2 Dr. Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev., 1876-77, p. 1137) refers to an apocryphal work, "The Doctrine of Addai," recently edited and published by Dr. Phillips, in which it is stated that a large mult.i.tude a.s.sembled daily at Edessa for prayer and the reading of the Old Testament, "and the new of the Diatessaron." Dr. Lightfoot a.s.sumes that this is Tatian"s Gospel. Even if it were so, however, we cannot discover in this any addition to our information regarding the composition of the work. We have already the fuller statement of Theodoret respecting the use of Tatian"s work in the churches of his diocese, so that beyond an interesting reference, no fresh light is thrown upon the question by the phrase quoted. But we cannot see any ground for a.s.serting that the Diatessaron here spoken of was Tatian"s Gospel. On the contrary, it seems perfectly clear that the writer speaks only of the four Gospels of the New Testament.
{157}
consciousness of its supposed heterodoxy, is quite consistent with the fact that it was the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which at one time was in very general use, but later gradually became an object of suspicion and jealousy in the Church as our canonical Gospels took its place. The manner in which Theodoret dealt with Tatian"s Gospel, or that "according to the Hebrews," recalls the treatment by Serapion of another form of the same work: the Gospel according to Peter. He found that work in circulation and greatly valued amongst the Christians of Rhossus, and allowed them peaceably to retain it for a time, until, alarmed at the Docetic heresy, he more closely examined the Gospel, and discovered in it what he considered heretical matter.(1) The Gospel according to the Hebrews, which narrowly missed a permanent place in the Canon of the Church, might well seem orthodox to the simple Christians of Cyrus, yet as different from, though closely related to, the Canonical Gospels, it would seem heretical to their Bishop. As different from the Gospels of the four evangelists, it was doubtless suppressed by Theodoret with perfect indifference as to whether it were called Tatian"s Gospel or the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It is obvious that there is no evidence of any value connecting Tatian"s Gospel with those in our Canon. We know so little about the work in question, indeed, that as Dr. Donaldson frankly admits, "we should not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it told us something reliable about itself."(2) Its earlier history is enveloped in obscurity, and as Canon Westcott observes: "The later history of the Diatessaron is
{158}
involved in confusion."(1) We have seen that in the sixth century it was described by Victor of Capua as Diapente, "by five," instead of "by four." It was also confounded with another Harmony written, not long after Tatian"s day, by Ammonius of Alexandria (+243). Dionysius Bar-Salibi,(2) a writer of the latter half of the twelfth century, mentions that the Syrian Ephrem, about the middle of the fourth century, wrote a commentary on the Diatessaron of Tatian, which Diatessaron commenced with the opening words of the fourth Gospel: "In the beginning was the word." The statement of Bar-Salibi, however, is contradicted by Gregory Bar-Hebraeus,
Bishop of Tagrit, who says that Ephrem Syrus wrote his Commentary on the Diatessaron of Ammonius, and that this Diatessaron commenced with the words of the fourth Gospel: "In the beginning was the word."(3) The Syrian Ebed-Jesu (+l308) held Tatian and Ammonius to be one and the same person; and it is probable that Dionysius mistook the Harmony of Ammonius for that of Tatian. It is not necessary further to follow this discussion, for it in no way affects our question, and no important deduction can be derived from it.(4) We allude to the point for the mere sake of showing that, up to the last, we have no certain information throwing light on the composition of Tatian"s Gospel. All that we do know of it,--what it did not contain--the places where it largely circulated, and the name by which it was
{159}
called, tends to identify it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
For the rest, Tatian had no idea of a New Testament Canon, and evidently did not recognize as inspired, any Scriptures except those of the Old Testament.(1) It is well known that the sect of the Encrat.i.tes made use of apocryphal Gospels until a much later period, and rejected the authority of the Apostle Paul, and Tatian himself is accused of repudiating some of the Pauline Epistles, and of altering and mutilating others.(2)
2.
