Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at |http: //books .google .com/I
1 ^^^
^j|^^^^^** .• '^<'\ '■'■•'""
1^^^^^^^^^ ' ' / '' aiW
1
;'■■ ^' r f ■!» ):.:'■ '^■
\
Bariatlj Collcst llttan
Zbe Univecslts ot Cblcaso
ID BT JOHH 0. (OCKirBLLSa
THE DIATESSARON OF TATIAN AND
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
BEING AN INVESTIGATION OF Tlli: DIATESSARON FOR THE LIGHT
WHICH IT THROWS UPON THE SOLUTION OF THE PROB-
LEM OF THE ORIGIN OK THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
A DISSERTATION
If TESTAMENT HTBRATHRE »
A. A. HOBSON
CHICAGO
1904
LIST OF WORKS AND AUTHORS.
REFERRED TO BY ABBREVIATION.
Ba. = Bacon, B. W. : Tatian*s Rearrangement of the Fourth Gospel, American
Journal of Theology^ Vol. IV, pp. 770-95.
Ca« = Cassels, W. R. : Nineteenth Century^ April, 1895, PP* 665-81.
Csc. = Ciasca, Agostino : Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniae Arabice (Rome, 1888).
Ful. = Fuller. J. M. : " Tatian," in Smith and Wage's Dictionary of Christian
Biography.
Hrk.* = Harnack, A. : Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. I, pp. 213-18 (Leipzig, 1883).
Hrk.^ = Harnack, A. : ** Tatian," Encyclopedia Britannica, ninth edition.
Hrk.^ = Harnack, A. : Geschichte der altchristlichen LittercUur bis EusebiuSf Bd. I,
pp. 485-96 (Leipzig, 1893); Bd. II, i, pp. 284-89 (Leipzig, 1897).
Har.^ = Harris, J. R. : The Diatessaron (London, 1890).
Har.*» = Harris, J. R. : Contemporary Review Vol. LXVIII (August, 1895), PP* 271-78
(also printed in Christian LAterature^ Vol. XIII, p. 268).
Har.^ = Harris, J. R. : Fragments of the Commentary of Ephraem Syrus on the Dia-
tessaron (London, 1895).
H.* = Hill, J. H.: The Earliest Life of Christ, Being the Diatessaron of Tatian^
(Edinburgh, 1894).
H.'* = HiLL, J. H.: A Dissertation on the Gospel Commentary of St, Ephraem, the
Syrian (Edinburgh, 1896).
Hj. = HjELT, Arthur : " Die altsyrische Evangelieniibersetzungen und Tatian's
Diatessaron," mZKntC^Forschungentur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen JCanons
und der aUkirchlichen Litteratur, Theil VII, Heft I (Leipzig, 1903).
Hg. = HoGG, H. W.: '*The Diatessaron of Tatian," in Menzies*s The AnU-Nicene
Fathers,Vo\. IX (New York, 1896).
Lgft. = LiGHTFOOT, J. B. : Essays on Supernatural Religion (London, 1889), PP*
272-88.
M. = Moesinger, G. : Evangelii Concordantis ExposUio Facta a S, Ephraemo
(Venetiis, 1876).
Mo. = Moore, G. F. : ** Tatian*s Diatessaron and the Analysis of the Pentateuch,"
Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. IX, Part II, pp. 201-15.
N. = Nestle, E. : " Syriac Versions," in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible,
R. = Ranke, E. : Codex Fuldensis (Lipsiae, 1868).
Sel. = Sellin, E. : "Der Text des von A. Ciasca (Rom, 1888) herausgegebenen ara-
bischen Diatessarons," in Zahn's Forschungen des neutestamentlichen Kanons
und der aUkirchlichen Litteratur; Theil IV, pp. 225-46 (Erlangen und Leipzig,
1891).
W. = Wace, H.: "Tatian*s Diatessaron," Expositor, Series II, Vol.11 (1881), pp.
i-ii, 128-37, 193-205.
Z.^ = Zahn,Th. : Forschungen %ur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der
aUkirchlichen Litteratur; Theil I: " Tatian's Diatessaron" (Erlangen, 1881).
213] 7
8 HI8T0BI0AL AMD tilNGUISTIO STUDIES
Z> = Zahn, Th. : Zeitschrift f&T Mrthliche Wissenschaft und kirchliehes Leben, 1884,
pp. 618-26.
Z.* = Zahn, Th. : Theologisches Litterahtrblatt^ January 3, 1896.
TEXTS USED IN VERIFICATION AND QUOTATIONS.
Cur. = CuRETON, William : Remains of a Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gos-
pels in Syriac (London, 1858).
Ben. = Bensley, R. L. : Harris, J. R.; and Burkitt, F. C. : The Four Gospels in
Syriac: A Transcri^ion (Cambridge, 1894).
Lew. = Lewis, Agnes Smith: Some Pages of the Four Gospels Retranscribed :
together with a Complete Translation (London, 1896).
Pusey = Pusey, P. £., and Gwilliam, G. H. : Tetraevangelium Sanctum (Oxford,
1901).
Tisch. = TiscHENDORF, C. : Novum Testamentum Graece, Editio Octava, Critica
Major (Lipsiae, 1872).
This bibliography is not intended to be exhaustive, but to give the most impor-
tant works, and those which should be used in conjunction with this paper. A num-
ber of old and now less important treatises might be added. For additional notices
see the lists of Hill and Nestle.
214
INTRODUCTION.
I. The facts concerning Tatian's Diatessaron, so far as they have been
discovered, are well known to scholars. Since Th. Zahn's work (pub-
lished in 1881) upon Ephraem's Commentary on the Diatessaron, ^xa^
especially since Ciasca's publication of the Arabic Diatessaron (1888),
much labor has been expended upon the problems connected with this
important work of Tatian's. The latest, and perhaps the most com-
plete, summary of results in the investigation of the literary notices of
Tatian and his work, and as regards questions arising from such study,
is to be found in Hjelt's work (see Hj.). Though this work is appar-
ently indebted, to a great degree, to the earlier publication of Zahn, it
is briefer than the latter and brings the discussion down to the present
time. This recent statement makes it unnecessary to repeat the facts
readily accessible in it. It will suffice to say that scholars have
reached quite general agreement on a number of points,' which, so
far as we need mention them, are these:' Tatian wrote a gospel
(probably 173-75 A. D.), called Diatessaron^ because compiled from
our four canonical gospels. We have trustworthy remains of his work
in Ephraem's Commentary^ edited by Moesinger, and in the quotations
of some of the Syrian Fathers, especially in those of Aphraates.
Ephraem's Commentary is accessible only in a Latin translation of an
Armenian version of it. Aphraates's quotations are consultable in
Graffin's splendid new edition of that Syrian Father's Homilies? It is
in these quotations alone that we have remains of the original Syriac
Diatessaron,^ Both Aphraates and Ephraem wrote in Syriac during
the fourth century, the latter about 350 A. D., the former a little
earlier. In addition to these fragmentary remains of Tatian 's gospel,
there is the harmony of the gospels preserved in Codex Fuldensis^
which is really a Latin adaptation of the Diatessaron made by arran-
ging the Vulgate text in the order indicated by Tatian 's gospel, but
with considerable modification of that order. This Latin harmony was
known as early as the first part of the sixth century, and was compiled
z The contention of W. R. Cassels (Ca.) adverse to the items here mentioned requires little attention,
in Tiew of the reply of J. R. Harris (Har.b).
aHrlcc, I, pp. 486-96; also Hrk.a, pp. ai3-z8; and« for wider limits of date than are suggested
above, cf, Hrk.c, II, p. 989. See also, upon all the facts mentioned, HilU Hjelt, Zahx^ and others, op, ctt.
3 Patrologia Syrtmca^ Pars Prima, Tomus Primus.
4 That the Diatessaron was originally written in Syriac seems now to be generally believed. Har-
nack (Hrk.b) followed by W. R. Cassels (Ca.), however, dissents.
215] 9
10 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
probably somewhat earlier {ca, 400, according to Hj., p. 58). Still
further, in the Arabic Diatessaron published by Ciasca we have a quite
skilful and faithful eleventh-century translation of Tatian's work, made
from a ninth-century Syriac manuscript, by the quite well-known Ara-
bic writer Abu '1 Faraj *Abdulla ibn-at-Tayib.^ This version is, with
some limitations, a trustworthy representation of Tatian's gospel.^
These facts, generally assented to by those scholars who have given
them consideration, give a solid basis and distinct point of departure
for this dissertation.
2. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relation of
Tatian's Diatessaron to the four canonical gospels, which indisputably
constitute the chief, if not the only, source of that work, with a view to
determining how far this relation resembles that which, on a docu-
mentary theory of the origin of the synoptic gospels, is proved to
exist between the resultant gospels and their sources, and whether this
resemblance is such as to support or discredit that theory.' We have
in Tatian's work an attempt, made probably within one hundred, or at
most one hundred and ten, years after the completion of our latest
synoptic gospel, to compile from written sources an account of the life
of Jesus — a gospel, if you please.^ It would seem, therefore, that we
might expect this gospel to show phenomena that are likely to occur
in gospels which are based on written sources. The degree of sim-
ilarity between these phenomena and those which appear in a compar-
ison of the synoptic gospels with their alleged sources ought,
therefore, to give a helpful basis for determining the probability or
improbability of the documentary theory as a sufficient explanation
of the phenomena of the first three gospels.
3. This task necessitates as a preliminary matter the finding of sure
5 For a brief, yet satisfactory, presentation and discussion of available information concerning the
Arabic Diatessaron see YLogg^t treatment (Hg;.).
6 For a contrary view see Hrk.c, I, p. 495. The whole matter is discussed below.
7 The documentary hypothesis is often alleged to be insufficient to account for the supposed deviations
of the gospels from their alleged sources. The import of this objection is stated with commendable
brevity by V. H. Stanton in his article on the gospels in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible: ** It is
said that the oral theory alone will account for the differences between the gospels.** This objection,
moreover, is the basis of the entire argument of one of the most recent attempts to support the oral -tradi-
tion theory. K. Veit, in the second part of his Die synoptischen Parallelen^ devotes his first chapter
to a review of the present situation in regard to the synoptic problem, and also to an unfavorable criticism
of every KombinationshyPothese, He assumes throughout his discussion in this chapter (see in partic-
ular pp. 6. 9, xo) that the differences of the several gospels from one another must, each and every one of
them, have some specific explanation ; and that, if the explanations which have been made by some on the
basis of the ** tendencies** of the several evangelists fail at any point, then some other than a documentary
theory must be called in to solve the problem. The results of this investigation will have a direct bear-
ing upon the weight which should be allowed this objection.
8 S]rrian church fathers were wont to refer to the Diatessaron as a gospel. For the notices see Hj. ,
pp. 30-47. 216
DIATE88ABON AND THE SYNOPTIO PBOBLEM
11
textual ground. The two terms to be compared in order to determine
the relation of the Diatessaron to its sources are (a) the text of the gospels
possessed by T' and employed by him in the work of constructing D,
and {J>) the text which from these sources he constructed. If we pos-
sessed these, the one precisely as T had it, and the other precisely as T
made it, all differences between them would be referable to T and would
illustrate his method. But, in fact, neither of them is directly and
exactly given in any existing document. In any comparison between
the original text of the gospels, as this is presumably restored today,
and the text of D, as we have it, allowance must be made, on the one
side, for the possibility that T used a text of the gospels other than
that which is today accepted as approximately original ; and, on the
other, for possible corruption of the text of the Diatessaron in trans-
mission. The materials of which account must be taken, because of
our uncertainty respecting the two elements of the comparison, are as
follows :
2.
I. The Gospel Text II. The Original Text of the Diatessaron.
Employed by Tatian.
Possible sources :
a) The Greek gospels
(and their variants).
b) The Sinaitic and
Caretonian Syriac
versions.
I. Extant witnesses (ar-
ranged in the order of
their respective ages) :
a) Quotations in the
Homilies of Aphra-
ates.
b) Quotations in Eph-
raem's Commentary,
c) The gospel harmony
in Codex Fuldenns,
d) The Arabic version
of the ZHatessaron,
9The following abbreviations will be used from this point on :
A sa the Arabic Diatessaron.
E a Ephraem's Commentary,
D 33 the Diatessaron (without reference to any particular witness).
F=i the gospel harmony in Codex Fnldensis,
Aph.=: quotations in the Homilies of Aphraates.
T = Tatian.
M =a Moesinger's edition of Ephraem*s Commentary,
P = Peshitta Syriac version.
Ss a Sinaitic Syriac Version.
Sc Bs Curetontan Syriac version.
S^aaPhiloxenian Sjrriac venion.
Stf sa Harklensian Syriac version.
For the symbols for the Syriac versions I am indebted to Nxstlb's
ilAsnNGS*s Dictionary,
217
Possible sources of cor-
ruption :
a) Later Syriac ver-
sions :
a) Peshitta.
/9) Philoxeniana.
7) Harklensiana.
b) Arabic readings (due
to):
a) Arabic translator.
/9) Arabic versions of
canonical gospels.
7) Errors of scribes
of the Arabic Dia-
tessaron,
c) Variants of the text
of the Greek gospels.
article " Syriac Versions," in
12 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
From the nature of these materials it is impossible to reconstruct
either the precise text of the gospels as employed by T, or a complete
and exact text of the Diatessaron as it left T's hands ; nor is this neces-
sary. If from the list of passages in which D differs from a standard
Greek text we eliminate all passages of D whose variation from a
standard text of the gospels may be due to a) or b) of Column I, or
whose phenomena may be due to any of the sources mentioned in
Column II, 2, the remaining peculiarities" of D may be confidently
ascribed to T's literary method. The construction of such a list, how-
ever, requires a comparative evaluation of the several extant witnesses
of D. We will for convenience consider, first, what witness may be
safely used for the determination of the general order of D, and then,
how details of the text may be used with certainty.
a) The general order of D can be ascertained by a comparison of
A and E. The other witnesses give but little help. In the nature of
their evidence, the quotations in Aphraates's Homilies can give but
supplementary testimony. Such as it is, it has been taken into account
by Zahn in his reconstruction of D from E, and since that reconstruc-
tion has been used in this study, the said evidence of Aph. has
been given sufficient consideration by us. F is the only other witness.
Its general character all but excludes it from consideration as a chief
witness, though at points it serves to corroborate E and A. When F is
compared with E and A, it is clear that its author changed D by omitting
and adding {e, g,, the section on the woman taken in adultery) para-
graphs and by rearranging its order." The suspicion against F,
aroused by these facts, is enhanced by a comparison of the order in
the praefatio with that of the actual extant text of F (see R.). Not only
have the chapters of the text been differently numbered, but, if the
praefatio really represents an older order of the text (Z.*, p. 301), addi-
tions (viz., chaps. 21, 69 of the text), substitutions (chaps. 106, 107 of
the text in the place of the repetition of chaps. 95 and 96 of \.ht praefatio
— a repetition probably due, however, to the error of a scribe in copy-
ing the praefatio, in which case these chapters 106 and 107 are really
zo The terms " peculiarities," " deviations,*' " variants/' used with reference to passages in D,
connote throughout this discussion a comparison of such passages with the Greek gospels, unless some
statement to the contrary is made.
zz For a verification of the statements made in this paragraph, Appendix I of H.& will be found most
useful. I have verified the references there made, and with one exception there is no inaccuracy that
aflfects this study. The exception is the attribution of A 6 : 33-34 (marginal number in Hg.) to F, chap. 80
(according to the chapter numbers of the text, not those of the/r«#/a/£9), whereas F, chap. 80, is par-
allel to A z8 : z-ao ff. The first •mentioned passage of A is omitted by F.
218
DIATESSABON AND THE STNOPTIO PROBLEM 13
additions), and changes of order {cf, praefaHo^ chaps. 102-4, with the
text, chaps. 103-5) have been made. Accordingly, both by such a
comparison and by that of F with £ and A, F is proved to be, as a
whole, untrustworthy for the determination of the general order of D.
Where it agrees with E and A — and this is the case in large part — it
may be used as corroborative of them. If its evidence is opposed by
E and A, combined or independent, it is generally to be rejected.
E and F never, except possibly in one case (cf, pp. 10-14), combine
against A. There are a few instances in which F corroborates A at
least against the inferences drawn from E by Zahn (see discussion
below). There are also some cases of differences between A and F,
which have no corroboration in E for one or the other, because of E's
generally fragmentary testimony to D. The quite invariable unrelia-
bility of the order of F, in contrast to the almost constant trustworthi-
ness of that of A, is alone enough to give the preference to A rather
than to F. But there are some other considerations that lead to the
same conclusion. The passages involved are (i) A 6 : 25-35 — F, chap.
56 " ; (2) A6 : 46-54 = F, chaps. 20, 49, 51 ; (3) A 7: 47-53=^, chap.
70 ; (4) A 15 : 27-32 = F, chap. 66 ; (5) A44 : 10 = F, chap. 155. If these
passages are examined, it will appear that all except the last are in con-
texts of F which also present material in a different order from that of
A, yet for the position of this contextual material A has the support of
E. It would accordingly seem reasonable to suppose that, if Ephraem
had seen fit to quote from the passages noted above (i-4)» the position
of these in A would have been supported by E just as the position of
the material of their contexts is. An examination of the passages
reveals also that the order of A is less probably due to a superficial
worker than that of F. For example, it is easier to suppose A 44 : 10
is in an original position and has been changed to that of F, chap.
155, than to explain the reverse process. The examination of these
passages, therefore, added to the consideration of the general character
of A and F respectively, leads inevitably to the rejection of F rather than
A. A similar confidence in A is reached with regard to passages
omitted by both E and F, but retained in A.'^ At first sight, it might
be supposed that the silence of both E and F is evidence against A,
but the fragmentary character of E is in every case sufficient to account
nThe numbers refeiring to A are those which appear in the left-hand margin of Hg. On the same
side of the page Hg. has printed references to the corresponding pages of Csc. References to F are to the
chapter numbering of the text. The sign sa indicates throughout this paper parallel material, though in
some citations the full limits of the parallels are not shown.
13 There are but three such passages ; ef, footnote above, p. za, and H.ft, App. I.
219
14 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
for its silence, and omission is characteristic of F. Moreover, A*s
inclusion of the passages is difficult to explain on the ground of scribal
error, for few scribes would have selected such unexpected positions.
F therefore is to be allowed no independent weight against A, no
matter which of the above classes of passages are considered. If this
be true, then, any further comparison of F with other witnesses is unnec-
essary. This leaves us — since, as already stated, Aph. is practically
taken into account below through our use of Z.* — with only E and A
to be compared.
In the comparison of these two it will be found most convenient
to use Zahn's reconstruction of D as the summation of E*s evidence.
With such a method of procedure, the first fact that attracts attention
is the remarkable agreement in order between E and A — a fact which
at once, especially when the corroboration of F is remembered, estab-
lishes the validity of the general order of both. There are really only
six passages where there is disagreement. To make this statement
good, however, there must be taken into account, first, those passages
to which Zahn has given, but on inference alone, a different position
from that which they occupy in A. Zahn had for his placings no evi-
dence in E, since the passages in question do not occur in E. He
was led to arrange the passages as he did, because in our gospels they
stand in connection with other passages which are quoted in E, but, as
quoted are in no disagreement with A. Zahn's inference was natural
in the absence of evidence from A, but is now not to be admitted to
have any weight, especially since A is supported by F in its positions
for some of these passages. There are, in all, seven sections in which
Zahn's order rests solely on the inference referred to. These are :
(i) A 5:33-4i = Luke 4: 14^22^5= Zahn, §32 = M., pp. 128-31;^
(2) A 7;46 = Mark 3:2i=Zahn, §27 = M., pp. 111-13; (3) A
13-36, 37=Mark 6:12, i3=Zahn, §24 = M., pp. 90-98; (4) A
14:43, 44 =Mark 6:30, 31 = Zahn, §34 = M., pp. 132-36; (5) A
20: 12-16 = 12-16= Luke 11: 37-41 = Zahn, § 77 = M., pp. 211-13;
(6) A 27:24, 25 = Luke 12:47, 48 = Zahn, §79 = M., pp. 213-18;
(7) A 28 : 33-41 = Luke 12 : 13-21 = Zahn, § 54 = M., pp. i74f. Of
these passages, concerning which, let us remember, E is entirely silent,
five — (i), (3), (4), (5), and (7) — are given the same position by A and
F. This agreement without any adverse testimony of E, is conclusive
against the mere inference of Zahn. Of the remaining passages one
14 For a oonvincing discussion of this section see H.a« App. IX. All references to Zahn's sections
throughout our investigation refer to his reconstruction of D in Forsch,, I, pp. xza-azg.
