{141}
There is no evidence whatever that Marcion had any knowledge of the other canonical Gospels in any form.(1) None of his writings are extant, and no direct a.s.sertion is made even by the Fathers that he knew them, although from their dogmatic point of view they a.s.sume that these Gospels existed from the very first, and therefore insinuate that as he only recognized one Gospel, he rejected the rest.(2) When Irenaeus says: "He persuaded his disciples that he himself was more veracious than were the apostles who handed down the Gospel, though he delivered to them not the Gospel, but part of the Gospel,"(3) it is quite clear that he speaks of the Gospel--the good tidings--Christianity--and not of specific written Gospels. In another pa.s.sage which is referred to by Apologists, Irenaeus says of the Marcionites that they have a.s.serted: "That even the apostles proclaimed the Gospel still under the influence of Jewish sentiments; but that they themselves are more sound and more judicious than the apostles. Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have had recourse to mutilating the Scriptures, not recognizing some books at all, but curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul; these they say are alone authentic which they themselves have abbreviated."(4)
{142}
These remarks chiefly refer to the followers of Marcion, and as we have shown, when treating of Valentinus, Irenaeus is expressly writing against members of heretical sects living in his own day and not of the founders of those sects.(1) The Marcionites of the time of Irenaeus no doubt deliberately rejected the Gospels, but it does, not by any means follow that Marcion himself knew anything of them. As yet we have not met with any evidence even of their existence.
The evidence of Tertullian is not a whit more valuable. In the pa.s.sage usually cited, he says: "But Marcion, lighting upon the Epistle of Paul to the Gaia-tians, in which he reproaches even Apostles for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, as well as accuses certain false Apostles of perverting the Gospel of Christ, tries with all his might to destroy the status of those Gospels which are put forth as genuine and under the name of Apostles or at least of contemporaries of the Apostles, in order, be it known, to confer upon his own the credit which he takes from them."(2) Now here again it is clear that Tertullian is simply applying, by inference, Marcion"s views with regard to the preaching of the Gospel by the two parties in the Church, represented by the Apostle Paul and the "pillar" Apostles whose leaning to Jewish doctrines he condemned, to the written Gospels recognized in his day though not in Marcion"s. "It is uncertain," says even Canon Westcott,
{143}
"whether Tertullian in the pa.s.sage quoted speaks from a knowledge of what Marcion may have written on the subject, or simply from his own point of sight."(1) Any doubt is, however, removed on examining the context, for Tertullian proceeds to argue that if Paul censured Peter, John and James, it was for changing their company from respect of persons, and similarly, "if false apostles crept in," they betrayed their character by insisting on Jewish observances. "So that it was _not on account of their preaching_, but of their conversation that they were pointed out by Paul,"(2) and he goes on to argue that if Marcion thus accuses Apostles of having depraved the Gospel by their dissimulation, he accuses Christ in accusing those whom Christ selected.(3) It is palpable, therefore, that Marcion, in whatever he may have written, referred to the preaching of the Gospel, or Christianity, by Apostles who retained their Jewish prejudices in favour of circ.u.mcision and legal observances, and not to written Gospels. Tertullian merely a.s.sumes, with his usual audacity, that the Church had the four Gospels from the very first, and therefore that Marcion, who had only one Gospel, knew the others and deliberately rejected them.
{144}
CHAPTER VIII. TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH
From Marcion we now turn to Tatian, another so-called heretic leader.
Tatian, an a.s.syrian by birth,(1) embraced Christianity and became a disciple of Justin Martyr(2) in Rome, sharing with him, as it seems, the persecution excited by Crescens the Cynic(3) to which Justin fell a victim. After the death of Justin, Tatian, who till then had continued thoroughly orthodox, left Rome, and joined the sect of the Encrat.i.tes, of which, however, he was not the founder,(4) and became the leading exponent of their austere and ascetic doctrines.(5)
The only one of his writings which is still extant is his "Oration to the Greeks"[------]. This work was written after the death of Justin, for in it he refers to that event,(6) and it is generally dated between
{145}
a. d. 170-175. (l) Teschendorf does not a.s.sert that there is any quotation in this address taken from the Synoptic Gospels;(2) and Canon Westcott only affirms that it contains a clear reference" to "a parable recorded by St. Matthew," and he excuses the slightness of this evidence by adding: "The absence of more explicit testimony to the books of the New Testament is to be accounted for by the style of his writing, and not by his unworthy estimate of their importance."(3) This remark is without foundation, as we know nothing whatever with regard to Tatian"s estimate of any such books.
