Ephraem (" Sermons against Heretics," liii., Opera
Syr., ii. 554 B) regarded Bardesanes as the composer
of the objectionable hymns; but the hymnal attrib
uted by him to Bardesanes was probably com
posed by Harmoniua. G. KROGER.
BiBLIOGRAPH7: Consult, besides the literature under BAR‑
DESANEs, DOB, ii. 845‑848; Ceillier Auteurs saeris, i. 455, 488; Harnack, Litteratur, i. 174, 184, 187. ‑
HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS.
I. Harmonies as Interwoven Gospels.
No Harmonies before Tatian ($ 1).
Tatian's Diatessaron and its History (§ 2).
The Diatessaron Originally Greek (1 3).
Reconstruction of the Diatemsron through the Versions (¢ 4).
Modern Works of the Kind (§ 5).
II. Harmonies in Parallel Arrangement.
Axamonius and Augustine (§ 1).
Clericus and the Griesbaoh School (4 2).
Rushbrooke and Later Harmonists (1 3).
[Under the name of "harmony of the Gospels" as commonly applied in English are embraced two classes of works: (1) those which combine into a continuous narrative more or less completely the accounts of the four Evangelists or of the Synoptists, the different accounts being interwoven (to these is sometimes given the name " Diatessaron "); (2) those in which the text of the Gospels is arranged in parallel columns, the sections which deal with the same episodes being placed together. In the usage of German and some other scholars a distinction is made between " harmony " and " synopsis," the former name being used for the interwoven narrative, the latter for the parallel arrangement. A few works unite the two forms. See GosPEL "D Tao GOBPErA.]
Sarmony of the Gospels THE NEW SCHAFF‑HERZOG 162
I. Harmonies as Interwoven Gospels: From the early Church the only work of this character known
is the celebrated Diatessaron of Tatian. r. No Har‑ The chance remark of Jerome that monies Theophilus of Antioch had collected before the words of.the four Gospels in one Tatim work refers to a commentary by
Theophilus which embraced all four without sharp distinctions between them. The remark of Ambrose, which may be derived from Origen, to the effect that many heretical teachers collected out of the four Gospels that which suited their form of teaching, hardly proves the existence of a number of old harmonies, but rather refers to the Apocryphal Gospels, which got some of their material from the canonical Gospels, such as the Gospel of Marcion, based on Luke and containing excerpts from Matthew and John. And to this class of composition the work of Ammonius, known only from the letter of Eusebius to Carpianus, does not belong, in which he is said to have taken Matthew as a basis and added the parallels from the other Gospels. While the descriptions do not permit dogmatizing upon the character of this work, it can hardly have been anything other than a handbook for exegetes and especially for harmonists, and it belongs to the class of books called by the Germans synopses.