220
DIATESSABON AND THE STNOPTIO PBOBLEM 15
— (2) — is entirely omitted by F, and therefore is to be classed and
disposed of together with the passages discussed above, in which A is
to be accepted where E and F are silent. The only other passage —
(6) — is differently placed by A and F, though the difference is not
great (cf, A 26 : 43-45 and 27 : 24, 25 with F, chaps. 109 ff.) But, in so
far as there is difference, A is to be accepted rather than F, on the
principles determined in the preceding paragraph. We may, therefore,
accept the testimony of A as to all seven of these passages rather than
the inference of Zahn.'^ But there is still another passage, not noted
above, which needs separate treatment, because it rests on slightly
more than inference. This is A 31 : 36-52 = Luke 19:1 1-27 = Zahn,
§80= M., pp. 218 f. From the fact that Aphraates brings this passage
into connection with the similar parable of the ten talents, and that F
gives the passage in the same connection, Zahn concludes that, there-
fore, it had this position in the original Diatessaron, £ is silent. F
is to be given no more than its usual value. In regard to Aphraates
it may fairly be urged that it would be natural to expect these parables
to be combined in a homily even more than in a work like F, though,
in the latter, the tendency to bring similar material together is marked.
On the other hand, it is difficult to see why a scribe should separate the
parables if they stood together in D, or why he should have put this
one of the pounds at the particular point at which it occurs in A. A
more reasonable explanation of all the evidence than that which Zahn
gave to a part of it is that A correctly' represents D, while Aph. and F
are derived from such an order as that of A, and are due to the ten-
dency to associate similar material. The conclusion is, therefore, to
be accepted that Zahn's inferences, in all eight instances, are untrust-
worthy because of the lack of evidence. There is no reason to sup-
pose that Zahn would have drawn such conclusions as he did, if he
had had access to A. We may, accordingly, conclude that A correctly
represents the order of D in the above passages.
We may, therefore, proceed to discuss the six passages mentioned
above as raising real difficulties.
I. A3: 1 — 4 :jo, Luke 2 : 40-3 .• d + Matt, 3 : 1-3 {cf, A3 :24-44)y
Zahn^ § 7/ M,j fip, 36-40.^^ — The respective order of E and A is as
follows :
zsZahn has acknowledged the limitations of his work done befote the publication of A. See Z.b,
pp. 618, 633.
z6 Only those parts of the pandlel passages of material are indicated which are needed for the
investigation. Cf, footnote, p. 13.
221
16 HISTOBIOAL AND LINOUISTIO STUDIBS
E(i)Matt. 2! 15. (3)Johni;i7; 1114; 1 119-28 (partly).
A (i) Matt. 2 : 1^23. (2) Luke 2:40 — 3 :6 (3) John i : 7-28.
+ Matt. 3:1-3.
E (4) Matt, 3 ; 10. (5) Luke 2 :47-49« (6) Matt. 3:4, 9. (7) John 1:29.
A (4) Matt. 3 : 4-10+ (6) See (4). (7) John 1 :29fiE.
Luke 3:10-28.
The chief point of difference is the position of A (2) and E (5),
which are the same in regard to subject-matter. If E's (5) agreed
with A's (2), there would be no difficulty, for (6) would then follow (4)
immediately, and the transposition of Matt. 3:10 would be of very
little significance, since all of E's quotations in (4) and (6) come from
the same general ^section of Matthew. That E's position for (5) is
correct is impossible to believe ; for how could T have been led to
insert the account of Jesus* visit to Jerusalem at twelve years of age,
in the midst of the account of John the Baptist's ministry, and this, too,
in such an order that John is made to begin his address to the Phari-
sees (Matt. 3:10), then this is broken by the account of Jesus' journey
(Luke 2:47-49), then a description of John's raiment (Matt. 3:4) is
introduced, and finally the words of John are resumed (Matt. 3 : 9 and
John 1:29), at a point (Matt. 3:9) before the break above noted occurs
(Matt. 3:10)? No explanation of such an order is possible. On
the other hand, the order of the narrative in A is natural, and is sup-
ported by that of F. The only reasonable conclusion is that Ephraem's
brief comment on Luke 2 : 47-49 (M., p. 40) has been displaced. The
displacement is easily explained, if it be true, as has been suggested by
Zahn (Z.*, p. 51), that E represents, in its extant form, notes taken by
some student as he listened to Ephraem's lectures. At any rate, it is
impossible to accept E's order as original, and therefore the natural
order of A, supported by that of F, seems to represent D correctly.
II. As-' 49 — ^'4 = ^^^^ 5 ' /-// = Zahn, %^4= M,y p. SQ- —
Here, too, there is a real difference between E and A. The latter
has the account of the miraculous draught of fishes in connection with
the call of the first four disciples, before the account of Jesus' disciples'
baptizing in Judea. In other words, A represents T as having brought
Luke's account of the call of the four into connection with the account
of Mark and Matthew, but without interweaving, and as having put
the combined accounts before that of John 3 : 22 — 4 : 3a. On the other
hand, the order of the quotations in E indicates that the accounts
from the synoptic gospels followed that from John 3 : 22 — 4 : 3a. But E
omits a considerable part of D here, and it is difficult to reconstruct, on
the basis of its testimony at this point. Zahn says, referring to this por-
222
DIATESSABON AND THE SYNOPTIO PBOBLEM 17
tion of £ (§ 13, p. 128): "Der springende Charakter des Commentars
macht die Wiederherstellung der Ordnung fast unmoglich." On the
other hand, A gives the accounts just where we might expect them,
and, so far as the material mentioned is concerned, is supported by F
in so doing. This would lead to the conclusion that A is again correct.
III. A 14: g (cf, A 8:47) = Luke 16: 17 = Zahn, §77 (cf, § 26)
= M,yp. dj. — The difference here is not very serious. Zahn recog-
nizes the possibility that Ephraem may have quoted here Luke 16:17
as a substitute for Matt. 5 >i8, which was in D at this point, and is so
preserved by A (8 : 47 ). It is not at all clear even that E represents his
quotation of Luke 16: 17 as a part of the text of D. The passage is
not quoted to be commented upon, but is introduced as illustrative
material. It is certainly not violent, therefore, to suppose that Ephraem
used in his lecture this quotation, which came to him more readily than
Matt. 5: 18, even though he was discussing the context of the latter.
The probability that this is true is strengthened by recalling that the
verses are not greatly, though, on close study, distinctly different.
It is still further strengthened by the difficulty of supposing that T,
working with written sources, should have made this substitution when,
in a considerable part of the context of A 8:47 going either back-
ward or forward, he was relying entirely upon Matthew (except for two
small items not occurring at all in the first gospel). Again, F supports
A at this point. Furthermore, there is some corroboration of A by
Aph. While it is not a settled fact that Aph. used only D, it is certain
that he quoted his gospel texts largely from it. It is, accordingly,
significant that, while he has quoted or made recognizable allusions to
the fifth chapter of Matthew fifty-nine times, and has quoted our very
verse (18) twice, he never quotes nor alludes to Luke 16 : 17 in all his
homilies.'^ This is somewhat surprising if Luke 16:17 stood in his
text of D where Matt. 5:18 now stands in A, and if Matt. 5: 18 was
thus entirely omitted from D. But, whatever conclusion we reach as
to whether A is correct at 8:47 in having Matt. 5:18 rather than
Luke 16: 17, there is no evidence to raise a question of the validity of
A in giving Luke 16:17 at A 14:9. The only question to be
answered, therefore, is : Did T use Luke 16:17 twice, substituting it
in the first instance for Matt. 5: 18? A negative answer is probable
in view of the above considerations. It was in all probability Ephraem
who made the substitution, not Tatian.
17 The facts concerning Aphraates which are uied in this paper have been ascertained by the present
writer through an investigation of the marginal notes in Graifin's edition.
223
18 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIO STUDIES
IV. A i^: 17-26 {cf, A 12:40 ff.^ — Luke 10:3-12 = Zahn^ § 24
= J/., pp, qo-q8. — The problem in this case is as follows : In the
midst of a comment on Matthew, chap. 10 — the speech of instructions
to the Twelve as they are about to be sent out by Jesus — Ephraem
quotes what is, at least apparently, Luke 10: 5, and that, too, as a part
of the text of D (M., p. 92). This would suggest that T had inter-
woven with this speech the similar instructions to the Seventy recorded
in Luke 10: 3-12. This suggestion, adopted by Zahn, is further sup-
ported, according to Hill (Appendix IX), by some traces of con-
flation still to be found in A itself (viz., "two and two," A 12:43;
Luke 10 : I ; and " lambs," A 13:1; Luke 10 : 3) ; and especially by
the fact that F has still more of the interweaving at this point and
omits Luke ib : 3-12 at the place where A (15 : 17-26) includes it. If
A is to be preferred here, this array of evidence, which at least seems
strong, must be disposed of. Yet the case against A is not so strong
as it may at first seem. All of the items of evidence, when scrutinized
separately, are found to have little, and some of them no, weight.
It is not at all clear that the quotation in £ really represents a use
of Luke 10 : 5 by T. To determine this, the following columns will
be found useful :
Parallel Accounts of E Account of Sending the
THE Sending of the Seventy.
Twelve.
(Matt. 10 : 12.) eUrepx^M*' (M., p. 92.) In quamcum- (Luke 10 : 5.) els Ijp 8^ Ay
pot 8k els T^v oUlav dcird- que domum intraveritis pri- elvikBrfre oUlav wpOrow \4'
voffBt a^-^jp, mum salutate domum (cited 7er€ tlp^imi t$ ofic^i roi^r^i.
as text of D).
(Luke 9 : 4^.) ical els ^v
hv oUlap elffiXBrfre, (M., p. 63.) In quamcum-
que domum intraveritis pri-
mum dicite, pax huic domui
(cited as an illustration).
If we suppose that T used only the parallel accounts of the sending
of the Twelve, we must conclude that he employed Matt. 10:12;
modified its first member, under the influence of Luke 9 : 4a, from a
participial to a finite construction ; Sidded primum (if E correctly repre-
sents the text of D), either according to a characteristic of his general
literary method, or under the influence of the similar saying in Luke
10: 5 ; and substituted domum for avnyv. If we suppose T used here
Luke 10:5, we must note carefully that he changed the position of
ouc&av in the first member, and omitted roxm^ and substituted salutate
for Acycrc dffqviq in the second. On neither supposition do we get an
224
DIATESSABON AND THB SYNOPTIO PROBLEM 19
exact quotation. Taking the two members of the verse separately, i;
is to be noted that the first agrees with Luke 10:5, excepting the
inexplicable change of order (unless appeal to T's literary habits is
made);'^ but it may also be assigned to Luke 9 : 4a, and that, too, with
no unexplained element. The latter assignment is, accordingly,
slightly more probable, because nothing remains to be explained. As
regards the second member, if we assign it to Matthew, we must sup-
pose either that E's text is unreliable, or that T added primum and
substituted domum for avn^v. If we assign it to Luke 10:5, ^^ must
conclude that Tatian was influenced by Matt. 10:12 in substituting
Acyerc cipi/n; for SLcnraaufrde and in the omission of rour^. Accordingly,
it is all but impossible to determine which assignment of the second
member is least beset with difficulties. On account of its greater
general similarity to Matthew, however, the assignment in this direc-
tion is slightly more probable. Therefore, both the members, if con-
sidered separately, are more probably to be assigned to the parallel
accounts of the sending of the Twelve (the first column above).
Really, the only difficult element in such an assignment is primum ,
which occurs only in Luke 10:5 (account of the sending out of the
Seventy). It is certainly precarious to conclude from the presence of
this one word that the entire passage Luke 10 : 3-12 was conflated here
in the text of D which £ used. And this word, in this one verse, is
the only testimony to such interweaving that E offers ; for the quota-
tion of Luke 10 : 6, which Zahn includes in this section, occurs in such
a connection as to give no indication of the order of Ephraem's exem-
plar, being quoted (M., p. 105), as Zahn himself says, decidedly ausser
Zusammenhang. But not only is E's positive evidence precarious ; it
is all but entirely negatived by a consideration growing out of the fact
that £ quotes Luke 10:5 in another form at a different point (M., p.
63; cf, p. 18). The exact quotation of this verse as illustrative mate-
rial indicates that when Ephraem referred to the idea expressed in
it, this idea was apt to occur to his mind in the form of Luke 10:5.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suppose that this verse has influ-
enced him in quoting D at the point under discussion. Such a
supposition will remove every difficulty in the way of trusting A, 1. e,j
so far as E awakens distrust. The supposition is supported, more-
over, not only by this double quotation of Luke 10:5, ^^^ ^^^^ ^7
Ephraem's notoriously general looseness in quoting (^. H.**, pp. 18-25).
>8 No appeal to T^s literary habits can be made in this discussion either for one assignment or the
other, since on this ground a case could be made out for either.
225
20 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Besides this ground, £ itself gives further evidence for distrusting it
as a basis for a reconstruction of D at this point. Ephraem quotes
Matt. io:8^ (*' gratis accepistis, gratis date"), both in connection with
his comments on the sending out of the Twelve (M., p. 91) and with
those on the sending out of the Seventy (M., p. 115). This assignment
of the quotations is indisputable. Analogously to the position of Zahn,
it must be granted that this evidence proves a conflation at both points
in D. But it is distinctly improbable that T harmonized and conflated
these two sets of instructions, and then used the conflated passage
twice. But the only other alternative is that £ is not to be accepted
as truly representing the text of D at this point. Though we have not
been able with entire certainty to determine the source of the quotation
which has been discussed at length, we have nevertheless, by these
considerations, shown that it is improbable that E is at this place
trustworthy. In this way, therefore, we have disposed of that part, at
least, of the array of evidence against A which is supposed to be sup-
plied by E.
The testimony of F, which is held to corroborate E, consists in the
inclusion, amid the instructions to the Twelve, of Luke 10 : 7, and of
the omission of Luke 10 : 3-12 where A presents it as a part of D. It
is to be particularly noted that F does not support E in its quotation
discussed above, upon which Zahn's reconstruction is chiefly based.
On the other hand, in one point F agrees with A against £ in quoting
Luke 10:16 in connection with the instructions to the Seventy. £
quotes it (M., p. 94, "qui vos spernit, me spernit"), but rather, it may
be argued, as illustrative material than as a part of the text to be com-
mented upon. If the quotation be held to be from Ephraem's exem-
plar at the point where he is expounding, there is certainly present the
disagreement alluded to. The question, therefore, arises as to whether
the phenomena of F really corroborate the evidence of E, if there be
any, or are only examples of certain characteristics of the compiler of
F. It is certainly characteristic of him to make additions and omis-
sions of this kind. Moreover, the conclusion drawn from the omission
of Luke 10:3-12 is greatly weakened, if not entirely invalidated, by
the fact that not only these verses, which, on the view of Zahn and
Hill, ought not to appear, but also verses 13-15, are omitted. E
shows no indication that these latter were conflated with the instruc-
tions to the Twelve, but A gives their Matthean parallel after Luke
10:12 (A 15 : 28-30). Now, F agrees with A at this point in the use
of the parallel from Matthew rather than the Lukan version, though it
226
DIATESSABON AND THB STNOPTIO PBOBLEM 21
has this material from Matthew in a different position. (This position,
differing from that of A, agrees in no way with that of E.) Therefore,
since the author of F habitually adds and omits, and since at this
particular point he is proved to be altering D, without any possible
agreement with £, in that he omits vss. 13-15^ as A does, and gives
the Matthean material in an unacceptable position, the phenomena of
F should probably be reckoned as due to the compiler, and not to his
text of D. We might conclude, accordingly, without further discus-
sion, that, in view of F's partial support of A, and since the alleged
evidence of F fails E at the critical point of the latter's quotation,
therefore F does not corroborate E. But there arc two other consid-
erations. First, F's order has an intrinsic improbability. It repre-
sents T as having divided, if Zahn and Hill are correct, the speech
containing the instructions to the Seventy; as having conflated one
part with the similar speech to the Twelve in Matthew; as having
changed another part to a position entirely out of its canonical con-
nection; and as having left the mere end of this discourse (Luke
10 : 16 f.) at the point where A gives the whole speech. Such a pro-
cedure is inexplicable whether we view it independently or in the light
of Tatian's method. Considered independently, no further remark is
needed. On the other hand, Tatian has never elsewhere, so far as can
be determined, proceeded so clumsily as the arrangement of F would
indicate he had done. Second, F cannot be said to have at this point
any thoroughgoing conflation, such as Hill seems to imply, and such
as Tatian very often made, since its conflation consists simply in the
addition of the one verse, Luke 10:7. Other material from the
instructions to the Seventy might have been used, and, according to
the general methods of T, evidence of which is still preserved in A, is
to be expected in the conflation. These two considerations — the
clumsiness and incompleteness of the work of the author of F upon
the passages under discussion — strengthen the conclusion already
reached, that the phenomena of F are due to the methods of the com-
piler of F. We have, therefore, no evidence with which to support E,
even if the testimony of the latter be given weight.
There still remains the evidence of A, with reference to the con-
flation of the two discourses under discussion. The force of any
allegation based on A, disappears as soon as the supposed testimony is
examined. The use of " lambs " (Luke 10 : 3) as over against " sheep "
(Matt. 10 : 16) is of little significance, since "sheep," not "lambs," is
supported by E (M., p. qi, oves)^ and since the difference is but
227
22 HISTOBIGAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
slight in any case. The touch "two and two" is not due to Luke
lo : I as Hill apparently supposed, but to the Markan parallel account
of the sending out of the Twelve (Mark 6 : 7). Both of these traces are
absent from F. The evidence of A in favor of the alleged conflation
is, therefore, nil.
Taken singly, the witnesses against the order suggested by A, one
and all, may be disposed of. In combination, the evidence amounts
to the united force of several rather remote possibilities. The evidence
of E, which may quite reasonably be explained away by an appeal to
Ephraem's looseness in quoting amounts to little more, even when this
appeal be waived, than the presence of one word from Luke, chap. 10.
The testimony of F, which is derived from the occurrence of phenomena
very probably due to the compiler of the Latin harmony, does not
corroborate E at the critical point, though the phenomena upon which
it is based may be interpreted so as to give some plausibility to the
conclusion drawn from the testimony of £. There can hardly be said
to be any corroboration by A of any particular point of E or F, and
only the most meager sort in any general way, viz., the possible signi-
ficance of the use of " lambs." On the other hand, over against these
remote possibilities of corroboration there are the slight disagreements
of E and F, and the more pronounced difference between A and F,
which were mentioned above. Therefore, even when we combine the
evidence of the several witnesses, their corroboration is weakened by
mutual disagreement, and the opinion of Zahn and Hill can be regarded
as no more than possibly correct. Independently considered, the
witnesses fall to the ground. The probable conclusion of the whole
matter is this : The general excellence of A as a witness for the order
of D — at most this is the only passage where A does not correctly
represent D — makes it probable, in view of the weakness of the evidence
of the other witnesses here that at this point as well as elsewhere A is
to be trusted.
Whatever may be concluded, the extreme limit to be regarded in
any appeal to these sections of A is this : We must not draw conclusions
from the presence of Luke 10:3-12 in its present position in A. If
this limitation be observed, we shall be safe in any other use of A.
The only use of the section in this paper is that on p. 60, which is not
invalidated by the above conclusion but would be made even more
valuable, were the view just opposed correct.
V. -4, chaps. 2§-2y — Matt.^ chap, 18 = Zahn, §§ 4^-50 = M,, pp.
162-6^, — It was impossible for Zahn to reconstruct, from Ephraem's
DIATBSSABOK AND THB STNOPTIG PROBLEM 23
fragmentary quotations, an order of T's distribution of Matt., chap. i8
which would have been compatible with the order in A. He recognized
the difficulty of his situation when he says {in loco) : " Die Zusammen-
setzung dieser Perikope ist nicht mit Sicherheit anzugeben." Had he
had access to A, he would have seen that the quotations in £, though few,
are in precisely the order which these texts occupy in A, though that
order is quite remarkable. Instead, therefore, of conflicting with A,
E gives to it peculiarly strong corroboration. Furthermore, so far as
Matt. i8: lo, ii is concerned, with which Zahn had such great diffi-
culty {vide in loco)^ F also supports A*s arrangement. These facts have
only to be stated and it will be concluded that A is correct here.
VI. A jj : i-iy = Mark u :/q-26 = Zahn, %6i — J/"., //. 182-
8g. — In the arrangement of material here, E, A, and F each give a
different order :
E. A. F.
1. The cursing of the fig i. The cursing of the fig 2. The visit of Nicodemus.
tree. tree. i. The cursing of the fig
3. The lesson. 2. The visit of Nicodemus. tree.
2. The visit of Nicodemus. 3. The lesson from the tree. 3. The lesson.
4. The parable of the un- 4. The parable of the un- 4. The parable of the un-
just judge. just judge. just judge.