Dionysius of Corinth need not detain us long. Eusebius informs us that he was the author of seven Epistles addressed to various Christian communities, and also of a letter to Chrysophora, "a most faithful sister." Eusebius speaks of these writings as Catholic Epistles, and briefly characterizes each, but with the exception of a few short fragments preserved by him, none of these fruits of the "inspired industry" [------] of Dionysius are now extant.(3) These fragments are all from an Epistle said to have been addressed to Soter, Bishop of Rome, and give us a clue to the time at which they were written. The Bishopric of Soter is generally dated between a.d. 168--176,(4) during which years the Epistle must have been composed. It could not have
{160}
been written, however, until after Dionysius became Bishop of Corinth in a.d. 170,(1) and it was probably written some years after.(2)
No quotation from, or allusion to, any writing of the New Testament occurs in any of the fragments of the Epistles still extant; nor does Eusebius make mention of any such reference in the Epistles which have perished. As testimony for our Gospels, therefore, Dionysius is an absolute blank. Some expressions and statements, however, are put forward by apologists which we must examine. In the few lines which Tischendorf accords to Dionysius he refers to two of these. The first is an expression used, not by Dionysius himself, but by Eusebius, in speaking of the Epistles to the Churches at Amastris and at Pontus.
Eusebius says that Dionysius adds some "expositions of Divine Scriptures" [------].(3) There can be no doubt, we think, that this refers to the Old Testament only, and Tischendorf himself does not deny it.(4)
The second pa.s.sage which Tischendorf(5) points out, and which he claims with some other apologists as evidence of the actual existence of a New Testament Canon when Dionysius wrote, occurs in a fragment from the Epistle
{161}
to Soter and the Romans which is preserved by Eusebius. It is as follows: "For the brethren having requested me to write Epistles, I wrote them. And the Apostles of the devil have filled these with tares, both taking away parts and adding others; for whom the woe is destined.
It is not surprising then if some have recklessly ventured to adulterate the Scriptures of the Lord [------] when they have formed designs against these which are not of such importance."(1) Regarding this pa.s.sage, Canon Westcott, with his usual boldness, says: "It is evident that the "Scriptures of the Lord"--the writings of the New Testament--were at this time collected, that they were distinguished from other books, that they were jealously guarded, that they had been corrupted for heretical purposes."(2) We have seen, however, that there has not been a trace of any New Testament Canon in the writings of the Fathers before and during this age, and it is not permissible to put such an interpretation upon the remark of Dionysius. Dr. Donaldson, with greater critical justice and reserve, remarks regarding the expression "Scriptures of the
2 On the Canon, p. 166. Dr. Westcott, in the first instance, translates the expression: [------] "the Scriptures of the New Testament." In a note to his fourth edition, however, he is kind enough to explain: "Of course it is not affirmed that the collection here called [------] was identical with our "New Testament," but simply that the phrase shows that a collection of writings belonging to the New Testament existed," p. 188, n. 2. Such a translation, in such a work, a.s.suming as it does the whole question, and concealing what is doubtful, is most unwarrantable. The fact is that not only is there no mention of the New Testament at all, but the words as little necessarily imply a "collection" of writings as they do a "collection" of the Epistles of Dionyaius.
{162}
Lord:" "It is not easy to settle what this term means," although he adds his own personal opinion, "but most probably it refers to the Gospels as containing the sayings and doings of the Lord. It is not likely, as Lardner supposes, that such a term would be applied to the whole of the New Testament"(1) The idea of our collected New Testament being referred to is of course quite untenable, and although it is open to argument that Dionysius may have referred to evangelical works, it is obvious that there are no means of proving the fact, and much less that he referred specially to our Gospels. In fact, the fragments of Dionysius present no evidence whatever of the existence of our Synoptics.
In order further to ill.u.s.trate the inconclusiveness of the arguments based upon so vague an expression, we may add that it does not of necessity apply to any Gospels or works of Christian history at all, and may with perfect propriety have indicated the Scriptures of the Old Testament. We find Justin Martyr complaining in the same spirit as Dionysius, through several chapters, that the Old Testament Scriptures, and more especially those relating to the Lord, had been adulterated, that parts had been taken away, and others added, with the intention of destroying or weakening their application to Christ.(2) Justin"s argument throughout is, that the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures refer to Christ, and Tryphon, his antagonist, the representative of Jewish opinion, is made to avow that the Jews not only wait for Christ, but, he adds: "We admit that all the Scriptures which you have cited refer to him."(3) Not only, therefore, were the Scriptures of the Old Testament
{163}
closely connected with their Lord by the Fathers and, at the date of which we are treating, were the only "Holy Scriptures" recognised, but they made the same complaints which we meet with in Dionysius that these Scriptures were adulterated by omissions and interpolations.(1) The expression of Eusebius regarding "expositions of Divine Scriptures"
[------] added by Dionysius, which applied to the Old Testament, tends to connect the Old Testament also with this term "Scriptures of the Lord."
