n this respect he appears to treat all four Evan- gelists as of equal authority ; but, in the main, his scheme of our Lord’s public ministry, which ex- tends over three Passovers,* is based on the Fourth Gospel. In detail, however, the latter is treated with the same freedom as the Synoptists. Thus the purification of the temple (Jn 2!-22) and the discourse with Nicodemus (3'-#!) are transferred to the Feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem in the last winter of our Lord’s life. The following ex- ample will perhaps give a better illustration, not only of the boldness with which Tatian treated his sources, but also of the keen insight and judgment displayed by Zahn in tracing out and determining the principles which appear to have guided him :— We find in the Harmony that Jn 6!-2! (§ 34, Feeding of the 5000 just before the second Passover) pre- cedes Jn 44” (§ 38. Discourse with the woman of Samaria) and Jn 5 (§ 40. Visit to Jerusalem and cure at the Pool of Bethesda), the two latter being separated by § 39 (the healing of the leper, Mt 82-4, Mk 1%, Lk 514), But § 38 (Jn 44), which forms part of a journey from Juda to Samaria, seems to be inconsistent with the preceding sections (14-37), which (with the exception of § 25) describe the Galilean ministry. A further difficulty is pre- sented by the isolated position of § 39, which is the only incident belonging to the Galilean ministry which, presumably, stands in its proper position between the journey to Galilee (Jn 4*43) and the visit to Jerusalem (5'). The correct explanation is, no doubt, that offered by Zahn, who points out that Tatian has reversed ie order of St. John, and assigned the two days’ sojourn at Samaria (Jn 4442, § 38) to a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. Tatian’s procedure is bold, but it involves no alteration of Jn 444, since these verses include nothing which requires that the sojourn in Samaria should form part of a journey from Judea to Galilee. The remaining verses of ch. 4, it is true, clearly point to such a journey, but they form no part of § 38. For vy.!* had already been given in § 13; of vv.*-46 Tatian had only utilized v.44 in § 32, while it is doubtful if vy. ever formed part of the Harmony : according to Zahn, vv.4%»-*4 also were omitted by Tatian, their place being taken by § 39.¢ It naturally follows from this alteration of
* Of, § ili. ¢. According to the Arabic version, no account of the first Passover is given by Tatian ; this, however, does not affect the length of our Lord’s ministry.
t These verses, however, occur both in the Latin and the Arabic translations, though in different contexts.
DIATESSARON
Tatian that the scene of § 39 is transferred from Galilee to Judea. This second change, however, is certainly an improvement from the point of view of the history, for Mt 84, Mk 1#, Lk 5% appear to presuppose easy access to the temple and its priestly ritual. The complete chronological scheme underlying the Diatessaron, which has thus been restored, is as follows :—
Sections
1. The Logos, Incarnation and Childhood
of our Lord. . : 1-7 2. The first Manifestation . : ; >= 8-12 3. The beginning of His public ministry. First Passover (Jn 21) ; : 13 4. Jesus in Galilee ; neh ish . 14-37 5. Journey through Samaria. Second Passover (Jn 5) . ; ; 38-40 6. Sojourn in Galilee . . é . 41-51 7. Visit to Jerusalem. Feast of Taber- nacles (Jn 77%) . ; - . . 52 8. Journey to (Persea or) Galilee and back 53-58 9. Feast of the Dedication in Jerusalem . 59-71 10. Raising of Lazarus. poral in Epb- raim and return to Bethany . > 2sudo 11. From the Triumphal Entry to the In- stitution of the Lord’s Supper 74-89 12. Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension . 90-100
(b) Codex Fuldensis,—That the Latin Harmony of the Gospels discovered by Victor, bishop of Capua, about the year A.D. 545, and ascribed by him, on the authority of the statements contained in Eusebius (HE iv. 36), to Tatian * does actually represent the Diatessaron, may now be regarded as proved.t A comparison of the two documents clearly demonstrates that they are closely allied, and that, at least as regards the order, they are, with few exceptions, in remarkable agreement. This agreement, unfortunately, does not extend to the text, for the copy of the Latin Harmony which Victor inserted (in place of the four Gospels) at the head of his edition of the New Testament is not so much a translation, whether of the original Syriac or of an intermediate Greek version, as a transference of the language of the original text into the language of the Latin Gospels as revised by Jerome. In other words, the form exhibited by the Latin Harmony of the Codex Fuldensis is that of the Diatessaron, the text is that of the Vulgate. We cannot, however, follow Hemphill} in attributing the form of the Latin text to Victor or to the scribe working under his direction. Such a supposition is incon- sistent with Victor’s own introductory remarks,§ which convey no hint of such a laborious task, and is directly excluded by an examination of the descriptive capitulation prefixed to the Harmony. For though the latter frequently disagrees with the enumeration of the chapters as given in the text, and was clearly, therefore, composed before the Harmony had assumed its present form, it has been preserved unchanged by the copyist. The fol- lowing instances of this disagreement, taken from the commencement of the Harmony, are the more interesting as they serve in a large measure to ex-