delivered perhaps during one of his sojourns at Rome [267:2]. He was a diligent letter-writer, interesting himself in the difficulties and dissensions of distant Churches, and more than one notice of such letters is preserved. He composed several treatises more or less elaborate, whose general character may be estimated from his extant work. The subjects moreover, with which he had to deal, must have forced him to an examination of the points with which we are immediately concerned. He took a chief part in the Montanist controversy; and the Montanist doctrine of the Paraclete, as I have before had occasion to remark [267:3], directly suggested an investigation of the promise in the Fourth Gospel. He was equally prominent in the Paschal dispute, and here again the relation between the narratives of St John and the Synoptists must have entered largely into the discussion. He was contending all his life with Gnostics, or reactionists against Gnosticism, and how large a part the authority and contents of the Gospels and Epistles must have played in these controversies generally we see plainly from his surviving work against the Valentinians.

Thus Irenaeus does not present himself before us as an isolated witness, but is backed by a whole phalanx of past and contemporaneous authority.

All this our author ignores. He forecloses all investigation by denouncing, as usual, the uncritical character of the fathers; and Irenaeus is not even allowed to enter the witness-box.

The truth is that, speaking generally, the fathers are neither more nor less uncritical on questions which involve the historical sense, than other writers of their age. Now and then we meet with an exceptional blunderer; but for the most part Christian writers will compare not unfavourably with their heathen contemporaries. If Clement of Rome believes in the story of the phoenix, so do several cla.s.sical writers of repute. If Justin Martyr affirms that Simon Magus received divine honours at Rome, heathen historians and controversialists make statements equally false and quite as ridiculous with reference to the religion and history of the Jews [268:1]. Even the credulity of a Papias may be more than matched by the credulity of an Apion or an aelian. The work of the sceptical Pliny himself abounds in impossible stories. On the other hand individual writers may be singled out among the Christian fathers, whom it would be difficult to match in their several excellences from their own or contiguous generations. No heathen contemporary shows such a power of memory or so wide an acquaintance with the cla.s.sical literature of Greece in all its branches as Clement of Alexandria. No heathen contemporary deserves to be named in the same day with Origen for patience and accuracy in textual criticism, to say nothing of other intellectual capacities, which, notwithstanding all his faults, distinguish him as the foremost writer of his age. And again, the investigations of Theophilus of Antioch, the contemporary of Irenaeus, in comparative chronology are far in advance of anything which emanates from heathen writers of his time, however inadequate they may appear in this nineteenth century, which has discovered so many monuments of primeval history. There are in fact as many gradations among the Christian fathers as in any other order of men; and here, as elsewhere, each writer must be considered on his own merits. It is a gross injustice to cla.s.s the authors whom I have named with such hopeless blunderers as Epiphanius and John Malalas, for whom nothing can be said, but in whom nevertheless our author places the most implicit confidence, when their statements serve his purpose.

Now Irenaeus is not one whose testimony can be lightly set aside. He possessed, as we have seen, exceptional opportunities of forming an opinion on the point at issue. His honesty is, I think, beyond the reach of suspicion. He is a man of culture and intelligence. He possesses a considerable knowledge of cla.s.sical literature, though he makes no parade of it. He argues against his opponents with much patience. His work is systematic, and occasionally shows great acuteness. His traditions, no doubt, require sifting, like other men's, and sometimes dissolve in the light of criticism. He has his weak points also, whether in his interpretations or in his views of things. But what then? Who refuses to listen to the heathen rhetorician Aristides or the apostate Emperor Julian on matters of fact because they are both highly superst.i.tious--the one paying a childish deference to dreams, the other showing himself a profound believer in magic? In short, Irenaeus betrays no incapacity which affects his competency as a witness to a broad and comprehensive fact, such as that with which alone we are concerned.