If the term "Scriptures of the Lord," however, be referred to Gospels, the difficulty of using it as evidence continues undiminished. We have no indication of the particular evangelical works which were in the Bishop"s mind. We have seen that other Gospels were used by the Fathers, and in exclusive circulation amongst various communities, and even until much later times many works were regarded by them as divinely inspired which have no place in our Canon. The Gospel according to the Hebrews for instance was probably used by some at least of the Apostolic Fathers,(2) by pseudo-Ignatius,(3) Polycarp,(4) Papias,(5) Hegesippus,(6) Justin Martyr,(7) and at least employed along with our Gospels by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome.(8) The fact that Serapion, in the third century allowed the Gospel of Peter to be used in the church of Rhossus(9) shows at the same time the consideration in which it was held, and the incompleteness of the Canonical position of the New Testament writings. So does the circ.u.mstance
1 This charge is made with insistance throughout the Clementine Homilies.
{164}
that in the fifth century Theodoret found the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or Tatians Gospel, widely circulated and held in honour amongst orthodox churches in his diocese.(1) The Pastor of Hermas, which was read in the Churches and nearly secured a permanent place in the Canon, was quoted as inspired by Irenaeus.(2) The Epistle of Barnabas was held in similar honour, and quoted as inspired by Clement of Alexandria(3) and by Origen,(4) as was likewise the Epistle of the Roman Clement. The Apocalypse of Peter was included by Clement of Alexandria in his account of the Canonical Scriptures and those which are disputed, such as the Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles,(5) and it stands side by side with the Apocalypse of John in the Canon of Muratori, being long after publicly read in the Churches of Palestine.(6) Tischendorf indeed conjectures that a blank in the Codex Sinaiticus after the New Testament was formerly filled by it. Justin, Clement of Alexandria, and Lactantius quote the Sibylline books as the Word of G.o.d, and pay similar honour to the Book of Hystaspes.(7) So great indeed was the consideration and use of the Sibylline Books in the Church of the second and third centuries, that Christians from that fact were nicknamed Sibyllists.(8) It is unnecessary to multiply, as
7 Justin, Apol., i. 20, 44; Clem. Al., Strom., vi. 5, ---- 42, 43; Ladantius, Inst.i.t. Div., i. 6, 7, vii. 15, 19. Clement of Alexandria quotes with perfect faith and seriousness some apocryphal book, in which, he says, the Apostle Paul recommends the h.e.l.lenic books, the Sibyl and the books of Hystaspes, as giving notably clear prophetic descriptions of the Son of G.o.d. Strom., vi. 5, -- 42, 43.
{165}
might so easily be done, these ill.u.s.trations; it is too well known that a vast number of Gospels and similar works, which have been excluded from the Canon, were held in the deepest veneration by the Church in the second century, to which the words of Dionysius may apply. So vague and indefinite an expression at any rate is useless as evidence for the existence of our Canonical Gospels.
