will be prepared to maintain this. If he does, the subject can then be argued. In the meantime, these two arguments, the literary and the textual--for the others are but subsidiary--must, I think, be held to prove the high antiquity of our present Gospel.
CHAPTER IX.
TATIAN--DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH.
Tatian was a teacher of rhetoric, an a.s.syrian by birth, who was converted to Christianity by Justin Martyr, but after his death fell into heresy, leaning towards the Valentinian Gnosticism, and combining with this an extreme asceticism.
The death of Justin is clearly the pivot on which his date will hinge. If we are to accept the conclusions of Mr. Hort this will have occurred in the year 148 A.D.; according to Volkmar it would fall not before 155 A.D., and in the ordinary view as late as 163- 165 A.D. [Endnote 238:1] The beginning of Tatian"s literary activity will follow accordingly.
Tatian"s first work of importance, an "Address to Greeks," which is still extant, was written soon after the death of Justin. It contains no references to the Synoptic Gospels upon which stress can be laid.
An allusion to Matth. vi. 19 in the Stromateis of Clement [Endnote 238:2] has been attributed to Tatian, but I hardly know for what reason. It is introduced simply by [Greek: tis (biazetai tis legon)], but there were other Encrat.i.tes besides Tatian, and the very fact that he has been mentioned by name twice before in the chapter makes it the less likely that he should be introduced so vaguely.
The chief interest however in regard to Tatian centres in his so- called "Diatessaron," which is usually supposed to have been a harmony of the four Gospels.
Eusebius mentions this in the following terms: "Tatian however, their former leader, put together, I know not how, a sort of patchwork or combination of the Gospels and called it the "Diatessaron," which is still current with some." [Endnote 239:1]
I am rather surprised to see that Credner, who is followed by the author of "Supernatural Religion," argues from this that Eusebius had not seen the work in question [Endnote 239:2]. This inference is not by any means conveyed by the Greek. [Greek: Ouk oid" hopos]
(thus introduced) is an idiomatic phrase referring to the principle on which the harmony was constructed, and might well be paraphrased "a curious sort of patchwork or dovetailing," "a not very intelligible dovetailing," &c. Standing in the position it does, the phrase can hardly mean anything else. Besides it is not likely that Eusebius, an eager collector and reader of books, with the run of Pamphilus" library, should not have been acquainted with a work that he says himself was current in more quarters than one. Eusebius, it will be observed, is quite explicit in his statement. He says that the Diatessaron was a harmony of the Gospels, i.e. (in his sense) of our present Gospels, and that Tatian gave the name of Diatessaron to his work himself. We do not know upon what these statements rest, but there ought to be some valid reason before we dismiss them entirely.
Epiphanius writes that "Tatian is said to have composed the Diatessaron Gospel which some call the "Gospel according to the Hebrews"" [Endnote 240:1]. And Theodoret tells us that "Tatian also composed the Gospel which is called the Diatessaron, cutting out the genealogies and all that shows the Lord to have been born of the seed of David according to the flesh." "This," he adds, "was used not only by his own party, but also by those who followed the teaching of the Apostles, as they had not perceived the mischievous design of the composition, but in their simplicity made use of the book on account of its conciseness." Theodoret found more than two hundred copies in the churches of his diocese (Cyrrhus in Syria), which he removed and replaced with the works of the four Evangelists [Endnote 240:2].
Victor of Capua in the sixth century speaks of Tatian"s work as a "Diapente" rather than a "Diatessaron" [Endnote 240:3]. If we are to believe the Syrian writer Bar-Salibi in the twelfth century, Ephrem Syrus commented on Tatian"s Diatessaron, and it began with the opening words of St. John. This statement however is referred by Gregory Bar-Hebraeus not to the Harmony of Tatian, but to one by Ammonius made in the third century [Endnote 241:1].
Here there is clearly a good deal of confusion.
But now we come to the question, was Tatian"s work really a Harmony of our four Gospels? The strongest presumption that it was is derived from Irenaeus. Irenaeus, it is well known, speaks of the four Gospels with absolute decision, as if it were a law of nature that their number must be four, neither more nor less [Endnote 241:2], and his four Gospels were certainly the same as our own. But Tatian wrote within a comparatively short interval of Irenaeus. It is sufficiently clear that Irenaeus held his opinion at the very time that Tatian wrote, though it was not published until later. Here then we have a coincidence which makes it difficult to think that Tatian"s four Gospels were different from ours.