And his testimony is confirmed by evidence from all sides. The recognition of these four Gospels from a very early date is the one fact which explains the fragmentary notices and references occurring in previous writers. Moreover his contemporaries in every quarter of the Church repeat the same story independently. The Old Latin Version, already existing when Irenaeus published his work and representing the Canon of the African Christians, included these four Gospels, and these only. The author of the Muratorian fragment, writing a few years before him, and apparently representing the Church of Rome, recognizes these, and these alone. Clement, writing a few years later, as a member of the Alexandrian Church, who had also travelled far and wide, and sat at the feet of divers teachers, in Greece, in Asia Minor, in Palestine, in Italy, doubts the authenticity of a story told in an apocryphal writing, on the ground that it was not related in any of the four Gospels handed down by the Church [270:1]. What is the meaning of all this coincidence of view? It must be borne in mind that the Canon of the New Testament was not made the subject of any conciliar decree till the latter half of the fourth century. When therefore we find this agreement on all sides in the closing years of the second, without any formal enactment, we can only explain it as the convergence of independent testimony showing that, though individual writers might allow themselves the use of other doc.u.ments, yet the general sense of the Church had for some time past singled out these four Gospels by tacit consent, and placed them in a position of exceptional authority.

One other remark on the testimony of Irenaeus suggests itself before closing. Irenaeus is the first extant writer in whom, from the nature of his work, we have a right to expect explicit information on the subject of the Canon. Earlier writings, which have been preserved entire, are either epistolary, like the letters of the Apostolic Fathers, where any references to the Canonical books must necessarily be precarious and incidental (to say nothing of the continuance of the oral tradition at this early date as a disturbing element); or devotional, like the Shepherd of Hermas, which is equally devoid of quotations from the Old Testament and from the New; or historical, like the account of the martyrdoms at Vienne and Lyons, where any such allusion is gratuitous; or apologetic, like the great ma.s.s of the extant Christian writings of the second century, where the reserve of the writer naturally leads him to be silent about authorities which would carry no weight with the Jewish or heathen readers whom he addressed. But the work of Irenaeus is the first controversial treatise addressed to Christians on questions of Christian doctrine, where the appeal lies to Christian doc.u.ments. And here the testimony to our four Gospels is full and clear and precise.

If any reader is really in earnest on this matter, I will ask him to read Irenaeus and judge for himself. He will find many things for which perhaps he is not prepared, and which will jar with his preconceived ideas; but on the one point at issue I have no fear that I shall be accused of exaggeration. Indeed it is impossible to convey in a few paragraphs the whole force of an impression which is deepened by each successive page of a long and elaborate work.

IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON [272:1].

[MAY, 1877.]

All that is known of the life of Tatian can be soon told. He was an a.s.syrian by birth, as he himself distinctly states. If other writers call him a Syrian, the discrepancy may be explained by the common confusion between the two nationalities; or possibly it should be accounted for by his place of residence during the later years of his life. As a heathen he exercised the profession of a sophist, and in this capacity travelled far and wide. His mind was first turned towards Christianity by reading the Scriptures, which impressed him greatly. As a Christian he became the hearer--in some sense the disciple--of Justin Martyr, doubtless at Rome; and when Crescens, the cynic, succeeded in bringing about his master's death, Tatian's life also was imperilled by the plots of this machinator. While he remained in the metropolis he had among his disciples Rhodon, who in later years undertook to refute one of his heretical works. Subsequently he left Rome, and seems to have spent the remainder of his life in the East, more especially in Syria and the neighbouring countries.

After the death of Justin Martyr--how soon after we do not know--his opinions underwent a change. Hitherto he had been regarded as strictly orthodox; but now he separated himself from the Church, and espoused views closely allied to those of the Encrat.i.tes. A leading tenet of his new ascetic creed was the rejection of marriage as an abomination. But he is stated also to have adopted opinions from Gnostic teachers, more especially the doctrine of aeons, which he derived from the Valentinian school [273:1]. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ further says that, 'although Tatian may have been acquainted with some of his (St Paul's) Epistles, it is certain that he did not hold the Apostle in any honour, and permitted himself the liberty of altering his phraseology' [273:2].

Where did he learn this 'certain' piece of information that Tatian thought lightly of St Paul? a.s.suredly not from any ancient writer. It is quite true that Tatian is stated to have mutilated some of St Paul's Epistles and rejected others. But so did Marcion, who held the Apostle in extravagant honour. And the motive was the same in both cases. The Apostle's actual language did not square with their favourite tenets in all respects, and therefore they a.s.sumed that his text must have been corrupted or interpolated. So far from its being at all doubtful, as our author seems to suggest, whether Tatian was acquainted with any of St Paul's Epistles, we have positive evidence that he did receive some [273:3]; and moreover one or two coincidences in his extant work point to an acquaintance with the Apostle's writings. His leanings, like those of Marcion and Valentinus, were generally in the opposite direction to Judaism. His tendency would be not to underrate but to overrate St Paul.