The three witnesses agree in presenting Tatian as having brought
together passages widely separated in our gospels and, therefore, in a
general way A is supported as correct. The representation of A is that
the fig tree was cursed (i) on a certain day in the evening of which
Nicodemus made his visit (2). The next morning, as the disciples
passed the tree on their way to the city and noticed its condition, Jesus
drew the lesson (3) from it. To this lesson is attached the parable of
the unjust judge (4). This order of events may easily be supposed to
have been suggested to Tatian by his Markan source, in which i and 3
occur on successive days. A*s order is, therefore, by no means
impossible in the light of T's sources. Moreover, if A be supposed to
preserve the original order, that of E and F may be explained as deri-
vations. There would be the constant temptation to change the order
of A by bringing together the separated elements i and 3. On the
hypothesis that Mark was used by the author of the first gospel, pre-
cisely this change.has been made by him. Ephraem and the author of
F fell into this temptation. Ephraem made the combination of sepa-
rated elements by putting 3 before 2 ; the author of F, by placing 2
before i. The temptation in the case of Ephraem was especially strong,
229
24 HISTOBIGAL AND LINGUISTIO STUDIES
since in lecturing it would be most logical and convenient to conclude
the comments on both i and 3 before passing to the remainder of the
passage. In the case of the not over-keen compiler of F the temptation
was likely to be yielded to at once — possibly under the influence of
Matthew — because of his inability to see the superior order which is
preserved by A. In contrast to this ready derivation of £ and F from
A is the difficulty of supposing either £ or F to be the original from
which the other orders are derived. Indeed, there is an incongruity in
£'s arrangement, since it separates 3 and 4, though the presence of 4
in this part of D can be explained alone by its fitness immediately to
follow 3. Besides these considerations, there is the evidence deduced
by combining the several witnesses in groups of two. £ and A agree
against F in giving 2 some position after i. A and F agree against £
for the placing of 3 immediately before 4 and after 2. Thus for each
of the elements of its order, save the separation of i and 3, A has the
support of one of the other witnesses, while these other witnesses dis-
agree as to all elements except 4, as to which all the witnesses agree.
Therefore, since A is shown to be correct by its combinations with now
£, now F, for the just-mentioned relations of items, and since E and F
mutually disagree as well as differ from A as regards i and 3, and since
A's order is intrinsically superior, while at the same time giving rise to
the above-mentioned temptation to alter it, we are forced to conclude in
favor of A in the whole arrangement.'' Whether, therefore, we examine
A on its own merits, or group the witnesses, we arc brought to the
same result, viz., A's order correctly presents that of D.
We have now considered all of the six passages wherein the recon-
structed text of D, made by Zahn, differs in order from A. On
thorough investigation, it develops that there are few real differences,
and, with one possible exception (IV, above), A is everywhere to be
trusted as correctly preserving the order of D. We have, therefore,
certain ground in A's order of sections.
d) We may, accordingly, turn our attention to the details of the
text. Of the extant witnesses to the text of D A is the only one that
can be used as a satisfactory basis for our study. The remains in £
and Aph.* are too fragmentary for such use. F" is in no sense a
19 For an extended, but not always convincing, discossion of all the differences between A and E see
H.A, App. IX, to which the above examination is much indebted.
aoThe quotations of D in Syrian Fathers other than Aphraates have not ^et been made accessible to
any considerable extent. Zahn has made some references in his notes, and these have been considered
herein. J. R. Harris (Har.c) has collected from the writing^ of Ishodad quotations of E in which there
are some remains of D. These quotations, however, hardly suggest that the results of this investigation
would be appreciably affected by further discoveries in Syrian patristic literature.
ax The view of F now commonly held is that which was suggested above, vix., it is a secondary com-
230
DIATBSSABON AND THB SYNOPTIO PBOBLBM 25
translation of T's gospel, and is entirely untrustworthy for the recovery
of details of text. The very fact that its author did not translate the
text of D, but used the corresponding passages of the Vulgate Latin
text, is enough to deprive this witness of any decisive weight in esti-
mating the value of any particular reading. The additional fact of the
undisputed incompleteness of F, when taken together with the fore-
going, makes it quite impossible to regard F as either a satisfactory or
complete basis for investigation {cf. Hj., p. 58). This conclusion
leaves A as the only remaining extant witness which we can use for this
purpose. This witness is a translation made directly from the original
language of D, and preserves D, so far as can be determined, without
any large omission. It is sufficiently satisfactory and complete, there-
fore, to serve as a basis with which to compare whatever evidence
Aph. and £ have to offer in determining the reliability of any given
passage. In such a comparison, however, Aph. and £ are generally to
be regarded as better witnesses than A. There are two reasons for
such an estimate : (i) both Aph. and £ are much older than A; (2)
their readings, together and independently, show themselves less influ-
enced than those of A by the known sources of the transmissional cor-
ruption of D. Accordingly, if the testimony of £ or Aph. for a given
passage is contrary to that of A, the latter must be rejected, unless
there is some specific reason for setting aside the former. Such rea-
sons are sometimes to be appealed to ; for example, the testimony of
£ or Aph. should be rejected when it, rather than that of A, has been
influenced by known tendencies of transmissional corruptidn. We
may, therefore, use A as our basic text, but we must give due con-
sideration to Aph. and £.
But we must go further if we are to have perfect confidence in our
text. A study of the text of D, whether as represented by £ or A,"
in comparison with the text of Syriac and Arabic versions, and with
variants of the Greek gospels; the consideration of the possible
unfaithfulness of the Arabic translator ; and the possibility of corrup-
tion in the transmission of A itself, create the necessity of considering
how far the text of D, as we possess it, may be trusted.
pilation made by arrangins sections of the Vulgate Latin text of the gospels, in the order in which the
corresponding material stands in D. But the work was clumsily done and Ts order has not always been
followed with fidelity. Indeed, there are many serious departures. (See H.a, pp. 17-00 ; Z.a, pp. 398-3x3.)
Later writers have not agreed with Zahn (p. 3x0) that " innerhalb einzelner Perikopen ist selbst die
feinere Mosaikarbeit des Originals, wenn auch unvollkommen, in F wiederzuerkennen." Zahn*s
opinion is based upon a fragmentary comparison of £ and F. Had he been able to use A, his conclusions
could scarcely have been different from that of scholars who have written since Ciasca's publication of A
(</.Hj..p.s8).
aa For an investigation widi E as the basis, see Z.^, I, pp. 390-38; with A as the basis, see Sel.
231
26 HISTOBIGAL AND LINGUISTIO STUDIES
Such consideration leads at once to an estimation of the amount of
influence exerted upon the text of D by Syriac versions which are
admittedly later than D. There has been noted a marked tendency
to harmonize the text of D with these versions, in particular P. It
follows, therefore, that any passage whose phenomena — deviations
from our gospel text — are the same as those of the corresponding
passages of these versions must be set aside, so far as our study is con-
cerned, since any deviation from the Greek gospels which may appear
in such a passage may be due to the influence of these later versions,
not to Tatian. I have collated all the passages used in this paper,
and their variations from the gospels can in no case be referred to the
influence under discussion. For collation with P, I have used the
Syriac text of Pusey. A comparison with S* is impossible, since there is
no certainly attested witness for the gospels of this version. The only
information of such a witness that we possess may be stated in two
sentences. First, Bernstein {Das Evangdium des Johannes, 1853,
referred to by Nestle in the article " Syriac Versions " in Hastings's
Dictionary of the Bible) Q\dxm% that the text of this version exists in
Cod. A3 of the Bibliotheca Angelica at Rome. Second, Isaac N. Hall
published in 1884 a work, Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Fre-Hark-
lensian Version^ etc, maintaining "^ that there were manuscripts in this
country that contain the gospels of S*. Such information, however,
furnishes no accessible text of S* for the gospels. In spite of the con-
sequent impossibility of a comparison with this version, however, no
great uncertainty will attend our results. S* never exerted a large
influence in any direction, so far as the gospels are concerned.
Witness its failure to be preserved, and the fact that the Harklensian
revision of it entirely usurped its place. Moreover, by the sixth cen-
tury, in which S* had its origin, and probably its brief life, D had
probably been driven from public use, at least in other than Nestorian
churches {cf, Hj., pp. 2^-^^ passim) and, since in this case D would be
less often copied, there would be relatively small chance of any cor-
ruption of D. Still further improbability of any considerable influence
of S* upon D may be inferred by analogy from the very small
influence of S*, of which mention is made below. There is, therefore,
almost no probability, not to say possibility, that S* affected D in
transmission to any appreciable extent. We need not, accordingly,
be deeply concerned at our inability to make use of it. With
33 C. R. Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testaments^ 11^ 5ox-5f does not commit himsell with
reference to Hall's view, but implies that he thinks it is plausible.
232
DIATBSSABON AND THK SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 27
respect to S' Sellin (SeL, p. 237) says that its influence may be
detected "wenn auch nur in geringem Grade." In his treatment
of the matter, he presents only twenty passages (Tabelle III) from
the whole range of D in which there may be an influence of S*."* None
of these passages will be found among those which we use below in
illustrating T's method. Our results have been still further guarded
by an examination of all passages in the light of the variants of
S* which are noted in Tisch.'* Accordingly, in the passages which
are used below to indicate T's literary habits we may be sure there are
no traces of the influence of S*. With regard, therefore, to the har-
monization of D with all three of the later Syriac versions, our results
have been safeguarded.
But besides the tendency to harmonize in this way, there has been
noted another — the fllling in of words, phrases, and sentences origi-
nally omitted in D, and the excising of words, phrases, and sentences
originally contained in D to conform in both cases to the Syriac
separate gospels. The knowledge of this, however, can affect our
results in only one direction. It cannot shake our confidence in the
passages, which we have used, for these passages present, not agree-
ments, but disagreements with the text of the separate gospels. It can
lead only to the very obvious conclusion that where D differs from
the text of the Greek gospels either by omission or addition, and such
differences cannot be explained as due to any specific textual influ-
ence, they are to be ascribed to Tat i an, for it is contrary to the
tendency of the scribes to let such differences remain. We are aided,
then, rather than limited, in our work by the knowledge of this
tendency. We may pass on, therefore, at least without any fear that
it can vitiate our results. Indeed, we may feel confident that our
results are not invalidated by any corrupting influences proceeding
from the later Syriac versions.
There is ever present, however, the possibility that A has been
corrupted by influences to which it is liable as an Arabic version of D.
As a translation A is but one remove from the original, for, as noted
above, recent scholars of prominence, with the exception of Harnack,
agree that T composed D in Syriac."^ Moreover, the faithfulness of
94 Sellin refers to the Harklensian version as the Phlloxenian, apparently following the suggestion of
the title of White's edition of SB, He nowhere states that he is using White, but seems to reveal it in
this note: " P=Phil. ; wo die Uebersetzung Whitens falsch ist " (p. 940).
'STischendorf designates SB in the edition of his work which I have used as syr p., but cf. Gregory,
Prolegomena, p. 824, footnote.
96'*£s darf hiemach als bewiesen angesehen werden, dass das dem Tatian zugeshriebene Diates*
saron von Haus aus ein syrisches Buch war" (Z.a, p. 338; c/, Hj., pp. aa, 03).
233
28 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
this direct translation is attested by those who have investigated the
subject thoroughly. Harnack, to be sure, throws suspicion upon this
faithfulness. He describes A, along with two other elaborations of D
(see Hrk.% I, pp. 495 f.) — the Latin, viz., F, and the alleged Greek
fragments which are supposed, but without warrant, to have been the
basis of Nachtigall's translation — as sehr fret. It is quite impos-
sible, however, to believe that this opinion rests upon such thor-
ough investigation as the great Berlin scholar is wont to prosecute
before reaching his conclusions. How he could arrive at such a
conclusion as that just stated, when there is no Greek witness"^ to D,
which on his theory would be the original, is certainly difficult to
conceive. The mere fact that he classes A with F without any distinc-
tion — not to mention the association of A with Nachtigall's work —
and estimates their value as translations in the same generalizing
terms, will show at once to anyone who studies the subject that his
statements are based on no thorough digestion of the facts gained by
such investigation. Sellin says (Sel., p. 243) of the Arabic trans-
lator : "Der Uebersetzer verfahrt also nicht knechtisch aber treuJ' In
this judgment Hjelt concurs (Hj., pp. 65-70). Moreover, in addition
to the opinion of scholars, further confidence is given by a considera-
tion of the excellent abilities of the well-known translator, Ibn-at-
Tayib. This confidence, and the fact that each passage used below
has been examined to determine that its peculiarities are not due to
the exigencies of the Arabic language, free our conclusions from un-
certainty with regard to the possibility that the text has been corrupted
by translation. But the possibility of a corruption of the text of
A under the influence of Arabic versions has still to be considered.
The variant readings of the two manuscripts of A show no marked
tendency to harmonize A with the Arabic versions."* Indeed, no
specific similarity between the text of A and the peculiar readings of
these versions has been pointed out by scholars. But whatever the
possibility of such harmonization, its effect has been eliminated for us
by a comparison of our passages with Arabic variants noted in Tisch.
As in the comparison with the Syriac versions, the principle has been
adopted here also, that a possible influence of the version is enough to
exclude passages agreeing with it in any of its peculiarities. As con-
cerns the transmission of A, as affected by other influences than the
37 The translation — published by Ottmar Nachtigall (zsas) — of alleged Greek fragments can
scarcely be used as such. Hamack himself implies doubt as to the character of this work (see Hrk.c, I,
pp. 495, 496). For a full discussion see Z.a, pp. 3x3-38.
98 But cf, the adverse, but unsupported statement of Hj,, p. 6z.
231
DIATE88ABON AND THE SYNOPTIO PBOBLEM 29
Arabic versions of the separate gospels, it seems to have been free
from any considerable impurity. To be sure, the two manuscripts
of A, when compared with each other, show some different readings,
but these are quite unimportant in character, since they can generally
be explained by appealing to the simplest kinds of scribal error and
affect only a very few of the passages used below. Such as they are,
they are consultable in Csc, and in every passage which we consider
their bearing upon our conclusions may be estimated. Whether,
therefore, we consider the value of A as a translation, or the trans-
mission of A under the possible influence of Arabic versions and
other sources of corruption, we are able to proceed, with proper
limitations, free from any appreciable uncertainty because of the
possibility of corruptions in A from such influences as might have
been exerted upon it as an Arabic translation.
Now that we have considered Syriac versions and Arabic influ-
ences, there remains in Column II, 2, above, (p. 11) but one item —
Greek variants. There is always the possibility, though this is often
slight, that any extant variation of the Greek gospels may have influenced
the transmission of D in any or all of its witnesses. This has made
it necessary to compare every passage with the variants to the text
of the Greek gospels in Tisch., and to exclude all whose peculiarities
agree with any of these variants.
The conclusion that we may now draw with reference to the influ-
ence of the transmission of the texts of D upon our results is this : A
has preserved a text which must be limited, if results based upon it are
to be recived with confidence. But it is possible to make every limita-
tion that safety demands, and such limitations have been made in this
investigation. The portions of text which have been used below are in
all probability absolutely free from every kind of influence which can be
proved or inferred to have corrupted D in transmission.
But if the certainty that our text is pure is to be paralleled by a
similar certainty as to the conclusions derived in our study of that
text, we must give some consideration to the items of Column I above.
The larger part of our work is to determine what phenomena in our
text are due to T's literary method. It can be accomplished only
when we have eliminated all the phenomena due to the possible influ-
ence of the other two sources — the variants of the Greek gospels, and of
the Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac versions — upon the texts which
Tatian used as a source. A comparison of the text of D with the cor-
responding portions of the Greek gospels will reveal how far T
235
30 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
deviates from his sources, proviided these deviations cannot be attributed
to some outside influence such as those discussed above. In such a
comparison, however, we cannot confine ourselves to any particular
form of the Greek text, but must take into account every extant
variation of any given passage ; for we cannot be absolutely sure that
any such variant was not in T's exemplars."* Any deviations that
remain after taking into account these variants must be admitted not
to be due to T's Greek sources. There is, nevertheless, one further
consideration. The four gospels differed from each other. This fact
makes it impossible to decide in some instances whether certain devia-
tions of D from the text of a gospel, which at a given point is his chief
source, are really due to T, or are to be attributed to another of the gospels.
In such a case we cannot tell whether T has changed his one source,
or has simply mixed material from two or more. It is necessary,
therefore, to proceed on the basis that every passage in D that is like
any one of the sources must be assigned to that source. This may
eliminate true examples of T*s method of alteration — with our method
of procedure we still have illustrations of conflation — but it is the
safest course to pursue. This is the last limitation with regard to T's
Greek exemplars that we need to make.
We may pass on, then, to consider those passages of D in which
there is agreement with the text of the S* and S*. The chrono-
logical relation of these versions to D is still sub judice.^ But what-
ever the outcome of the investigation of this relation may prove to be,
it cannot affect our discussion. If we suppose D later than S** and S%
and that T used them for his work, we must exclude all variations of D
which agree with these versions as not due to T*s literary method but
to his exemplars. Or, if we suppose D to be older than S^ and S*^, we
have to reckon the agreeing passages as at least possibly harmonized
with later versions and so for the sake of certainty exclude them, as
illustrations of T*s method. In other words, these versions must be
viewed, on our second supposition, as bearing the same relation to D
as do P, S ^, and S * ; and must be treated accordingly. We are there-
fore in either supposition under the necessity of excluding these pas-
sages. Accordingly, the quotations from D used below have been col-
39 On this srround it makes no practical difference what edition of the Greek texts is quoted below,
since only those passagfes have been used that have no variants for the words affecting the illustration.
Tischendorf's text has as a matter of fact been quoted as the logical accompaniment of the use of his
apparatus. (See, however, note, p. 60.)
3° The latest statement on this question is that of Hjelt, who concludes that the text of D indicates
that it originated after S s, but before S c. For a summary of opinions see N.
236
DIATBSSABON AND THE SYNOPTIC PBOBLEM 31
lated with S' and S^ and the necessary exclusions have been made.^'
This limitation made, we have left in our text only phenomena due to
T*s literary method.
The results of the entire discussion of the text of D, as regards
detailed readings, may be summarized in the statement of a few prin-
ciples to be applied in the use of each passage cited below. In every
case the testimony of all the witnesses — save that of F, which " hat
. . . . natiirlich so gut wie nichts zu bieten" (Hj., p. 58) — must be
considered and the limitations discussed above applied. A, however,
is the basis. The other documents are to be used as corroborative or
as checks. Where A is supported by E and Aph. we are on quite
certain ground. The reading is almost equally certain where A is
supported by either of the other two when the non-corroborating wit-
ness is silent. A unsupported is trustworty if E and Aph. are silent,
and if the limitations noted above are diligently applied. The com-
bined testimony of A and Aph., and sometimes the independent
evidence of A, if unquestioned on other grounds, cannot be rejected
because opposed to E, for Ephraem's looseness in quoting is notori-
ous (H.^ pp. 18-25), and because E sometimes shows corrupting
transmissional influences where the others do not. Thus any reading
may be confidently accepted if it has the support of A, Aph., and E ;
or of A with either E or Aph. in the absence of adverse testimony
from one or the other ; or of A alone in the absence of contrary evi-
dence; or of A and Aph. against E ; or sometimes of A against E.
The application of these principles leaves almost no margin for error
in the details of the text. We may be sure, therefore, that we have as
great certainty in our use of details as in that of general order.
4. The method of procedure to be followed in our discussion has
been, for the most part, already incidentally indicated in the preceding
investigation of our text. Some further notes will be useful. The Greek
quotations herein used are from Tischendorfs -5</. F///., Critica Major
(cf, footnote, p. 30). No Arabic or Syriac texts have been printed.
The passages quoted from A are taken from Hogg's translation, which
is better than either Ciasca's Latin or Hill's English rendering — Hill's
is directly dependent upon Ciasca's — and is therefore the best existing
translation of A in an easily accessible language. The translation in
each of the passages quoted has been verified, and but slight and few
changes have been found necessary. References to Syriac texts may be
tested, by any who do not use the Syriac itself, by examining the Latin
3< The texts used in this collation are (z) Cur., (a) Ben., and (3) Lew.
237
32 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIO STUDIES
translation of P accompanying the edition of that version, which is
mentioned above in a footnote and in the bibliography ; the English
rendering of Cureton accompanying his edition of the Old Syriac ;
and the English translation of S % which has been made by Mrs. Lewis,
and which accompanies her retranscription of some of the pages of this
version. The reference numbers to A have been explained above.