The oldest trustworthy report of the Diatessaron of Tatian is contained in Eusebius (Hilt eccl., IV., xxix. 6), bpt the character of the description implies that its use was limited to certain circles and that it was not studied by Eusebius. This limitation in circulation is confirmed by Epiphanius, and still more definitely by Jerome when he says that out of all the productions of Tatian, only the Contra gentes remained, and omits mention of the Diatesearon. In Palestine during the fourth century even to the most learned authors the Diatessaron was but the title of an unknown book. If Hegesippus can
be held to have referred to the Diates2. Tatian's Baron under the term " the Syriac Diatessaron (Gospel)," according to Eusebius (Hiat. and Its eccl., IV., xxii. 7) this is the earliest
History. testimony to the existence of that
work, and .it involves the conclusion that the language was Syriac; but that Hegesippus, writing in Greek, should have cited the Syriac translation of a Gospel harmony which must have followed its Greek original is highly improbable. But the testimonies in the Syrian region to the existence of the Diatessaron are abundant, and from direct knowledge, as when Theodoret, bishop of Kyros (or Kyrrhos), removed about 200 copies of the work from the orthodox churches and substituted the canonical Gospels. Completer knowledge has been recently gained through the discovery of the Armenian translation of the commentary of Ephraem Syrus, made accessible to larger circles by the Latin translation of J. Aucher (ed. G. M6singer, Venice, 1876; cf. J. H. Hill, Dissertation arc the Gospel Commentary of S. Ephraem, Edinburgh, 1896). The legends of the Christianizing of Edeasa, older than Eusebius, mention the Diatessaron as the chief sacred book alongside the Old Testament. Aphraates calls it
" the Gospel of our Savior." In the Syriac translation of the Hist. eccl. of Eusebius, known to have existed as early as Ephraem Syrus' time, the " Diateasaron " of IV., xxix. 6 is translated by " the mingled (Gospel)," showing that in its home that was the name by which it was known, while in distinction from this the other Gospels were known as " the separated (Gospels)," as a canon of Rabbula of Edeasa (412‑435) makes clear. In the fifth century there was a definite rejection of the Diateasaron and exclusion of it from use in service, and that without distinction of party affiliations of the bishops who directed the movement. But from near Mosul to the bishopric of Kyros the Diatessaron must have been for the churches long the service‑book in the Gospels, while the translations of the separate Gospels were used in the studies of the theologians, a condition which prevailed at least till about 370 A.D., when Ephraem Syrus lectured ,upon the Diatessaron with only occasional references to the canonical Gospels. Similar evidence comes from other writers. Mar Abba, a disciple of Ephraem, had an " Exposition of the Gospel " the fragments of which appear to show that it was based on Tatian'a work. From the fifth century the relations of the two forms of the Gospels were reversed; the separated Gospels were in use in the churches, the Diatessaron, was referred to only by the learned.
Apart from the two translations already mentioned, the history of the Diatessaron seems to have run its course entirely in the region of Syria. And it is to be noted that in its original form it was Greek, and was translated into the Syriac. The lack of any testimony for its existence among the Greek churches and the way in which Greek writers refer to it confirm the conclusion already reached. That Tatian, the writer of an apology in Greek, if he was in any event the author of the Diatessaron. could have written it only in Greek is
3. The an opinion founded upon ignorance of Diatessaron historical facts. Tatian, " born in the
the Gospel, not in the form of four books, but, as
he himself called his volume, in the form " The
Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God through four."
That the Greek apologete Tatian gave the Diatea
saron in Syriac is an improbable supposition, and
against it is the discrimination he makes between
Matt. x. 10 and Luke ix. 3 on the one hand and
Mark vi. 8 on the other, " a rod and not a staff."
But the Diatessaron became a household book in
the Syrian Church. Whether it was the ,oldest
Gospel, which was later displaced by a translation
of the four Gospels, is a question for further exam
A reconstruction of the Diatessaron from the translations in other languages can not be dispensed with, for no sure traces exist of the Greek. From a sermon wrongly attributed to Gregory of Nyasa and to Severus, but really by a certain Hesychius, probably the presbyter of Jerusalem (c. 438), a man interested in the matter of harmony of the Gospels,
163 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Harmony of the Gospels
it appears that he knew nothing of a Greek harmony.
circulation is proved by the existence of texts independent of the Victor type in Dutch. It is from manuscripts of this type that the text published by O. Nachtigall (ut. sup.) was derived.
The Monotessaron of John Gerson (Opera, iv. 83‑202, Antwerp, 1706) must be discriminated from this type as altogether modern. Since Augustine's unfinished De consensu evangeliorum this was the first attempt of the kind. The text is divided into 150 (151) rubrics, and in that in which the Sermon on the Mount fell the author engages in a critical discussion, and remarks on the concordantia dissonantia of the Gospels, considering them aids to faith. From harmonizing in the strictest sense Gerson is free. A work of independence, pains, and learning, and having important results upon further efforts, was that of Andreas Osiander of Nuremberg, Harmonise evangelicce libri quattuor, . . . Basel, 1537. In the dedication Osiander
A. E. Hillard, A Continuous Narrative of the Life of Christ
in the Words Of as Four Gospels, London, 1894; W. H.
