The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 27

lwl'lft h century, says th11t Ephrem Syrus wr0te a commr.nl.1ry on 'l'ntfan's harmony, 1111d th11t it begnn 'ldlh eh. i. 1. So stmtling a fact has been vehemently repudiaicd liy tho opponents 0£ tho Fonrtli G0spcl, ~nd certainly the tosti_mony appears Jato a~d d11bio11s; but seo l~ero L$htfou~.•~ (art.Jclo m Conf~mpora.,y Review, 1877) argume11t ·m defence of Dar-Sahbl. Uonllrml\- tion of this testimony really became available in 1836, though unnoticed by Western ~Gliolars; for in that year it was found that nn .Armenian Version of Ephrcm's Com- mentary nctually exist~,l, and the Mechita1ist Fathers in Venice published it. In 1876 Mrosinger translated this into Latin, and Dr. Ezra .Abbott called attention to it in !880. Dr. Zahn has published an elaborate dissertation on the subject. With this Btimulns, Dr. Wace gave :m interesting Recount and analysis of this commentary (Ea:positoi·, 1882), and of Dr. Zahn's theories concerning it. Zahn thinks that the t;.1aT«,<1"0.pwv was itself written in Syriac, that the commentary consisted of a scrie11 of homilies upon a harmony which in the Syrinc Churches, in the fourth century, assumed the pince of the Gospels in the Greek Churches. This commentary reveals tho text upon which it wns based, and we find that it corresponds with Victor of Capua's state- ment, thongh the latter had restored some passages which, according to Thcodoret, 'l'atian had omitted. This remarkable document begins, as Bar-Salibi had said, with eh. i. 1, etc., and contains numerous passages from the Gospel, even of eh. xxi., and bases its chronology upon that of John rather than on that of the synoptics. The only question is-Have we any reason for doubting that the harmony on which Ephrem Syrus commented was Tatian's, &S Bar-:&Llibi asserted? Might it have been a harmony made by Ammonius of Alexandria? Against this the strong reason nppe.a.rs that Ammonius's harmony made Matthcw's Gospel the basis, whereas there is no hint of this in Ephrem's commentary. If we can rely upon the existence of the "harmony" of Tatian (a disciple of Justin), and that the Fourth Gospel was an essential element of the .o.,a.TEtrtr,lpmv, the debate as to Justin's quotations is closed. . • (3) THE MUllATOilIAN FBAGMENT,1 Muratori, in 1740 (' .Antiquitates Italic::e Medil lEvi,' vol. iii.), published a m:rnuscript at that time in the .Ambrosian Library of l\{ilan, formerly in the monastery of Bobbio, in order to prove the inaccuracy of early copyists; but he and others at once saw that the fragment was of importance in determining the canon of the New Testament. The manuscript begins abruptly, and is broken off in the middle of a sentence; it is written in corrupt Latin, which is probably a poor translation of an original work in Greek. The writer says that" Hcrmas·,has very recently, and in our days, written the 'Shepherd,' while Pius, his brother, w~s "Bishop of Rome." Pius died about the middle of the second century, his episcopa.te extending from A.D. 142 to 147, and if so, the composition of the unknown author can scarcely be put later than A..D. 160 or 170. Tregelles says, "Its evidence is none the less trust- worthy from its being a blundering and illiterate transcript of a rough and rustic trans- lation of e. Greek original..,, With him, Mangold and Hilgenfelii agree. It is one of the first attempts we possess to frame e. canon or list of books of the New Testament. We have to make snndry conjectures which may turn out to be false, with reference, e.g., to the Epistle to the Hebrews ; but its testimony as to the existence of the Gospels is important, seeing that it mention~ forged epistles in order to denounce th~~• a_nd discriminates between the value of the 'Shepherd' of Hennas and the sacrea 0001ts. Everything in our present question depends on the date. If "nuperrime temporibus nostris" be taken in their ordinary sense, it cannot be dated much after the death of Plus, and all the other references tally with this. Desperate hypotheses have been made to avoid the inconvenient force of the testimony. Some have suggested that the passage which involves the date is an interpolation. Of course that cannot be disproved. The mere fact of mutilation does not in the least suggest interpolation ; nor is there any appearance of its being a gloss. It is questionable whether any mention of Matthew and Mark we.s made in the on.,oi.nal document, because tha.t portion of the manuscript is mutilated; but, as far as our present contention is concerned, that is unimportant. What 1 'Canonicity,' by A. H. Charteris, D.D., where the original form a.ad the emended tex& are 11een, pp. 3--8; • Ca.non of the New Testa.me11t,' by Westcott, p. 557, etc.; • Dible in ihe C,'burcil,' Ly Westcott, p. 113, etc.; Lig!Jtfoot, Co11kmporary &view, October, 1875; lloltzme.nn. 'Leh.rbuch der F..inleitung in das N. 'f.,' p. 143; ReUSII, 'History of New Testawent,' § 310.  'l'IIE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. ,JOilN. xxxi