TATIAN’S CHRISTOLOGY
AND ITS INFLUENCE ON
THE COMPOSITION OF THE DIATESSARON
by
Peter M. Head
Originally Published in Tyndale Bulletin
43.1(1992)121-137.
Introduction
‘Tatian did not
only re-arrange the evangelical tradition into a harmony, but when composing
the Diatessaron left his fingerprints on its pages’.[1]
Vööbus’ statement concerning Tatian’s Diatessaron has been reformulated recently in Petersen’s survey of
research: ‘like any document created in a particular time and place, the Diatessaron reflects the theology and
praxis of its locale’.[2]
The aim of this article is to investigate whether christological factors
played any significant role in Tatian’s composition. This issue is important for two reasons. Firstly, the Diatessaron is the earliest and most influential of gospel
harmonies (the standard tool for gospel studies throughout the patristic and
reformation periods).[3]
Secondly, as a redaction of the canonical gospels, the Diatessaron mirrors other second century
gospel-redactors (and may illustrate first-century practices).[4]
For the most part, scholars have
focussed on the influence of Tatian’s Encratite tendencies, especially
important since it was his stance against marriage (among other things) which
caused Tatian to be regarded as a heretic by many Western Church Fathers.[5]
Another influence that has been suggested by various scholars is an
anti-Jewish tendency.[6] It
is notable that the influence of Tatian’s Christology has not been
discussed. The influence of an
individual’s Christology on his understanding and re-presentation of the gospel
stories is considerable (even for modern Christians). Tatian, who exercised such care in the composition of his
four-fold gospel, is therefore of considerable interest in this regard.
The present article will discuss:
(I) the life and Christology of Tatian, showing that the question of the
christological orientation of the Diatessaron
was considered very important in the late Patristic era; (II) the evidence for
the Diatessaron, bearing in mind the
question of it’s attestation and which sources can be used in assessing
Tatian’s contribution; (III) the structure and content of the Diatessaron in relation to it’s
Christology - the bulk of the article discusses both structural and
redaction-critical matters relating to the composition of the Diatessaron. Our overall concern is to determine the ways in which Tatian’s
arrangement, selection, and modification of the canonical Gospels served to
highlight his Christology.
I. Tatian’s Life, Work, and
Christology[7]
Tatian was born in
Assyria of pagan parents (Oratio 42),
and received a rhetorical education, acquiring a reputation for learnedness
(Eus, HE. IV.16.7; cf., Oratio 35 & 42). He travelled widely, and in Rome became a
student of Justin Martyr, and a member of the church (Oratio 18, 29; Irenaeus, Adv.
Haer. I.28.1; Eus, HE. IV.29.1). He in turn taught Clement of Alexandria[8] and Rhodo (an opponent of Marcion; Eus, HE. V.13.1, 8). In addition he is mentioned in a treatise
preserved by Eusebius (HE. V.28.4) as
an apologist for the deity of Christ, along with Justin and Clement and
others. Eusebius also refers to the
vast quantity of his writings (HE. IV.29.7),[9] noting also that he ‘ventured to
paraphrase some words of the apostle [Paul], as though correcting their style’
(HE. IV.29.6).
Tatian later broke away from the
Roman church[10] and returned to Mesopotamia, where he
exerted considerable influence around Syria and Antioch. Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, and Jerome
all regarded him as the founder of the Encratites,[11] a rigourously ascetic sect which rejected
the use of wine, meat and marriage. His
writings exercised a strong influence over the Syrian church up until the
fourth century and fifth centuries.[12]
It was not only his ethical
teaching, however, that was regarded with suspicion. According to Jerome, Tatian had maintained that Christ’s flesh
was imaginary.[13]
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, (AD 453) said that in the composition of the
Diatessaron Tatian cut out ‘the
genealogies and such other passages as show the Lord to have been born of the
seed of David after the flesh.’[14]
Victor, who was hesitant towards the Diatessaron
because of Tatian’s reputation, said:
even if Tatian wrote this book when he was
already the leader of a heretical sect, I would readily accept the words of my
Lord, which I know (to be true) and would reject whatever interpretation he added of his own.[15]
Ishodad of Merv
(bishop of Hedhatta ca AD 850) in his description of the Diatessaron said: ‘Tatianos. . .selected from the four gospels and
combined and composed a Gospel and called it Diatessaron. . .and on the Divinity of Christ he did not
write.’[16]
All of these writers suggest that
Tatian’s Diatessaron reflected his
Christology, and that by omission (Theodoret and Ishodad) and addition (Jerome
and Victor) he had placed his own interpretation on the gospel texts as he
edited his harmony. They, do not,
however, agree about the nature of this influence or its cause. In addition, while Ishodad complains that
Tatian did not write on the divinity of Christ, Eusebius included him in a list
of apologists in whose works ‘Christ is treated as God’ (Eus, HE. V.28.4).