The supposed "clear reference" is as follows: "For by means of a certain hidden treasure [------] he made himself lord of all that we possess, in digging for which though we were covered with dust, yet we give it the occasion of falling into our hands and abiding with us."(4) This is claimed as a reference to Matt. xiii. 44: "The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hidden [------] in the field, which a man found and hid, and for his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath and buyeth that field." So faint a similarity could not prove anything, but it is evident that there are decided differences here. Were the probability fifty times greater than it is that Tatian had in his mind the parable, which is reported in our first Gospel, nothing could be more unwarrantable than the deduction that he must have derived it from our Matthew, and not from any other of the numerous Gospels which we know to have early been in circulation. Ewald ascribes the parable in Matthew originally to the "Spruchsammlung" or collection of Discourses, the second of the four works out of which he considers our first Synoptic to have been compiled.(1) As evidence even for the existence of our first canonical Gospel, no such anonymous allusion could have the slightest value.
Although neither Tischendorf nor Canon Westcott think it worth while to refer to it, some apologists claim another pa.s.sage in the Oration as a reference to our third Synoptic. "Laugh ye: nevertheless you shall weep."(2) This is compared with Luke vi. 25: "Woe unto you that laugh now: for ye shall mourn and weep,"(3) Here again, it is impossible to trace a reference in the words of Tatian specially to our third Gospel, and manifestly nothing could be more foolish than to build upon such vague similarity any hypothesis of Tatian"s acquaintance with Luke. If there be one part of the Gospel which was more known than another in the first ages of Christianity, it was the Sermon on the Mount, and there can be no doubt that many evangelical works now lost contained versions of it. Ewald likewise a.s.signs this pa.s.sage of Luke originally to the Spruchsammlung,4 and no one can doubt that the saying was recorded long before the writer of the third Gospel
{147}
undertook to compile evangelical history, as so many had done before him.
Further on, however, Canon Westcott says: "it can be gathered from Clement of Alexandria... that he (Tatian) endeavoured to derive authority for his peculiar opinions from the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, and probably from the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the Gospel of St. Matthew."(1) The allusion here is to a pa.s.sage in the Stromata of Clement, in which reference is supposed by the apologist to be made to Tatian. No writer, however, is named, and Clement merely introduces his remark by the words: "a certain person," [------] and then proceeds to give his application of the Saviour"s words "not to treasure upon earth where moth and rust corrupt" [------].(2) The parallel pa.s.sage in Matthew vi. 19, reads: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt," [------].
Canon Westcott, it is true, merely suggests that "probably" this may be ascribed to Tatian, but it is almost absolutely certain that it was not attributed to him by Clement. Tatian is several times referred to in the course of the same chapter, and his words are continued by the use of [------] or [------], and it is in the highest degree improbable that Clement should introduce another quotation from him in such immediate context by the vague and distant reference "a certain person" [------].
On the other hand reference is made in the chapter to
1 On the Canon, p. 279. [In the 4th edition Dr. Westcott has altered the "probably" of the above sentence to "perhaps,"
and in a note has added: "These two last references are from an anonymous citation [------] which has been commonly a.s.signed to Tatian." P. 318, n. 1.]
{148}
other writers and sects, to one of whom with infinitely greater propriety this expression applies. No weight, therefore, could be attached to any such pa.s.sage in connection with Tatian. Moreover the quotation not only does not agree with our Synoptic, but may much more probably have been derived from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(1) It will be remembered that Justin Martyr quotes the same pa.s.sage, with the same omission of "[------]," from a Gospel different from our Synoptics.(2)
Tatian, however, is claimed by apologists as a witness for the existence of our Gospels--more than this he could not possibly be--princ.i.p.ally on the ground that his Gospel was called by some Diatessaron [------] or "by four," and it is a.s.sumed to have been a harmony of four Gospels. The work is no longer extant and, as we shall see, our information regarding it is of the scantiest and most unsatisfactory description. Critics have arrived at very various conclusions with regard to the composition of the work. Some of course affirm, with more or less of hesitation nevertheless, that it was nothing else than a harmony of our four canonical Gospels;(3) many of these, however, are constrained to admit that it was also partly based upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(4) Some maintain that it was
{149}
a harmony of our three Synoptics together with the Gospel according to the Hebrews;(1) whilst many deny that it was composed of our Gospels at all,(2) and either declare it to have been a harmony of the Gospel according to the Hebrews with three other Gospels whose ident.i.ty cannot be determined, or that it was simply the Gospel according to the Hebrews itself,(3) by which name, as Epiphanius states, it was called by some in his day.(4)
Tatian"s Gospel, however, was not only called Diatessaron, but, according to Victor of Capua, it was also called Diapente [------]
"by five,"(5) a complication which shows the incorrectness of the ecclesiastical theory of its composition.
