Rejection at Nazareth in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke — and Tatian Matthew R. Crawford Australian Catholic University ***DRAFT 09.08.16*** The writing of gospels did not come to an end when the author of the Gospel of John laid down his pen, but carried on throughout the second century and beyond. The relationships among the four gospels that would eventually become canonical, as well as their relationship to the wider field of gospel literature continue to be disputed questions. Nevertheless, some things are clear. For example, there are few who would deny that a literary relationship of dependency exists between the synoptic gospels, though of course there are competing theories that seek to account for this relationship. Beyond this point the evidence becomes less unambiguous, for example, with respect to the relationship of GTh to the synoptics, or GPet to the canonical accounts, though sound and convincing cases can be made in each of these instances. 1 Still, perhaps only two other relationships are as clear as that of the synoptics. The first is the relation of GMcion to the Gospel of Luke 2 and the second is the relation of Tatian’s so-called “Diatessaron” to the fourfold gospel. Perhaps it is due to the clear evidence of dependency that Tatian’s composition is usually treated as a work existing in a separate category from the rest of gospel literature, as a sort of secondary and derivative gospel harmony. 3 Yet it is also widely acknowledged that Matthew is derivative of Mark, though not exclusively so, so Tatian’s work cannot be demoted to a “gospel harmony” merely on the basis of its obvious dependency. In fact, for later users of Tatian’s work, such as Ephrem the Syrian, this “Diatessaron” was simply known as “the Gospel” written by an anonymous “evangelist.” It is quite possible that Tatian originally called his work merely “the Gospel,” the minimalist title also used by Victor of Capua for his Tatianic text in the famous Codex Fuldensis. 4 1 Cf. Paul Foster, The Gospel of Peter: Introduction, Critical Edition and Commentary, Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 115-147; Simon J. Gathercole, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 151 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Mark Goodacre, Thomas and the Gospels: The Making of an Apocryphal Text (London: SPCK, 2012). 2 I leave to one side here the revisionist accounts of GMcion which have yet to win wide support in the scholarly community: Markus Vinzent, Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, Studia Patristica Supplements 2 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014); Matthias Klinghardt, Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien, TANZ 60, vol. 2 vols. (Tübingen: Francke, 2015). 3 This position is often assumed but rarely argued for. For example, J. Andrew Doole contrasts the “tendency for harmonization” evident in Tatian’s work with Matthew’s treatment of Mark in which “one text is reworked by an editor who does not expect that his gospel will later be held in comparison to that of his predecessor” (What Was Mark for Matthew?: An Examination of Matthew’s Relationship and Attitude to His Primary Source, WUNT 2/344 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 190). 4 Cf. Matthew R. Crawford, “Diatessaron, a Misnomer? The Evidence From Ephrem’s Commentary,” Early Christianity 4 (2013): 362-385. Since writing the article just cited, I have discovered that a century ago Erwin