It is clear that the most these
writers can do is alert us to a suspicion shared by many early writers. It is possible that some of them knew works
of Tatian to which we have no access.
It is equally, if not much more, possible that they had little direct
knowledge of his work. In particular it
is not clear that Eusebius had seen the Diatessaron,
and Epiphanius clearly confused it with a Hebrew Gospel (see Panarion 46.1).
II. The Diatessaron: Sources and Procedure
‘Tatian composed in some way a combination and
collection of the gospels, and gave this the name of The Diatessaron (to\ dia\ tessa/rwn) and this is
still extant in some places’ (Eus, HE.
IV.29.6).
Unfortunately, Eusebius’ statement
is no longer true, and Tatian’s Diatessaron
must be reconstructed from later translations and commentaries.[17] Among the many possibilities, there are three
main sources which will be used in this study:[18]
1. Ephraem’s
Commentary: This commentary, based on the Diatessaron,
was written by St Ephraem Syrus (d. AD 373). It survives in a Syriac
manuscript, (which preserves about three quarters of the commentary),[19] an Armenian version,[20] and Syriac fragments preserved in later
commentators.[21]
That Ephraem used Tatian’s Diatessaron
as his source is asserted by Dionysius Bar-Salibi (bishop of Amida,
Mesopotamia, d. 1207) who was then quoting from a comment made by Isho’dad in
AD 850.[22]
This conclusion is supported by the fact that his commentary begins with
John 1.1, has no allusion to the genealogies, and continually alternates
between gospels.
2. Arabic
Translation: Two manuscripts of an Arabic translation of the Diatessaron exist (the Borgian and
Vatican MSS).[23]
This translation is (in super- and sub-scriptions to the Borgian MS)
said to be a translation made by Abu’l Faraj Abdulla ibn-at-Tayyib (d.1043)
from a Syriac version of Tatian’s Diatessaron
into Arabic.[24] The
Syriac exemplar on which he depended was written by Isa ibn Ali al Motatabbib
(d. 873) who was a pupil of Honain ibn Ishak.[25] In
other words we are at least one translation (maybe two) away from the original Diatessaron, and several copyings.
3. The Latin codex
Fuldensis: This manuscript, copied between AD 541 and 546, preserves the
Diatessaronic order.[26]
All of these show a clear and
explicit connection with Tatian’s Diatessaron. Later medieval gospel harmonies, such as the
Dutch, Persian, Old High German, Flemish and Middle English harmonies,
occasionally exhibit ‘Tatianic readings’, but as a whole are not dependent upon
Tatian’s work.[27]
Since they do not share exactly the same
order of pericopes, do not have the same wording within the pericopes, and do
not manifest the same text type, and have no readings that can be said with
certainty to have originated with Tatian; there is no important sense in which
they can be regarded as manifestations of the work of Tatian.[28]
The Dutch harmony (Liège) explicitly
says in the introduction that it is a new rendering of the Latin text of four
Gospels into Dutch.[29]
The Persian harmony has an entirely different structure and layout from
that of Tatian: it claims a Syriac original,[30] but the order of material is completely
different from the order we know from Ephraem, the Arabic, and Codex Fuldensis.[31] This investigation will concentrate on the
evidence supplied by Ephraem’s commentary, and the Arabic translation
(following the order and numbering of the Arabic). The Dutch and Persian Harmonies will be cited for support on
matters of wording, as they generally have the greatest frequency of ‘Tatianic
readings’.[32]
III. The Diatessaron and
Tatian’s Gospel Redaction
1. Introduction
The task facing Tatian was not
simple. To begin with four separate gospels and produce one connected, flowing
narrative was difficult. Even more
difficult was to include almost everything distinctive in each of the four
gospels. Such care as must have been
exercised in producing the text encourages us to seek for the writer’s own
touch on the narrative.
Such touches have often been noted
in the area of Tatian’s attitude towards marriage and in particular to the
parents of Jesus.[33]
So, for example, the following changes were made:
Matt 1:19: ‘her
husband Joseph, being a just man. . .’