Tischendorf, anxious to date Tatian"s Gospel as early as possible, says that in all probability it was composed earlier than the address to the Greeks.(6) Of this, however, he does not offer any evidence, and upon
{150}
examination it is very evident that the work was, on the contrary, composed or adopted after the Oration and his avowal of heretical opinions. Theodoret states that Tatian had in it omitted the genealogies and all other pa.s.sages showing that Christ was born of David according to the flesh, and he condemned the work, and caused it to be abandoned, on account of its evil design.(1) If the a.s.sumption be correct, therefore, as Tischendorf maintains, that Tatian altered our Gospels, and did not merely from the first, like his master Justin, make use of Gospels different from those which afterwards became canonical, he must have composed the work after the death of Justin, up to which time he is stated to have remained quite orthodox.(2) The date may with much greater probability be set between a.d. 170--180.(3)
The earliest writer who mentions Tatian"s Gospel is Eusebius,(4) who wrote some century and a half after its supposed composition, without, however, having himself seen the work at all, or being really acquainted with its nature and contents.(5) Eusebius says: "Tatian, however, their former chief, having put together a certain amalgamation and collection, I know not how, of the Gospels, named this the Diatessaron, which even now is current with some."(6)
{151}
It is clear that such hearsay information is not to be relied on.
Neither Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, nor Jerome, who refer to other works of Tatian, make any mention of this one. Epiphanius, however, does so, but, like Eusebius, evidently without having himself seen it.(1) This second reference to Tatian"s Gospel is made upwards of two centuries after its supposed composition. Epiphanius says: "It is said that he (Tatian) composed the Diatessaron, which is called by some the Gospel according to the Hebrews."(2) It must be observed that it is not said that Tatian himself gave this Gospel the name of Diates-saron,(3) but on the contrary the expression of Epiphanius implies that he did not do so,(4) and the fact that it was also called by some the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and Diapente, shows that the work had no superscription from Tatian of a contradictory character. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (+457), is the next writer who mentions Tatian"s Gospel, and he is the only one who had personally seen it He says: "He (Tatian) also composed the Gospel which is called _Diatessaron_, excising the genealogies and all the other parts which declare that the Lord was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. This was used not only by those of his own sect, but also by those who held the apostolic doctrines, who did not perceive the evil of the composition, but made use of the book in simplicity on account of its conciseness. I myself found upwards of two hundred such books held in honour among our churches, and collecting them all together, I had them put aside and, instead, introduced the Gospels of the four Evangelists." Again it must be observed that Theodoret does not say that the Gospel of Tatian _was_ a Diatessaron, but merely that it was called so [------].(1)
After quoting this pa.s.sage, and that from Epiphanius, Canon Westcott says with an a.s.surance which, considering the nature of the evidence, is singular:--"Not only then was the Diatessaron grounded on the four canonical Gospels, but in its general form it was so orthodox as to enjoy a wide ecclesiastical popularity. The heretical character of the book was not evident upon the surface of it, and consisted rather in faults of defect than in erroneous teaching. Theodoret had certainly examined it, and he, like earlier writers, regarded it as a compilation from the four Gospels. He speaks of omissions which were at least in part natural in a Harmony, but notices no such apocryphal additions as would have found place in any Gospel not derived from canonical sources."(2) Now it must be remembered that the evidence regarding Tatian"s Gospel is of the very vaguest description. It is not mentioned by any writer until a century and a half after the date of its supposed
2 On the Canon, p. 281. [In the 4th edition, the first sentence in the above pa.s.sage is altered to: "From this statement it is clear that the Diatessaron was so orthodox as to enjoy a wide ecclesiastical popularity." P. 320.]