In the right-hand margin of the pages of Hogg's work are printed
the numbers assigning the portions of text to the several gospels,
which numbers appear in the Arabic text as printed by Ciasca. Cau-
tion is necessary, however, for these references are not always exact in
details. Examination is in every case necessary to determine the
correctness of the assignment.
238
CHAPTER I.
TATIAN»S PREFERENCE FOR ONE SOURCE OR ANOTHER.
We are now in a position to proceed with the investigation of the
manner in which T treated his sources in composing D, and on the
basis of such an investigation to determine the degree of similarity
between his method and that which according to the documentary
theory of the relation of the synoptic gospels to one another, was
employed by the authors of the resultant gospels. The bulk of our
work will be concerned with T's method. This must be determined first.
A comparison of it with that ascribed to the synoptists will be reserved
for the last chapter.
The first step in our investigation will be to discover whether Tatian
gave primary authority to one of his sources or to another, and if so,
to which one. Zahn (Z.*, pp. 260-63) favors the view that he followed
John most closely, and this opinion is concurred in, but apparently
without independent investigation, by Hill and B. W. Bacon (see H.*,
p. 27, and Ba.). On the other hand, G. F. Moore claims that this opin-
ion is not correct, but rather Tatian follows Matt, (see Mo.). Zahn's
view has been overstated by Hill and Bacon, and apparently misappre-
hended by Moore. Zahn says : "£r hat seine Schema vom Gang der
offentlichen Wirksamkeit Jesu, wie gezeigt wurde und eigentlich selbst-
verstandlich ist, sowie Jemand den Versuch einer Verarbeitung aller vier
Evangelien macht, haupts£lchlich aus Johannes gewonnen" (p. 261).
But the context shows quite clearly that Zahn hardly meant more than
that Tatian got from John his chronological data for the construction
of his work. He implies this quite distinctly by the statement, which
occurs a few lines below the passage quoted above, viz. : ''Also mit einem
Wort das ganze chronologische Fachwerk hat er aus Johannes." Out-
side of these data, according to Zahn, preference was given no more to
John than to the other evangelists. "Aber dem Johannes wie den
Synoptikern gegeniiber geht er von der Voraussetzung aus, dass jeder
Evangelist sei es aus Unkenntnis des geschichtlichen Sachverhalts, sei
es in Riicksicht auf sachliche Verwandtschaft, und lehrhafte Zweckmfls-
sigkeit vielfach eine andere Anordnung als die der zeitlichen Abfolge
der Ereignisse gewflhlt habe." Yet these passages (and perhaps simi-
lar remarks) have been interpreted to mean that, not only in the gen-
2391 33
34 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
eral chronological scheme based on the data of the feasts, but in details
of arrangement as well, T followed John quite rigidly. On this under-
standing of Zahn — or rather misunderstanding — Bacon has maintained
that the apparent changes in the order of Johannine material in D are
not changes at all, but reflect the order of John in T's exemplar. He
contends that in this order there is external evidence for that arrange-
ment of the fourth gospel which, on internal evidence, certain modern
scholars have proposed as original for the fourth gospel. Such are the
views which have been held with respect to Tatian's attitude toward his
several sources.
To arrive at a correct conclusion as to whether T preferred one
source consistently, it will be necessary to set forth the evidence and
let the foregoing opinions, or any others, stand or fall in the light of
it. The gospel of John, on account of the views connected with it, will
be treated separately. The synoptic gospels may be considered together.
The evidence regarding these latter is abundant and clear. Only
samples of it need be cited. Mark is preferred to Matthew in A
20:17-37. Thus we have Matthew subordinated. Matt. 8:14-17
(= A 6 : 48-52) is brought in D to the same position which is given
to the parallel material in Mark and Luke, and the Matthean account
of the healing of the paralytic, who was borne by four, is similarly
subordinated, since it has the same position as in Mark and Luke. On
the other hand, Matthew's testimony controls the placing (An: 24 —
12:32) of Matt. 8:18 — 9 : 26 = Mark 4:35 — 5 : 43 = Luke 8:22-
56 + Luke 9: 57«, 59-62 (this last being introduced in a striking way),
since all this material is given before Mark 3:31 — 4 : 20 and its Lukan
parallel. Thus Mark and Luke are subordinated to Matthew. Luke
alone is likewise subordinated to Matthew in the internal structure of
the account of the temptation. All three synoptics are subordinated
to T*s general plan by his giving to (Matt. 8:2-4 = )^' Mark i :4i-
45^35 = Luke 5 : 12-16, a position (A 22 : 1-8) quite original with himself.
Other examples of this variety of preference and subordination could
be given, but it is unnecessary. It is clear enough from these that no
one of the synoptists is given constant preference. A graphic idea of
T's treatment of the gospels in this respect can be gotten, almost at a
glance from H.*, Appendix II, where he has printed in italics the num-
bers referring to gospel material which is represented by parallels
only (especially if Appendix I be compared). If some of the passages
there given be examined along with those presented above, it will be
3> Not used in Ts conflation.
240
DIATESSABON AND THE SYNOPTIO PBOBLEM 85
found that T's preferences now for one gospel, now for another, extend
both to details within sections and to the order of the sections. Since
this is true of the subordination of Matthew as well as of that of Mark
and Luke, G. F. Moore's view must be pronounced incorrect. Tatian
prefers Matthew no more than Mark or Luke as his constantly pre-
eminent source. The result of a consideration of the synoptic gospels
is, therefore, quite clear.
To determine T's attitude toward Johannine material, a much
more detailed investigation is necessary. It will be conducive to
clearness to prosecute the study in two stages, the first in regard to
the order, and the second in regard to. the inner composition of sec-
tions. With respect to order, Zahn is correct in saying that T got his
chronological data from John. But such a statement has no more
significance than to say that Tatian accepted the historical validity of
John's statements concerning the feasts. It is difficult to see from
which other of his sources T would have derived these items if he
wanted to use them. But even this small amount of accuracy, which
attaches to the statements of Zahn and those who follow him, must be
granted only with a modification. As is shown by the analytical out-
line of D given in the next chapter, the scheme of feasts is recon-
structed by T. The Passover of John 2 113 is not the first Passover
in Jesus* career, but the second. Accordingly, it must be said that,
though T does draw the items concerning the feasts from the only
one of his sources which contained them, nevertheless he subordi-
nates even these to a plan which he himself has conceived after a study
of the gospel history. Furthermore, even in their reconstructed order
T does not use these items as the articulations of the parts of his
gospel. The language of Zahn, therefore, even when interpreted in
the least rigid way, conveys an impression, as it apparently did to Hill
and Bacon, not supported by the evidence of D itself. It is scarcely
true that " das ganze chronologische Fachwerk hat er aus Johannes."
Zahn's opinion, therefore, must be modified, and even when modified,
scarcely approaches an exact expression of the truth concerning T*s
attitude toward his sources.
Yet, in spite of this, Bacon has used Zahn's statements as the basis
of his own supplementary view. Assuming that he had correctly
understood Zahn's language, and that, so interpreted, it was correct,
he has proceeded without any detailed support of his general ground
to draw his conclusion. This conclusion assumes that T was not
skilful enough to see the fitness of the order which he gives to the
241
36 HISTOBIOAL AND LIKGUISTIO STUDIES
several sections, and therefore the order given must be that of his
exemplar. But such an assumption, even when flanked hy Bacon's
argument that no other church father ever perceived this fitness, is
scarcely permissible. Tatian's acuteness with regard to the only
specific passage concerned will be discussed below, but here it is to be
noted that in many other directions as well it is quite remarkable. He
has succeeded quite as well as most modern harmonists {cf, H.% App.
I), and better than many. He may not have solved his problems to
the satisfaction of everyone any more than harmonists usually do, but
that he in general perceived the problems, no one who reads the
Diatessaron can deny. It is not enough to show, as Bacon thinks he
has done, and as indeed is here and there true,^ that Tatian was not
as acute as some modern scholars in regard to this point or that. Such
procedure does not prove inherent incapacity. To be sure, T was not
omniscient, but does this prove that he was unable to see what, save
for Bacon's assumption, the arrangement of Johannine material in D
shows that he did see ? If a man's acuteness is to be judged by his
ability to see everything, and if he is to be condemned without further
hearing because he fails here and there, what modern scholar's acumen
will stand unimpeached under the test? If T was dull, this must be
proved, not assumed. Such evidence as Bacon produces is insufficient
against that which meets one on nearly every page of D, and which
can be seen, almost at a glance, from the outline in the next chapter.
But, aside from this lack of positive evidence for the support
of the assumption that T was dull, there are difficulties which lead
to a negation of Bacon's proposition which* he bases on Zahn's
statements. These difficulties are entirely overlooked by Professor
Bacon, yet, in the light of the evidence, are quite insuperable. For
his theory to be valid, the order of Johannine material in D, the
"external evidence," must agree with the reconstructed order of
John supported by the internal evidence of the fourth gospel. This
agreement must be complete, else the theory will fall to the ground,
since, if it be incomplete, there is no way of determining where Tatian
changed the order of his exemplar, and where he did not. Admit
that he changed any passages, and you must admit more than the
possibility of his having changed others. Since this is true, the
difficulties mentioned above show two things: first, that in one
direction the "external evidence," which Bacon claims, proves too
33 Note in particular Tatian's failure to perceive the difficulty which exiiti between the synoptic and
Johannine accounts as to the date of the crucifixion.
242
DIATESSABOK AND THE 8YN0PTI0 PBOBLEM 37
much; second, that in another direction it does not prove enough.
It proves too much, for Tatian's arrangement differs at many points
from an order which might be expected from the internal evidence of
the fourth gospel. And not only does the order presented by D
differ from the modern scholars' reconstructed arrangement of John,
but this order of D has in it phenomena (abruptness and lack of
transition) which, according to modern critical science, would lead
immediately to a reconstruction of it. For example, how can we
grant the presence in the original John of such abruptness, such lack
of transition, as, on the hypothesis that D preserves the original
Johannine order, exists between John 6:71 and 4:4?^ How could
John 4:45^ have connected John 5 147 and John 7:1? How could
we explain the presence of John 5:1 (A 30:31) between John 7 131
(A 28:32) and the repetition of this verse at A 34:48, or even its
presence between the first occurrence of 7 :3i and the next Johannine
verse (7 132) of A, in case we were able to satisfy ourselves as to the
repetition ? Or, even if we eliminate John 5 : i by supposing that this
verse of A (30:31) is to be assigned to John 2:13,3^ nevertheless the
presence of any such statement would raise the same difficulty. Or,
if we could take an additional step — which, however, we cannot — and
rid our text of any statement such as this which implies a journey
from and a return to Jerusalem between the utterances of two closely
connected verses (John 7:31 and 7:32), how could we explain the
still remaining difficulty of the connection of John 7:31 (A 28:32)
and John 2:14 (A 32:1)? As we look at this cumulative pyramid
of impossibilities connected with this one point — not to speak of the
other occurrences of abruptness — we are brought face to face with the
insuperableness of the difficulties in the way of Bacon's view. But
even were we able to give satisfactory explanation to these matters,
we would still have to face the quite impossible task of explaining
how the original order of John in T's exemplar, got into its present
arrangement in our fourth gospel. Many a modern scholar has been
staggered by his inability to give explanation of how the material
of the fourth gospel became disarranged from the order of John
reconstructed by critics, and got into that of our extant gospel. But
»* D presentf Johannine material in the following order. John x : z-5 4- (x : 6 omitted) z : 7-38
4- X : 29-31 + X : 32-34 + X :3S-5x -j- a : x-xx4- 3 : aa — 4 : 3* + 4 ; 46-54 + a : 33^-35 + 6 : x-jx ( with
this section synoptic material is conflated) +4 ' 4-4S« + S : x-47 + 4 : 45^ +7 : x + 7 : a-xo0 + 7 : 10^
3x +5:1 (?)+"• 14-aa + 3 : x-ax + 7 : 3«-5a ( note the repetition of vs. 3X ). From this point on
there is no difference between T's order and that of our fourth gospel. The -4" tign indicates intervening
synoptic material.
ss For a full discussion of this matter see chap, vii, below.
243
38 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
in the case of a change from the order presented by D, the problem is
far more difficult. Bacon attempts no explanation. Whether, there-
fore, we consider simply the existence of the deviations of D*s order,
which are not paralleled in that made on the internal evidence of John,
or the nature of these deviations in themselves and in relation to
the present order of the fourth gospel, we reach the irresistible con-
clusion that Bacon's hypothesis will not stand. And not only is
this true. The lack in the "external" evidence prevents it from
proving enough. In all the points involved, save one, viz., the
transposition of John, chaps. 5 and 6, the order preserved in D
differs from that constructed on the internal evidence of the fourth
gospel. In the face of this fact, therefore, as well as before the
consideration of the number and nature of D's deviations, the' view
which we are opposing falls.
But against this conclusion it may be argued that in the transposi-
tion of chaps. 5 and 6 at least we have "external" corroboration of
the view of some modern scholars. But the validity of this objection
cannot be maintained. If it is shown that T changed his exemplar
constantly, then it is certainly probable that in this one place the
transposition is due to his conception of the fitness of the order, not
to his exemplar. As said above, ex hypothesis no changes are to be
admitted, or all differences of order are to be attributed to T's
alterations. This general argument, moreover, is strengthened by
several examples of Tatian's acuteness. The first is his clear recogni-
tion that the agreement of much of the discourse material in Matthew
and Luke was significant. Such passages T assigned to the same
occasion ; not, as many do, to different connections. He brings
together the Matthean and Lukan versions of the Sermon on the
Mount, and much other material as well. (Q^. H.% App. I and II.)
In this matter, at least, he antedates many moderns ; and this fact
disposes of Bacon's general argument against T's acuteness. In
addition to this, however, Tatian shows himself keenly alert at pre-
cisely the time when he is determining the position which he will give
to chap. 5. The visit to Jerusalem of John, chap. 5, has been deter-
mined by Tatian to have preceded that of John 2 :i3. He therefore
is compelled to transpose the clause, John 4 : 45^, to a position after
chap. 5, because until this latter has been presented there has been
given no account of Jesus' being at Jerusalem. In placing chap. 6 he
has done precisely what we should expect of him. He has conflated
it with the parallel synoptic material and, having done this, has given
244
J
DIATESSABON AND THS SYNOPTIO PBOBLEM 39
to the whole account a position suggested by his synoptic sources.
Therefore, in the light of his treatment of these two chapters, there
is no more ground for Bacon's view than in the case of any part of
John. The transposition just discussed falls into line with all the rest
of the evidence, and if it did not, it would hardly be sufficient ground
for the theory that Bacon has advanced.
The sum of the whole matter is that Bacon has assumed too much
on the basis of a misunderstanding of Zahn's language. The facts^^
brought out in our discussion are too considerable and important to
allow the acceptance of his theory. They clearly show that Tatian
reconstructed his Johannine material, rather than that he persistently
followed the order of the fourth gospel.
This conclusion with reference to general order is paralleled by that
which is to be drawn from the evidence concerning T's use of Johan-
nine material in the inner composition of sections. An investigation
of the passages of A where T has identified John's accounts with those of
the synoptists will at once reveal the subordination of the former to the
latter. These passages are as follows : the account of John the Baptist's
ministry (A 3 : 37 — 4 127; cf. A 4: 28-41 and 5 : 4-20); the feeding of
five thousand (A 18:21-43); the triumphal entry (A 39: 18-45); the
anointing at Bethany (A 39:1-17), the Last Supper (and connected
events and speeches, A 44 : 10 — 47 : 44) ; the arrest of Jesus (A 48 : 22-
43) f events immediately following the arrest (A 48 : 44 — 49 : 18) ; the
trial before Pilate (A 49 : 43 — 51 :6) ; the crucifixion (A 51 : 15 — 52 : 13) ;
and the burial (A 52 : 21-44). In every case, save one, there is not the
slightest trace of a complete preference for John, and in almost all of
the instances there is decisive evidence of a subordination of Johan-
nine to synoptic material or to T's own general plan. The usual
method of procedure was to use one of the synoptics for the frame-
work of a narrative or discourse, to fit other material into this, and to
employ from John in this process only such as is peculiar to the fourth
gospel. The evidence leads us to a conclusion precisely the reverse of
the proposition that T preferred John to the other gospels.
The above views concerning T's attitude toward his sources, as
regards both the general order and inner composition of sections,
must therefore be pronounced incorrect, or modified according to the
evidence which has now been presented.
The result of the investigation with which this chapter began has,
for the most part, been incidentally shown in the foregoing refutation
36 Baoon nowheie presents the facts, and that he had them before him is hard to believe.
245
42
HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIO STUDIES
d) Beginning to preach 5 : 42-43
e) Call of the four 5:44 — 6:4
f) Continuation of tour in Judea 6:5-19
PERIOD II.
a) Return from Judea to Cana, and performance of second
miracle 6: 20-34
b) Preaching tour in Galilee 6:35
2. Journeys with Capernaum as headquarters - - 6:36 — 27:47
PERIOD I.
a) Removal to Capernaum, performance of miracles, call
of Matthew 6: 36-54
b) Tour of Galilee 7:1-10
PERIOD II.
a) Return to Capernaum, and curing of the paralytic borne
by four 7:1 1-24
b) Call of Levi and feast at his house - - - . 7:25-36
c) Sabbath controversies 7^37-53
d) Withdrawal from Capernaum 8:1-17
e) Call of the Twelve 8: 18-25
/) Sermon on the Mount - - -. - - 8:26 — 11:2
g) Descent from the mount 11:3
PERIOD III.
a) Return to Capernaum, the centurion's servant, the
widow of Nain*s son 11: 4-23
b) Pressing call for disciples 11: 24-30
c) Departure to the other side of Galilee, and stilling of
the tempest 11:31-37
d) The Gadarene demoniac 11:38-52
PERIOD IV.
a) Return from Gadara to Capernaum - - - . 12:1-32
b) Blind men and a dumb demoniac cured - - 12:33-39
c) Sending out of the Twelve . - - . 12:40 — 13:29
d) Visit to Mary and Martha I3« 30-35
e) Visit of John the Baptist's messengers - - - 13:36-43
/) Discourse on John the Baptist - - - 13:44 — 14:14
g) Warnings to scribes and Pharisees - - - . 14:15-42
h) Return of the Twelve 14:43,44
1) Jesus at Simon the Pharisee's ... - 14:45 — 15:11
j) Widespread belief in Jesus 15:12-14
k) Sending out of the Seventy . - - - 15:15 — 16:12
I) Effort of Jesus' mother and brothers to see him - 16:13-18
248
DIATES8AB0K AND THE STNOPTIO PBOBLEM 43
m) Tour of Galilee 16:19-21
n) Parables by the seaside 16:22 — 17:35
o) Rejection at Nazareth 17-36-53
p) Death of John the Baptist 18:1-20
q) Retreat of Jesus from Herod's power ... 18:21-24
r) Feeding of the five thousand 18:25-46
s) Jesus' walking on the sea - - - . 18:47 — I9'i3
/) General healing activity - 19:14,15
PERIOD V.
a) Return to Capernaum and rebuke of sign-seeking 19: 16 — 20:1 1
b) Jesus at dinner, unwashed hands .... 20:12-45
c) Withdrawal toward Tyre and Sidon, the Syro-Phoeni-
cian Woman 20:46-58
d) Journey through the Decapolis 21:1-7
e) Continuation of this journey through Samaria; the
Samaritan woman ^^ 21:8-46
f) Return to Galilee (but not to Capernaum) - - 21:47-49
g) Healing of a leper in a Galilean village - - 22:1-8
h) Journey to Jerusalem ; the infirm man at Bethesda - 22:9-55
t) Return to Galilee ; a mountain miracle ... 23:1-4
j) Feeding of the four thousand 23:5-12
k) Pharisees and Sadducees demanding a sign - • 23:13-25
/) Blind man at Bethsaida 23:26-30
m) Peter's confession at Caesarea-Philippi - - - 23:31 — 24:1
n) The transfiguration 24:2-24
o) Descent from the mount, and reception of warning
concerning Herod 24:25-29
P) Demoniac boy 24:30-47
g) Jesus' forecast of his death and resurrection - - 24:48-52
PERIOD VI.
a) Return to Capernaum ; ambition of the Twelve - 25:1-3
b) The stater in the fish's mouth .... 25:4-7
c) Jesus questioned as to the relative greatness of the
Twelve ; discourse on humility » .... 25:8-26
d) Journey into Perea ; question about divorce - - 25:27-42
e) Jesus and the children 25:43-46
f) Parables of Grace 26:1-33
g) Parable of the Unjust Steward ; parable of the Tal-
ents 26:34 — 27:29
38 Zahn designates this thus : '* Reise durch Samarien [nach Jerusalem]'* (Z.a, p. 358). But this is
a journey from the Sidonian region to Galilee.
