UC-NRLF ^B bDfl MMD LIBRARY University of California. GIF^T OF" -UUiA-^wnr.. L] LX>^4cc'«3l^. T ^ . \ - ? H4,ts Class ^.^■^i Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/diatessaronoftatOOhobsrich -'-'^r:^^^^^^ TTbe '(SXnivctBit^ of Cbica^o rODMDKD BY JOHN D. ROCKBFBLLBR THE DIATESSARON OF TATIAN AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM BEING AN INVESTIGATION OF THE DIATESSARON FOR THE LIGHT WHICH IT THROWS UPON THE SOLUTION OF THE PROB- LEM OF THE ORIGIN OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE DIVINITY SCHOOL, IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (department of new TESTAMENT LITERATURE AND INTERPRETATION) BY A. A. HOBSON ^ Of TWt UNIVERSITY or ,^ £ALiF0HHi5. CHICAGO 1904 PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS T h TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGES Bibliography 7, 8 Introduction 9-32 1. Review of the Situation. 2. Statement of the Problem of this Dissertation. 3. The Text Employed, its Limitations and Value. a) General Order. d) Detailed Readings. 4. Notes on Method. Chapter I. Tatian's Preference for One Source or Another - 33-40 Chapter II. The Plan of the Diatessaron - - - 41-45 Chapter III. Alterations in Order 46-49 Chapter IV. Additions and Omissions - - - - 50-54 Chapter V. Conflations 5 5-61 Chapter VI. Rewriting 62-67 Chapter VII. Incongruities and Repetitions - - - - 68-74 Chapter VIII. Comparison of the Methods of Tatian and the Evangelists 75-8 1 211] 144098 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. : Texteund Untersuchungen, Bd. I, pp. 213-18 (Leipzig, 1883). Hrk.^ = Harnack, A. : " Tatian," Encyclopcedia Bi'itannica, ninth edition. Hrk.'= = Harnack, A. : Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, 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 Literature, Vol. XIII, p. 268). Har.*= = Harris, J. R. : Fragments of the Commentary of Ephraem Syrus on the Dia- tessaron (London, 1895). H.a = HiLL, J. H.: The Earliest Life of Christ, Being the Diatessaron of Tatian^ (Edinburgh, 1894). H.^ = HlLL, 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," mZAH^^sForschungenzur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Litteratur, Theil VII, Heft I (Leipzig, 1903). Hg.=:HoGG, H.W. : "The Diatessaron of Tatian," in Menzies's The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IX (New York, 1896). Lgft. = LiGHTFOOT, J. B. : Essays on Supernatural Religion (London, 1889), pp. 272-88. M. = Moesinger, G. : Evangelii Concordantis Expositio 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 altkirchlichen 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 zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Litteratur; Theil I: "Tatian's Diatessaron" (Erlangen, 1881). 213] 7 8 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES Z.** = Zahn, Th. : Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissemchaft und kirchliches Leben, 1884, pp. 618-26. 2."= Zahn, Th. : Theologisches Litteraturblatt, 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 Transcription (Cambridge, 1894). Lew. = Lewis, Agnes Smith : Some Pages of the Four Gospels Retranscribed ; together with a Complete Translation (London, 1896). Pusey = PusEY, P. E., 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, and 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,J^ 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 I The contention of W. R. Cassels (Ca.) adverse to the items here mentioned requires little attention, in view of the reply of J. R. Harris (Har.b). zHrk.c, I, pp. 486-96; also Hrk.a, pp. 213-18; and, for wider limits of date than are suggested above, cf. Hrk.c, H, p. 289. See also, upon all the facts mentioned, Hill, Hjelt, Zahn, and others, op, cit, zPatrologia Syriaca, 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 HISTORICAL 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 Hogg's 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, 10) 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 Syrian church fathers were wont to refer to the Diatessaron as a gospel. For the notices see Hj. , pp. 30-47. 216 DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 11 textual ground. The two terms to be compared in order to determine the relation of \he. 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 {b) 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 : I. The Gospel Text Employed by Tatian. Possible sources : a) The Greek gospels (and their variants). b) The Sinaitic and Curetonian Syriac II. The Original Text of the Diatessaron. I. Extant witnesses (ar- 2. ranged in the order of their respective ages) : a) Quotations in the Homilies of Aphra- ates. b) Quotations in Eph- r^em's Commentary. c) The gospel harmony in Codex Fuldensis. d) The Arabic version of the Diatessaron. Possible sources of cor- ruption : a) Later Syriac ver- sions : a) Peshitta. j8) Philoxeniana. 