Subject: Answer to the Diatessaron query (long post)

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 12:56:07 -0400

Rod Mullen asked:

>The recent diatessaron discussion has reminded me of a question that I had
>upon first reading Wm Petersen's book on "Tatian's Diatessaron" (Leiden:
>Brill, 1994).  Bill, please permit the question of a novice in matters
>diatessaronic.  On pp.374-75 you discuss Quispel's second criterion for
>determining the likelihood of a proposed diatessaronic reading being
>original.  If we apply this criterion strictly in reconstructing readings,
>would it not mean that the value of the diatessaron as an independent
>witness to the text of the canonical gospels is highly problematic at best,
>even though it is often cited in the apparatus to UBS4 and NA27?  Perhaps we
>would have attestation of a stage in the gospel tradition, but it seems that
>hope of reaching an ur-text of the gospels with the help of the diatessaron
>would elude us.  How would you assess this relationship?  Interested to hear
>your reply, thanks--  Rod Mullen

An excellent question, Rod.  I'll try to answer you, but first a couple
preliminaries to set the stage, and make sure some distinctions and
phenomena I'll speak of later are clear.

(1) When Tatian composed the Diatessaron (circa 172), he obviously had to
use the gospels in the form they then had.  He may also have
incorporated/used/relied upon the synoptic harmony apparently used by his
teacher, Justin Martyr.  If so, that does not change the situation, for
*Justin's* harmony also had to have been created from the gospels as *he*
(or whoever created the harmony) knew them, circa 140-160.

(2) As a broad, general statement, scholarship (regardless of whether on the
Diatessaron or on a version) has found that (gospel) texts which deviate
from the *then* "standard" gospel text are bowdlerized (in Diatessaronic
studies, we say "vulgatized") by having the deviating reading excised and
replaced with the "standard" reading of the day.

An example of this phenomenon, independent of the Diatessaron, is in the
Syriac versions, and alluded to in my review of George Kiraz's parallel line
edition of the Vetus Syra (Syr-sin, Syr-cur), the Peshitta, and the
Harclean, just posted in TC.  One sees how the earliest Syriac (Syr-sin)
deviates the furthest from the TR, while each successive step (Syr-cur,
Pesh, Harc) moves closer and closer to the TR type of text.  The process
reaches its apotheosis in the Harclean, which attempts a literal,
word-for-word translation of the Greek, even to the point of violating the
rules of Syriac grammar and syntax.  It's text represents (with a wink to
Harnack) "the acute Hellenization" of the ancient, pre-Pauline, Semitic church.

The parallel situation exists with the Vetus Latina, where the earlier MSS
are "wilder" (deviate further from the TR or NA or UBS--whatever base you
want), and the later MSS move closer to the Greek.  And then comes the
Vulgate, which is a systematic attempt to replace the Vetus Latina with a
text more in tune with the Greek used elsewhere.

Within the Diatessaronic tradition, Codex Fuldensis (Vulgate MS F;  date 546
CE) is a magnificent example of "vulgatization," for it can be empirically
demonstrated from the MS itself that *in the process of copying, the old,
deviating Diatessaronic readings were excised, and replaced with the
standard Vulgate reading*.  This has been known for over a century (it was
first noted by Th. Zahn:  see my *Tatian's Diatessaron*, pp. 85-86; esp.
126-129).  The telltale signs are the "capitularia" (the "table of
contents") and the manuscript's *corpus*:  while the readings and sequence
of the *corpus* are Vulgate, the readings and sequence of the "capitularia"
agree with other Diatessaronic witnesses, and deviate from the Vulgate.
Conclusion:  in the process of "purifying" the text of Codex Fuldensis, only
the *corpus* was "vulgatized"--through oversight, laziness, or chance, the
"capitularia" were left untouched.  [Comment:  This is empirical evidence
that scribes were "up-dating" and "modernizing" the text of the gospels to
the standards of their day, and discarding older readings.]

(3) From a text-critical standpoint, the interesting phenomenon is the
"distance" from the TR/UBS/NA text, which is found in the Vetus Syra *and
also* in the Vetus Latina.  Since both of these are "versions" and, thus,
translated from a Greek base, we may presume that they reflect a Greek base
which *also* had these same deviating readings.  This, of couse, suggests
that the early Greek gospels--upon which these versions were based--were
different from those current in the fourth and later centuries.  (Note:
Such a suggestion is also supported by the deviating readings found in the
earliest fathers [Justin, Clem. Al, Origen, Irenaeus, Ephrem, Aphrahat,
Novatian, Cyprian, etc.], esp. when they *agree* with the Vetus Syra or the
Vetus Latina and against the TR/NA/UBS or other modern collation base.)

