Matthew R. Crawford

Ammonius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea and the Origins of Gospels Scholarship

In the early third and fourth centuries respectively, Ammonius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea engaged in cutting edge research on the relationships among the four canonical gospels. Indeed, these two figures stand at the head of the entire tradition of comparative literary analysis of the gospels. This article attempts to provide a more precise account of their contributions, as well as the relationship between the two figures. It argues that Ammonius, who was likely the teacher of Origen, composed the first gospel synopsis by placing similar passages in parallel columns. He gave this work the title Diatessaron-Gospel, referring thereby to the four columns in which his text was laid out. This pioneering piece of scholarship drew upon a long tradition of Alexandrian textual scholarship and likely served as the inspiration for Origen’s more famous Hexapla. A little over a century later, Eusebius of Caesarea picked up where Ammonius left off and attempted to accomplish the same goal, albeit using a different and improved method. Using the textual parallels presented in the Diatessaron-Gospel as his “raw data,” Eusebius converted these textual units into numbers which he then collated in ten tables, or “canons” standing at the beginning of a gospelbook. The resulting cross-reference system, consisting of the Canon Tables as well as sectional enumeration throughout each gospel, allowed the user to find parallels between the gospels, but in such a way that the literary integrity of each of the four was preserved. Moreover, Eusebius also exploited the potential of his invention by including theologically suggestive cross-references, thereby subtly guiding the reader of the fourfold gospel to what might be called a canonical reading of the four.

Reordering the Confusion: Tatian, the Second Sophistic, and the so-called Diatessaron

Abstract The only two surviving works from Tatian are his Oration to the Greeks and the so-called Diatessaron. Previous scholars have examined the Oration in search of clues that might shed light on the origins of his gospel, and have highlighted his adherence to divine “unity” and insistence on historical “accuracy.” In this article it is argued that a more fundamental theme in the Oration is Tatian’s concern for proper “order,” a rhetorical category that he filled out with theological and philosophical content, and that it was this which served as the primary impetus for his creation of his gospel edition. Furthermore, if rhetoric gave him the motivation, it was his grammatical training that gave him the tools for this enterprise, since in composing his work he must have relied upon the kind of close literary analysis learned under the grammarian. Viewing the matter from this perspective allows one to place Tatian more clearly into the second-century context of the Second Sophistic and also allows one to situate him within an ongoing conversation among Christian authors in the second century over the order, or lack thereof, evident in the church’s authoritative texts.

Reading the Diatessaron with Ephrem: The Word and the Light, the Voice and the Star

Through a consideration of the reception history of the so-called “Diatessaron,” Tatian’s second-century gospel compilation, we can learn much about the nature of this peculiar text. Of paramount importance here is the Syriac Commentary on the Gospel attributed to Ephrem of Nisibis. In this article I argue that the ordering of pericopae in the opening section of Tatian’s gospel, which interweaves Matthean and Lukan passages within a broadly Johannine incluisio, prompts the Syriac exegete to an unexpected interpretation of these narratives. By reading these pericopae as a single, continuous narrative, he creatively combines the divine “Word” and “Light” of the Johannine prologue with the Synoptic traditions about John the Baptist as the “voice” and about the star that shone to guide the magi, presenting the star and the voice as extensions of the Son’s own agency. This remarkably original interpretation of the nativity of Jesus illustrates the degree of artistry that went into the making of Tatian’s text and the novel interpretations it elicited from its readers.

On the diversity and influence of the Eusebian alliance : the case of Theodore of Heraclea.

This article offers, for the first time in English, a reconstruction of the career of Theodore of Heraclea, a leading figure in the Eusebian alliance from the early 330s until the mid-350s. It also provides an overview of Theodores literary remains and suggests that the anti-Marcellan tone of his surviving fragments is in keeping with the other documents that emanated from the Eusebian alliance during this period, especially those from the Council of Serdica (343) and the Council of Sirmium (351). Finally, it is suggested that the diversity of ways in which Theodore was received by later patristic authors illustrates that the polarising categories of ‘Arian’ and ‘Nicene’ are insufficiently nuanced to describe Theodores actual theological concerns.

The origins of Pauline theology : paratexts and Priscillian of Avila’s Canons on the Letters of the Apostle Paul

Pauline theology is a well-established undertaking in modern New Testament studies, and yet it is almost entirely without precedent prior to the nineteenth century. This article explores the enterprise of Pauline theology by considering an important and overlooked exception to its otherwise exclusively modern provenance: Priscillian of Avilas fourth-century Canons on the Letters of the Apostle Paul . The key to Priscillians dogmatic synthesis of Pauls thought was his innovative ‘versification’ of Pauls letters, which facilitated efficient citation and cross-referencing of epistolary data. This article uses Priscillians literary creation to examine the intriguing correlation of technologies for ordering textual knowledge with the systematic abstraction of Pauline theology.

The Diatessaron, Canonical or Non-canonical? Rereading the Dura Fragment

Among those texts that vied for a position as authoritative Scripture, but were eventually rejected by ecclesiastical authorities, was the so-called Diatessaron of Tatian. Having been compiled from the four canonical gospels, Tatians work occupies a liminal position between the categories of ‘canonical’ and ‘apocryphal’, since the majority of its content was common to users of the fourfold gospel, though this content existed in a radically altered form and was tainted by association with an author widely accused of heresy. In order to demonstrate the originality of Tatians gospel composition, this article gives a close reading of the only surviving Greek witness to it, a fragment of parchment found in excavations at Dura-Europos. Duras very location as a borderland between Rome and Persia corresponds with the fact that in this outpost garrison city Christians were using a gospel text that would have appeared markedly strange to those in the mainstream of the Christian tradition. The wording that can be recovered from the Dura fragment shows how Tatian creatively and intelligently combined the text of the four gospels to produce a new narrative of the life of Jesus, choosing to leave out certain elements and to make deliberate emendations along the way. However, it was precisely such originality that made his gospel appear problematic, so in order to rescue his text from censure, later scribes had to domesticate it by making it conform throughout to the canonical versions. Comparison of the Dura fragment with the medieval Arabic gospel harmony and with the Latin version in Codex Fuldensis illustrates well this process whereby Tatians gospel went from being a rival to the fourfold gospel to a designedly secondary, and therefore acceptable, work.

Resolving Genealogical Ambiguity: Eusebius and (ps-) Ephrem on Luke 1.36

The earliest formal New Testament commentary in Syriac is the so-called Commentary on the Diatessaron attributed to Ephrem. This commentary is thoroughly at home in the world of Syriac Christianity, as seen not least in the fact that it focuses on Tatian’s idiosyncratic gospel version. Nevertheless, portions of the commentary also exhibit awareness of exegetical traditions shared with contemporary Greek authors. This paper focuses on one of the more striking of these parallels, namely, (ps-)Ephrem’s treatment of Mary’s Davidic lineage and relation to Elizabeth her ‘kinswoman’. Eusebius of Caesarea had taken up this issue in his Gospel Problems and Solutions, and the author of the Syriac commentary argues for the same three points evident in Eusebius’ treatment. Hence, the Syriac commentator has likely been directly or indirectly influenced by Eusebius’ formulation of this tradition, although specifying the manner of this transmission of ideas is impossible.