7) Harklensiana. b) Arabic readings (due to): a) Arabic translator. /S) Arabic versions of canonical gospels. 7) Errors of scribes of the Arabic Dia- tessaron. c) Variants of the text of the Greek gospels. 9The following abbreviations will be used from this point on: A = the Arabic Diatessaron. E = Ephraem's Commentary. D = the Diatessaron (without reference to any particular witness). F = the gospel harmony in Codex Fuldensis. Aph.= quotations in the Homilies of Aphraates. T = Tatian. M = Moesinger's edition of Ephraem's Com.m.entary. P = Peshitta Syriac version. Ss = Sinaitic Syriac Version. Sc = Curetonian Syriac version. S*= Philoxenian Syriac version. Sfl = Harklensian Syriac version. For the symbols for the Syriac versions I am indebted to Nestle's article "Syriac Versions," in Hastings's Dictionary, 12 HISTOKICAL 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 \.h.Q 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 10 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. 11 For a verification of the statements made in this paragraph. Appendix I of H.a will be found most useful. I have verified the references there made, and with one exception there is no inaccuracy that affects this study. The exception is the attribution of A 6 : 23-24 (marginal number in Hg.) to F, chap. 80 (according to the chapter numbers of the text, not those of x!t\.t. praefatio)^ whereas F, chap. 80, is par- allel to A 18 : 1-20 ff. The first -mentioned passage of A is omitted by F. 218 DIATESSAKON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 13 additions), and changes of order {cf. praefatio^ chaps. 102-4, with the text, chaps. 103-5) have been made. Accordingly, both by such a comparison and by that of F with E 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 146-54 = F, chaps. 20, 49, 51 ; (3) A 7: 47-53 = F, chap. 70; (4) A 15 : 27-32 = F, chap. 66 ; (5) A 44 : 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 (1-4), 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 A44 : 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 »2The numbers referring 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 = indicates throughout this paper parallel material, though in some citations the full limits of the parallels are not shown. »3 There are but three such passages ; cf, footnote above, p. 12, and H.a, App. I. 219 14 HISTOKICAL 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: (e) A 5: 33-41 = Luke 4: i4<^-2 2d!= 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 M For a convincing 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. 112-219. DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 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. E 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 : 6 + Matt. 3 : 1-3 {cf. A3 : 24-44)^ 2^hn, § 7/ M., pp. 36-40.^^ — The respective order of E and A is as follows : 15 Zahn has acknowledged the limitations of his work done before the publication of A. See Z.b, pp. 6i8, 623. 16 Only those parts of the parallel passages of material are indicated which are needed for the investigation. Cf. footnote, p. 13. 221 16 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES E (r) Matt. 2:15. (3) John 1:17; 1:14; 1:19-28 (partly). A (i) Matt. 2:i<5-23. {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. 3:4-104- (6) See (4). (7) John i :29ff. 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. IL A J : 4g — 6:4 == Luke 5.- /-// = Zahn, § /^ = M., p. 5p. — 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 : ^a. 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- DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 17 tion of E (§ 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,% 17 {cf.%26) = M.,p. 65. — 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 used in this paper have been ascertained by the present writer through an investigation of the marginal notes in Graffin's edition. 223 18 HISTOEIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES IV. A 15: iy-26 {cf. A 12: 40 ff.) = Luke 10:3-12 = Zahn, § 24 = M.y pp. go-g8. — 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 10:1; and " lambs," A 13 : i ; Luke 10 : 3) ; and especially by the fact that F has still more of the interweaving at this point and omits Luke 10 : 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 E 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.) dfJ^- (M., p. 92.) In quamcum- (Luke 10 : 5.) eh ^v 5' hv VOL di els T^v oUlav drimum (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 a.vry\v. If we suppose T used here Luke 10:5, we must note carefully that he changed the position of oikLox in the first member, and omitted tovto) and substituted salutate for XcycTc dpnivy\ in the second. On neither supposition do we get an DIATESSAKON AND THE SYNOPTIC 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 avTiJv. If we assign it to Luke 10:5, we must conclude that Tatian was influenced by Matt. 10:12 in substituting \k-^er^ eiprjvTj for aaTrda-aaSe and in the omission of tovtw. 