So far we are hypothesizing, which requires nothing more than imagination.
One leaves the realm of hypothesis, however, when one finds the *identical*
deviating reading in *both* the Vetus Latina *and* in the Vetus Syra.  The
only way scholars have been able to explain this is to point to the early
Greek gospels--which were the base of *both* versions--as having at one time
contained such a deviating reading.  And when an early Father or two (such
as Justin and Clement) *also* has the same deviating reading *in his Greek
text*, then we are on pretty firm ground:  such a deviating (= non-standard
reading by *later* points of reference, such as the TR, UBS, NA,
whatever...) reading must have circulated in the early Christian centuries,
in a *Greek* gospel.  [Comment:  This is empirical evidence that the gospel
text of the second, third and fourth centuries did *not* agree with the
later gospel text(s), at least in some passages.]

With this as prologue, we may now turn to Rod's question directly, and
address the Diatessaron:

(1) The Diatessaron is regarded as a version of the gospels, as is shown by
its treatment as such in the handbooks of Voeoebus and Metzger.  In fact,
all handbooks on either the text of the NT or the versions treat the
Diatessaron, and  usually (as Voeoebus and Metzger do) as the *oldest* of
the versions.

(2) Since the "autograph" Diatessaron is lost, its text must be
reconstructed from the various "witnesses" to its text, that is, from
translations (the Arabic Harmony, the Venetian Harmony, the Tuscan Harmony,
various Latin Harmonies [Codices Fuldensis, Sangallensis, etc., etc.;  more
than 20 MSS are known], the Middle Dutch family of harmonies [the Liege
Harmony being the most famous, although the Cambridge, Stuttgart, Haaren,
and The Hague harmonies are also important], the Middle and Old High German
Harmonies [the Zurich, Sankt Gallen, and Kassel MSS being important], the
Middle English Pepysian Harmony, and a miscellany of other MSS in other
languages), quotations (in Ephrem, Aphrahat, Romanos, Augustine, the Liber
Graduum, the Acts of Archaleus, the Acts of Thomas, etc., etc., etc.), and
from texts influenced by the Diatessaron (the Vetus Syra, Vetus Latina, the
Arabic, Armenian, and Georgian versions).  This is only a partial list;
some of these are better sources, others poorer.  Experts know the
difference on the basis of long and intimate work with them;  I provide
pointers and caveats in *Tatian's Diatessaron.*

It must be noted that *each* of these sources has undergone "vulgatization."
In some cases (such as in the case of Codex Fuldensis) it was quite
thorough;  in other cases (as in the case of the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony)
it was much less thorough.

Here, Rod, is now the crux of your question and the answer:

(3) Much of even the original ("autograph") Diatessaron agreed verbatim with
our current UBS/NA text.  "Blessed are the poor" seems to have stood in all
the versions, in virtually all of the texts.  (See p. 369 in *Tatian's
Diatessaron*.)

The *problem* for the Diatessaronic scholar, however, is:  Given that all
Diatessaronic texts have undergone vulgatization, which sought to erase
deviating readings, and substitute the "standard" Vulgate reading, *how can
we be sure we have isolated the text of the ancient Diatessaron, and are not
mistaking a later, vulgatized passage for the text of the original Diatessaron?*

It follows logically that, in those cases where the original Diatessaron's
text agreed with our present collation base (TR, UBS, NA, whatever), we
*cannot* be sure that we have the text of the Diatessaron, for *all* of the
Diatessaronic witnesses might have been "vulgatized" at this point.  Note
carefully:  It is possible that *none* of the Diatessaronic witnesses have
been "vulgatized," and that they *are* preserving accurately the 2nd century
text of the Diatessaron (and possibly the 2nd century gospels upon which it
was based);  the problem is that we cannot be *sure* of that.  Because of
our logical inability to distinguish between a genuine Diatessaronic reading
and a "vulgatized" reading *in and only in cases such as this,* where the
Diatessaronic witnesses text agrees with the "standard" text of today, we
must remain silent about the contribution of the Diatessaron at these
points.  Some might say that the Diatessaron agrees with the "aleph-B" text,
or with the TR--but experts will know and recognize the worthlessness of
that statement, for it is based on defective logic.

(4) "Because of this, the text of the Diatessaron can be recovered *with
certainty* *only* when it *deviates* from the vast majority of gospel
manuscripts" (i.e., the TR, aleph-B, etc.) (*Tatian's Diatessaron*, p. 369)

What this means is that we must find places in the Diatessaronic witnesses
where they have *not* been vulgatized--where the "standard" reading has
*not* been substituted for the genuine Diatessaronic reading.  And the laws
of logic dictate that that can only be done where we find a "non-standard"
(= "deviating") reading.

