What is the Diatessaron?

As regards Justin Martyr, with all his details he seems to be very weak; and here also he has either borrowed or is only on the surface. That there was a multitude of accounts of Jesus current, written and unwritten, is notorious, and it is stated in Luke's Gospel. That Justin, who was of Palestine, had heard and refers to such is most probable. But these accounts never stood on the ground the four Gospels did. Origen notices (be his remark solid or not is alike as to this) that the others had taken in hand, which was merely human, not as Luke. Irenaeus insists that there could not be more than four Gospels, of which I will speak farther on, and Tatian made a harmony of these four - plain proof that in the very earliest ages these four were distinctly recognised. That Justin, who was of Palestine, was familiar with the accounts current as published there, and reproduces them, is most probable; but no one can read even what is cited by the author of Supernatural Religion without seeing that Justin was fully acquainted with and recalls what he has read in the canonical Gospels. He does not take the roll down to copy it, but we could not have what Justin gives without our Gospels.*

1a Indications of authorship present themselves in the Gospel itself at John 1:14, John 19:35, John 21:24. So much of the tradition as concerns the Apostle's connection with it is pieced together from the "Church History" of Eusebius (iii., chapter 24), who has preserved the Preface to comments on Logia of the Lord, by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (see Col. 4:13) about A.D. 130 or 140 (see Sanday, "Gospels in the Second Century," pp. 145-160, or Stanton, pp. 166-168), from the Muratorian Fragment, about A.D. 170 (see Westcott on the Canon), and from Irenæus in his treatise against heresies (A.D. 180), whose statement in iii. 11 Weizsäcker acknowledges as documentary evidence, not mere tradition. The language of Papias is too vague to be of any help as to this Gospel and its authorship. Justin Martyr came in between this Papias and Irenæus. He seems to quote from the Gospel in both his Apology and his Dialogue with Trypho, but does not name the author. The Muratorian Fragment, however, is distinct in its evidence, not only for the Apostolic authorship, but for the supreme value it attached to the fourth Gospel. By the time of Irenæus acceptance of the Johannine authorship is clear; of him Jülicher candidly says that "he was not the man to spin tradition out of his own brain" (p. 405). Indeed, the late Dr. Ezra Abbot, an American Unitarian, was convinced that we need not travel lower down for recognition of John's authorship than the time of Justin Martyr — i.e., in the middle of the second century (p. 80, cf. Stanton, pp. 181-191). Justin's adherent, Tatian (A.D. 160), seems to have used this Gospel for his "Diatessaron," which begins with "In the beginning was the Word" (cf. testimony of Theodoret, in Zahn). As far as is known, recognised opponents of Christianity, such as Celsus and Porphyry, did not attempt to disturb the received opinion. It is true that so-called Alogi (see note on John 1:1) attributed the authorship to Cerinthus, and the acceptance of the Johannine claim in the second century was retarded by the circumstance that the Gnostic heretic did actually appeal to this Gospel (see notes on John 1:3, 5, 14, etc.). So according to Origen, Heracleon in Italy (170-180), whilst the Alexandrian Basilides, "about the year 175," as wrote Matthew Arnold ("God and the Bible," p. 268 f.), "had before him the fourth Gospel." Zahn (ii. 459 note) gives ample references for such writers, as well as to Theophilus of Antioch, who died in 186, the first of the orthodox distinctly naming the author. Stanton well says: "That this Gospel, umlike as it is to the Synoptics, should have overborne the resistance offered to its acceptance is, humanly, only to be explained by its Apostolic authorship" (p. 277; cf. Sadler, Introduction to Commentary, xxv.).