Diatessaron: ‘Joseph, because he was a just man. . .’[34]
Luke 2:33: ‘his
father and his mother’
Diatessaron: ‘Joseph and his mother’[35]
Luke 2:41, 43:
‘his parents’
Diatessaron: ‘his kinsfolk’. . .‘Joseph and his mother’.[36]
By means of these
changes Tatian obscures the relationship between Joseph and Mary.[37] In
another expression of his Encratism, Tatian omits the accusation against Jesus
(Matt 11:19), that he was ‘a glutton and a drunkard’ (Arabic 25.42; Ephraem).
2. The General
Framework
In any combination of the canonical
Gospels, basic choices must be made about the arrangement of material. Tatian
locates the synoptic gospels within the Johannine framework, beginning with
John 1:1-5 (more on this in a moment), and ending with John 21:25. This
strategy also is followed at the chronological and geographical level, with the
Johannine scenes in Jerusalem determining the basic chronological outline.
In the initial stages Tatian takes
blocks of material from Luke and Matthew and John, but from the baptism of
Jesus onwards the arrangement of the material from the four source-Gospels is
more intricate and involved, with single verses and phrases drawn from
different gospels, and inserted in various places. The Sermon is on the plain
(but contains the extended sections of Matt 5-7). The cleansing of the temple
is located at the beginning of the passion narrative (as in the synoptic
gospels) and this takes John 3 with it to the later position (Arabic 32); the rest of John, from ch 8
follows from there (John 7:53-8:11 is lacking).
Obviously the whole arrangement
misses the purpose behind the individual accounts at times; an example of this
is the report of the crucifixion (see Arabic 51 & 52). We have the
traditional seven words from the cross in the following order: 1) ‘Verily I say
unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise’ (Luke 23:43); 2) ‘Woman,
behold thy Son. . .Behold, thy mother’ (John 19:27); 3) ‘Yail, Yaili, why hast
thou forsaken me?’; 4) ‘I thirst’ (John 19:28); 5) ‘Everything is finished’
(John 19:30); 6) ‘My Father forgive them; for they do not know what they do’
(Luke 23:34); 7) ‘My Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.’ (Luke 23:46).
Then follows (Arabic 52.8-13) the tearing
of the temple curtain from top to bottom, the earthquake, the opening of the
tombs, whereupon the officer, seeing this, said: ‘This man was righteous; and
truly he was the Son of God’.[38]
The multitudes then also smote their breasts.
Various phrases from the long
ending of Mark are found in the resurrection account. The penultimate chapter is John 21. The closing chapter (Arabic 55) consists of a conglomeration of
Matt 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-20; Luke 24:49-53; closing off with the statement of
John 21:25 (‘there are many other things which Jesus did. . .’).
3. The
Incarnational Perspective
From a christological perspective
it is notable that Tatian begins with John 1:1-5.[39] This places the whole work in the clear
theological framework provided by John’s ‘In
the beginning was the Word.’ It is
the theological, rather than the historical and literarily-specific Luke
1:1-4 which introduces Tatian’s gospel.[40]
The Johannine prologue serves as a
kind of inclusio for the birth narratives in the Diatessaron. The order of the birth
narratives is as follows:[41]
John 1:1-5
Luke
1:5-80
Matt 1:18-25a
Luke 2:1-39
Matt 2:1b-23
Luke 2:40-52 & 3:1-6
John 1:7-28.
Thus Tatian’s arrangement has the effect of
explaining ‘the Word became flesh’ by means of the story of the virgin
birth. This echoes exactly the way in
which the relationship between these two christological moments was made in
increasingly sophisticated ways by Christian writers in the second
century. Early in the century Ignatius
held the virgin birth and the incarnation of the Word in tension without
relating them (Ignatius, Magn. 8.2
& Eph. 7.2). Around AD 125 Aristides brought the virgin
birth and the assumption of flesh into juxtaposition (Aristides, Apology, II).
In the middle of the
century Justin says: ‘the Word, who is the first offspring of God, was born for
us without sexual union, as Jesus Christ our Teacher. . .’ (Apol. I.21). The second-century climax is reached in Melito of Sardis’
statement:
o9 Lo/gov
o9 e0n parqe/nw| sarkwqei\v.[42] In
other words, Tatian’s Diatessaron
represents a narrative version of this theological harmonisation, which became
an important theological principle in later debates.[43]
4. The Omission of
the Genealogies
Perhaps the most notable feature of
Tatian’s Diatessaron was the omission
of the genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). Although some witnesses do include
genealogies (Fuldensis, Persian & Dutch[44]); they are absent from the text of
Ephraem, and from the Arabic translation, and this omission is mentioned by
Theodoret and the ninth-century Bar-Ali.[45] It
seems clear that the absence of the genealogies was noted and rectified by some
later writers; for example, the (Arabic) Borgian MS adds them after the text of
the Diatessaron.[46]
The addition of the genealogies would have redeemed the harmony for
orthodox use.