Finding a deviating reading in one Diatessaronic witness means little (in my
opinion:  Baarda differs, and I agree with him, with qualifications, in
specific instances:  see the discussion on pp. 375-377 in *Tatian's
Diatessaron*), for each witness has its own transmission history, with
scribal errors, and its own distinct language, with its own syntax, idioms,
and grammar.  BUT, at those points--and they stick out to the trained eye
like a sore thumb--where *multiple* Diatessaronic witnesses *all* deviate in
the *same* precise manner, *then* we have the distinct possibility of having
found a reading which dates back to the early Diatessaron, probably to the
second century.  In my own research, I always insist (unless there are clear
reasons for transgressing this rule) that the Diatessaronic witnesses with
the identical reading be split between "eastern" witnesses and "western"
witnesses:  that is, for example, the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony must agree
with Ephrem's Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron.

The reason I insist upon "bilateral" support (as I call it)--east and west
agreeing--is to guard against the influence of "local texts."  Example: If
the Old High German Codex Sangallensis agreed with Latin Codex Fuldensis, I
would be cautious about calling that a Diatessaronic reading.  Both MSS were
copied in the West, in fairly close geographic proximity.  Perhaps this
reading was generated by an early medieval tradition floating around in
southern Europe during the sixth to ninth centuries.  In that case, the
reading has nothing to do with the Diatessaron.

Similarly--and here we come to the "second criteria" of your question, which
is one I, not Quispel, developed (Quispel developed the first criterion,
that is, requiring eastern and western support [read p. 374 carefully])--the
deviating reading should *not* be prominent in texts *outside* of the
Diatessaronic family of texts.  This criterion is *specifically* designed to
help us *solely* in identifying genuine *Diatessaronic* readings.  How
readings which pass these criteria relate to the gospels must be decided
later.  In my experience, the readings which pass muster *sometimes* seem to
be ancient gospel readings, commended by various internal and external
factors.  (Remember, if we *have* identified a genuine Diatessaronic
reading, then we are holding in our hands a text of which it can be said--on
an empirical basis--that it circulated in the final decades of the second
century....)  The question remains whether the deviating reading is a
"Tatianism"--that is, a reading introduced into the Diatessaron by Tatian
(contrary to the view of a century ago [e.g., v. Soden], subsequent research
suggests Tatain contributed little to the Diatessaron [the *only* obvious
case would seem to be some Encratite readings];  see *Tatian's Diatessaron*,
pp. 79-82)--or whether it accurately reflects the second-century gospel text
used by Tatian when creating his Diatessaron.

The reason for requiring limitation to the Diatessaronic family of texts is
meant to guard against the possible influence of local texts (it serves as a
double-check on and back-up to the first criterion, which requires eastern
and western support).  Example:  A deviating reading is widespread in the
Vetus Latina, but absent from the Vulgate, aleph-B, and the TR;  yet the
same deviating reading shows up in both eastern and western Diatessaronic
witnesses.  What does one do?  I toss it out, with my very high standard of
proof.  Why?  After all, it has bilateral support, doesn't it?  The reason
why I discard it is simple:  *In the WEST* one cannot be sure that the
Diatessaronic witnesses obtained the reading from the *Diatessaron*, for
they *might* have obtained it from the Vetus Latina.  In that case, the
bilateral support is questionable, as is the Diatessaronic status of the
reading.

(5) The key to your question, Rod, is to remember that (a) the criteria (1,
2, 3 in the book) are intended to insure that we get to the text of the
*Diatessaron,* and *not* get hoodwinked by a "vulgatized" reading, or by a
"local text" in either the east or the west;  and (b) *if*, with these
stringent criteria, we can recover a genuinely Diatessaronic reading, *then*
we have a versional text from the second century.  At that point, depending
on one's tastes, one can assume that the reading is either from the pen of
Tatian himself, or that it is--aah!--the text of a gospel known to Tatian
and accurately appropriated by him at that early date.