Withrow, A Harmony of as Gospels; being as Life.of.Jesus
in the Wrds of the Four Evangelists, New York, 1894; The
Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ, a Continuous Narrative
Collated from the Gospels, ib. 1898‑ Anna M. Perry, The
Life of our Lord in the Words of the Four Evangelists,
ib. 1901; W. E. Barton T. G. $oares, and H. Strong,
His Life; a complete Story in as Words of as four Gospels,
1906. Consult also E. A. Abbott, Indices to Diateasarica, New York, 1908.
II. Harmonies in Parallel Arrangement: The
oldest precursor of modern harmonies in the form of
three‑ or fourfold arrangement is the
r. Ammo‑ work of Ammonius of Alexandria (q.v.),
nius and who published an edition of the Gospel
Augustine‑ of Matthew, on the margin of which he
noted the relation of the other Gospels
to Matthew. According to his own statement, this
work induced Eusebius to write a similar one, but
on a different method. He divided the four Gospels
into sections (perikopai or kephalaia), assigning to
Matthew 355 sections, to Mark 233, to Luke 342, and to John 232. Beside each number Eusebius added in red ink a second number that referred to the canons or tables in front of the work, of which he had made ten for the purpose of finding the parallel or related passages. The first canon contained the numbers of those sections for which Eusebius found parallels in all four Gospels; the second the parallels in Matthew, Mark, Luke; the third those in Matthew, Luke, John; the fourth those in Matthew, Mark, John; the fifth those in Matthew, Luke; the sixth those in Matthew, Mark; the seventh those in Matthew, John; the eighth those in Luke, Mark; the ninth those in Luke, John; the tenth the pericopes in each Gospel without parallels in the others. If one looked in this canon for the respective number of the section, he found parallel to it the number of the related section from the other Gospels. Augustine's De conaensu evangelistarum ltbri quattuor had chiefly an apologetical and harmonistic purpose, but it was used as a text of the Gospels, revised by Jerome, and was provided with the sections and canons of Eusebius. From Augustine until J. Clericus' (Le Clerc) Harmonia evangelicd (Amsterdam, 1699), the material of the Gospels was treated preponderatingly from the view‑point of the interwoven narrative.
Clericus was the first in whom the interest in the fourfold or comparative arrangement became
(Paris, 1707), which, although compiled for chronological and historiographical purposes, gives so much attention to the comparative presentation of the texts that one is reminded of Rushbrooke (see below). The first real parallel arrangement is that of J. J. Griesbaeh‑Synopsis evangeliorum (Halls, 1776, and often), which grew out of the need for a proper basis for exegetical lectures on the Gospels. Griesbach felt that if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were interpreted in their order, many repetitions would be necessary; while, on the other hand, many peculiarities of Mark and Luke would be unconsidered if, after the interpretation of Matthew, there were treated only that material from the second and third Gospels which is not contained in Matthew; and, further, that it was not sufficient to interpret only one of the three Gospels. Therefore he printed the text of the first three Evangelists in such a way that the common subjects stood side by side and the parallels could be at once considered. He did not include the fourth Gospel in this arrangement. The work of Griesbach became the norm for the following time. Anger in his Synopsis evangeliorum Matthcei, Marci, Lucw (Leipsie, 1852) made a valuable addition by including parallels from the Apocryphal Gospels. Other synoptical works are: G. M. L. de Wette and F. Likcke, Synopsis ewngeliorum (Berlin, 1818, 2d ed., 1842; on the basis of Griesbach); J. Gehringer, Synoptische Zusammenstellung lea grwchischen Textea der vwr Evangelien (Tabingen, 1842); J. H. Friedlieb, Qttatuor evangelia sacra in harmonium redacts