Abstract
The Diatessaron is an enigmatic second-century CE work of Justin’s one-time disciple Tatian. It was a harmony of the four eventually canonical gospels and perhaps other sources. The absence of an early Greek or Syriac copy and the complex questions surrounding its genesis notwithstanding, the implications of this gospel have captivated New Testament specialists’ attention since the eighteenth century. In this volume, the text-critical value of the Diatessaron is aptly described by Nicholas J. Zola as producing a “tragically tantalizing task” (pp. 191, 193): Tatian’s harmony teases access to a text of the Gospels predating virtually all manuscripts available to us now. The frequently divergent extant witnesses, however, dampen one’s enthusiasm considerably. Today, one sees the Diatessaron through a glass, darkly. It lies before us in the following primary witnesses that disagree in both sequence and wording, in addition to being preserved in different languages: the Vulgatized Latin of the sixth-century Codex Fuldensis, the Syriac and Armenian manuscripts of Saint Ephrem’s fourth-century commentary on the Diatessaron, and the twelfth-century Arabic translation of the Syriac text. Even so, the Diatessaron – such as our reconstruction thereof may be – remains valuable as a window into the proliferation of gospels and gospel harmonies in the second century CE, an exhibition of second-century compositional techniques, an asset to the study of ancient media and its utilization, and a witness to the early church’s reception of Jesus.
Earlier versions of some of the essays collected in this volume were presented in the 2016 and 2017 Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting sessions in the Development of Early Christian Theology unit. The collection opens with an essay by Tjitze Baarda, written in 2016 and published here posthumously. It focuses on the opening line of the Diatessaron (John 1:1) in the Eastern tradition, analyzing Tatian’s possible reasons for placing this text in front of the composition. A towering figure in twentiethcentury Diatessaron research, Baarda was unable to participate in the SBL meetings on account of health. This volume is dedicated to him.
The collection is superbly organized and future Diatessaronic volumes will do well to emulate its structure. A first group of essays (Tjitze Baarda, Charles E. Hill, Jan Joosten) study the sources of Tatian’s gospel. The question of possible extracanonical influences is brought to the fore, with Hill’s skepticism counterbalanced by Joosten’s view. A second group of papers (Francis Watson, Nicholas Perrin, James W. Barker) examine the nature of Tatian’s gospel. Here, attention is given to the intended role of Tatian’s harmony vis-à-vis the canonical gospels (whether it was meant to replace or to supplement them), as well as the possible implications of the Diatessaron for the interrelations of those gospels and the synoptic problem. A third group of essays (Ian N. Mills, Ulrich B. Schmid, Nicholas J. Zola) investigate some of the key Diatessaronic witnesses. Mills disputes the Dura Parchment 24 (a Greek manuscript also known as “the Dura fragment”) as a witness to the Diatessaron. Schmid inquires into the pre- and post-history of Codex Fuldensis, focusing on its sources, transmission, and reception. He concludes that Victor of Capua, the compiler of Fuldensis, “likely had access to at least one non-harmonized Vulgate Gospel book” (p. 171) and – in an illustration of the so-called “new perspective” in Diatessaronic studies–that Fuldensis “is the sole independent witness to Tatian’s Diatessaron in the West” (p. 189). Finally, Zola calls for restraint in incorporating the Diatessaron into the text-critical apparatus of the Greek New Testament. His exposé surveys the history of relevant scholarship and highlights the pitfalls in the existing attempts to utilize the Diatessaron as a text-critical witness. Zola provides valuable suggestions for future study and concludes with a reasonable plea for “reliable and accessible editions of all the major witnesses” (p. 231), Fuldensis and the Arabic version in particular, before any further steps are considered.
The complexity of Diatessaronic studies is amply illustrated throughout the volume. In addition to the question of Tatian’s sources, the discussion of the Dura fragment surfaces in a number of essays (disputed by Mills, endorsed by Hill, Joosten, and Watson). Several contributors emphasize the next methodological frontier in reconstructing the lost harmony: sequential analysis of the Diatessaron’s macrostructure across the available witnesses. Once that work is completed, it should become possible “to speculate about Tatian’s own editorial techniques and strategies” (p. 7).
The volume is published in T & T Clark’s recently established Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries series. The reader will find a bibliography and all three indexes: Ancient Sources, Modern Authors, and Subjects. The latter is pleasantly extensive. This book will constitute required reading for all students of the Diatessaron and interrelations of the gospels.