At the same time such pa.s.sages as 1 Tim. iv. 3, where the prohibition of marriage is denounced as a heresy, were a stumbling-block. They must therefore be excised as interpolations, or the Epistles containing them must be rejected as spurious.

The date of Tatian is a matter of some uncertainty. He was a hearer, as we have seen, of Justin Martyr in Rome; and if the chronology of this father had been established beyond the reach of doubt, we should be treading on firm ground. On this point however there has been much variety of opinion. The prevailing view is, or was, in favour of placing Justin's death as late as A.D. 163-165, on the authority of Eusebius; but the most careful investigations of recent criticism have tended towards a much earlier date [274:1]. The literary activity of Tatian seems to have begun about the time of Justin Martyr's death; and after this we have to allow for his own career, first as an orthodox Christian, and then as a heretic. When Irenaeus wrote his first book, Tatian was no longer living, as may be inferred from the language of this father [274:2]: and this book must have been written before A.D.

190, and may have 'been written as early as A.D. 178 [274:3]. Again, if we may a.s.sume that the 'a.s.syrian,' whom the Alexandrian Clement mentions among his teachers [274:4], was Tatian, as seems highly probable, we have another indication of date. The first book of the _Stromateis_, in which this fact is recorded, was itself written about A.D. 194 or 195; and Clement there speaks of the a.s.syrian as one of his earlier masters, whom he had met with in the East, before he settled down under the tuition of Pantaenus at Alexandria. In like manner Tatian's connection with Rhodon would point roughly to the same conclusion. On the whole, we shall perhaps not be far wrong if we place the literary activity of Tatian at about A.D. 155-170. It may have begun some few years earlier, or it may have extended some few years later.

Tatian was a voluminous writer; but of several writings mentioned by the ancients only one has come down to us, his _Apology_ or _Address to the Greeks_. It was written after the death of Justin, but apparently not very long after. At all events it would seem to have been composed before he had separated from the Church and set himself up as a heretical teacher. Its date therefore is dependent on the uncertain chronology of Justin. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ speaks of it as 'generally dated between A.D. 170-175,' and seems himself to acquiesce in this view. Though I think this date probably several years too late, the point is not worth contending for.

As a rule, the early Apologies abstain from quotations, whether from the Old Testament or from the New. The writers are dealing with Gentiles, who have no acquaintance with and attribute no authority to their sacred books, and therefore they make little or no use of them [275:1]. Thus the _Apologeticus_ of Tertullian does not contain a single pa.s.sage from the New Testament, though his writings addressed to Christians teem with quotations from our Canonical books. Hence it is not in this extant work that we should expect to obtain information as to Tatian's Canon of the Scriptures. Any allusion to them will be purely incidental. As regards our Synoptical Gospels, the indications in Tatian's Apology are not such that we can lay much stress on them. But the evidence that he knew and accepted the Fourth Gospel is beyond the reach of any reasonable doubt.

The pa.s.sages are here placed side by side:--

TATIAN. | ST JOHN.

| 'G.o.d is a Spirit' ([Greek: pneuma ho | 'G.o.d is a Spirit' ([Greek: pneuma Theos]), -- 4. | ho Theos]), iv. 24.

| 'And this then is the saying | 'And the light shineth in the ([Greek: to eiremenon]); The | darkness, and the darkness darkness comprehendeth not the light'| comprehended it not'

([Greek: he skotia to phos ou | ([Greek: kai he skotia auto ou katalambanei]), -- 13. | katelaben]), i. 5.

| 'Follow ye the only G.o.d. All things |'All things were made through have been made by Him, and apart | Him, and apart from Him was from Him hath been made no one thing'| made no one thing' ([Greek: panta ([Greek: panta hup' autou kai choris | di' autou egeneto kai choris autou gegonen oude hen]), -- 19. | autou egeneteo oude hen]), i. 3.

In the last pa.s.sage from St John I have stopped at the words [Greek: oude hen], because the earliest Christian writers universally punctuated in this way, taking [Greek: ho gegonen k.t.l.] with the following sentence, 'That which hath been made was life in Him.'