The theory that finds favour with Credner [Endnote 241:3] and his followers, including the author of "Supernatural Religion," is that Tatian"s Gospel was the same as that used by Justin. I am myself not inclined to think this theory improbable; it would have been still less so, if Tatian had been the master and Justin the pupil [Endnote 241:4]. We have seen that the phenomena of Justin"s evangelical quotations are as well met by the hypothesis that he made use of a Harmony as by any other. But that Harmony, as we have also seen, included at least our three Synoptics. The evidence (which we shall consider presently) for the use of the fourth Gospel by Tatian is so strong as to make it improbable that that work was not included in the Diatessaron. The fifth work, alluded to by Victor of Capua, may possibly have been the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
2.
Just as the interest of Tatian turns upon the interpretation to be put upon a single term "Diatessaron," so the interest of Dionysius of Corinth depends upon what we are to understand by his phrase "the Scriptures of the Lord."
In a fragment, preserved by Eusebius, of an epistle addressed to Soter Bishop of Rome (168-176 A.D.) and the Roman Church, Dionysius complains that his letters had been tampered with. "As brethren pressed me to write letters I wrote them. And these the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others, for whom the woe is prepared. It is not wonderful, then, if some have ventured to tamper with the Scriptures of the Lord when they have laid their plots against writings that have no such claims as they" [Endnote 242:1]. It must needs be a straining of language to make the Scriptures here refer, as the author of "Supernatural Religion" seems to do, to the Old Testament. It is true that Justin lays great stress upon type and prophecy as pointing to Christ, but there is a considerable step between this and calling the whole of the Old Testament "Scriptures of the Lord." On the other hand, we can hardly think that Dionysius refers to a complete collection of writings like the New Testament. It seems most natural to suppose that he is speaking of Gospels--possibly not the canonical alone, and yet, with Irenaeus in our mind"s eye, we shall say probably to them. There is the further reason for this application of the words that Dionysius is known to have written against Marcion--"he defended the canon of the truth" [Endnote 243:1], Eusebius says-- and such "tampering" as he describes was precisely what Marcion had been guilty of.
The reader will judge for himself what is the weight of the kind of evidence produced in this chapter. I give a chapter to it because the author of "Supernatural Religion" has done the same.
Doubtless it is not the sort of evidence that would bear pressing in a court of English law, but in a question of balanced probabilities it has I think a decided leaning to one side, and that the side opposed to the conclusions of "Supernatural Religion."
CHAPTER X.
MELITO--APOLLINARIS--ATHENAGORAS--THE EPISTLE OF VIENNE AND LYONS.
We pa.s.s on, still in a region of fragments--"waifs and strays" of the literature of the second century--and of partial and indirect (though on that account not necessarily less important) indications.
In Melito of Sardis (c. 176 A.D) it is interesting to notice the first appearance of a phrase that was destined later to occupy a conspicuous position. Writing to his friend Onesimus, who had frequently asked for selections from the Law and the Prophets bearing upon the Saviour, and generally for information respecting the number and order of "the Old Books," Melito says "that he had gone to the East and reached the spot where the preaching had been delivered and the acts done, and that having learnt accurately the books of the Old Covenant (or Testament) he had sent a list of them"--which is subjoined [Endnote 244:1]. Melito uses the word which became established as the t.i.tle used to distinguish the elder Scriptures from the younger--the Old Covenant or Testament ([Greek: hae palaia diathaekae]); and it is argued from this that he implies the existence of a "definite New Testament, a written ant.i.type to "the Old" [Endnote 245:1] The inference however seems to be somewhat in excess of what can be legitimately drawn. By [Greek: palaia diathaekae] is meant rather the subject or contents of the books than the books themselves. It is the system of things, the dispensation accomplished "in heavenly places," to which the books belong, not the actual collected volume. The parallel of 2 Cor. iii. 14 ([Greek: epi tae anagnosei taes palaias diathaekaes]), which is ably pointed to in "Supernatural Religion"
[Endnote 245:2], is too close to allow the inference of a written New Testament. And yet, though the word has not actually acquired this meaning, it was in process of acquiring it, and had already gone some way to acquire it. The books were already there, and, as we see from Irenaeus, critical collections of them had already begun to be made. Within thirty years of the time when Melito is writing Tertullian uses the phrase Novum Testamentum precisely in our modern sense, intimating that it had then become the current designation [Endnote 245:3]. This being the case we cannot wonder that there should be a certain reflex hint of such a sense in the words of Melito.