{153}
composition, and then only referred to by Eusebius, who had not seen the work, and candidly confesses his ignorance with regard to it, so that a critic who is almost as orthodox as Canon Westcott himself acknowledges: "For the truth is that we know no more about Tatian"s work than what Eusebius, who never saw it, knew."(1) The only other writer who refers to it, Epiphanius, had not seen it either, and while showing that the t.i.tle of Diatessaron had not been given to it by Tatian himself, he states the important fact that some called it the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Theodoret, the last writer who mentions it, and of whom Dr. Donaldson also says: "Theodoret"s information cannot be depended upon,"(2) not only does not say that it is based upon our four Gospels, but, on the contrary, points out that Tatian"s Gospel did not contain the genealogies and pa.s.sages tracing the descent of Jesus through the race of David, which our Synoptics possess, and he so much condemned the mischievous design of the work that he confiscated the copies in circulation in his diocese as heretical. Canon Westcott"s a.s.sertion that Theodoret regarded it as a compilation of our four Gospels is most arbitrary. Omissions, as he himself points out, are natural to a Harmony, and conciseness certainly would be the last quality for which it could have been so highly prized, if every part of the four Gospels had been retained. The omission of the parts referred to, which are equally omitted from the canonical fourth Gospel, could not have been sufficient to merit the condemnation of the work as heretical, and had Tatian"s Gospel not been different in various respects from our four Gospels, such summary treatment would have been totally
{154}
unwarrantable. The statement, moreover, that in place of Tatian"s Gospel, Theodoret "introduced the Gospels of the four Evangelists,"
seems to indicate that the displaced Gospel was not a compilation from them, but a substantially different work. Had this not been the case, Theodoret would naturally have qualified such an expression.
Speaking of the difficulty of distinguishing Tatian"s Harmony from others which must, the writer supposes, have been composed in his time, Dr. Donaldson points out: "And then we must remember that the Harmony of Tatian was confounded with the Gospel according to the Hebrews; and it is not beyond the reach of possibility that Theodoret should have made some such mistake."(1) That is to say, that the only writer who refers to Tatian"s Gospel who professes to have seen the work is not only "not to be depended on," but may actually have mistaken for it the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is, therefore, no authority for saying that Tatian"s Gospel was a harmony of four Gospels at all, and the name Diatessaron was not only not given by Tatian himself to the work, but was probably the usual foregone conclusion of the Christians of the third and fourth centuries, that everything in the shape of evangelical literature must be dependent on the Gospels adopted by the Church.
Those, however, who called the Gospel used by Tatian the Gospel according to the Hebrews must apparently have read the work, and all that we know confirms their conclusion. The Gospel was, in point of fact, found in wide circulation precisely in the places in which, earlier, the Gospel according to the Hebrews was more particularly current.(2) The singular
{155}
fact that the earliest reference to Tatian"s "Harmony," is made a century and a half after its supposed composition, and that no writer before the fifth century had seen the work itself, indeed that only two writers before that period mention it at all, receives its natural explanation in the conclusion that Tatian did not compose any Harmony at all, but simply made use of the same Gospel as his master Justin Martyr, namely, the Gospel according to the Hebrews,(1) by which name his Gospel had been actually called by those best informed.
Although Theodoret, writing in the fifth century, says in the usual arbitrary manner of early Christian writers, that Tatian "excised" from his Gospel the genealogies and certain pa.s.sages found in the Synoptics, he offers no explanation or proof of his a.s.sertion, and the utmost that can be received is that Tatian"s Gospel did not contain them.(3) Did he omit them or merely use a Gospel which never included them? The latter is the more probable conclusion. Neither Justin"s Gospel nor the Gospel according to the Hebrews contained the genealogies or references to the Son of David, and why, as Credner suggests, should Tatian have taken the trouble to prepare a Harmony with these omissions when he already found one such as he desired in Justin"s Gospel? Tatian"s Gospel, like that of his master Justin, or the Gospel according to the Hebrews, was different from, yet nearly related to, our canonical Gospels, and as we have already seen, Justin"s Gospel, like Tatian"s, was considered by many to be a harmony of our Gospels.(3) No
{156}
one seems to have seen Tatian"s "Harmony," probably for the very simple reason that there was no such work, and the real Gospel used by him was that according to the Hebrews, as some distinctly and correctly called it. The name Diatessaron is first heard of in a work of the fourth century, when it is naturally given by people accustomed to trace every such work to our four Gospels, but as we have clearly seen, there is not up to the time of Tatian any evidence even of the existence of three of our Gospels, and much less of the four in a collected form. Here is an attempt to identify a supposed, but not demonstrated, harmony of Gospels whose separate existence has not been heard of. Even Dr. Westcott states that Tatian"s Diatessaron "is apparently the first recognition of a fourfold Gospel,"(1) but, as we have seen, that recognition emanates only from a writer of the fourth century who had not seen the work of which he speaks. No such modern ideas, based upon mere foregone conclusions, can be allowed to enter into a discussion regarding a work dating from the time of Tatian.(2)
The fact that the work found by Theodoret in his diocese was used by orthodox Christians without