Besides these pa.s.sages there are other coincidences of exposition, with which however I need not trouble the reader, as they may fairly be disputed.

It is difficult to see how any one can resist coincidences like these; and yet the author of _Supernatural Religion_ does resist them.

The first pa.s.sage our author has apparently overlooked, for he says nothing about it. If it had stood alone I should certainly not have regarded it as decisive. But the epigrammatic form is remarkable, and it is a characteristic pa.s.sage of the Fourth Gospel.

Of the second pa.s.sage it should be noticed that Tatian introduces it with the expression ([Greek: to eiremenon]), which is used in the New Testament in quoting the Scriptures (Luke ii. 24, Acts ii. 16, xiii. 40, Rom. iv. 18); that in the context he explains 'the Word' (Logos) to be 'the light of G.o.d,' and 'the darkness' to be 'the unintelligent soul;'

that this use of [Greek: katalambanein] is very peculiar, and has caused perplexity to interpreters of St John, being translated variously 'comprehended' or 'surprised' or 'overcame;' that the pa.s.sage in the Fourth Gospel here again is highly characteristic, and occurs in its most characteristic part; and lastly, that the changes made by Tatian are just such as a writer would make when desiring to divest the saying of its context and present it in the briefest form. On the other hand, the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has nothing to allege against this coincidence; he can produce nothing like it elsewhere; but he falls back on 'the constant use of the same similitude of light and darkness,' and other arguments of the kind, which are valueless because they do not touch the point of the resemblance.

On the third pa.s.sage he remarks that, unlike the author of the Fourth Gospel, 'Tatian here speaks of G.o.d, and not of the Logos.' Just so; but then he varies the preposition accordingly, subst.i.tuting [Greek: hupo]

for the Evangelist's [Greek: dia] to suit his adaptation. Our author also refers to 'the first chapters of Genesis;' but where is there any language in the first chapters of Genesis which presents anything like the same degree of parallelism? Here again, he is unable to impugn the coincidence, which is all the more remarkable because the words are extremely simple in themselves, and it is their order and adaptation which gives a character of uniqueness to the expression.

So much for the individual coincidences. But neither here nor elsewhere does our author betray any consciousness of the value of c.u.mulative evidence. It is only necessary to point to the enormous improbability that any two writers should exhibit accidentally three such resemblances as in the pa.s.sages quoted; and the inference will be plain.

It is not however in this testimony which his extant work bears to the Fourth Gospel, however decisive this may be, that the chief importance of Tatian consists. Ancient writers speak of him as the author of a Harmony or Digest of the four Gospels, to which accordingly he gave the name of _Diatessaron_. This statement however has been called in question by some recent critics, among whom the author of _Supernatural Religion_ is, as usual, the most uncompromising. It is necessary therefore to examine the witnesses:--

1. In the first place then, Eusebius states definitely [277:1]--'Tatian composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not how, of the Gospels, and called it the _Diatessaron_ ([Greek: sunapheian tina kai sunagogen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelion suntheis to dia tessaron touto prosonomasen]). This work is current in some quarters (with some persons) even to the present day.'

This statement is explicit; yet our author endeavours to set it aside on the ground that 'not only is it based upon mere hearsay, but it is altogether indefinite as to the character of the contents, and the writer admits his own ignorance ([Greek: ouk oid' hopos]) regarding them' [278:1].

His inference however from the expression 'I know not how' is altogether unwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius had no personal knowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in speaking of books where they are perfectly acquainted with the contents, but do not understand the principles or do not approve the method. In idiomatic English it signifies 'I cannot think what he was about,' and is equivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so that, if anything, it implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the contents. I have noticed at least twenty-six examples of its use in the treatise of Origen against Celsus alone [278:2], where it commonly refers to Celsus' work which he had before him, and very often to pa.s.sages which he himself quotes in the context. It is not ignorance of the contents, but disparagement of the plan of Tatian's work, which the expression of Eusebius implies. The _Diatessaron_ was commonly current, as we shall see presently, in the neighbouring districts: and it would be somewhat strange if Eusebius, who took a special interest in apocryphal literature, should have remained unacquainted with it.