39 The arrangement of these sections is interesting. Item a) brings Jesus and the Twelve back to
Galilee, while b) is strikingly inserted between 0) and c),
249
44 HISTOBIOAL AND LIKGUISTIO STUDIES
A) Return to Galilee (not to Capernaum ; C/.27: 40), and
discourses on the slain Galileans and the fig tree - 27: 30-39
t) The woman healed on the sabbath - - - 27:40-47
3. Journeys to and fro between Perea and Jerusalem - 28:1 — 38:47
PERIOD I. JOURNEY TO ATTEND A FEAST.
a) Jesus' colloquy with his brothers .... 28:1-8
d) Journey through Perea to feast at Jerusalem - - 28:9-41
c) Return to Perea ; rich young man ; discourse on
riches 28:42 — 29:42
d) Jesus at the chief Pharisee's house - - 29:43 — 30:30
PERIOD II. JOURNEY TO ATTEND FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD.
a) The journey 30:31 — 31:52
o) The start 30:31
fi) Cleansing the lepers 30:32-39
y) Jesus' forecast of his death ... - 30:40-45
9) Request of the sons of Zebedee . - . - 30:46-52
e) Consequent anger of the Ten - - - - 31:1-14
J*) Jesus and Zaccheus at Jericho - - - - 31:15-24
v) Blind Bartimaeus 31:25-35
6) Parable of the Ten Shares 31:36-52
d) At Jerusalem (during and subsequent to the feast) 32: i — 37 : 42
o) First day of the feast 32:1-23
Cleansing of the temple ; widow's two mites ; parable of
the Pharisee and Publican ; retirement to Bethany.
p) Second day 32:24 — 33:1
Cursing the fig tree; visit of Nicodemus; retirement to
Bethany.
y) Third day 33^2—34:45
Lesson of the fig tree ; challenge of Jesus' authority ; his
reply ; plots ; questions of Pharisees and Sadducees.
8) Teaching of subsequent days ; its results - - 34:46-53
e) Seventh day 35:1 — 37:24
Attempt to arrest Jesus; question of Jesus to Pharisees;
discourse on light; man bom blind; discourse on the Good
Shepherd.
{*) Discourse of Jesus at the Feast of Dedication • 37:25-42
c) Journey from Jerusalem to Perea; raising of
Lazarus 37:43—38:41
PERIOD III. THE LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM - - 38:42-47
IV. Closing Events of Jesus* Career - - - 39:1 — 55:17
I. Passion Week 39:1 — 52:44
a) Anointing at Bethany 39:1-17
260
DIATESSABON AND THE SYNOPTIO PROBLEM 45
i) Triumphal entry 39:18-45
c) Jesus in the temple - - 40:1-4
d) Visit of Greeks 40:5-23
e) Jesus' daily retirement to Bethany - - - - 40:24,25
/) Jesus' arraignment of the Pharisees - - 40:26 — 41:15
g) Beginning of plots 41:16-26
A) Saying concerning the destruction of the temple, and
its consequences 41:27-32
f) Discourse on the destruction of Jerusalem - 4i:33 — 43:5$
j) Jesus' prediction of death ; plots ; Judas's complicity 44:1-9
>&) Washing of the feet of the disciples - - - 44: 10-33
/) Passover supper and farewell discourses - - 44:34 — 47:44
m) Betrayal and arrest of Jesus - - - - 48:1 -4 3
n) Flight of the disciples 48:44-48
o) Peter's first denial 48:47-55
P) Examination before Annas 49:1-6
g) Peter's second denial 49:7-18
r) Trials before Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod, and Pilate
again 49: '9 — 5^:6
s) Judas's remorse 51:7-14
/) Crucifixion 5i:i5 — 52:23
u) Burial 52:24-39
v) The guard 52:40-44
2. Life after death 52:45 — 55: i?
a) Resurrection 52:45 — 53:31
6) Subsequent appearances 53:32 — 54:48
c) Ascension 55:1-17
Such is the schematic conception of Jesus' life which T seems to
have had. He seems to have followed his sources for the main stages
of the gospel history, allowing rearrangement only within the larger
divisions. But he deviates from them in one remarkable instance.
After omitting all account of a distinct early Judean ministry, he
creates a later one, which consists in a non-canonical Passover week
and an implied sojourn in Jerusalem through the following winter
(A 30-31 — 37:42).
V
251
CHAPTER III.
ALTERATIONS IN ORDER.
A PERUSAL of the plan in the preceding chapter reveals at once the
truth of Zahn's remark, already quoted, but which will bear repetition
here : " Aber dem Johannes wie den Synoptikern gegeniiber geht er
[T] von der Voraussetzung aus, dass jeder Evangelist, sei es aus
Unkenntnis des geschichtlichen Sachverhalts, sei es in Riicksicht auf
sachliche Verwandtschaft und lehrhafte Zweckmdssigkeit vielfach
einer andere Anorduung als die der zeitliche Abfolge der Ereignisse
gewahlt habe" (Z.*, p. 261). Indeed, the extent to which T, on the
basis of his conception of the evangelists' method of dealing with their
material, modified the order of his sources is probably even greater
than Zahn supposed. There may be produced examples of every
possible kind of deviation from the order of our gospels — changes
in the order of paragraphs, of sentences and clauses, and of words and
phrases.
There are numerous alterations in the order of paragraphs. A
most striking example is the distribution of Matt., chap. 18, through
A 25:8 — 27:29. The following will indicate this: Matt. 18:1 =
A 25 : 8; Matt. 18: 3 = A 25: 10; Matt. 18: 6-8=A 25: 13-18; Matt.
18: 9«=A 25 : 20; Matt. 18: i3=A 26:5; Matt. 18 : I4=A 26 : 7 ;
Matt. 18: 23-35 = A 27 : 1-13; Matt. 18: i5-22=A 27: 16-23; Matt.
18: 10, ii=A 27: 28, 29. The remainder of the sections, which are
involved here, is partly made up from material parallel to the omitted
parts of Matt., chap. 18, but the great mass of remaining narrative is
not thus from parallel sources, and this material gives to the several
parts of Matt., chap. 18, an entirely different setting from that which
they have in the first gospel. Another remarkable instance of altera-
tion of order is found in A 22 : 1-7. Here is put the account of the
healing of a leper just after that of the journey through Samaria (which
ends with John 4 : 45^) and just before the journey to Jerusalem
recorded in John 5:1. The last synoptic material used by T preceding
this account, which is taken from Mark, chap, i, and Luke, chap. 5, is
Mark 7 : 31-37, and the next following is Matt. 15 : 29-38, the last part
of which is parallel to the Markan material immediately following Mark
7 • 3 '""37- This arrangement gives the incident a position different from
46 [252
DIATESSABON AND THE SYNOPTIO PBOBLEM 47
that in any of the sources, viz., between Mark 7 : 37 and 8:1. Again,
the addition of John i : 35/ to the end of the account of the tempta-
tion (A 5 : 4) gives an impression of the sequence of events not gained
by the independent consideration of John i : 35, 43; 2:1. Another
change is that of the position of the visit of Jesus to Mary and Martha.
From its collocation in D with events transpiring in Galilee, and from
the absence of any indication that Jesus left Galilee to make this visit,
the conclusion is naturally drawn that T thought of Martha and Mary
as living in Galilee, or, at least, that he failed to see this implication
of his arrangement. Just why T inserted this account here it is diffi-
cult to say; but this much is quite certain : the procedure is in line
with the subordination of Luke's Perean section to Mark and Matthew,
generally characteristic of T. As already indicated in the previous
chapter, T has made the journey through Samaria (A 21 : 8ff.) to be,
not from Judea to Galilee, but from Tyre and Sidon, through the
Decapolis. The general direction and the destination of the journey
are not changed, but the point of its departure and the period of
m
Jesus' activity in which it was made are altered. The warning given
Jesus concerning Herod (A 24: 27-29), put by Luke in the Perean
period (Luke 13:31^.), is introduced just after the. account of the
descent from the mount of transfiguration, and just before that of the
healing of the demoniac boy. Perhaps the most remarkable instance
of the phenomenon now being illustrated is the displacement already
referred to, viz., the bringing together of the synoptic and Johannine
accounts of the cleansing of the temple, of the visit of Nicodemus, and
also of much of the material which our gospels present in connection
with the Passion Week ; and the making of this combined matter into
an account of a week of activity and of a long sojourn at Jerusalem —
the beginning of this account being connected with a Feast of
Unleavened Bread, the second in the career of Jesus as conceived by
T.^ Still another illustration, and one almost incapable of explana-
tion, is found in T's position for the Johannine account of the washing
of the disciples' feet, viz., before the account of the preparation for the
paschal supper (A 44: 10-33). Other examples need not be given.
These will suffice to show the freedom with which T treated his sources
with respect to the arrangement of sections.
These disarrangements of paragraphs, in the nature of the case,
and as has incidentally appeared, cause differences in the order of
events. But there are also alterations in the order of events not so
40 See chap, vii, the discussion of A 30: 31.
253
48 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
caused. For example, the omission of the first part of Matt. 2 : i
(A 3 : i), and the substitution for it of the simple "And after that,"
give a unique sequence of events. By this change the visit of the
magi is represented as having taken place after the return to Nazareth
(and yet the visit is paid at Bethlehem). This would seem to imply
that T held the view afterwards maintained by Ephraem and other
Syrian Fathers, possibly, at least in part, on the basis of precisely this
passage in D, that the visit of the magi occurred when Jesus was two
years old (see Har.*', pp. 37-39). Only by attributing to T such a
view can there be explained what otherwise is a very crude and incon-
gruous collocation of material, one not paralleled for crudity elsewhere
in D. Yet, at the same time, there should probably be ascribed to T,
on this hypothesis, the idea that Jesus' parents returned to Bethlehem.
Another alteration in order not to be accounted for merely by the
rearrangement of sections is to be seen in A 6 : 46. The isolation of
this verse is due to T*s failure to identify Matthew and Levi. The
order of these events, irrespective of changes in the order of sections,
deviates from that of the gospels. This shows quite clearly that T
felt free to rearrange as he saw fit both sections of material and the
sequence of events.
There is a similar freedom in the treatment of sentences and clauses.
In A 5 : 43 Markan material is put into Matthean order. Examine the
following :
Mark 1:15. A 5 : 43. Matt. 4:17^,
(fri irewX'iipWTai 6 Kaipbs " Repent ye and believe /uerayoecre * ifyyiK^v 7&p ^
Kal iJYY^^^ "h jSo^iXe/a rod in the gospel. The time is ficuriTiela tQv oipavQp,
$€ov' fUTavo€tT€ KolirurTe^e fulfilled and the kingdom
iy T(p e^yyeXlifi, of heaven has come near."
A comparison of these three columns quickly reveals the alteration
in D. Again, A 14:41, 42 shows Matt. 12 : 22, 23 to have been trans-
posed to a position after Matt. 12 : 37 (= A 14 : 36). This transposi-
tion is supported by the testimony of E, for Ephraem quotes (M.,
p. 112) Matt. 12:32 ( = A 14:31) before he mentions (M., p. 113)
Matt. 12:22. Matt. 18: 10, 11 are transposed to a position after all
the remaining material of this chapter of the first gospel (A 27:28,
29). This transposition also is supported by E (see M., pp. 164, 165).
John 12 : t6 (= A 39 : 25) is transposed to a position before John 12:12
(= A 39 : 34), and John 12 : 9-1 1 are put between John 12:2 and 12:3
(= A 39 : 2-6). The latter transposition is supported by E, in which
John 12 : 10 precedes 12:5 (M., p. 205). In A 49 : 9 a part of Matt.
254
DIATESSABON AND THE STNOPTIO PROBLEM 49
26: 73 is inserted between Matt. 26 : 71 and 26 : 72. Matt. 26 : 59-68
( = A 49: 21-41) and its parallels are transposed and made to follow
Matt. 27:1^ (which is used rather than Mark 15 : i). The order of the
several items of Mark 11:12-19, as it appears in D (A 32:1-27),
is as follows: Mark 11 : 16 (+ insertion of Mark 12:41-44)+ 11:19^
+ II : 12-15^.
Definitely attested examples of altered order of words are com-
paratively less numerous. Almost all the possibilities in the different
orders for words are exhausted by either T's sources, as we possess
them, or by the variants of their transmitted texts. The limitations
which we have placed upon our text for the sake of certainty preclude,
therefore, all but a few instances. Under the circumstances, however,
it is surprising that there are any. Those of which we may be certain
are as follows :
j Luke I : 50, tls 7ei«&f koI yeveiis rois ^povfjJpois atrbv,
( A 1 : 51, "them who fear him through the ages and the times."
j Luke 9:11^, KoX rods XP^^ ^x<"^a' Bepairelas laro,
( A 18 : 26, "And he healed those having need of healing."
Note. — This example is especially interesting, since Luke 9 : 11 is repeated
with the order of the Greek {cf. A 32 : 23).
{Mark 10 : 46, 6 vl6s Ttfiatov BaprifioMs, rwpiKbs xpoceuriis, iicd&riTo To/sd r^y 6d6v.
A 31 126, "And there was a blind man sitting by the wayside begging,
.... Timaeus, son of Timseus.
Note. — The order of A is supported by E (M., p. 181).
\ Luke 18: II, SifirayeSf Adiicoi, funxoL
4
I
A 32 : 18, "the unjust, the profligate, the extortioners."
These passages show that Tatian was capable of changing the order
of words, and had we more of the certainly original text of D, there
would in all probability be a great many more such passages.
The foregoing discussion reveals that there are in the Diatessaron
examples of every kind of change in order. T has quite freely altered
the order of paragraphs, events, sentences and clauses, and words and
phrases.
255
52 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
his additions/^ which are usually interpretative, or at least may be
explained as not unnatural expansions of his text. Zahn's suggestion
may, therefore, be correct. But if this view is not correct, that con-
cerning another passage in E certainly has probability. The passage
is ''ex lumine super aquas exorto et ex voce de caelo delapsa cogno-
visset" (M., p. 43; cf, Z.*, p. 241). It seems to indicate quite clearly
that there was in Ephraem's exemplar of D some reference to the
apocryphal story concerning the light which appeared on the waters
of the Jordan when Jesus was baptized.^ The sanction of the story
for T's mind is suggested and, at the same time, the whole hypothesis
is strengthened by the fact that Justin Martyr, whose pupil T was,
knew and used this story .^^ Hill doubted the correctness of Zahn's
suggestion that there was such an item in D (H.*, pp. 36, 37), but J. R.
Harris (Har.*", p. 43) has produced evidence of quite decisive value for
the settlement of the question. Ishodad, a Syrian Father, directly
ascribes the story to D. Zahn's view, based alone upon E, is thus
supported from this unexpected quarter. To this example of the use
of extra-canonical material we might add T's use of Mark 16 : 9-20, if
we could be sure that it was not in his exemplar — assuming that this
section is unauthentic. But whether the inclusion of this material
from Mark be regarded as an addition or not, it is quite certain that
there are traces of material supplied by other sources than our four
gospels.
But Tatian not only added, he also omitted, material. Omissions
of words and phrases occur as follows :
I. A 1:42, 60; 2:9; 4:35; 8:9. These passages correspond respectively
to Luke 1 : 41, 59 ; 2:1; 3:21; 6:12. In all five of these passages there
is omitted htkvero.
Note. — It should perhaps be said that some late manuscripts also omit this
at Luke 2:1, but the chance o£ such a reading being the source of the phenomena
of A at this point is so remote that the example has been allowed to stand, though,
strictly, this is contrary to our usual method of procedure.
a. A 1 : 45 = Luke i :44» ^^ 7<4p.
3. A 2 : 1 = Matt. 1:18, Ma^(af.
Note. — But £ has this word (M., p. 20), and this fact throws suspicion upon
the omission, though this suspicion may be dispelled. Ephraem's tendency to
quote loosely and under the influence of the separate gospels, as well as the textual j
43 A 35:6 presents another saying that might on this same ground be assigned to an apoayphal
source. C/. p. 51.
44 FuL. gives the following as containing the story: " the Gospel of the Ebionites,*' " the Preaching
of Paul [or Peter]," "the Pseudo-Cyprianlc De Baptismata."
45 See Dialogue with Trypho^ chap. 88.
258
DIATBS8ABON AND THE SYNOPTIO PROBLEM 53
principle stated at the beginning of this chapter, argue strongly for the correctness
of A. £, not A, seems to present at this point a text which has fallen in with the
general transmissional tendency to fill in omissions.
4. A 2 : 42 = Luke 2 : 34, iy ry *I^pa^\.
Note. — The evidence for this omission is derived from £ (M., p. 23). Ephraem
gives a turn to his comments on this passage which would be difficult to under-
stand, were we to suppose these words stood in his text. This fact is quite
decisive. Some manuscripts omit ip, but none the entire phrase.
5. A 4 : 1 2 = Matt. 3 ; 4, repi t^v dat^^v atrov.
6. A 4 : 35 = Luke 3:21, koI wpwrevxofUwv.
7. A 7 : 37 = Matt. 12:1 and Luke 6:1^, I^tiKSop,
Note. — The latter part of this verse is certainly from Luke, for there is no
reference in Matthew to rubbing. The omission is, therefore, as indicated. £
again throws suspicion upon this example by quoting **coeperunt spicas evellere
et fricare et edere" (M., p. 61). But, again, this may be transmissional corrup-
tion, particularly since P, which Ephraem undoubtedly knew, has this reading.
8. A 21 : 48 = John 4 : 44, a^&t,
9. A 53 : 26 = Matt. 28 : 1 1 , xopevofiipup W atrQp IM,
Note. — P omits Ido^, but none of the remainder.
Omissions of clauses and sentences are :
1. A 8 : 53—56 = Luke 12:57, tI dk koX d^* iavrup oi Kplpere rb SIkouop.
Note. — S* and S*= both omit tI, but nothing else.
2. A 9 : 30 = Luke 1 1 : 1 , koI kyipero ip t$ ^pch a^bp ip rSrifi ripi irpoaevxbfupop us
iiraiaaTO,
Note. — S' and S^ omit tfiptro only.
3. A 24 : 6 = Luke 9:31a, ot 6<f>04pTes ip 86^,
4. A 30:32 = Luke lyma, c, koI iyipero . , , , koX a^bs di'^pxero 9(d fUtrop
'LafMplas Kcd TaXikalas.
5. A 32:1-27 = Mark Ii:i8, ica2 , . . . a^ov.
Note. — This verse is entirely omitted in the rearrangement of Mark ii: 12-19,
and the distribution of it through the section of A indicated. It should be noted
that the parallel of the verse is used at an entirely different point (A 34 : 46). The
omission here is, nevertheless, a true example of the excision of a verse from the
source which was in use, for it can scarcely be shown that T regarded Luke 19 : 47
as parallel. Indeed, just the opposite conclusion is implied by the position of
Luke 19 : 47 (A 34 : 46) relative to other contextual Markan matter.
6. A 32 : 1 3 = Mark 1 2 : 42^, 5 iffrip Kodpdprip.
7. A 32 : 26 = Matt. 21:19, koI i^pdpdri wapaxpfj/M if ffVK^,
Note. — E refers to the withering of the fig tree, but does not quote (M., p.
183). This may not signify more than that Ephraem knew the separate gospels.
8. A 39 : 15, 16 = Mark 14 : 8a, 8 tirx^p hrohftrep,
9. A 46 : 53 = John 16:10, koX o6k4ti B^apeh-i /m.
259
54 HiSTOBlOAIi AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
This list might be prolonged.^ But of the omissions of longer
sections of material there is only one certain example, viz., the omis-
sion of the genealogies. The evidence that these did not appear
originally in D is conclusive. There is (i) the express testimony of
Theodoret {Ad Her,, 1:20, written in 453 A. D.). (2) There is no
comment upon them in E. (3) The genealogies are given in the
Borgian manuscript of A aftier A 55:17 (the end of D proper) and
with the title The Book of the Generations of Jesus (H.% pp. 3-5; Hg.,
^- 55 •^7)- Another omission besides this might be claimed, viz., of
the pericope upon the adulterous woman, if it were not for the proba-
bility that this section was not in T*s exemplar {cf its absence from
Syriac versions.
But if there are no other long sections than those mentioned which
are omitted entire, yet attention must be called to the mass of unused
parallels. In this connection, the dropping out of items of material,
not elsewhere included in D, which are due to these omissions of paral-
lels, are of peculiar interest. Examples of the omission of items due
to this and other causes are as follows :
1. A 7 : 13-17. The fact that it was four men who bore the paralytic drops
out through the use of the Lukan rather than the Markan account.
2. A 8 : 1. Matt. 12:14 is used instead of Mark 3 : 6, and thereby is omitted
the fact that the Pharisees consulted the Herodians in their attempt to do
away with Jesus.
