802

TATIANUS

TATIANUS

or not such an event could have occurred twice—finds for the event the more appropriate placein the position assigned to it by the Synoptists.It was to him the opening act suitable to theFeast of the Dedication of the Temple. Asregards the latter event, given the permissionto put it where a Harmonist liked, the positionassigned to it by TatLan has the merit of greatfitness. The chief priests and the scribes andelders were “ sore displeased ” at those outburstsin Christ’s honour they were powerless to check,and they purposed demanding His “authority”(§ 64). There was one of their number, biico-demus, who witnessed their discomfiture (e.g.St. Matt. xxi. 27) and did not share their hate.He came to Jesus by night, and that conversa-tion was a spur to the courage which Christ’scondemnation, crucifixion, and death did butembolden him to exhibit (St. John xix. 39).This position ignores St. John vii. 50, and has notbeen imitated. ( 7 ) Tatian evidently thought thatSt. John had made a mistake in the sequence ofevents connected with chs. ii. 13-vi. Consequently*e placed the feeding of the five thousand (§ 34)before the conversation with the woman ofSamaria (§ 38) and the healing at the Pool ofBethesda (§ 40). That conversation he con-siders to have taken place on the journey fromGalilee to Jerusalem and not vice versl. Hepossibly counted it, as well as the healing of thedaughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman (§ 37)and the healing of the leper (§ 39), an illustra-tion of Christ’s reproof of the Pharisaic notionsof what was clean and unclean (§ 36). (5)

The reason for the position assigned to the re-quest made of Christ by the mother of SS. Jamesand John (§ 56) is not very evident. Possiblyit was felt to be an illustration of the workingin their minds of the parable of the labourersin the vineyard (§ 55) which precedes it.

As a summary of Tatian’s scheme, Zahn(pp. i. 257-60) suggests the following maindivisions:—

i. The Logos; the Incarnation and Childhoodof Jesus (§§ 1-7).

ii. The first manifestations of Jesus

(§§ 8 - 12 ).

iii. The beginning of ministerial work

(§ 13 ).

iv. Jesus in Galilee (§§ 14-37).

v. Journey through Samaria (§§ 38-40).

vi. Sojourn in Galilee (§§ 41-51).

vii. The Feast of Tabernacles at Jerusalem(§ 52).

viii. Journey through (Peraea or) Galilee andback (§§ 53-58).

ix. Jesus at Jerusalem at the Feast of theDedication of the Temple (§§ 59-71).

x. Events connected with the raising ofLazarus (§§ 72, 73).

xi. The entry into Jerusalem etc., and eventsconnected with the institution of the Lord’sSupper (§§ 74^89).

xii. The Passion, the Resurrection, and Ascen-sion (§§ 90-100).

The method of procedure adopted by Tatiancan be fairly gauged from the preceding para-graphs. One or two consequences of impor-tance seem to be deducible from it:—

(a) Tatian affirms as a whole the historicalcharacter of the four Gospels.

(b) The difficulties found in the Gospelnarrative are not difficulties to him. An eventrepeated more than once, or variously placedand related by his authorities, does not discom-pose him. He chooses one or other of the Gospelaccounts and sets aside the rest without prejudiceto their veracity. For instance, in the historyof the healing of the blind (§ 58), he sets asideSt. Matthew’s account (who speaks of twoblind men) in favour of St. Mark and StLuke (who speak of one), and he prefers to con-sider (with St. Mark) that the miracle tookplace on the departure from Jericho rather than(with St. Luke) on the entering into it. Sections53-56 form an admirable group of facts andteaching relative to true and false riches, trueand false reward, fitly closed by the history ofZacchaeus (§ 57); but the insertion among theparables of that of the rich man and Lazarusis unexpected, though characteristic of Tatiaii’seclecticism.

(c) This freedom of selection is exhibited inanother form in his use of the several Evange-lists. His evident opinion that they were notinfallible in their chronology, and his consequentand frequent adoption of what seemed to him amore suitable order, prevent his taking oneGospel as his sole guide. Of the four, however,St. John is his favourite. The text of thatEvangelist is generally adopted, then that of St.Matthew, and at a long distance the texts ofSt. Luke and St. Mark (see the index to quota-tions in Zahn i. pp. 383-386) ; the passages fromthese two last being more often withdrawn fromtheir oi^ginal connexion than is the case withthe extracts from the Gospels of St. John andSt. Matthew. This principle of selection, firstthe Apostles (St. John and St. Matthew, thenthe disciples of Apostles (St. Luke and St. Mark),is recognised as in accordance with the order ofthose Western witnesses (Cod. D. and the MSS.of the Itala) with which the text of the Diates-saron exhibits the closest connexion.

(c?) A similar free-hand may be discerned inthe doctrinal views of the Diatessaron so far asthey find expression. It is well known thatthese have been very variously estimated. Theo-doret’s action in dismissing the book from thechurches was due—as he himself states—to the“ mischief of the composition.” He resented theomission of the genealogies of St. Matt. (i. 1-17),of St. Luke (iii. 23-38), and of “such otherpassages as shewed the Lord to have been bornof the seed of David after the flesh.” Tracesof an unorthodox tendency have been by somemodern critics considered evident in the use ofapocryphal additions, in the dilution of passagesunacceptable to heretical views, and in thegeneral mode of selection of the Gospel narrative.For example, St. John i. 17 is quoted under theform, “ Per Moysen lex (data) est, sed veritasejus per Jesum facta est ” (Zahn, i. p. 121) ; andthis Hilgenfeld considers (Ketzergesch. p. 394)an illustration of the method already applied byTatian to the Old Testament when explaining inhis “book of questions ” what “was hidden andobscure ” in it (Rhodon in Euseb. H. A. v. 13).Zahn himself admits that the Israelitish c ^ r ^ (>ter of the Gospels is sometimes obliterated byomissions. Thus St. Luke ii. 34 (see Zahn, i. p-118) is given in the form, “Ecce hie stat invicinam et in resurreetioneia et in signum con-