2. Our next witness is overlooked by the author of _Supernatural Religion_. Yet the testimony is not unimportant. In the _Doctrine of Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, which professes to give an account of the foundation and earliest history of Christianity at Edessa, the new converts are represented as meeting together to hear read, along with the Old Testament, the New (Testament) of the _Diatessaron_' [278:3]. It seems clear from this notice that, at the time when the writer composed this fiction, the form in which the Evangelical narratives were commonly read in the churches with which he was best acquainted was a _Diatessaron_, or _Harmony of Four Gospels_. From internal evidence however it is clear that the work emanated from Edessa or its neighbourhood. The date of the fiction is less certain; but it is obviously an early writing. The St Petersburgh MS containing it is a.s.signed to the sixth century, and the British Museum MSS to the fifth or sixth century [279:1]; while there exists an Armenian version said to have been made as early as the fifth century. The work itself therefore must have been written much earlier than this. There is indeed no good reason for doubting that it is the very Syriac doc.u.ment to which Eusebius refers as containing the correspondence of our Lord with Abgarus, and preserved among the archives of Edessa, and which therefore cannot have been very recent when he wrote, about A.D. 325 [279:2]. At the same time it contains gross anachronisms and misstatements respecting earlier Christian history, which hardly allow us to place it much earlier than the middle of the third century [279:3]. Whatever may be its date, the fact is important that the writer uses _Diatessaron_, adopted from the Greek into the Syriac, as the familiar name for the Gospel narrative which was read in public. Of the authorship of this work however he says nothing. This information we have to seek from other sources. Nor is it far to seek.

3. We are told that the most famous of the native Syrian fathers, Ephraem, the deacon of Edessa (who died A.D. 373 [280:1]), wrote a commentary on the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. Our informant is Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who flourished in the last years of the twelfth century, and died A.D. 1207. In his own Commentary on the Gospels, he writes as follows [280:2]:--

Tatian, the disciple of Justin, the philosopher and martyr, selected and patched together from the Four Gospels and constructed a Gospel, which he called _Diatessaron_, that is _Miscellanies_. On this work Mar Ephraem wrote an exposition; and its commencement was--_In the beginning was the Word_. Elias of Salamia, who is also called Aphthonius, constructed a Gospel after the likeness of the _Diatessaron_ of Ammonius, mentioned by Eusebius in his prologue to the Canons which he made for the Gospel. Elias sought for that Diatessaron and could not find it, and in consequence constructed this after its likeness. And the said Elias finds fault with several things in the Canons of Eusebius, and points out errors in them, and rightly. But this copy (work) which Elias composed is not often met with.

This statement is explicit and careful. The writer distinguishes two older works, bearing the name of _Diatessaron_, composed respectively by Tatian and Ammonius. In addition he mentions a third, composed at a later date by this Elias. Of the work of Ammonius of Alexandria (about A.D. 220) Eusebius, as Bar-Salibi correctly states, gives an account in his _Letter to Carpia.n.u.s_, prefixed to his Canons. It was quite different in its character from the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian. The _Diatessaron_ of Tatian was a patchwork of the Four Gospels, commencing with the preface of St John. The work of Ammonius took the Gospel of St Matthew as its standard, preserving its continuity, and placed side by side with it the parallel pa.s.sages from the other Gospels [281:1]. The principle of the one work was _amalgamation_; of the other, _comparison_. No one who had seen the two works could confuse them, though they bore the same name, _Diatessaron_. Eusebius keeps them quite distinct. So does Bar-Salibi. Later on in his commentary, we are told, he quotes both works in the same place [281:2]. When therefore he relates that Ephraem wrote a commentary on the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian, he is worthy of all credit. From the last witness we have learnt that the _Diatessaron_ was commonly read in the churches of Edessa; and it was therefore most natural that this famous Edessan father should choose it for commenting upon.

It is quite true that other Syrian writers have confused these two _Diatessarons_ [281:3]. But this fact is only valid to show that confusion was possible; it is powerless to impugn the testimony of this particular author, who shows himself in this pa.s.sage altogether trustworthy. Who would think of throwing discredit on Lord Macaulay or Mr Freeman, because Robertson or Hume may be inaccurate?