3. A 14: 44= Luke 9: 10. There is neglected here the fact that it was to
Bethsaida that Jesus withdrew.
4. A 24 : 26 drops out the entire verse, Mark 9 : 16, the question of Jesus.
5. A 33: 52-55=Luke 20: 16^. The reply (and its introduction) of those
listening to Jesus is omitted.
6. A 39 : 26-28^ omits the reference of Mark 1 1 : 4 to the colt*s being tied to
a door in the street.
These examples (the list might be lengthened) might have been
included in the other lists of omissions. They have been separated to
show that, even where parallel material had been used, items of infor-
mation are involved in T*s omissions. We have, therefore, found that
T omitted words and phrases, clauses and sentences, at least one long
section, and a mass of parallel material, in all of which omissions
neglect of substance was involved.
46 Further examples may be found, as su^fgested above, in H.a, App. II and marginal notes to the
text (c/., e, g.» pp. Z78, Z79). The following may be profitably examined : A 45 : 19-93 ( k John 13 : 33-36)
and A 49 : 44 (= John z8 : a8^) . See also footnote, p. 50.
2G0
CHAPTER V.
CONFLATIONS.
We may now take up the consideration of phenomena which are
quite inevitable where an author desires to preserve the language of his
sources fully and, at the same time, not to lose any of the differing
items. T has shown himself quite skilful in the intricate interweaving
of elements drawn from his several sources. The following passages
will show this:*'
A 12:6-10, — (Mark 5 : 2ia.)^ "And when Jesus had crossed in the ship
to that side, a great multitude received him | (Luke 8: 40^, 41a) and they
were all looking for him. And a man named Jairus, the chief of the syna-
gogue, fell down at Jesus* feet and besought him | (Mark 5 : 23a) much and
said unto him, | (Luke 8 : 42a) ' I have an only daughter and she is come nigh
unto death ; | (Matt. 9:18^, 19) but come and lay thy hand upon her and she
shall live.' And Jesus arose, and his disciples and they followed him. |
(Mark 5 : 24^.) And there joined him a great multitude and they pressed
him."
A iy:8-i8, — (Matt. 13:31a) "And he set forth to them another par-
able, I (Mark 4 : 30a) and said, (Luke 13 : 18) 'To what is the kingdom of God
like and to what shall I liken it | (Mark 4 : 30^) and in what parable shall I
set it forth ? | (Luke 13 : 19a) It is like a grain of mustard seed which a man
took I (Matt. 13:31^) and planted in his field | (Mark 4:31^) and, of the num-
ber of things that are sown in the earth, it is smaller than all of the things that
are sown, which are upon the earth, | (Matt. 13 : 32^) but when it is grown it is
greater than all the herbs | (Mark 4 : 32^) and produceth large branches |
(Matt. 13 : 32^) so that the birds of heaven make their nests in its branches.' "
Note. — Attention should be constantly paid to the bringing over of material
from Luke's Perean sections to another connection.
A II :j8-4S, — (Luke 8:26, 27a) "And they departed and came to the
countr}' of the Gadarenes, which is on the other side, opposite the land of
Galilee. And when he went out of the ship to the land there met him | (Mark
5 : 2b) from the tombs a man | (Luke 8 : 27^) who had a devil for a long time
and wore no clothes, neither dwelt in a house but among the tombs. | (Mark
47 All assignments to the Sfospels have been made after an exammation of each passage. The refer-
ences in Ctasca's edition of A (which are followed by Hill and Hogg) are not always to be trusted. No
detailed consideration has been given to the text of A in the following examples, because the possible cor-
ruptions of text could not affect the result aimed at in presenting the illustrations. A difference of reading
here and there would not have any effect upon the general result.
48 The assignments indude all material that follows until the next reference number is reached.
261] 55
66 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
5 : 3^, 4^) And no man was able to bind him with chains, because any time
that he was bound with chains and fetters, he cut the chains and loosened the
fetters. | (Luke 8 : 2gc) And he was snatched away of the devil into the
desert | (Mark 5 : id, 5a) and no one was able to quiet him. And at all times,
in the night and in the day, he would be among the tombs and in the moun-
tains ; I (Matt. 8 : 28^) and no one was able to pass by that way ; | (Mark
5 : 5^-7^) and he would cry out and wound himself with stones. And when
he saw Jesus at a distance, he hastened and worshipped him and cried with
a loud voice and said, | (Luke 8 : 28^) ' What have we to do with thee, Jesus,
thou Son of the Most High God ? | (Mark 5:7^) I adjure thee by God, tor-
ment me not.* | (Luke 8 : 29a) And Jesus commanded the unclean spirit to
come out of the man, etc., etc.*'
Note. — This passage illustrates the conflation of all three synoptic gospels.
The examples thus far given will suffice to show how the text of D
reads where there is intricate conflation. The intricacy is shown also
by the following arrangement of reference numbers without the actual
quotation of the text :
A 39 : 13-15 is made up of material from Matthew, Mark and John,
arranged in the following order : Matt. 26 : 9; Mark 14 : 5^/ Matt. 26:
10a; Mark 14 : 6d; John 12 : 7^; Mark 14:7; Matt. 26 : 12 ; Mark 14 :
A 41: 33-41, — Here we have material from the three synoptics:
Mark 13 : 3^/ Matt. 24 : 3^; Luke 21 : 7^/ Matt. 24 : 3^/ Matt. 24 : ^a;
Luke 17 : 22^/ Matt. 24 : 4^, 5a/ Luke 21 : 8^/ Mark 13 : 6^ (or Matt.
24 : 5^); Luke 21 : Zc; Mark 13 : *]a; Luke 21 : 9^/ Matt. 24 : dc; Luke
21 : io3, II. The intricacy here is remarkable. A number of the pas-
sages designated contribute only one or two words. Note, in particular,
the unexpected introduction of Luke 17 : 22^ (Perean section). The
dislocation of this single item is suggestive as to limits to which a
compiler will go in bringing small details from afar to serve in the
composition of any section.
A 4^-23-28 gives a conflation of material from all four gospels:
Matt. 26 : 31, 32; John 13 : 36^/ Matt. 26 : 33a/ Luke 22 : 33^ (Lord), (or
John 13 : 37^); Matt. 26 : 33^/ Luke 22 : 33^/ John 13 : 37^, 38a; Mark
14 :3o^/ Luke 22 : 34^/ Mark 14 : 31a/ Matt. 26 : 35a/ Mark 14:31;
Matt. 26 : 353. Here, also, some of the passages referred to contribute
but one or two words.
Sufficient variety is given by these examples *^ to show that the degree
of intricacy in conflating, and the remoteness of the conflated elements
from each other in the written sources, are practically unlimited except
49 Others may easily be had by examining almost any page of D.
262
DIATESSABON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 57
by T's desire to present a tolerably smooth reading. This limit even
is removed sometimes by the use of connectives.^"
There are, however, a number of passages which contain scenes very
strikingly placed. They will yield additional evidence as to the dis-
tance from which minute items may be brought, and at the same time
will show how little one source may contribute at any given point.
Luke 4 : 14a is inserted (A 5 : 2 1), into Johannine material (between John
1:51 and 2:1), and is put to good service in getting Jesus from Judea
to Galilee. In the light of the sources, this is noteworthy. Tatian
identifies the return to Galilee after which, according to John, Jesus
performed his first miracle at Cana, with the return immediately after
which, according to Luke, the Galilean ministry began, and he
obviates the difficulty which is thus raised by the consideration of the
Johannine Judean ministry, by postponing the use of all the material
relating to this. By making thiis identification, it was possible to use
Luke 4 : 14a as an excellent transition from John 1:51 to John 2 : i
and the rest of what follows in D. But such use of this verse separates
it completely from its Lukan context. In Luke the verse forms the
transition from the accounts of the baptism and temptation of Jesus to
the general summary of his widespread work and fame at the beginning
of the Galilean ministry. In D it constitutes the transition from the
account of the interview between Jesus, Philip, and Nathaniel to that
of the wedding incident at Cana, and in so doing it raises a difficulty
in regard to the point of departure for the reckoning of the chrono-
logical significance of ** the third day " (John 2:1). The verse in its
present situation is, therefore, quite noteworthy. Another passage
worthy of remark is A 6:22-25. After giving in A 6 : 20, 21, the
Johannine version of the occasion, and in A 6 : 22 the statement of the
fact of Jesus' withdrawal from Judea, T omits the last item of John 4 : 3
("and departed again into Galilee'^), postponing the information as to
Jesus' destination. T apparently decided to use the synoptic statement
concerning the destination, and this use all but compelled the inclusion
of the synoptic introduction to this statement, viz.. the synoptic version
of the occasion of the withdrawal. As a result, we have this order :
the Johannine statement of the occasion and fact of departure, then
the synoptic statement of the occasion, fact, and destination of the
withdrawal. This arrangement preserves all of the material, but it is
rather repetitious. T has gone quite far in his effort to preserve the
items from the several sources. Another striking sentence is A 6 : 46.
50 C/. HUPs marginal notes to his text.
263
68 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
His failure to identify Matthew and Levi probably led T to isolate
Matt. 9 : 9^ as he has done here. In so doing he has given the verse a
position unlike that which it has in the first gospel. An illustration of
the phenomenon to which attention was called (p. 55), viz., of the
introduction into Matthean and Markan material of items from Luke's
Perean section, is given in A 16:38 (Luke 10 : 23^). John 4:45^,
(A 23 : 3), which assigns the cause of the reception of Jesus by the
Galileans (John 4 : 45^) is postponed not only to a point after the
addition of much synoptic material, but also to a position after the*
introduction of the whole of John chap. 5 (cf, above, p. 37). This
postponement, therefore, amounts really to the introduction of a
remotely situated item of one source into material from another,
especially since this verse is connected in D with Matthean matter.
Finally, note the insertion of Mark 16 : \2b into the otherwise unbroken
Johannine account (A 54:36). Tatian, accordingly, was wont to
transfer, from one account to another, the smallest of items, and that,
too, no matter how remote these items were, in the orginal sources,
from the material into which they were to be inserted.
The variety of combinations of larger sections of material is as great
as that of the intricate interweaving of smaller items. There are
instances of every possible combination of the gospels with one another.
The following list includes not only combinations of parallel passages,
but also the collocation of passages, one after the other, which concern
different events or contain different discourses.
Combinations of two gospels are :
1. Matthew and Mark (A 5 .'42-48; 4. Mark and Luke (A 14:43-48;
24 : 20-24 ; 25 : 27-46). 32 : 12-26).
2. Matthew and John (A 41:1-15; 5. Mark and John (A 19 : 14-16 £E.;
28: 1-14; 51:1-14). 54:25-38).
3. Matthew and Luke (A 4:45-52; 6. Luke and John (A 5:21-41;
11:1-23; 14:37-42). 28:15-41 ; 34:46-53; 41 : 16-26).
Combinations of three gospels are :
1 . Matthew, Mark, and Luke ( A 7 : 1-36 ; 3. Matthew, Luke, and John (A 4 : 1-26 ;
13 : 27-43 ; 14 J 2-30). 6 : 25-35).
2. Matthew, Mark, and John (A 19 : 1-13). 4. Mark, Luke, and John (A 44 : 41-50).
There are instances also of the combination of the four gospels
{e, ^., A 4 : 28-52 ; 18 : 22-50 : 32 : 1-2 1). The number of illustrations
may be increased, for the several kinds of combination, from H.%
App. L The variety of combination is sufficiently indicated by those
given.
T's method in combining and conflating so variously was generally
264
DIATE6SABON AND THE 8YNOPTI0 PBOBLEM 69
to identify material in his several sources as referring to the same
occasion, and then to interweave if he thought it possible, and, if not,
to put the passages in juxtaposition to one another. He carried out
this procedure, preserving material even at the cost of repetition and
contextual inconsistency. Take, for example, the account of John the
Baptist's ministry (A 3 : 37 — 4 : 27). The narrative begins with Luke
3 : 1-6, with which Matt. 3 : i^^a is interwoven. This carries the
account through the announcement of the advent and preaching of John
and the identification of him according to the synoptists. Then is
added John i : 7-28, after which the synoptic account is resumed
without any attempt to harmonize A 4:2-11 and 4:24-26. This
failure to harmonize is probably due to the fact that, in the Johannine
account, the Baptist addresses the representatives from Jerusalem, but
in the synoptic narrative his words are directed to the people. Again,
Matthew's account of the call of the four disciples is followed by that of
Luke without any attempt to harmonize the two narratives (A 5 : 44 — 6 : 4).
Attention may also be called again to A 6 : 20-25, where T gives both the
Johannine and the synoptic version of Jesus' withdrawal from Judea.
Another striking combination without harmonization is to be found in
A 44 : 1 1-40 f. Here we have John 13 : 1-20 followed by the synoptic
account of the preparation for and of the actual progress of the paschal
supper (the parallel Johannine material is connected with the latter
element). The result is that we have a partial account of the supper in
the incident of the feet-washing, and then follows the account proper
of the passover meal.^' This and the preceding examples make T's
method clear. He combined and conflated as he saw fit, attempting to
preserve as much material as possible, even though such preservation
involved lack of harmonization, repetition, and incongruities (cf. chap,
vii).
In addition to the above, there is another characteristic of T's method
which should be indicated. This is the enrichment of discourses found
in one source with material occurring in more distributed connections
in another. Especially important and instructive are the quite numer-
ous cases in which he has enriched Matthean discourses with matter
from Luke's Perean section. Moreover, it is to be noted that in some
instances this enrichment is so extensive that not only the discourses which
appear in the sources (^. g., Matthew) are greatly lengthened, but new
5> T may have been led to this arrangement by the phrase, '* before the Feast of the Passover," and
by interpreting " at the time of the feast " to mean the general period rather than the actual time of the
supper.
265
60 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
ones are created by the combination of less extended passages. Exam-
ine the following :
1 . A 8 : 26 — 10 : 48, the Sermon on the Mount, — The material from the
several sources is arranged as follows : Matt. 5 : 3-10 ; Luke 6:22a ; Matt.
5:11^,12; Luke 6 : 24-27 ; Matt. 5 : 13-16; Luke 8: 17 (or Mark 4: 22 ?);
Mark 4: 23; Matt. 5 : 17-25^ / Luke 12 : 58^ (Perean); Matt. 5 : 25^-
42 ; Luke 6 : 30^, 31 ; Matt 5 : 43-46 ; Luke 6 : 32^36 ; Matt. 5 : 47,
48 ; Matt, 6 : 1-8 ; Luke 1 1 : i^, 2a (Perean material ; note this remark-
able introduction of the narrative setting for the Lord's Prayer) ; Matt.
6:9-18; Luke 12:32, 33^ (Perean); Matt. 6: 19-23; Luke 11 : 35,
36 (Perean material ; note T's acuteness in these Matthean and Lukan
passages); Matt. 6:24-27; Luke 12:26 (Perean); Matt. 6:28-31;
Luke 1 2 : 29^ (Perean) ; Matt. 6 : 32-34 ; Matt. 7:1; Luke 6 : 37^, 38 ;
Mark 4 : 24^ (note, with reference to the use of Mark here, and also in
respect to the preceding instance of such use, that the material intro-
duced is that which is not included in Matthew's version of the parables
by the sea); Luke 18:8^ (or Mark 4 : 25?); Luke 6 : 39-42 ; Matt. 7:6;
Luke II : 5-13 (Perean); Matt. 7 : i2-i6a (note the repetition of the
"golden rule" in the same discourse; ^. A 9: 11); Luke 6: 44 ; Matt.
7:17, 18 ; Luke 6 : 45 ; Matt. 7 : 19-23; Luke 6 : 47, 48; Matt. 7 : 25-
27. Some of the material added to Matthew is parallel to the rejected
portions of the first gospels, but most of it is not such.
2. A 12 : 44 — I J : 2Q, discourse to the Twelve, — Here there is intro-
duced material, not only from the parallels to Matthew in Mark and Luke,
but also from Luke's Perean section, viz., Luke 12:3^, 4a (A 13: 12,
13); Luke 12 : 5^, ^ (A 13 : 14); Luke 12 : 51-53 (A 13 : 20-22). If
the view of Zahn and Hill is correct, that T conflated with this discourse
the similar instructions to the Seventy (Luke 10 : 3-12), then this addi-
tional Perean material must be reckoned with at this point.
3. A 13 : 44 — 14 : 40, the discourse on John the Baptist, — There is
introduced here, beside parallel material, the following from Luke's
Perean section : Luke 16 : 16 (A 14 : 5); Luke 16 : 17 (A 14 : 19). There
is also used Luke 6 : 45^ (A 14: 34) from Luke's version of the Ser-
mon on the Mount. There is, moreover, added at the end of the dis-
course Luke 12 : 54, 55 (Perean); Matt. 16:2^, 3a/ Luke 12 : 56 (Perean,
with possibly the conflation of Matt. 1 6 : Tfi),^ Other examples are not
necessary, as an examination of the other discourses taken from Matthew
reveals that they have been enriched in the same way as those discussed.
5* The material is difficult to assign here on occount of the condition of the Greek text. Our assign-
ment has been made on the basis of Westoott and Hort's text. In all of the assignments in this chapter this
edition has been used in conjunction with that of Weiss (in part).
266
DIATESSABON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 61
Examples of discourses which have been very greatly extended and
of those which have been created almost entirely are :
1. A 2g: 14-42. — Here is quite an extended discourse made by
bringing together Luke 16 : 19-31 and Matt. 20 : 1-16. It is to be noted,
in addition, that T apparently considered this speech to be a continu-
ation of the discourse on riches that precedes it in D. Thus, were it
not for the narrative parenthesis of A 29: 12, 13 (only two verses;
cf, introduction of narrative setting of the Lord's Prayer, p. 60), we
should have a continuous discourse extending from A 28 : 42 to A 29 :
42, in which T has gathered a considerable part of Jesus' teaching on
riches. If this be the case — and it probably is — we have here an illus-
tration of the bringing together of more or less isolated teachings to
make a single formal discourse.
2. A 2g : 43 — 30 :30. — The discourse at the table of one of the
chief Pharisees is greatly lengthened by the conflation of Luke 14:1-
24 with Matt. 22 : 1-14.
3. A 26 : 34 — 27 :2g, — A discourse to the disciples is constructed
by adding to Luke 16: 1-12 the following: Matt. 18:23-35; Luke
17 : 3, 4 ; Matt. 18 : 15-22 : Luke 12 : 47-50 ; Matt. 18 : 10, 11. Note
the way in which T has manipulated the material of Matt., chap. 18.
Note also that he has broken up this discourse in Matt., chap. 18, and
distributed its material in two of the sections of D (A 25 : 8-25 and A
26:1 — 27:9). T seems to work both by integration and disinte-
gration.
4. A 33 : 1-2^, — Here T has constructed a discourse on prayer, and
has included, in the following order, these passages : Mark 11 : 19, 20 ;
Matt. 21:20^/ Mark 11:21-23; Matt. 21:21^,22; Luke 17:5-10
(Perean); Mark 11 : 24-26; Luke 18: 1-8.
The above examples are a striking commentary upon the possibili-
ties of conflation of written sources. Nothing that has been alleged of
our gospels will go beyond the limit here indicated.
267
CHAPTER VI.
REWRITING.
In this chapter we are to take a step farther and consider phenom-
ena which are occasioned by an attitude of mind precisely the opposite
of that which is everywhere present in the making of conflations such
as have just been discussed. In the latter case there is constantly pres-
ent the desire to preserve as much of the material as possible just as the
sources offer it. In the case of the phenomena about to be considered
there is a disregard for the exact literary form of the material. These
phenomena are to be described by the term "rewriting."
We will first present examples of rewritten words. These are of
two kinds — those which show change in the grammatical forms of
words, and those which illustrate the substitution of synonymous expres-
sions. The following list presents examples of the alteration of gram-
matical forms of words :
I. A 13 : 41, Luke 7:21, "Spirit" for irvevfrnrtov is used.
Note. — The only evidence which is adverse to the use of this example is the
omission in S^ of the diacritical mark for the plural. But the manuscript is defect-
ive here, and therefore little force can be given to the omission.
j A 39 : 22, " send them hither" (Arab. 2d pers. dual imperat.).
( Matt. 21:3, dTooreXec. Mood, person, and number are affected.
( A 30: 52, " My Father hath prepared.'*
( Mark 10:40, irrolfjuurrcu (Matt. 20:23), (nrb Tttrpbi fu>v. The conflate
reading of A has a change of voice.
( A 4 : 5 1 has a subjunctive clause of purpose for Sldotfu (Luke 4 : 6).
( Change of mood.
- i A 51 : 34, " Hath been written."
( John 19 : 22, yiypcufta. Change of voice and person.