Several of the ‘orthodox’ Fathers
noted Tatian’s omission of the genealogies (especially since with the exception
of Luke 1:1-4 he otherwise omits nothing of such substance). Other groups or individuals in the Patristic
period also omitted the genealogies of Jesus from their gospels. For example the Gospel of the Ebionites (according to Epiphanius Panarion, 30.14.2f) omitted Matthew’s
genealogy in order to facilitate their adoptionist reading of the gospel. Marcion was severely criticised by Irenaeus
for omitting the Lukan genealogy (along with all the birth narrative): ‘he
mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written
respecting the generation of the Lord’.[47]
This supports the view that the genealogies were regarded as supporting
the humanity of Jesus.[48]
Tatian’s omission, therefore, could be indicative (if further supporting
evidence is found) of a definite christological tendency. On this point it is also worth noting the way
in which Tatian refrains from speaking of Jesus’ physical parents.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to
believe that Tatian intended to produce a form of the gospels which denied the
humanity of Jesus. There are simply too
many incidents from the life of Christ which he includes (some of which will be
mentioned below). Although the
omissions of the genealogies undoubtedly raised suspicions in many minds, it is
possible that these omissions should be seen as a subset of Tatian’s Encratism
(avoiding mention of Jesus’ married ancestors) rather than as indicators of
christological heresy.[49]
5. Some Uncertain
Passages
If we survey the Diatessaron for indications of possible
christological influences on the redactional process we are faced with a
complex situation.[50]
There are several places where some versions of the Diatessaron offer interesting christological readings, but
uncertainty concerning either the original text or Tatian’s reading makes it
difficult to decide exactly who has changed what.
One example of this complex
situation is the text which parallels John 1:18 (the original of which is
uncertain):
Ephraem (I.2): ‘only-begotten’[51]
Arabic (4.1): ‘only-begotten God’[52]
Dutch (ch 21) & Persian (I.17): ‘only begotten Son’[53]
A further example
is the text which parallels John 3:33 (which ends ‘that God is true’):
Vatican Arabic (6.16): ‘that he is truly God’
Borgian Arabic (6.16): ‘that God is true’[54]
Persian (I.20): ‘that God is true’[55]
In these passages,
it is impossible to know whether Tatian has introduced an important
christological variant or not. In
addition, the Arabic translation often has variants which are not otherwise
attested.[56]
6. Some Specific
Passages
There are many passages, supported by more
than one witness to Tatian’s Diatessaron,
where christological alterations or interesting choices may be discerned.
Arabic Dia. 6.9 reads: ‘many come to him’ (par. John 3:26: ‘all men come
to him’).[57]
This alteration (from ‘all’ to ‘many’) is interesting when compared with
the clear scribal tendency to heighten the significance of Jesus by using ‘all’
in place of ‘many’ in several manuscripts.[58]
In Arabic Dia. 17.36-53 we find an expansion of the rejection at
Nazareth. Tatian (v. 39) adds: ‘And many
envied him, and did not apply their mind to him.’ In v. 42 we read: ‘they were suspicious of him’, and that Jesus
knew their thoughts. In v. 48 we read
the following (Markan) version: ‘he could not do many mighty works there,
because of their unbelief, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk,
and healed them.’[59] It is interesting to note that Tatian
appears to follow the (more difficult) Markan version of the rejection.
At Arabic Dia. 21.3 we find a reference to Jesus spitting on his fingers added to the Markan
report of the healing of the deaf and dumb man (Mark 7:33).[60]
Although only attested in the Arabic, the addition shows that in this
case physical details were added to the account of Jesus’ miracles.
Arabic Dia. 28.42-51 follows the Markan framework for the narrative
concerning the rich young ruler: ‘Good teacher, what is it that I must do that
I may have eternal life?’ Jesus said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good, while
there is none good but the one, even God?’[61] It
is noteworthy that in a clear choice between the versions Tatian follows Mark
rather than Matthew (perhaps because it is also supported by Luke); as he also
apparently did at the rejection at Nazareth.