Since, Rod, I assume you are working your way through the book, it may be
helpful to look back at the two examples given on pp. 14-20, which address
this very point;  also take a look at "F. The Character of the Diatessaron's
Text" on pp. 437-438 (ahead of where you are now), which also addresses
exactly this point, but in prose, and with categories (there are 4 types of
readings in the Diatessaron:  (a) textual trivia [probably from its own
transmission history and the influence of "local texts"], (b)
glosses/clarifications (perhaps from Tatian or later revisors], (c)
liturgical /theological changes [perhaps from Tatian or later revisors], and
(d) ancient gospel readings) and "H. Examination of Tatian's Methods and
Motives" on pp. 443-444 (which deals with "Tatianisms" and changes perhaps
due to Tatian).  The four types of readings in the Diatessaron (a-d above)
can be disentangled and categorized, and while all are (because of their
antiquity and link with Semitic Christianity) highly significant, the NT
textual critic will probably be most intersted in "d," "ancient gospel
readings."

For the uninitiated, and to illustrate one of these possible "ancient gospel
readings," an example:

In the East:

Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron (4th cent.;  composed in Syriac, here
Arm. [Syr. *hiat*]), Isho'dad of Merv's Commentary (ninth cent.; Syriac),
Romanos the Melodist (6th cent.; Greek, but knew Syrian traditions as he was
born in Syria, grew up there, and was bilingual), and

in the West:

the Middle English Pepysian Harmony (1400) and the Latin *Vita Rhythmica*
(c. 1220)

both report that a "great light" shown in the Jordan River when Jesus was
baptized.

This variant is completely absent from the Greek gospel MS tradition as it
has come down to us.  In the Latin, it is found in two MSS of the Vetus
Latina, MSS *a* (4th cent) and *g1* (6th cent.).  It is *possible* that our
western Diatessaronic witnesses were influenced by the Vetus Latina MSS, and
do not genuinely reflect the tradition of the Diatessaron.  However, we know
that the Vetus Latina was also influenced by the Diatessaron (which has been
thought by some scholars [Baumstark and others] to be the first gospel in
Latin);  therefore, it is possible that the reading in the West *does* stem
from the Diatessaron.  Since, however, the only other sources in the West to
preserve this reading are gospel harmonies (= the Pepysian Harmony) or works
influenced by the Diatessaron (= the *Vita Rhythmica*), it tips the scales
in the direction of the Diatessaron.  Further, in the East, Isho'dad
specifically states "And straightway, *as the Diatessaron testifies*, a
*powerful light* shone, and above the Jordan...", and Ephrem's commentary is
specifically written on the text of the Diatessaron.  Hence, this is
apparently a Diatessaronic reading.

The question remains:  Did it stand in an ancient (2nd cent) Greek gospel
text?  I suggest it did, for Justin also quotes the passage (Dial. 88.3).
It is also cited by the Sibylline Oracles, 7.81-84.  How does the
Diatessaron's reading help us here?  Three ways:  (1) It provides us with a
*third* fix on this reading in the second century.  (2) It prevents one from
writing off the *Sib. Or.* reading as "poetic licence" and Justin's citation
as a "memory lapse."  (3) Since, upon examination, the Diatessaron appears
to have been a rather straight-foward harmonization of the text of the
gospels as known in the 2nd cent., it suggests that this reading was part of
the gospel text as known in the 2nd cent.--as does the presence of the same
reading in the two Vetus Latina MSS, which are "canonical" gospels, and
which insert the passage *ante* Matt 3:16.

[For full disclosure:  later, Epiphanius (late 4th cent.) states that the
reading stood in "the Hebrew gospel" used by the Ebionites (Pan. 30.13);
elsewhere, however, he states that "the Diatessaron gospel" was called by
some "[the gospel] according to the Hebrews" (Pan. 46.1.8-9 ).  Further,
Jerome remarks that a "Gospel according to the Hebrews" was considered by
"many" to be the "original/autograph" gospel of Matthew--and it is in
Matthew that Vetus Latina MSS *a* and *g1* place this reading...]

The value of the Diatessaron's reconstructed text is that it is ancient
(clearly 2nd cent.) and that, in this instance, it corroborates other
ancient evidence which might otherwise be ignored or dismissed becuase it is
not clearly a "text" (Justin's is a "citation/allusion/memory
lapse/paraphrase/oral tradition he knew," etc.;  the Sib. Or. is "poetic/not
a gospel," etc.).  But the Diatessaron is based on the gospels as they
circulated in the 2nd cent., as multiple examples show.

For another example (discovered by Baarda and published in his "The Flying
Jesus: Luke 4:29-30 in the Syriac Diatessaron", in VigChr 40 [1986], pp.
313-34), see my review in TC 1 of Baarda's *Essays on the Diatessaron*,
which reprints the article.  I summarize it there.  Examine his arguments
and evidence, and I think you'll see once again the immense value of the
Diatessaron for reconstructing the earliest strata of the gospel tradition.

Hope that helps, Rod.

--Petersen, Penn State University.