, \ A 28 : 28, "Truly this man has been known."
( John 7 : 27, ToOrov aXBayxwy Voice, number, and person are affected.
A 46: 14, "that I should be reckoned."
Luke 22:37, ikoyUrSri, Person and probably the tense have been
changed, for the Arabic imperfect refers to the future, /. ^., from the
standpoint of the writing of the Scripture referred to. This change
may be due, however, to a misreading of the equivalent Syriac verb on
the part either of the Arabic translator or some previous scribe of D.
Such a misreading would not be unlikely. Indeed, some scribe has been
62 [268
'!
DIATE8SABON AND THE STNOPTIO PBOBLEM 63
guilty of this confusion in writing his manuscript of P. We can allow
this example, therefore, only conditionally.
g< A46:48, "Igo.
( John i6 : 5, ^dyi
»i
"I
John 16:5, ^dyeis. Person is changed.
A 10: 14, "Give that ye may be given."
Luke 6:37^. SlSore koX SoO-^erai hfuw. The mood is changed by subor-
dinating the second verb of the Greek, in a subjunctive clause of purpose.
This instance is noteworthy, for in the preceding clause, "release and
ye shall be released," no such change is made.
A 17 : 9, "shall I set it forth."
Mark 4 : 30, BQiuw, Change in number.
Note. — A suggestion of this change is found in several late MSS. of the Latin
version of our gospels. That they could have influenced D in transmission is
a possibility almost too remote for notice.
A 18:26, "healed" (Arab, imperfect of past customary action).
Luke 9:11, tSiro (variant Mo-aro). Whichever reading be adopted for
the Greek text, the resultant text is hardly the same as that of A. The
significance of the Arabic reading is enhanced by the fact that in the
rendering of Luke 9:11 at A 32 : 23 Ibn-at-Tayib has used the perfect
tense.
This list shows the remarkable variety in the alterations of gram-
matical forms.
We may now present examples of the substitution of synonymous
words and phrases :
II
S A 29:23, "go."
( Luke 16:28, ^c
j
ifWbn BiafMfrrlifnfTCU adrois.
Note. — Aph. is not to be accepted as testimony against A at this point {cf.
column 907 of Aph.), for the quotation in the homilies is quite clearly influenced
by P. It is difiicult to explain the derivation of the reading of A from that of Aph.
(supposing the latter to be the original). The similarity of the reading of Aph.
to that of P (for Luke 16 : 28) is enough to show how the text of Aph. reached its
present form. Either Aphraates himself in quoting from, or some later scribe in
copying, the homilies was influenced by P.
A 39:41, "take possession of" (= Vat. MSS.), "drag" (= Borgian MS.).
Luke 19 : 44, iSa<ptovffip,
Note. — The di£Eerence in the Arabic manuscripts does not affect the point,
unless Hogg is right in his suggestion that the reading" of the Borgian manu-
script, " drag," could easily have arisen from the change of a single diacritical
mark in the Arabic word for " destroy." If this is true, our example is not valid.
But Hogg does not indicate what Arabic word he refers to, and the only one
which I could conjecture as possible from the change of the diacritical point
{ckrr) does not mean " destroy," if the authorities I have used are correct.
269
64 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
I
1
A 43:8, t* judge."
Matt. 24 : 51, SixoTOfjii^ei,
Note. — £ reads, "Eum abscindet medium et separabit eum (M., p. 218).
This reading can hardly be accepted as original so far as c^scindet is concerned,
since the tendency would be to harmonize the reading presented by A with that
of the separate gospels. The addition of et separabit eum may well be accounted
original,, and, if so, is one of T's additions.
A 43 : 48, "ye cared for ; '* A 43 : 51, "we cared for.'*
Matt. 25 : 36, f(Xft*T6; Matt. 25 : 39, IfXffofuv.
Note. — The testimony of Aph. (column 902), which is adverse to A at this
point, cannot be allowed decisive force. Either Aphraates is using the separate
gospel (of P) for his quotation of this passage, or the text of his homily has been
influenced by P. A*s reading cannot be derived from that of Aph. Besides, it
is T*s habit to make such interpretative changes, not only in such a passage as
this, but also in others.
< A 45 :23, "ye shall deal treacherously" (Hogg renders "desert").
( Matt 26:31, ffKay8a>Mr$'^w&e,
, \ A 1 :5i, "embraceth."
( Luke 1 : 50, a copula is to be supplied.
i A 5:8. "his place."
( John I : 39, ToO /a^i.
g i A9:i, "to God."
( Matt. 5 : 33, T(p KvpUp,
( A I : 51, "throughout the ages and times."
( Luke I : 50, els 7ei«df ica2 yeveits.
Note. — The Syriac versions are unlike the Greek here, but A's reading could
scarcely have arisen from their influence.
A 9: 16, 17, "where is your superiority?"
Luke 6 ; 33, 34, vola hfuv x^P^f i<rrlp.
Note. — There is possibly here a trace of the influence of Matt. 5 : 47 {tI vepw-
ff09 iroieiTe), especially in the form presented by P, where the Syriac equivalent
of "superiority" appears. Such an influence, however, could not be appealed
to, to explain " where," and therefore the change in this word is due to T.
A 15 : 49, "if he is not able."
Luke 1 4 : 32, el W fi-^e,
A 17:47, "Naaman, the Nabathaean."
Luke 4 : 27, NeuAidy 6 Z^pos,
H
II
, < A 25:20, "seduce."
13 j
Matt. 18 : 9 (or Mark 9 : 47), <ricai^oMf€i.
A 25 : 38, "hath expos
Mark 10:11, funxorai.
( A 25 : 38, "hath exposed to adultery."
270
DIATESSABON AND THE SYNOPTIO PBOBLEM 65
15. A 4 : 13 (Matt. 3:4). We know, on the express testimony of 'Ishodad,
whose statement has influenced that of Bar Salibi and Bar Hebrseus,
that the reading of D was "honey and milk of the mountains/' which
is not preserved in A. This is a substitute for dxplSes koI fjt4\i dyptop. T
seems to have allowed his Encratite views to influence him here.^
This list does not exhaust the number of examples, but shows clearly
enough T*s literary methods with respect to rewritten words.
Examples of rewritten sentences are :
A 3:1, "After that."
Matt. 2:1, rod Si 'IritroO yeFv-itOhroi h Bfi6Mfi r^ 'lovBalas h iiiukfmt 'RfMovroO
PaaiKitat t8o^.
Note. — The purpose and sigDificance of this change has already been dis-
cussed (p. 48).
A 4 : Sif "which is delivered unto me that I may give it to whomsoever I
will."
Luke 4 : 6| ^t ifutl vapadddoToi koX tf Hlp &i\ta SHufu aMfp,
'A 7 : 37, "And while Jesus was walking on the sabbath day among the
sown fields, his disciples hungered, and they were rubbing the ears with
their hands and eating.'*
Matt. 12 : 1,'Ey iKeLwp t$ Kxup$ irope60ri6 'Ii^ovf roS; trdfifituny diii tQp avoplfuaw,
al Si fJuxOrfTaX adrov hrelvcurap koX ijf^apro rCKkeip irrdxvas koX itrOleip,
^ Luke 6:1^, Kol ijffBiop yffihxovrts rait XH^^^*
Note. — Tatianhas here both conflated and rewritten his material. Some,
but not all, of his variations may be due to S^. Compare S^ for Matt. I2 : i:
" And at that time Jesus was walking on the sabbath among the com, and his
disciples were hungry and began plucking ears and rubbing them in their hands
and eating." If S^ is later than D in origin, it may have been influenced here
by T's gospel.
A 1 5 : 50, " So shall every man of you consider, that desireth to be a
disciple to me; for, if he renounceth not all that he hath, he can not be
4-^ my disciple." (The words italicized may be due to P, but no others.)
Luke 14 : 33, oirwi odv rat i^ ^fjiQp 6s o^k diroTdtrffertu vBjitip rocs iaxnov (nrdpxov-
ffip od S^varai cTwU fiov iMdrp"fii,
A 16: 17, "And he beckoned with his hand, stretching it out toward his
disciples and said."
Matt. 12 : 49, ica2 iierdpat r^v X^H^ ^' '''^^ jua^rdf a^oO elrev,
A 19:9, "And when Jesus came near he went up unto them into the
boat, he and Simon, and immediately the wind ceased."
Mark 6:51 {cf. Matt. 14:32), xaX M^ vpin adrods els rb irXowp iced ixSircurep 6
&vefuts»
53 For a suggestive discussion of diis passage, and for the quotation from Ishodad, see Har.c, pp.
271
lOK
66 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
Note. — E gives a reading for this verse of D according to which it seems to
have been even more recast by T than appears from a consideration of A's text
alone : " Cum venisset Dominus et cum Petro navem ascendissit, ventus cessavit
et quievit " (M., p. 136).
A 24 : 6, "And they thought [the disciples] that the time of his decease
.... was come."
Luke 9:3X1 fKeyov ['HXefat koX Moivo^] r^y H^odov a^ov,
o j A 39 : 22, " We seek them for our Lord and straightway send them hither."
( Matt. 21 : 3^, 6 K6pu>s a^Qy XP^^ ^X^^' ^^^ dirooTeXec a^odt (Mark 11:3) ^^.
(A 5 1 : 6. " Then Pilate commanded to grant their request and delivered
up Jesus to be crucified.*'
Luke 23 :24, koX UaXaros hrhipivev yev^Bcu rb aXrripui a&rQp (John 19:16) rdre
A 51 13 1, "And Pilate wrote on a tablet the cause of his death and put it
on the wood of the cross above his head. And there was written upon
it," etc. The words italicized may be due to P.
John 19:19, Hypa^ev 8i xal rlrXor 6 TLeCKaros Kcd tdriKtv hrX rov <rrav/M>8* ^v d^
yeypafjifUvoy
^Matt. 27 : 37, KoX hriOi/iK€v hrdma r^t ice^X^s adroO r^v oJrlav airoO yeypafAfUniv,
In this final example we have a striking instance of the employ-
ment of both conflation and rewriting :
A 24:3, 4 (Luke 9:29a) "And while they were praying, Jesus | (Matt.
1 7 : 2a) changed | (Luke 9 : 29) and became after the fashion of another
person \ (Matt. 17 : 2b\ and his face shone like the sun and his raiment
was I (Mark 9 : 3a) very white | (Luke 9 : 26 according to the Syriac
versions) like snow | (Matt. 17:2^) and as the light of the lightning
I (Mark 9:3^) so that nothing on earth can whiten like it." The
passages italicized are without exact equivalents in the Greek, but
are somewhat like the verses to which they are assigned.
Luke 9 : 29, ica2 (yivero iv r$ irpoa-€6xw0€U a^bv rb elSos rod vpoaiSnrov airov
irefiov Kcd 6 IfMTurfjubs,
Matt. 17:2, ah-oO Xevicbi i^rpdimitp. koX /lerefWfi^t&Oii llfAirpo<r$ev oArQv
KoX tSaf»J/€v rb vpftaiovov a^ov Cn b ffXios, rb. 8i Ifjutria airod iyivero Xevicd.
Mark 9:3, &s rb <pQs, xed rb. Ifjdrta adrov iyivero arCS^pra \evKh XUlp, oZa
7ra0€i>f ^2 TTJs yrjs od d^varcu oih-ws Xei/Kami.
This last example is a fitting climax to the others which precede.
No matter how many more we should add — there are other examples
— they could not show any more clearly than those above how freely
T rewrote some of his sentences.
There are in D, strictly speaking, no rewritten paragraphs. T's
regard for his sources was apparently too great to allow him to reject
272
iH
DIATESSABON AND THB STNOPTIO PBOBLEM 67
the literary form of an entire paragraph and to give its substance a
new dress. The nearest approach to a rewritten section is found in
those where the interweaving, conflation, and rewritten sentences (the
last more or less scattered) give the sections an entirely different form
from that which the same material had in any one of the sources {e, g.^
A 24: 1-16, and 39 : 1-17). Yet it must be said that such sections do
not present precisely the phenomenon of rewritten paragraphs, such as
are alleged to be present in the synoptic gospels. We must, therefore,
be content with noting the near approach just indicated, and with
stating the absence of the real phenomenon.
273
CHAPTER VII.
INCONGRUITIES AND REPETITIONS.
A PHENOMENON which is usually given considerable weight by
critics in determining whether a literary work is a compilation or not,
consists in the occurrence in the work of contextual incongruities ; i. ^.,
the occurrence of statements which are, to a greater or less degree,
inconsistent with other statements in the context. T's gospel offers a
good opportunity, since we possess his sources, for testing whether
such a phenomenon is to be expected in compilations. It will be
reassuring to those critics who have used this phenomenon as a
criterion to find that in even so skilful a compilation as D there are
a number of instances of incongruity.
1. A 4:10^ cf, 2§, — In 4:10 John the Baptist is made to say,
"This is he who, I said^ cometh after me and was before me," etc. No
such saying, however, has been given before in D. Then in 4:25 is
presented the saying which is apparently referred to in 4 : 10. The
incongruity arises from the juxtaposition of two unharmonized sec-
tions from different sources.^*
2. A 4:42; cf.^:4y 21. — In 4:42 Jesus is declared to have
returned from the Jordan, and in 4:43 the account of the temptation
begins. Yet in 5 : 4 ff. Jesus is still represented as in the company
of the Baptist, and in 5:21 the statement of his return to Galilee is
made. This statement suggests to the reader of D that " the third
day" of 5:22 is not to be reckoned from the baptism. Probably T
had some reason for supposing that Luke 4:1 (A 4 : 42) did not refer
to a return to Galilee, as the source of A 5 :2i is Luke 4 : 14; but the
assumption that Jesus was still with John, though possible, is hardly
suggested by the sources, and it produces an incongruity in the narra-
tive, since there is no statement of a movement on the part of Jesus
from the place of temptation to the Jordan.
3. A 6:20-2j, — The awkwardness of this passage has been dis-
cussed above, p. 57.
4. A /8:/-Sf cf. 20. — Herod, marveling at what he had heard of
Jesus, joins in the opinion, according to this passage, that John the
Baptist had risen from the dead (18 : 1-5). Yet in 18 : 20 Herod is still
undecided as to who Jesus is and desires to see him. A comparison
54 If Ts text of John agreed with that of W. H., this inoongruity is due to the oomxption of D.
68 [274
DIATB8SABON AND THB 8YK0FTI0 PBOBLEM 69
with the sources at once rereals the cause of the incongruity, viz.,
incompletely harmonized juxtaposition.
5. A 44:10-34, — Reference has already been made to the peculiari-
ties of this passage (p. 59, above).^ It suffices here to note that the
account of the Last Supper begins at 44: 10, is then diverted immedi-
ately to the account of a meal apparently preceding the paschal sup-
per; then the account begun in 44:10 is resumed again.
6. A 49:44. — Tatian failed to see the chronological incongruity
between John 18 : 28 and the synoptic account of Jesus' trial and cruci-
fixion. The difficulty is made more outstanding by the combination
of the two narratives.
7. A §4:23^ 24, — Again T has failed to perceive what is now gen-
erally held to be an incongruity in the unified development of the
entire fourth gospel, viz., the indication, in John 20:30, 31, of the
close of the book.*^
These incongruities could be discovered, for the most part, even if
we did not possess T's sources, and they, therefore, illustrate exactly
the incongruities usually alleged to be present in works which are sup-
posed to be compilations.
The presence of incongruities in D suggests that there will be found
in it also that other phenomenon so generally found in works alleged
to be compilations, viz., repetition. The list below will illustrate the
number and variety of the occurrences of this phenomenon :
1. A 4:iOy cf, 25, — We have in these two passages really the same
saying from different sources, though T has given it a different setting
in the two passages. Indeed, the accounts 4:2-11 and 4:24, 25 seem
to refer to the same facts, but T is no duller in keeping the narratives
separated than almost all modern harmonists.
2. A s:33y34: cf.y :8. — The statement concerning the widespread
fame of Jesus is twice used, and in both cases seems to be derived from
Luke 4:14^, 15. (Luke 4:37 is also similar, though its parallel (Mark
1 :28) is not, and maybe the source for one of the occurrences, though
this is not likely.)
3. A 6:22; cf, 2^. — The fact of withdrawal from Judea to Galilee
is used twice. In the first, the point of departure is emphasized; in
the second, the point of destination is expressed. Cf, p. 57.
4. A 6:36; cf. 7:2j. — The call of Matthew and that of Levi are
not identified, as it is now usual to do.
SSFora discussion, from a somewhat different standpoint from that taken here, of some of Uie pas-
safifes in this list and one other, see pp. 57 f . above.
56 For two additional examples of inoongmity see footnotes, p. 73 and p. 73.
275
70 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
5. A y :g; cf. 2j. — The call of Levi is given twice, once from Mark
2 :i4 and once from Luke 5 :2y. There is possibly a hint as to how
this repetition arose in E, whose reference to Jesus* choice of Jacobum
publicanum (M., p. 58) may indicate that this was the reading in D at
a point corresponding to A 7:9. There is authority (especially the
"western" text) for such a reading in Mark 2 : 14, and it is more than
possible that such a reading was present in T's exemplar of Mark, since
the text of D shows a decided affinity to "western" readings. The
fact that F omits the material of A 7:9 may be explained by supposing
its author, knowing the better reading for Mark 2:14, perceived the
repetition. If the reading of his exemplar of D was " Levi," the per-
ception of this was easy. If, on the other hand, his exemplar had not
become corrupted, as A has (assuming the correctness of our supposi-
tion), and read "Jacob," his Latin text of the separate gospels would
correct this reading. Yet, over against the whole supposition is the
fact that the reference in £ is not a direct quotation, and its reading
may be due to Ephraem's, not to Tatian's, knowledge of the separate
gospel texts.
6. A 8:44; cf, 13 :ii : cf, 41 :ig, — In these passages the same say-
ing is repeated from Mark 4:23; Matt. 10:26, and Luke 12:2,
respectively. It is alleged that Matthew has repeated sayings from two
different sources, but T goes even farther in thus using the same say-
ing from three sources.
7. A 13:12; cf,4i:2ob. — Luke 12:3^ is used at both the
points indicated. E has at a place corresponding to A 13 : 12
substituted Matt. 10 : 27^ for Luke 12 : 3^. This is another case
where E's text has been influenced by a separate gospel. Either
Ephraem's exemplar had already been influenced ; or his own knowl-
edge of the gospel text^' suggested this quotation to his mind; or
else the text of E has been corrupted. E gives a reading in line with
the general harmonizing corruptions in D, while A preserves an
unharmonized text.
8. A 18: 2 : cf, 3, — In 18:2 the people are made to say that
Jesus is John the Baptist risen from the dead, where Luke 6 : 7 is the
source. In 18:5 Herod says the same thing, and here the source
is Matt. 14 : 2.
9. A 18 :3 ; cf, 23 ,'33, — The expression " others, Jeremiah "
drawn from Matt. 16 : 14^ is used in both the places indicated.
10. A 18 : 26 ; cf 32 ,-23, — At both points Luke 9:11^ appears.
57 For a discussion of such a knowledfifc on the part of Ephraem see Z.^, pp. 61-63.
276
DIATESSABON AND THE STNOPTIO PBOBLEM 71
II, A 22 :q ; cf. JO :j/, — According to the assignment of
material in Ciasca's Arabic Diatessaron^ which is adopted on the
margin of the text of both Hogg and Hill, there is a repetition here
of John 5:1. But the assignment of 30 : 31 to John 5 : i can hardly
be correct. The verse in A agrees with John 2:13, which is nowhere
else used, and differs from John 5 : i in the exact identification of the
feast mentioned as the Feast of Unleavened Bread. To be sure, there
is a variant of John 5 :i which makes this identification, and it might
be said that this was the reading of T's exemplar. But the use of
John 5:1 at A 22:9 without such identification disposes of such
a suggestion at once, for it is quite incredible that T should have
given John 5 : i in two forms from the same exemplar. Besides, had
such a reading been in T's copy of John, it could hardly have failed
to influence his conception of the chronology of Jesus' life ; and,
therefore, how can we think that T would have thus dallied with John
5 : 1 so as to give it two very distinct forms ? In the face of these
considerations, and since we have a reasonably close agreement
between John 2:13 and A 30 : 31 (closer than that between John 5 ; i
and A), Ciasca's assignment is without probability. Moreover, the
comparatively near occurrence in the context of D (A 32 : i) of John
2 : 14, which is the next following Johannine passage, points to John
2 : 13 as the source of A 30 : 31 rather than to John 5:1. Still
further there is no explanation, on Ciasca's assignment, of T's con-
struction of the following narrative, which is concerned with what, at
first sight at least, is an uncanonical Judean ministry. Such an expla-
nation^ is possible if the assignment herein suggested be accepted.