4. Our next witness is more important than any. The famous Greek father Theodoret became bishop of Cyrus or Cyrrhus, near the Euphrates, in the year 420 or 423 according to different computations, and held this see till his death, which occurred A.D. 457 or 458. In the year 453 he wrote his treatise on _Heresies_, in which he makes the following statement:--

He (Tatian) composed the Gospel which is called _Diatessaron_, cutting out the genealogies [282:1] and such other pa.s.sages as show the Lord to have been born of the seed of David after the flesh.

This work was in use not only among persons belonging to his sect, but also among those who follow the apostolic doctrine, as they did not perceive the mischief of the composition, but used the book in all simplicity on account of its brevity. And I myself found more than two hundred such copies held in respect in the churches in our parts ([Greek: tais par' hemin ekklesiais]). All these I collected and put away, and I replaced them by the Gospels of the Four Evangelists.

The churches to which he refers were doubtless those belonging to his diocese of Cyrrhestice, which contained eight hundred parishes [283:1].

The proportion of copies will give some idea of the extent of its circulation in these parts.

It is vain, in the teeth of these facts, to allege the uncritical character of the father as discrediting the evidence. The materials before Theodoret were ample; the man himself was competent to form a judgment; and the judgment is explicit. Neither can there be any reasonable doubt, considering the locality, that the _Diatessaron_ here mentioned is the same which is named in the _Doctrine of Addai_, and the same which was commented on by Ephraem Syrus. When the author of _Supernatural Religion_ argues that Theodoret does not here regard this _Diatessaron_ as patched together from the four canonical Gospels, it is unnecessary to follow him. This point may be safely left to the intelligence of the reader.

Here then we have the testimony of four distinct witnesses, all tending to the same result. Throughout large districts of Syria there was in common circulation from the third century down to the middle of the fifth a _Diatessaron_ bearing the name of Tatian [283:2]. It was a compilation of our Four Gospels, which recommended itself by its concise and convenient form, and so superseded the reading of the Evangelists themselves in some churches. It commenced, as it naturally could commence, with the opening words of the Fourth Gospel--a gospel which, as we have seen, Tatian quotes in his extant work. It was probably in the main a fairly adequate digest of the evangelical narratives, for otherwise it would not have maintained its grounds; but pa.s.sages which offended Tatian's Encratic and Gnostic views, such as the genealogies, were excised; and this might easily be done without attracting notice under cover of his general plan. All this is consistent and probable in itself. Moreover the range of circulation attributed to it is just what might have been expected; for Syria and Mesopotamia are especially mentioned as the scene of Tatian's labours [284:1].

In this general convergence of testimony however, there are two seemingly discordant voices, of which the author of _Supernatural Religion_ makes much use. Let us see what they really mean.

1. Epiphanius was bishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, in the latter half of the fourth century. In his book on _Heresies_, which he commenced A.D.

374, he writes of Tatian, 'The _Diatessaron_ Gospel is said to have been composed by him; it is called by some _according to the Hebrews_'

[284:2].

Here then our author supposes that he has discerned the truth. This _Diatessaron_ was not a digest of our Four Gospels, but a distinct evangelical narrative, the _Gospel according to the Hebrews_. Of this Gospel according to the Hebrews he says that 'at one time it was exclusively used by the fathers.' I challenge him to prove this a.s.sertion in the case of one single father, Greek or Latin or Syrian.

But this by the way. If indeed this Hebrew Gospel had been in its contents anything like what our author imagines it, it would have borne some resemblance at all events to the _Diatessaron_; for, wherever he meets with any evangelical pa.s.sage in any early writer, which is found literally or substantially in any one of our Four Gospels (whether characteristic of St Matthew, or of St Luke, or of St John, it matters not) he a.s.signs it without misgiving to this Hebrew Gospel. But his Hebrew Gospel is a pure effort of the imagination. The only 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' known to antiquity was a very different doc.u.ment. It was not co-extensive with our Four Gospels; but was constructed on the lines of the first alone. Indeed so closely did it resemble the canonical St Matthew--though with variations, omissions, and additions--that Jerome, who translated it, supposed it to be the Hebrew original [285:1], of which Papias speaks. Such a Gospel does not answer in any single particular, unless it be the omission of the genealogy (which however does not appear to have been absent from all copies of this Gospel), to the notices of Tatian's _Diatessaron_. More especially the omission of all reference to the Davidic descent of Christ would be directly opposed to the fundamental principle of this Gospel, which, addressing itself to the Jews, laid special stress on His Messianic claims.