The tract "On Faith," published in Syriac by Dr. Cureton and attributed to Melito, is not sufficiently authenticated to have value as evidence.
It should be noted that Melito"s fragments contain nothing especially on the Gospels.
2.
Some time between 176-180 A.D. Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius an apology of which rather more than three lines have come down to us. A more important fragment however is a.s.signed to this writer in the Paschal Chronicle, a work of the seventh century. Here it is said that "Apollinaris, the most holy bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, who lived near the times of the Apostles, in his book about Easter, taught much the same, saying thus: "There are some who through ignorance wrangle about these matters, in a pardonable manner; for ignorance does not admit of blame but rather needs instruction.
And they say that on the 14th the Lord ate the lamb with His disciples, and that on the great day of unleavened bread He himself suffered; and they relate that this is in their view the statement of Matthew. Whence their opinion is in conflict with the law, and according to them the Gospels are made to be at variance"" [Endnote 246:1]. This variance or disagreement in the Gospels evidently has reference to the apparent discrepancy between the Synoptics, especially St. Matthew and St. John, the former treating the Last Supper as the Paschal meal, the latter placing it before the Feast of the Pa.s.sover and making the Crucifixion coincide with the slaughter of the Paschal lamb.
Apollinaris would thus seem to recognise both the first and the fourth Gospels as authoritative.
Is this fragment of Apollinaris genuine? It is alleged against it [Endnote 247:1] (1) that Eusebius was ignorant of any such work on Easter, and that there is no mention of it in such notices of Apollinaris and his writings as have come down to us from Theodoret, Jerome, and Photius. There are some good remarks on this point by Routh (who is quoted in "Supernatural Religion"
_apparently_ as adverse to the genuineness of the fragments).
He says: "There seems to me to be nothing in these extracts to compel us to deny the authorship of Apollinaris. Nor must we refuse credit to the author of the Preface [to the Paschal Chronicle] any more than to other writers of the same times on whose testimony many books of the ancients have been received, although not mentioned by Eusebius or any other of his contemporaries; especially as Eusebius declares below that it was only some select books that had come to his hands out of many that Apollinaris had written" [Endnote 247:2]. It is objected (2) that Apollinaris is not likely to have spoken of a controversy in which the whole Asiatic Church was engaged as the opinion of a "few ignorant wranglers" A fair objection, if he was really speaking of such a controversy.
But the great issue between the Churches of Asia and that of Rome was whether the Paschal festival should be kept, according to the Jewish custom, always on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, or whether it should be kept on the Friday after the Paschal full moon, on whatever day of the month it might fall. The fragment appears rather to allude to some local dispute as to the day on which the Lord suffered. To go thoroughly into this question would involve us in all the mazes of the so-called Paschal controversy, and in the end a precise and certain conclusion would probably be impossible.
So far as I am aware, all the writers who have entered into the discussion start with a.s.suming the genuineness of the Apollinarian fragment.
There remains however the fact that it rests only upon the attestation of a writer of the seventh century, who may possibly be wrong, but, if so, has been led into his error not wilfully but by accident.
No reason can be alleged for the forging or purposely false ascription of a fragment like this, and it bears the stamp of good faith in that it asks indulgence for opponents instead of censure. We may perhaps safely accept the fragment with some, not large, deduction from its weight.
3.
An instance of the precariousness of the argument from silence would be supplied by the writer who comes next under review-- Athenagoras. No mention whatever is made of Athenagoras either by Eusebius or Jerome, though he appears to have been an author of a certain importance, two of whose works, an Apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus and a treatise on the Resurrection, are still extant. The genuineness of neither of these works is doubted.
The Apology, which may be dated about 177 A.D., contains a few references to our Lord"s discourses, but not such as can have any great weight as evidence. The first that is usually given, a parallel to Matt. v. 39, 40 (good for evil), is introduced in such a way as to show that the author intends only to give the sense and not the words. The same may be said of another sentence that is compared with Mark x. 6 [Endnote 249:1]:--
_Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 33._
[Greek: Hoti en archae ho Theos hena andra eplase kai mian gunaika.]
_Mark x. 6_
[Greek: Apo de archaes ktiseos a.r.s.en kai thaelu epoiaesen autous ho Theos.]
All that can be said is that the thought here appears to have been suggested by the Gospel--and that not quite immediately.
A much closer--and indeed, we can hardly doubt, a real--parallel is presented by a longer pa.s.sage:--