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 prz'mum, 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 E 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 E 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, /. ^., so far as E awakens distrust. The supposition is supported, more- over, not only by this double quotation of Luke 10:5, but also by Ephraem's notoriously general looseness in quoting (^/. H.'', pp. 18-25). »8No 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 HISTOEICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES Besides this ground, E 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 E 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, ^^^ o^ 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 E in quoting Luke 10:16 in connection with the instructions to the Seventy. E 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 DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 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 E, 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 are 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. 91, oves), and since the difference is but 227 22 HISTOEICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES slight in any case. The touch '*two and two" is not due to Luke ID : 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 E. 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. A, chaps. 2^-27 - Matt., chap. 18 = Zahn, §§ 43-30 = M., pp. J62-63. — It was impossible for Zahn to reconstruct, from Ephraem's 228 DIATESSABON AND THE SYNOPTIC 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 E, 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 J J : I -1 7 = Mark ii :ig-26 = Za/in, % 6/ = M., pp. 182- 8q. — 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 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC 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 E and F from A is the difficulty of supposing either E or F to be the original from which the other orders are derived. Indeed, there is an incongruity in E'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. E and A agree against F in giving 2 some position after i. A and F agree against E 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 E, 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 are 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. b) 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 E and Aph.*^ are too fragmentary for such use. F" is in no sense a >9For an extended, but not always convincing, discussion of all the differences between A and E see H.a, App. IX, to which the above examination is much indebted. 20 The quotations of D in Syrian Fathers other than Aphraates have not yet 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 writings 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. 21 The view of F now commonly held is that which was suggested above, viz., it is a secondary com- 230 DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 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 E have to offer in determining the reliability of any given passage. In such a comparison, however, Aph. and E are generally to be regarded as better witnesses than A. There are two reasons for such an estimate : (i) both Aph. and E 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 E 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 E or Aph. should be rejected when it, rather than that of A, has been influenced by known tendencies of transmissional corruption. We may, therefore, use A as our basic text, but we must give due con- sideration to Aph. and E. 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 E 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 arranging 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 T's order has not always been followed with fidelity. Indeed, there are many serious departures. (See H. a, pp. 17-20; Z.a, pp. 298-313.) Later writers have not agreed with Zahn (p. 310) 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 E 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 (c/.Hj.,p.58). 22 For an investigation with E as the basis, see Z.a, I, pp. 220-38 ; with A as the basis, see Sel. 231 26 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC 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 Evangelium des Johannes, 1853, referred to by Nestle in the article "Syriac Versions" in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible) q\3\u\% that the text of this version exists in Cod. A2 of the Bibliotheca Angelica at Rome. Second, Isaac N. Hall published in 1884 a work, Syriac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Hark- lensian Version, etc., maintaining ="3 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 83 C. R. Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testaments, II, 501-5, does not commit himself with reference to Hall's view, but implies that he thinks it is plausible. 232 DIATESSAEON AND THE 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.'^s 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 filling 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 Tatian, 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 24 Sellin refers to the Harklensian version as the Philoxenian, apparently following the suggestion of the title of White's edition of S9. He nowhere states that he is using White, but seems to reveal it in this note: •' P=Phil. ; wo die Uebersetzung White's falsch ist" (p. 240). 25Tischendorf designates SO in the edition of his work which I have used as syr P., but c/. Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 824, footnote. 26 "Es darf hiernach als bewlesen angesehen werden, dass das dem Tatian zugeshriebene Diates- saron von Haus aus ein syrisches Buch war" (Z.a, p. 238; cf. Hj., pp. 22, 23). 233 28 HISTORICAL 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 treuT 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 ay The translation — published by Ottmar Nachtigall (1523) — of alleged Greek fragments can scarcely be used as such. Harnack 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. 313-28. 28 But cf. the adverse, but unsupported statement of Hj., p. 61. 234 OF TH UN!VER€ OF DIATESSAKON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 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 consumable 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 HISTOKICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES' deviates from his sources, provided 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- 29 On this ground it makes no practical difference what edition of the Greek texts is quoted below, since only those passages 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.) 30 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 DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 3l 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 Tischendorf's j5^. VIII. ^ 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 renderings 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 . 31 The texts used in this collation are (i) Cur., (2) Ben., and (3) Lew. 237 32 HISTOKICAL AND LINGUISTIC 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 : "Er hat seine Schema vom Gang der offentlichen Wirksamkeit Jesu, wie gezeigt wurde und eigentlich selbst- verstandlichist, sowie Jemand den Versuch einer Verarbeitung aller vier Evangelien macht, hauptsa,chlich 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 Zweckmas- sigkeit vielfach eine andere Anordnung als die der zeitlichen Abfolge der Ereignisse gewahlt habe." Yet these passages (and perhaps simi- lar remarks) have been interpreted to mean that, not only in the gen- 239] 33 34 HISTORICAL 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 : 41- 45a = 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 t'/a/us 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 39 Not used in T's conflation, 240 DIATESSAKON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 35 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 :i3 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 HISTOKICAL AND LINGUISTIC 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 exists between the synoptic and Johannine accounts as to the date of the crucifixion. 242 DIATESSAEON AND THE SYNOPTIC 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 :3i (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 2:13,35 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 3* D presents Johannine material in the following order. John i : 1-5 -|- (i : 6 omitted) i : 7-28 4- 1 : 29-31 + I : 32-34 -I- I : 3S-5i + 2 : i-ii + 3 : 22 — 4 : 3a + 4 : 46-54 + 2 : 233-25 -}- 6 : 1-71 ( with this section synoptic material is conflated) -(-4 : 4-45a + 5 : 1-47 + 4 : 45^ + 7 : i + 7 : 2-ioa -|- 7 : lob- 3i4-5:i(?) + 2: 14-22 + 3 : 1-21 -|- 7 : 31-52 ( note the repetition of vs. 31 ). From this point on there is no difference between T's order and that of our fourth gospel. The + sign indicates intervening synoptic material. 35 For a full discussion of this njatter see chap, vii, below. 243 38 HISTORICAL 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. i^Cf. 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 2:13. 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 DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 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: 27; 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) ; events immediately following the arrest (A 48 : 44 — 49 : 18) ; the trial before Pilate (A 49 : 43 — 5 1:6); the crucifixion ( A 5 1 : 1 5 — 5 2:13); 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 Bacon nowhere presents the facts, and that he had them before him is hard to believe. 245 40 HISTOBIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES of current views. We may here notice the specific phenomena of T's method in choosing material from his several sources. T followed no gospel constantly as his primary source. But, on the basis of a study of all four gospels, he adopted a general plan to which he subordinated the material furnished by each of his sources. This subordination extends to both the general order and the inner composition of sections. As regards his use of the synoptic gospels, it is to be said that sometimes he used a given source without alteration, excepting a few expressions here and there; in some other passages, he added to his preferred source from his rejected source only such material as was not in the former; 37 and in still other cases he simply substituted one account for the other, with little or no change ; vide, e. g., the last two items of the account of the temptation (A 4 : 43 — 5 : 3), where Matthew is the source for one and Luke for the other ; or consider the substitution (A 13: 39 — 14: 14) of Luke 7 : 18-35 ^^^ Matt. 11: 2-19, with almost no Matthean influence, save in the addition of Matt. 11:12-15, which is peculiar to the first gospel. The gospel of John is treated in general in precisely the same way as those of the synoptists. In both the choice of material and its arrangement T is guided by his own historical judgment as to what is correct. His choice of Johannine material illustrates, for the most part, the phenomenon of the addition of material peculiar to one source, which addition is made to that source which is being generally followed at any given point. Almost any conflation of John with the other gospels will illustrate this; e. g., A 39 : 1-17. There is also the phenomenon of introducing long, unbroken sections from a single source. Such are the characteristics of Tatian's preferences in the use of his sources. 37 Examples of this and the other phenomena mentioned may be seen in the passages of the synop- tists referred to above in the discussion of order (p. 34), as well as in almost any conflation of A. 246 CHAPTER II. THE PLAN OF THE DIATESSARON. The results of the investigation of the preceding chapter serve as a basis for the determination of what Tatian's plan was. Until we had reached some conclusion as to what general attitude toward his sources he assumed, we were in no position to present the scheme of his work, as D itself reveals it. Now, however, we may proceed without fear of being confronted with conclusions drawn from any of the views pre- sented above. The apparent plan of T's gospel is as follows : I. Introductory Ai:i — 3:36 1. The eternal Logos i:i-5 2. Birth and childhood of John the Baptist - - - - 1:6-81 3. Birth and childhood of Jesus 2 : i — 3 : 36 a) Annunciation to Joseph 2:1-8 d) Infancy of Jesus 2: 9-47 a) Birth 2:9-28 /S) Circumcision 2: 29 y) Presentation in the temple - - - - - 2 : 30-47 c) Childhood of Jesus 3:1-36 a) Visit of the magi 3:1-12 /3) Flight into Egypt and return to Nazareth - - 3 : 13-23 7) Life of Nazareth 3: 24 8) Visit to Jerusalem - - . - - - - 3 : 25-35 e) Growth of Jesus 3: 36 II. Events Introductory to the Career of Jesus - - 3 : 37 — 5 : 20 1. John the Baptist's advent and preaching - - 3 : 37 — 4 : 27 2. Baptism of Jesus 4:28-41 3. Temptation of Jesus 4:42 — 5:3 4. Call of the first disciples 5 : 4-20 III. Jesus' Public Ministry 5:21 — 38:47 (The account in this section gives a series of journeys each of which follows a period of activity at the place from which Jesus starts and to which he returns.) I. Journeys with Cana as headquarters . - - 5:21 — 6:35 period I. a) Jesus' arrival at Cana, and first miracle - - 5:21-32 d) His widespread fame 5 : 33» 34 c) Visit to Nazareth ^ 5^35-41 247] 4X 42 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC 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 13^30-35 e) Visit of John the Baptist's messengers - - - 13:36-43 f) 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 i) 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 1) Effort of Jesus' mother and brothers to see him - 16:13-18 248 DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 43 m) Tour of Galilee 16:19-21 n) Parables by the seaside 16:22 — 17:35 6) Rejection at Nazareth '7 ''36-5 3 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 — 19:13 /) General healing activity 19:14,15 PERIOD V. a) Return to Capernaum and rebuke of sign-seeking 19: 16 — 20:1 1 ^) 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 3^ 21:8-46 /) Return to Galilee (but not to Capernaum) - - 21:47-49 g) Healing of a leper in a Galilean village - - 22:1-8 K) Journey to Jerusalem; the infirm man at Bethesda - 22:9-55 i) Return to Galilee ; a mountain miracle - - - 23:1-4 y) Feeding of the four thousand iy.^-\i fi) Pharisees and Sadducees demanding a sign - - 23:13-25 /) Blind man at Bethsaida 23:26-30 in) 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 q) 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 /) 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. 258). 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 a) and c), ^49 44 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES h) Return to Galilee (not to Capernaum; cf. 27: 40), and discourses on the slain Galileans and the fig tree - 27: 30-39 i) 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. d) Jesus' colloquy with his brothers . - - - 28:1-8 b) 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. d) The journey - - 30:31 — 31:52 a) The start 30:31 /3) Cleansing the lepers 30:32-39 7) Jesus' forecast of his death - , - - 30:40-45 5) Request of the sons of Zebedee - - - - 30:46-52 c) Consequent anger of the Ten - - - - 31:1-14 f) Jesus and Zaccheus at Jericho - - - - 31:15-24 17) Blind Bartimaeus 31:25-35 Q) Parable of the Ten Shares 31:36-52 h) At Jerusalem (during and subsequent to the feast) 32: i — 37: 42 a) 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. /S) Second day 32:24 — 33:1 Cursing the fig tree; visit of Nicodemus; retirement to Bethany. 7) 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 born blind; discourse on the Good Shepherd. f) 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 ct) Anointing at Bethany 39:1-17 250 DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 45 b) 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 f) Jesus' arraignment of the Pharisees - - 40:26 — 41:15 g) Beginning of plots 41:16-26 h) Saying concerning the destruction of the temple, and its consequences 41:27-32 /) Discourse on the destruction of Jerusalem - 41^33 — 43^58 j) Jesus' prediction of death; plots; Judas's complicity 44:1-9 k) 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 - - _ - 48:1-43 n) Flight of the disciples 48:44-48 0) Peter's first denial 48:47-55 p) Examination before Annas 49:1-6 q) 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 51:15—52:23 u) Burial 52:24-39 v) The guard 52:40-44 2. Life after death 52:45—55=17 a) Resurrection 52 = 45 — 53 = 3^ b) 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). 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 Zweckmassigkeit 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. t8, through A 25:8 — 27:29. The following will indicate this: Matt. 18:1 = A 25: 8; Matt. 18: 3 = A 25: 10; Matt. i8:6-8=A 25: 13-18; Matt. 18: 9« = A 25 : 20; Matt. i8:i3=:A 26 :5; Matt. i8:i4 = A 26: 7; Matt. 18: 23-35 = A 27 : 1-13; Matt. 18 : i5-22 = A 27 : 16-23; Matt. 18: 10, 11= 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 DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 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 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 i3:3iff.), 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, vti, the discussion of A 30: 31. 253 48 HISTOKIOAL 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:i7(J. 6ti ireirX-^purai 6 Kaipbs "Repent ye and believe fieravoeiTe' ijyyiKev yb,p if Kal ijyyiKev rj /SatriXefa rod in the gospel. The time is paaCKda rCov oiipavQv. deov' fi€Tavo€CT€ KalinaT€iJ€T€ fulfilled and the kingdom iv ry eiayyeXLtp. 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 : 16 (= 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 DIATESSAKON AND THE SYNOPTIC PKOBLEM 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 : 1/5 (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)4- 11:19^ -[- II : i2-i$a. 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 wc 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 : { Luke 1:50, €ls 7ew4s koI 7cw4s tois oPovfihois airrbv. (A 1:51, "them who fear him through the ages and the times." Luke 9 : 11^, Kal Toi>s xpcfav ^x<"^as depairdas Idro. A 18 :26, "And he healed those having need of healing." Note. — This example is especially interesting, since Luke 9 : 1 1 is repeated with the order of the Greek ( ydp. 3. A 2 : I = Matt. 1:18, Maplai. Note. — But E 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 43 A 25:6 presents another saying that might on this same ground be assigned to an apocryphal source. C/. p. 51. 44FuL. gives the following as containing the story: "the Gospel of the Ebionites," "the Preaching of Paul [or Peter]," "the Pseudo-Cyprianic De Baptismata." 45 See Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 88. 258 DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 53 principle stated at the beginning of this chapter, argue strongly for the correctness of A. E, 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, iv ry 'lo-paiJX. Note. — The evidence for this omission is derived from E (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 iv, but none the entire phrase. 5. A 4 : 1 2 = Matt. 3 : 4, Tcpl t^v 6adivTes iv 56^7/. 4. A 30: 32 = Luke iy:iia,C, Kal iyivero . . . . Kal a&rbs Si-^pxero did. fxiaov ^a/Mplas Kal FaXtXa^as. 5. A 32 : 1-27 = Mark lliiS, Kal . . . . airov. 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^^, 6 iariv Ko8pdvT7]s, 7. A 32 : 26 = Matt. 21:19, Kal i^Tjpdvdr} irapaxpvP^ V ^vkt}. 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 : 1 5, 1 6 = Mark 1 4 : 8«, 6 ivx^v iiroLijaev. 9. A 46 : 53 = John 16:10, koI oiKiri deupeiri fie. 259 54 HISTOKIOAL 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 after 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-I7)- 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 : I. 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: 5 2-5 5 = Luke 20: 1 6<^. 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 suggested above, in H.a, App. II and marginal notes to the text (tf/., e. g., pp. 178, 179). Th« following may be profitably examined : A 45 : 19-22 ( = John 13 : 33-36) and A 49 : 44 (= John 18 : 28^) . See also footnote, p. 50. 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: ^ob, 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 : i8b) 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 : 2Zb) ' What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God ?*| (Mark 5 '.^c) I adjure thee by God, tor- ment me not.' | (Luke 8 : 29^) 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: ^b; Matt. 26: 10a; Mark 14 : 6b; John 12 : "jb; Mark 14:7; Matt. 26 : 12 ; Mark 14 : U. A 41 .'33-41. — Here we have material from the three synoptics: Mark 13 : 30;/ Matt. 24 : 3^/ Luke 21 : 7^/ Matt. 24 : y; Matt. 24 : 4^/ Luke 17 : 22b; Matt. 24:4^^, %a; Luke 21 : 8^/ Mark 13 : db (or Matt. 24:5^); Luke 21: 8^/ Mark 13:7^/ Luke2i:9<^/ Matt. 24:6^/ Luke 21 : 10^, 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 •.22b (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 45 : 23-28 gives a conflation of material from all four gospels: Matt. 26 :'3i, 32; John 13 : 36a/ Matt. 26 : 33^; Luke 22 : 33<^(Lord), (or John 13 : 37^;); Matt. 26 : i^fi; Luke 22 : ly; John 13 : 37^, 38^1/ Mark 14:30/5/ Luke 22 : 34^; Marki4:3i«/ Matt. 26 : 35^/ Mark 14:31; Matt. 26 : 35<5. 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. DIATESSARON 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 : i4« is inserted (A 5:21), 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 this identification, it was possible to use Luke 4: 14^! as an excellent transition from John i : 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. so Cf. Hill's marginal notes to his text. 263 58 HISTORICAL 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<$). John4:45/5, (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 : lib 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 £f. 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 II : 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; 14:2-30). 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 DIATESSAEON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 59 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 : ib-^^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.s' 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 {e. g., Matthew) are greatly lengthened, but new 51 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. 60 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES ones are created by the combination of less extended passages. Exam- ine the following : 1 . A 8 : 26 — /o : 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 :ii^,i2 ; 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 : 3o<^, 31 ; Matt 5 : 43-46 ; Luke 6 : 32^^-36; Matt. 5:47, 48 ; Matt, 6 : 1-8 ; Luke 11 : 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<2; (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 I 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 \Z\%b (or Mark 4 : 25?); Luke 6 : 39-42 ; Matt. 7:6; Luke II : 5-13 (Perean); Matt. 7 : 12-16^ (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 — 13 : 2g, 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^, ^a (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. 16 : 3/^).^'' 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. S2 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 Westcott 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 DIATESSARON 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: i- 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 13, 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 : 1-23. — Here T has constructed a discourse on prayer, and has included, in the following order, these passages : Mark 11 : 19, 20 ; Matt. 21:20b; Mark 11:21-23; Matt. 21: 21b, 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 TrvevfMiTtov 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. A 39 : 22, •' send them hither" (Arab. 2d pars, dual imperat.). Matt. 21:3, dvoa-TeXei. Mood, person, and number are affected. A 30 : 52, " My Father hath prepared." Mark 10:40, ijToifjuKTTai (Matt. 20:23), inrb irarpSs fwv. The conflate reading of A has a change of voice. j A 4 : 51 has a subjunctive clause of purpose for 8Ld(a/u (Luke 4 : 6). ( Change of mood. j A 51 : 34, " Hath been written." ( John ig : 22, yiypacfya. Change of voice and person. ^ j A 28 : 28, "Truly this man has been known." ( John 7 : 27, TovTov o(5afiep, Voice, number, and person are affected. A 46: 14, "that I should be reckoned." Luke 22 : 37, iXoyUrdr]. Person and probably the tense have been changed, for the Arabic imperfect refers to the future, /. v 5$ o{)k diroTdfffferai wcuriv rois iavroG inrdpxov- ffip oi 8ivaTai eJval /xov fjLadrjT'^s. Ta 16: 17, "And he beckoned with his hand, stretching it out toward his 5 J disciples and said." I Matt. 1 2 : 49, Kal iKrelvas ttju x«P<* ^""i rois nadrfrds airov eXirev. '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), Kal dvi^tf vpbs airroifs els t6 irXohp Kal iKbiraffev b dvcfios. S3 For a suggestive discussion of this passage, and for the quotation from Ishodad, see Har.c, pp. 17, x8. 271 4^ 6^ 66 HISTORICAL 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 9:31, €\e70J' ['HXefas Kal Mwucr^s] rijv t^odov airrov. « j A 39 : 22, "We seek them for our Lord and straightway send them hither." ( Matt. 21 : 3^, 6 /ciJptos ainrGiv xP^^^v ex«' ei>di)s airoffreKei aiiroiis (Mark 11:3) <&5e. I A 51 : 6. "Then Pilate commanded to grant their request and delivered 9'j up Jesus to be crucified." I Luke 23 :24, koL ILeCKaros itr^Kpivev yeviffdai rb afrTj^a a^wi' (John ig : 1 6) rfrre odp TrapiduKcu airbv airoTs ha (rravpud^. A 51 :3i, "And Pilate wrote on a tablet ^ke 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, fypoipev d^ Kal tItKov b IletXaTos Kal fdrjKep iirl rod (rravpoO • fjv bk yeypafJLfiivov ^Matt. 27 : 37, Kal iiridriKev iir&vu) t^s Kc^aX-^s airrov rijv ahlav airrov yeypanfi^vrjv. In this final example we have a striking instance of the employ- ment of both conflation and rewriting : A 24:3, 4 (Luke 9:29^) "And while they were praying, Jesus | (Matt. 1 7 : 2a) changed | (Luke 9 : 29) and became after the fashion of another person \ (Matt. 17 : 2<5), 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, Kal iy^vero ip ry Trpoaeijxeffdai airrbv rb elSos tov irpoadiirov a^rou irepop Kal b IpLaTiffpibs. Matt. 17:2, airrov \evKbs i^aa-Tpdirrtap. Kal /xeTe/Jioptpibdrj ^/nrpoadep airSip Kal ltKa/x'\f/€P rb Trpbacjirop airrov w$ 6 -^Xtos, rb. 8^ IpAria avrov iyhero \evK&. Mark 9:3, ws t6 ^ws. koL rb. Ifidria airov iyipero ffrlXpopra XevKb. \iap, oTa ypas M ttjs yijs oi) bifparai oCtojs Xei/Komi. 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 II DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 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.y 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 ; /. ^b is twice employed. 14. A 54 : 14 ; cf. 55 .-J. — 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 VIII. 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 lengthening of the Perean journey, which may be considered analogous in freedom to the arrangement of 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 DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PBOBLEM 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, supra). 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 67 See discussion below, pp. 78, 79. 78 HISTORICAL 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 DIATESSARON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 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 spccif- 285 80 HISTOKICAL 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., 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 DIATESSAKON AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM 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. or THE VNIVER8ITY 287 ^ LOAN DEPT. Renewals „a. b?!„^°f|"«' *""'•■ ^//y n / 5 immediate recall. General Library >iBi r^ CO V;^ 93! CO do t^ « o a CJ H O P ^ O 08 ^ to P^ «> o OS -P !l EH / OS *l. i