According to Arabic Dia. 41.1 Jesus says: ‘Therefore,
behold, I, the wisdom of God, am sending unto you the prophets, and apostles,
and wise men, and scribes. . .’[62]
This redaction of the two forms of the saying (Matt 23:34 // Luke 11:49)
makes explicit the identification of Jesus as Wisdom (which seems to be only
implicit in Matthew’s redaction).
The scene in the garden includes
reference to the disputed verses of Luke 22:43f, but even more interesting is
the addition: ‘being afraid he prayed
continuously; and his sweat became like a stream of blood’ (Arabic Dia. 48.16f[63]).
The addition of a reference to Jesus’ emotions is noteworthy, and a
corrective to the view that the emotions of Jesus were an embarrassment to the
early Christians.
The reports of the passion and
resurrection are generally very close to the Gospel reports (although the
harmonising factor provides for an interpretive narrative, and obscures the
individual emphases of the evangelists). There are, however, no
christologically important variants that we noticed.[64]
7. ‘Jesus’ in the
Diatessaron
A notable general tendency
throughout the Diatessaron is the
substitution of ‘Jesus’ for Luke’s references to ‘the Lord’ in the narrative
settings. Examples of this are as
follows:
Luke Arabic Diatessaron[65]
7:13: ‘when the Lord saw her. . .’ 11.19 ‘Jesus saw. . .’[66]
7:19: ‘sent them to the Lord. . .’ 13.39 ‘he sent them to Jesus’[67]
10:1a: ‘the Lord appointed seventy’ 15.15
‘Jesus appointed. . .’[68]
10:41: ‘the Lord answered her. . .’ 13.34 ‘Jesus answered. . .’[69]
11:39: ‘the Lord said to him. . .’ 20.14 ‘Jesus said. . .’[70]
12:42: ‘And the Lord said. . .’ 43.2: ‘Jesus said. . .’[71]
13:15: ‘Then the Lord answered. . .’ 27.45 ‘Jesus answered. . .’[72]
19:8: ‘and said to the Lord. . .’ 31.22 ‘. . .said to Jesus’[73]
22:61: ‘And the Lord turned. . .’ 49.16 ‘Jesus turned. . .’[74]
This appears to be a genuine
Tatianism.[75]
This is particularly interesting in light of the known tendency of the
Old Syriac versions to add ‘Lord’ to the Gospel narratives.[76]
Little christological significance can be attached to these alterations,
however, since the primary motivation is probably simply to maintain a
consistent form of reference to Jesus throughout the narrative.
IV. Conclusion
In his production of the Diatessaron Tatian pursued a relatively
conservative procedure: including practically everything from each Gospel. At a conceptual level, his redaction served
to integrate the christological presentations of the individual Gospels,
particularly the connection between Luke’s ‘conception by the Spirit’, and
John’s ‘incarnation of the Word’. In
this Tatian clearly displays his second theological century milieu very
clearly. Other indications of his
interest to make certain passages more explicitly christological can be found:
Jesus’ knowledge of thoughts; more explicit versions of the transfiguration and
the wisdom saying; and the overall structuring of the introduction around the
Johannine prologue. This process of
making more explicit christological presentations is common in the second
century (and later!).
While the omission of the
genealogies (especially when combined with the reluctance concerning Jesus’
parents) does (with Theodoret) serve to obscure Jesus’ connection with the
Davidic line, there is little other evidence of a rejection of the humanity of
Jesus. Indeed, in some ways Tatian goes
out of his way to highlight the humanity of Jesus: the use of ‘Jesus’
throughout; Jesus’ fear in Gethsemane; the inclusion of the Markan versions:
‘Why do you call me good?’ (Mark 10:18) and ‘he could not do many mighty works
there’ (Mark 6:5); the mention of Jesus spitting on his fingers; and one
example of altering ‘all men’ to ‘many’.
Thus Tatian was able not only to integrate separate theologies of the
four gospels, but to do it without sacrificing the real humanity of Jesus
(unlike so many others in the early church).
For this reason it is perhaps most likely that the omission of the
genealogies should be regarded as a subset of Tatian’s encratitic alterations
In conclusion it must be said that
Tatian’s fingerprints have not left clear traces. There are some indications
that he filtered the gospel texts through his own christological grid (like all
Christians, including biblical scholars!), but his alterations were not great,
and this explains the value the work was seen to have even among orthodox
groups. That Tatian’s redaction reflects his own second century interests
cannot be denied, but evidence is certainly lacking that he carried out any
consistent, thorough and vigorous re-interpretation of the Gospel texts.
[76]See F.C. Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe (Cambridge, 1904)II.97.