The extreme views range between the last decade of the first century and the year 120 (Jülicher), In considering such opinions one must work back from about the year 160, i.e., from the time of Justin Martyr. While not naming our Evangelist, Justin speaks of "the Gospel," a term current in his time for all four records, which make up the "Diatessaron" of his pupil Tatian, an English translation of which may be seen in J. Hamlyn Hill's "The Earliest Life of Christ" (1910). Thirlwall (Introduction to Schleiermacher's "Essay of Luke," p. lxiv. ff.) considered that Justin's looseness in quotation (dwelt on by Cassels in "Supernatural Religion") was due to his regarding the New Testament as a commentary on the Books of the Hebrew Canon, which he quoted more carefully (p. lxxiii.). Somewhat earlier was Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, whose date is put by Harnack at 145; by Stanton, at 140; by Abbott, at 115-130. The testimony of this old bishop is of less account because he avowedly preferred oral to written accounts. But in Marcion, son of a bishop of Synope in Pontus, who was at Rome about 140 A.D., we have a witness of prime importance, because the substance of a Pauline gospel put forth by him is manifestly drawn from some recension of our third Gospel: see Westcott, on the Canon, chapter 4. Akin to Marcion's doctrinal system was that of his fellow Gnostic Valentinian (circ. 130), who, with Basilides, a contemporary heretic, seems also to have been acquainted with the contents of Luke's Gospel. We are thus carried back to the early years of the second century; and then, for the last decade of the first, are met by the question whether Luke had read Josephus' Antiquities (published in the winter of 93-94) because of similarity in the language used by the Evangelist and by the Jewish historian.

There seems never to have been any actual error discovered, as distinct from "constructive" mistake alleged, in either genealogy. Men like Celsus (circ. 150 A.D.) and Porphyry (circ. 300 A.D.) did not question them when these records had an importance which they do not possess for our age. Tatian's omission of them altogether is an eccentricity of his "Diatessaron," due, of course, to his difficulty in "harmonizing" them.

But we speak here more particularly of what are called "harmonies." This has been a favorite method of study by Bible students, and quite an account could be given of the various harmonies compiled from the first diatessaron to the latest harmonies of the four Gospels. While these have very much that is in common, and indeed we may say that the general outlines of the Gospel narratives are not so difficult of recognition, yet there is sufficient divergence in the details which indicates that it is very difficult, not to say impossible, to arrange every portion of the four narratives so as to blend them in one smoothly-connected whole. This is not because there are contradictions, but simply that this was not the object of the Spirit of God in giving us the fourfold record.

But we speak here more particularly of what are called "harmonies." This has been a favorite method of study by Bible students, and quite an account could be given of the various harmonies compiled, from the first diatessaron to the latest "Harmonies of the four Gospels." While these have very much that is in common, and indeed we may say that the general outlines of the Gospel narratives are not so difficult of recognition, yet there is sufficient divergence in the details which indicates that it is very difficult, not to say impossible, to arrange every portion of the four narratives so as to blend them in one smoothly connected whole.

Questions concerning such apparently minute subjects may appear trivial to some; but such an examination wonderfully unfolds the character of the Gospels — each an independent witness for Christ, both in His person and character. It was never, we are persuaded, in the mind of the Holy Ghost, that we should force these witnesses into one mould, as is the manner of most harmonies and diatessarons. Each evangelist has his own particular view of our blessed Lord, whilst the four form a combined and admirable portraiture. Our conception of Him, must embrace the traits of them all, and thus we take in the whole mind of God, who has not written one word in vain. W. W.

In the Codex Alexandrinus, and others, Matthew is marked for 68 divisions, Mark 48, Luke 83, and John 18. These are supposed to have been done by Titian, a disciple of Justin Martyr. These were called τίτλοι, titles, probably because each division had a title to it. Other portions were called κεφάλαια, divisions or chapters. It is supposed that these divisions embraced the first attempt at a "harmony" of the Gospels, that is, a system by which one continuous history could be read by taking a piece from each of the Gospels that appeared to relate to the same event or the same discourse, and reading them together; or simply for reference.

But these attempts gave place to a fuller system, by Ammonius of Alexandria, who, taking Matthew as his standard, drew up a table to form a "harmony," marking portions of the other three Gospels alongside each portion of Matthew, which he judged to refer to the same part of our Lord's life. These are commonly known as the Ammonian Sections.

On referring to the Testament, the reader will see that the first line speaks in each of the Gospels of the saying by Esaias, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord;" and in the second line to John's saying that one mightier than he was coming. These references, therefore, correspond, as nearly as may be, to the references in the margins of our Testaments. Thus, at this early date — the fourth century — did the readers of the Gospels have this advantage of reference from one Gospel to another; and though such a system is generally called the harmony of the Gospels, it is useful in pointing out the characteristic differences of the Gospels, always remembering that those who formed these lists (whether ancient or modern) were liable to mistake, and to place two passages together which have no real connection.

In a general way, these are four parallel narratives of the life, works, teachings, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. They were written by four different individuals, and while narrating many things that are common to all or most of them, there are omissions and additions in each which even from a human standpoint would mark them out as four distinct and, we will add, independent narratives.