon. This is this Simon concerning whom the members of this religion called him Sem'on and were saying about him that he is a son of God23. And calling him the secret power of the creator, and because be obeyed the Father who sent him for our redemption, his name was called Sem'on and named him Simon. Those of the movement of Simon made for themselves a gospel in four parts and they called it the Book of the Quarters (of the world). They are all sorcerers. A thread of scarlet and of the rose (color) they bind at the neck like the priests. The ancients plated the hair of their heads and were occupying themselves with incantations and strange affairs.
The arguments connected with Simon here are clearly those espoused by Irenaeus to justify the fourfold gospel in the late second century.
Interesting: I thought it was more or less a given that Irenaeus tried to justify four gospels (to the heresies of the Ebionites, Marcionites, the separationists who used Mark and the Valentinians each having just one) by invoking the four living creatures of Ezekiel and the book of Revelation.
Now let's take a second look at how superficial (= stupid) scholars can be not recognizing what is really being said:
The rest of the "Simonian" literature has perished; one of their chief documents, however, was a book called The Four Quarters of the World, and another famous treatise contained a number of controversial points (Refutatorii Sermones) ascribed to "Simon," [G S Mead http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/fff/fff21.htm]
So you see, now it is 'established' that there 'was an important Simonian text' called 'the Four Quarters of the World.' No way! The situation is even stranger. 'Simon' is explicitly connected to the manufacture of the Catholic canon my guess by way of (Simon) Peter. But who knows.
Last edited by Stephan Huller on Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Even if Origen is using a harmony of the Gospels it is probably not Tatian's Diatessaron.
Ammonius of Alexandria apparently prepared a gospel harmony based on Matthew. It is more likely thaat Origen used this harmony than Tatian's.
Andrew Criddle
Right as always Andrew. I was just using 'Diatessaron' as a catch all term for such texts.
David Trobisch sent me the Syriac for this section of Marutha's text and what is interesting is that the term used to specifically describe the gospel of the quarters of the world ܦܢܝܬܐ is a geographical term. I just assumed that it was principally a mathematical term (i.e. 'quarter') but the root actually means 'region.' There is something interesting buried in this strangled tradition. When you do a Google search in Syriac for the term (!) you get a picture of http://arc.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DC%A9%DC ... C%AC%DC%90
Here is the word used by Irenaeus for 'region' in Adv Haer 3.11.8 κλίματα. In other words the world is shaped like a Cross (= a giant + sign) and is thus a symbol of 'the world' as such.
4. seven latitudinal strips in the “οἰκουμένη” on which the longest day ranged by halfhour intervals from 13 to 16 hours, Eratosth. ap. Scymn.113, Id. ap. Str.2.1.35, 2.5.34, Gem.5.58, 16.17, Posidon. ap. Procl.in Ti.3.125 D. (cf. eund. ap. Cleom.1.10), Id. ap. Str.6.2.1, Marin. ap. Ptol.Geog.1.15.8,1.17.1, Id.Alm.2.12, al., Cat.Cod.Astr.8(4).37.
5. seven astrological zones corresponding to Nos. 3-6 of “κλίμα” 11.4, Nech.Fr.5, al., Vett. Val.22.33, al., Firmic.2.11.2.
III. metaph., inclination, propensity, Arr.Epict.2.15.20.
IV. fall, ἑπταετεῖ κλίματι by death at seven years of age, IG14.2431.
V. Gramm., inflected form, A.D. Adv.173.25.
VI. = ὑπόδημα, Hsch.; cf. κλείματα.
Clearly the assumption is derived from Justin's use of Plato's identification of the world shaped after a Chi. As such Jesus is crucified onto an X shaped object which is symbolic of the world THEREFORE it makes sense that there are four gospels (because the Cross is already assumed to be a holy symbol).
Another important point. When Adamantius accuses the Marcionites of being followers of Marcion rather than Christ, the Marcionite accuses him and his followers of being a 'Sokratianoi' - i.e. Platonists. This insult only makes sense if 'Adamantius' himself (or the original figure in the debate) was a Platonist but more importantly the idea is that 'Marcion' stood in the same relation to the Marcionites as 'Plato' did for members of contemporary Christian tradition - i.e. something of a hierophant.
The number 4 was very sacred to the Platonists and there was a Platonic text circulating in the Middle Ages called 'the Book of the Four Quarters of the world." My guess is that Irenaeus chose the number 4 because he assumed he found (Platonic) support for the choice within contemporary Christianity.
Stephan Huller wrote:Another important point. When Adamantius accuses the Marcionites of being followers of Marcion rather than Christ, the Marcionite accuses him and his followers of being a 'Sokratianoi' - i.e. Platonists. This insult only makes sense if 'Adamantius' himself (or the original figure in the debate) was a Platonist but more importantly the idea is that 'Marcion' stood in the same relation to the Marcionites as 'Plato' did for members of contemporary Christian tradition - i.e. something of a hierophant.
The number 4 was very sacred to the Platonists and there was a Platonic text circulating in the Middle Ages called 'the Book of the Four Quarters of the world." My guess is that Irenaeus chose the number 4 because he assumed he found (Platonic) support for the choice within contemporary Christianity.
Stephan, there was something really fishy going on with Mark in the old church. Epiphanius relates (Panarion 51.6.20-13) that Mark was among those "seventy-two scattered abroad" because apparently they refused communion (as per John 6:53, now that in itself is a screamer because the seventy come from Luke who says nothing of the sort), then reprieved by the "holy Peter" and considered by him to be worthy of a gospel. Upon which he is filled with the Holy Spirit but writes the gospel not with precision as Matthew did before him but in an such a manner so as to beguile the minds of the heretics.
Stephan, there was something really fishy going on with Mark in the old church.
Yes either Morton Smith was communing with Mark or he found an allusion to a lost version of Mark. But back to your main point, the earliest attestation (so Culpepper) of Mark being from the 72 disciples comes from Adamantius (De Recta in Deum Fide). With regards to the Greek text of the Panarion, your wish is my command:
