On the Development of the Gospel

Every one of these questions is addressed and answered by Trobisch in his book. One point for a start. The original Gospel could not just be altered. There would still have been competing versions. In fact, there already were competing versions of the single long book, all recognisably versions of the same book. By publishing the four at once as a set, a clear distinction could be made between what was and was not the canonical Gospel. Remember that none of the four parts of the set of four are adequate on their own. All the earlier forms were long and did not differ throughout, but only in certain passages.

Note carefully what Trobisch says about the Nomina Sacra. Words such as Theos, Kyrios, Iêsous, sometimes Hierousalêm, are written in abbreviated form with a horizontal line on top. These are not the old shorthand symbols. It takes just as long to write the abbreviated form as the whole word. These Nomina Sacra forms appear with the Set of Four for the first time, They are the publisher’s trademark, telling the reader that this is the canonical fourfold Gospel.

The Diatessaron and the Fourfold Gospel were both produced in the same place at the same time, that is, Rome in about 172 A.D. BOTH were canonised in Rome. They were both edited so as to be canonised. The set of four was in Greek from the start. The Diatessaron was in Syriac from the start, with an immediate translation into Latin. (The original Gospel in all its slightly different forms had been in Western Aramaic, with a Greek translation. [Actually, the original was probably in Hebrew, with an Aramaic translation, but this s not the occasion to go into that]. The Diatessaron was in a dialect of Eastern Aramaic which had become the new international standard literary language. There were a lot of speakers of both Eastern and Western Aramaic in Italy at the time. All highly educated people in Rome could read Greek. There were many native speakers of Greek in Rome as well.) The fourfold set was used ONLY for serious writing, whereas ALL teaching and preaching was done with reference to the Diatessaron. (This fact is well documented). There was no original Latin version or Syriac version of the set of four. For some time, the set of four was only in Greek. Speakers of Latin and Syriac used the Diatessaron for all purposes for some time, and speakers of Syriac kept using the Diatessaron even for serious writing for a couple of centuries. If Trobisch is right, they were only being traditional, because the Diatessaron was essentially the original Gospel with the dialect changed.

Note the spelling DiatessAron. This spelling in Greek is well attested as the name of the book from the start. It is the natural form for Greek of the period. This is the spelling used in all modern studies.

As for a suitable explanation of the term Diatessaron, there are two possibilities as I understand Trobisch. (a) The name came later, as a wrong guess or assumption. The name Diatessaron seems to be later than the book. (b) Nuanced version of this. You have to distinguish between the old single Gospel, probably the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Diatessaron, which was the Gospel of the Hebrews with additions. These additions did not come from our Fourfold Gospel: they came from other recensions of the original long Gospel. This would explain the name Diapente, replaced later by Diatessaron. The term the Fourfold Gospel is promoted by Irenaeus, writing at that very time, trying to spruik the set as having always existed --- though if you read carefully what he actually says is that it ought to have always existed.

I agree that the term Diatessaron should not be used. I suggest a descriptive title, such as the original long Gospel in its several recensions.