Canon Westcott"s deduction from the words of Dionysius, that not only were the writings of the New Testament already collected, but that they were "jealously guarded," is imaginative indeed. It is much and devoutly to be wished that they had been as carefully guarded as he supposes, but it is well known that this was not the case, and that numerous interpolations have been introduced into the text. The whole history of the Canon and of Christian literature in the second and third centuries displays the most deplorable carelessness and want of critical judgment on the part of the Fathers. "Whatever was considered as conducive to Christian edification was blindly adopted by them, and a vast number of works were launched into circulation and falsely ascribed to Apostles and others likely to secure for them greater consideration. Such pious fraud was rarely suspected, still more rarely detected in the early ages of Christianity, and several of such pseudographs have secured a place in our New Testament. The words of Dionysius need not receive any wider signification than a reference to well-known Epistles. It is clear from the words attributed to the Apostle Paul in 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 17, that his Epistles were falsified, and setting aside some of those which bear his name in our Canon, spurious Epistles were long
{166}
ascribed to him, such as the Epistle to the Laodiceans and a third Epistle to the Corinthians. We need not do more than allude to the second Epistle falsely bearing the name of Clement of Rome, as well as the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, the Apostolical Const.i.tutions, and the spurious letters of Ignatius, the letters and legend of Abgarus quoted by Eusebius, and the Epistles, of Paul and Seneca, in addition to others already pointed out, as instances of the wholesale falsification of that period, many of which gross forgeries were at once accepted as genuine by the Fathers, so slight was their critical faculty and so ready their credulity.(1) In one case the Church punished the author who, from mistaken zeal for the honour of the Apostle Paul, fabricated the _Acta Pauli et Theclae_ in his name,(2) but the forged production was not the less made use of in the Church. There was, therefore, no lack of falsification and adulteration of works of Apostles and others of greater note than himself to warrant the remark of Dionysius, without any forced application of it to our Gospels or to a New Testament Canon, the existence of which there is nothing to substantiate, but on the contrary every reason to discredit.
Before leaving this pa.s.sage we may add that although even Tischendorf does not, Canon Westcott does find in it references to our first Synoptic, and to the Apocalypse. "The short fragment just quoted," he says, "contains two obvious allusions, one to the Gospel of St Matthew, and one to the Apocalypse."(3) The words: "the Apostles of the devil have filled these with tares," are, he supposes,
1 The Epistle of Jude quotes as genuine the a.s.sumption of Moses, and also the Book of Enoch, and the defence of the authenticity of the latter by Tertullian (de Cultu fem., i.
3) will not be forgotten.
{167}
an allusion to Matt. xiii. 24 ff. But even if the expression were an echo of the Parable of the Wheat and Tares, it is not permissible to refer it in this arbitrary way to our first Gospel, to the exclusion of the numerous other works which existed, many of which doubtless contained it Obviously the words have no evidential value.
Continuing his previous a.s.sertions, however, Canon Westcott affirms with equal boldness: "The allusion in the last clause"--to the "Scriptures of the Lord"--"will be clear when it is remembered that Dionysius "warred against the heresy of Marcion and defended the rule of truth ""
[------].(1) Tischendorf, who is ready enough to strain every expression into evidence, recognizes too well that this is not capable of such an interpretation. Dr. Westcott omits to mention that the words, moreover, are not used by Dionysius at all, but simply proceed from Eusebius.(2) Dr. Donaldson distinctly states the fact that, "there is no reference to the Bible in the words of Eusebius: he defends the rule of the truth "(3) [------].
There is only one other point to mention. Canon Westcott refers to the pa.s.sage in the Epistle of Dionysius, which has already been quoted in this work regarding the reading of Christian writings in churches.
"Today," he writes to Soter, "we have kept the Lord"s holy day, in which we have read your Epistle, from the reading of which we shall ever derive admonition, as we do from the former one written to us by Clement."(4) It is evident that there was no idea, in selecting the works to be read at the weekly a.s.sembly of Christians, of any
{168}
Canon of a New Testament. We here learn that the Epistles of Clement and of Soter were habitually read, and while we hear of this, and of the similar reading of Justin"s "Memoirs of the Apostles,"(1) of the Pastor of Hermas,(2) of the Apocalypse of Peter,(3) and other apocryphal works, we do not at the same time hear of the public reading of our Gospels.
{169}
CHAPTER IX. MELITO OF SARDIS--CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS.
We might here altogether have pa.s.sed over Melito, Bishop of Sardis in Lydia, had it not been for the use of certain fragments of his writings made by Canon Westcott. Melito, naturally, is not cited by Tischendorf at all, but the English Apologist, with greater zeal, we think, than critical discretion, forces him into service as evidence for the Gospels and a New Testament Canon. The date of Melito, it is generally agreed, falls after a.d. 176, a phrase in his apology presented to Marcus Antoninus preserved in Eusebius(l) [------] indicating that Commodus had already been admitted to a share of the Government.(3)
Canon Westcott affirms that, in a fragment preserved by Eusebius, Melito speaks of the books of the New Testament in a collected form. He says: "The words of Melito on the other hand are simple and casual, and yet their meaning can scarcely be mistaken. He writes to Onesimus, a fellow-Christian who had urged him "to