To support our explanation we may appeal to the larger context.
Throughojit 28:1 — 38:47 T deals with a period of Jesus' career
in which Christ seems to have made a number of journeys to
and fro between Perea and Jerusalem {cf. the outline, chap. ii).
In 28 : 42 it is recorded that Jesus returned from Jerusalem, whither
he had gone, according to A 28 : 9 ff. From 28 : 42 on, T describes
Jesus' Perean activities, drawing largely upon Matthew and Mark for
his framework, but weaving into his account Lukan material. In this
account, two discourses (28 142 — 29 142 on riches, and 29 143 — 30: 30
warnings given at the Pharisee's table)*' were put, when T was
58 So far as I have been able to discover, there has been no attempt made to explain Ts remarkable
collocation of the material which follows A 30 : 31 (</. the outline above, chap. ii). The explsmation
here given fully satisfies the demands of probability.
59 For the suggestion that the first of these discourses was actually thought of by T as a single
speech, see above, p. 6x.
277
72 HISTOBIOAL AND LIKGUISTIO STUDIES
brought in the use of his material to Mark lo :^2.^ This verse implies
a visit to Jerusalem. A passage (Luke 17 : 11-19) in the section of
Luke which was being used in the construction of the narrative here
was naturally connected with this journey, and was used before Mark
10 : 32, because it did not fit well at any subsequent point. T then
continued his work with his Markan material. He includes Mark
10 : 32 £f. (interweaving Luke 18 : 31-34), which distinctly represents
Jesus as referring to his passion, which was imminent.^' He then
continued with Markan and Matthean material. Without going into
detail, we may note that he gives an account of the journey, which, in
the synoptists, is that which precedes the passion week. The decision
to use this material in this position then brought T to the considera-
tion of the accounts of the cleansing of the temple and of the
triumphal entry. The account of the latter was reserved as the most
fitting introduction to the narrative of the last Passover, and in
particular to John 12:17 (cf. A 39 : 18 — 40 : 4). This reservation may
have been suggested to T, in the first instance, by the fact that the
fourth gospel separates the account of the triumphal entry from that
of the cleansing of the temple, and this latter account seemed to T
to be fittingly identified with that of the synoptists. The identifi-
cation of the Johannine and synoptic accounts of the cleansing of the
temple thus resulted, on the one hand, in the separation and post-
ponement of the account of the triumphal entry. On the other hand,
it determined for T that the whole of his narrative, beginning
at a point corresponding to A 30 : 32 and continuing down to the
harmonization of these two accounts of the cleansing of the temple,
must refer to that journey to Jerusalem which is recorded in John
2 : 13 f., since it was with this journey that John connects the account
of the cleansing. He, therefore, retraced his steps and inserted John
2:13 before his first reference to the journey (A 30 : 32 = Luke 17 : 1 1)
which had yet been made. He added to John 2 : 1 3, as a connective
to what preceded, the words " And after that."* Then he co-ordinated
and conflated, at the proper points, the whole Johannine narrative
contained in John 2 : 13 — 3 : 21, except the passage John 2 : 23-25
which had already been used, with the significant omission of John
te Mark seems to be the startiosf-point for all of 1*8 work here.
6k Yet the passion is a year off« according to the indications in D (</. the continuation of the above
discossion). This chronological incongruity might be added to the list at die beginning of this chapter.
& These are the words which probably led to the assignment of this verse to John 5 : z. With this
explanation of them there is no further need to consider that assignment.
278
DIATESSABON AND THB SYNOPTIO PBOBLEM 73
2 : 23^,^ at A 15 :i2-i4. T then had his co-ordinated and conflated
account connected with a Passover feast. He continued his narrative
of the activities of Jesus at this feast by the use of material from the
synoptics, and at one point in this procedure was led to differentiate
the Passover here concerned with that of the passion week. At the
very beginning of the section of D which we are discussing (A 28:1 —
38:47), T had used a part of John, chap. 7 (7 : 2-31), breaking off
with vs. 31 at A 28 : 32. He was undoubtedly watching for a good
opportunity to resume the use of Johannine material, and such an
opportunity seemed to him to be offered at the point corresponding
to A 34 : 48, for John 7:31 joins well here. Once the Johannine
narrative was resumed, there did not seem to T that there was any
suitable place to break it until the end of John, chap. 1 1 was reached,
and therefore the entire section (John 7:31 — 11 15 7) is incorporated,
with the introduction of only one brief passage of synoptic material
(Matt. 21:41 — 46; A 35:17-22), which is inserted in Mo. But
this long passage from the fourth gospel contained John 10:22,
which refers to Jesus* presence in Jerusalem during the winter. In
view of the development of the preceding narrative, this referred
to the winter after the Passover of A 30 : 31. T was, therefore,
compelled to regard the Passover, referred to in John 12 : i, to which
he came in his study at the end of John, chap. 1 1 (included above), as
one year later than the feast to which he has referred in A 30:31.
When this conclusion was reached, the material from Luke 9:51-56
was inserted before John 12:1 as an introductory statement (A
38:42-47; cf. 39:1),^ and then the account of the passion week
was compiled.
Such a procedure as this, which has been suggested, is the only
one, so far as the present writer has been able to discover, which will
explain the remarkable arrangement which T has given his material.
The length of our discussion of this one passage (A 30 : 31), in which a
repetition of John 5 : i is alleged to be present, is justified by the im-
portance of correctly assigning this verse in order to understand T's
arrangement of material in A 28 : i — 39 : 17. The result for the subject
of this chapter is that there are three reasons for assigning A 30 : 3 1 to
John 2:13 rather than to John 5:1. These reasons are ( i) the closer
^ This statement would have been inoon£ruous at A 15 : xa, since the context here does not
represent the scene of Jesus' activities at Jerusalem.
^ This place would seem to be a better one for Mark zo : 33 ff., which really creates an inoonc^ruity
where it stands ( A 30 : 40 ff.), on account of the postponement of the fulfilment of Jesus* prediction for a
whole year. This incons:ruity might be added to the list above.
279
74 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
agreement of A 30 : 31 with John 2:13; (2) the proximity of John 2:14
to A 30 : 31 in the context of D; and (3) the possibility of explaining
T's arrangement if John 2 1x3 be the source. These reasons seem
conclusive. A 30 :3i then is to be assigned to John 2:13.
We may resume our presentation of doublets in D.
12. A 28:32 : cf, 34 248, — In both places John 7 131 is used.
13. A 4§ : 27 ; cf, 4g : ly, — Here Mark 14 : 30^ is twice employed.
14. A S4 ' ^4 : </• 55 '5' — John 20 : 21^ is used at both points.
We have thus thirteen illustrations (deducting No. 11) of T*s use
of the same material more than once. In one instance, he uses the
same saying three times, and each time it is drawn from a different
source. On the other hand, he employs passages twice from the same
source. He also gives double accounts because of incomplete har-
monization, and this too where the passages, in their entirety, are
identified as referring to the same event or speech. Both the number
and variety of our illustrations are, therefore, great.
280
CHAPTER VIIL
COMPARISON OF THE METHODS OF TATIAN AND THE SYNOPTISTS.
The greater part of our investigation has now been completed.
We have discovered the characteristic of T*s literary methods. It still
remains for us to compare these characteristics with the phenomena
which appear in a comparison of the synoptic gospels with one
another. What degree of similarity is there between the two ? This
is the main question of our problem. We have found in D, which
is indisputably compiled from written sources, examples of almost
every sort of phenomenon which are generally alleged to be present in
works supposed to be compilations. Moreover, these phenomena are
just such as are alleged to be present in the synoptic gospels. T
worked out a plan for his gospel, to which he subordinated the
material of his sources, choosing material now from one document,
now from another. Likewise the synoptists clearly adopted plans
for their respective gospels, and exercised discretion in the arrange-
ment of the material which they drew from their sources. The plan
adopted by T follows the main divisions of Jesus' life as represented
by our gospels, but with the striking difference of the omission of an
early Judean ministry and the practical creation of a later one. In
this respect, accordingly, T was freer in his method than the authors
of Matthew and Luke, who, though adding the infancy sections, follow
the main divisions of Mark with respect to other material.^
In the working out of his plan T made alterations affecting the
order of paragraphs, events, sentences, and words. Here, too, T
is freer with his sources than the synoptists are with theirs, save
possibly with reference to the order of words (see below, pp. 77, 78).
The order of sections and events in Matthew and Luke is much
nearer to that of Mark*^ than T*s arrangement is to any one of
his sources. In the change in the order of sentences, too, T goes
farther than the synoptists, unless we except Matthew. But with
regard to the changed order of words the case is, as intimated above,
6s Note, however, Luke^s lengthenios: of the Ferean journey, which may be considered analofifous in
freedom to the. arran^ementof T just referred to, unless Luke has merely slipped in a document in toto at
this place.
66 This statement is made on the supposition that Mark was used in some form by Matthew and
Luke, but the validity of the comparison with T which is involved would not be affected if we related the
synoptic gospels in a different way, since the general order of all three is so similar.
281] 75
76 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
slightly different for there are relatively fewer certainly attested
examples of this phenomenon in D than in the synoptic gospels. This
point will be further considered below (pp. 69, 70). For the present
all we need state is that there are occurrences of this phenomenon in D
as well as in the synoptic gospels. In this fact we have an important
datum. It is in reference to the occurrence in the gospels of
precisely such minute and, as it were, unconscious changes that
the objection mentioned above (footnote, p. 10) is most vehemently
urged. Yet here are examples in a document which we know to have
been compiled from written sources. And we may add to such
considerations that of the similarity of T's additions to those of
the synoptists. They are parallel in variety, and possibly T*s out-
number those of the authors of the first three gospels. In some
of T's additions which are derived from other sources than the four
evangelists we have an exact analogy to those small items which
occur here and there in our first gospel, and whose sources are so
hard to discover. The omissions of D are numerous and varied in
nature. No sort of omission which can be pointed out in the synop-
tic gospels fails to find a parallel in D. Words and phrases, sentences
and clauses, parallel material (which sometimes had a form different
from that of the material used), items of material in rejected parallel
accounts, and even one long section (or if both genealogies are
counted, two), are omitted. In conflating, T goes to much greater
limits than any of the synoptists. And yet his method is directly
illustrative of theirs. This is particularly true of that phase of his
method to which attention was called above (chap, v), viz., the
enrichment and creation of discourses from more or less scattered
passages of discourse material. The illustrations of T's method
in this respect which have been presented above will be especially
interesting to those who hold that the authors of the first and third
gospels had a source which is represented, at least in large part,
by the Perean section of Luke, and that this source furnished much of
the enrichment in the discourses of the first gospel. These illustra-
tions are also just as apt for any who should hold that the author
of Matthew used Luke directly. In either case, the enriching process
of the author of the first gospel has been carried one step farther
by T. He has continued the process by adding more of the Lukan
material to a substantially Matthean basis. The study of T's version
of the Sermon on the Mount, not to consider any other discourses,
will amply substantiate this statement. When we pass from the
282
DIATESSABON AND THE STNOPTIO FBOBLEM 77
consideration of conflations to that of rewriting, we find once more
in D illustrations of phenomena which are alleged to be present
in the gospels. Every kind of rewriting is illustrated except that
of paragraphs rewritten entire.*' In particular are to be noticed
the changes in grammatical forms and the substitution of synonymous
words and phrases. But in the case of contextual incongruities,
the number of instances in D is comparatively greater than in the
synoptic gospels. Indeed, there are few occurrences of such a
phenomenon in the synoptists. T has, too, a greater variety of
repetitions than the first three evangelists ( cf, p. 74, supa). In
whatever direction we turn, therefore, whatever species of deviation
from sources we seek, we find in D illustrations of the phenomena
(saving rewritten paragraphs) which are alleged to occur in the.
first three gospels. Indeed, in some respects T handles his sources
more freely than the synoptists. Furthermore, the illustrations show
a similarity between the methods of T and the synoptists, not only in
including every category of phenomena, but also in that for some of
these phenomena specific explanations may be found, while others
can appeal for explanation only to general literary habit. In the case
of many of T*s characteristics, it can be quite clearly seen how he was
led to pursue the course adopted. But in others {e. g,, the change
in order and the rewriting of words) no such explanation is forth-
coming. It is, accordingly, all but impossible to avoid the conclusion
that the similarity of the phenomena in D to those in the synoptic
gospels is, with the one exception noted, complete.
But over against this completeness there may be raised an objec-
tion. The paucity of examples of omitted paragraphs and of altered
order of words, together with the complete absence of rewritten
sections, it may be said, makes the similarity incomplete. But the
paucity alluded to is only relative, and cannot be said to constitute
a real difference in method. In the case of omitted paragraphs,
the difference is, at least to a certain extent, only apparent, not real.
The phenomenon does not occur much more frequently in the
gospels than in D. So far as we can be certain of their sources,
our evangelists omit sections rarely. They seem to have had almost,
if not quite, as great a desire as T not to omit any section found in
their sources. The fact that the latter omitted the genealogies shows
that his mind was not immovably set against such a procedure. On
the other hand, it may be that T altered the order of words less often
^ See discussion below, pp. 78, 79.
283
78 HISTOEIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
than the authors of the first three gospels ; but this cannot be proved,
or even made probable, and it is rather contrary to the trend of the
evidence. To be sure, the actual number of occurrences of the
phenomenon is small, but the paucity is due rather to our processes of
investigation than to T's literary habits. With such a rigid limitation
of the text as we have made, there is relatively but a small area left to
be investigated. This fact must be remembered when judgment
is rendered upon the number of examples given in any of the lists.
In the area of text which we have traversed the number of illustrations
in almost all the lists is great enough to substantiate our contention.
Judging from the number in this limited sphere, the lists could,
in every case (except omissions of paragraphs and rewriting of para-
graphs), be greatly lengthened if we were permitted to use the whole
text of A unchallenged. In fact, examples of almost every kind
of phenomena have had to be set aside in the preparation of this
paper, on account of the limits which, for the sake of certainty, have
been determined for the use of the text. And what is thus true of
almost all the lists is particularly so with respect to the occurrences of
altered order of words. The parallel passages of our gospels and
the variants of the gospel texts all but exhaust the possibilities in the
arrangement of words. Wherever there was a possibility of change,
likely to arise in literary or scribal processes, either the evangelists
in their use of one anothers* gospels, or scribes in their transmission
of the gospel texts, have fallen into the altering tendency. Since,
then, according to the limitations set for this investigation, these
conditions almost exclude the possibility of finding instances of order
not paralleled in one or another of the gospels or in some variant
of their texts, we should be surprised to find any examples of this
phenomenon rather than complain of the paucity of occurrences.
The fact that such do occur, though few, is very significant. If
our text were not so limited and our use of it so hampered, we might
expect the number to be greater; indeed, instances of difference
of order between the text of A and the Westcott and Hort Greek text,
as well as the instances of other phenomena just referred to, have
been set aside in our application of our principles. It would seem,
therefore, that the paucity of occurrences of altered order of words,
no more than the paucity of instances of omitted paragraphs, is a
menace to the acceptability of the conclusion that T*s method is
completely similar to that of the synoptists.
On the other hand, the absence of entire rewritten paragraphs
284
DIATBSSAEON AND THE SYNOPTIC PBOBLEM 79
from D constitutes a real difference between T*s method and that
of the first three evangelists. Yet this difference is not sufficiently
serious to shake appreciably the conclusion already reached. T clearly
did hold the letter of the gospels in sufficiently higher regard than
the synoptists did their sources, to cause him to refrain from rewriting
paragraphs, as they sometimes did. Yet this is the only exception to
the general conclusion as regards the similarity of their methods.
T*s greater fidelity goes no farther than this, and it would be absurd
to allow this exception to control our conclusion, reached on the basis
of otherwise harmonious, extensive, and complete evidence. We
must go no farther adversely to the conclusion than to note and
admit the exception. Yet, on the other hand, there is good ground
for holding that this absence was to be expected. T lived and wrote
after the entrance into Christian thought of the idea of the canon.
Indeed, this idea had reached a considerably advanced stage of
development, and, so far as the supremacy of our four gospels is
concerned, had progressed as far as it ever did. This idea certainly
had an effect upon T*s choice of sources, and it could hardly have
failed to bring about precisely that greater fidelity to them which
occasioned the exception to his otherwise free treatment. We should
not, therefore, be surprised at the absence from D of rewritten
paragraphs. On the other hand, the fact that the canon idea had
no effect, or at most but little, upon the synoptists, at once explains
their comparative readiness to rewrite even whole paragraphs. In
this one respect their method was determined without the limitation
which beset T. The difference, therefore, which actually exists can
have little weight in affecting our estimate of the method of the
synoptists in the light of that of T. But even if we allow it all the
force it could claim, were it not for the consideration of T's concep-
tion of the canon, nevertheless, it could not balance, much less out-
weigh, the otherwise complete similarity of the two methods.
The attainment of the conclusion with respect to this great
similarity puts us in a position to see what bearing the results of our
study have upon the solution of the synoptic problem. In the first
place, they completely dispose of the objection to the document-
ary hypothesis to which reference was made above (footnote, p. lo).
The objection rests upon two premises : (i) The high regard
of the synoptists for their gospel accounts would have forbidden
them to make radical or purposeless changes in the use of these
sources. (2) Appeal to mere literary habit, without evidence of specif -
285
80 HISTOEIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
ically purposed change, is not sufficient to explain such alterations as
the synoptists are alleged to have made. The first premise is an
unwarranted assumption, since we do not know that these writers
regarded their sources with so high a degree of reverence. A consid-
eration of the history of the idea of the canon, and of the fact that T,
under the influence of this growing idea, used his sources with greater
freedom than some today would employ them, clearly shows the direc-
tion of tendency, and indicates that our evangelists, since the idea of
the canon probably did not affect them, would allow them-
selves a large liberty in the use of their sources, which they neverthe-
less regarded as historically trustworthy and whose historical testimony
they endeavored substantially to preserve. We may therefore consider
the first premise as giving no foundation for the objection. The
second premise is destroyed by the consideration of the phenomena
presented in this paper and of the conclusion reached in view of them.
Many of the peculiarities of D can be ascribed only to T*s literary
habits. This ascription being thus the only possible one, at the same
time satisfies all reasonable demand for an explanation. No appeal to
" tendency " can or need be made. Since this is true of the phe-
nomena of D, there certainly is no good reason for holding that it
cannot be true of the exactly similar phenomena of the synoptic gos-
pels. Both of the premises are therefore destroyed. The evidence of
D is convincing and final in its disposition of this objection which is
so often made, and which to some seems the only insuperable obstacle
in the way of the acceptance of the documentary theory of the origin
of our gospels.
But this negative conclusion is not the only one which may fairly
be drawn from the results of our investigation. Over against this as
the first deduction is a second which is positive. The completeness of
the similarity between T's method and that of the synoptists gives
general corroboration of the documentary theory. There is only one
consideration which precludes this corroboration from amounting to an
absolute demonstration. We have no means by which to determine
with absolute certainty whether such phenomena as appear in D and
our gospels might or might not arise in a work whose author used
reasonably rigid oral tradition. Were it possible to put this considera-
tion to the test — as, e, g.y might be the case if we possessed two works
both of which were certainly known to be independently based upon
the same cycle of oral tradition — we could then determine whether the
phenomena of D and those of the synoptic gospels were peculiar to
286
DIATESSABON AND THE SYNOPTIO PBOBLEM 81
compilations from written sources, or were common to all works which
use sources either written or oral. The material for such a test we do
not now possess, and can scarcely hope ever to obtain. It is therefore
out of the question to do more than note the necessary modification of
our conclusion. Aside from this qualification which is incapable of
justification, we are safe, until someone produces evidence to the con-
trary, in concluding that the almost complete similarity mentioned
above shows that our synoptists used written sources. If T, a hundred
years more or less after the writing of the synoptic gospels, could still
at so late a date write a gospel from written sources by a method all
but completely similar to that alleged of the synoptists, certainly there
can be no a priori reason against the documentary theory of the origin
of our gospels, but rather this fact is a strong corroboration of it.
The sum total of our work in its relation to the synoptic problem
is, then, negatively, to dispose of the objection above referred to, and,
positively, to corroborate, in both its general and particular features,
the documentary hypothesis.
287
THE BORROWER WILL BE CHARGED
THE COST OF OVERDUE NOTIFICATION
IF THIS BOOK IS NOT RETURNED TO
THE LIBRARY ON OR BEFORE THE LAST
DATE STAMPED BELOW.
BOOK Dli t W il t
a«
^m TMOmu-nn ol TaHn. and tr« • ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
1 iiiilHiiii ^^^^H
■ 081 749 962 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^■1
^1
^
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11