The Problemata of Tatian Recovering The

“The Problemata of Tatian” (07.01.
16)
Forthcoming in Journal of Theological Studies
“The Problemata of Tatian: Recovering the Fragments of a

Second-Century Christian Intellectual”
Matthew R. Crawford
Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry, Australian Catholic University
matthew.crawford@acu.edu.au
Abstract:
Tatian the “Assyrian,” student of Justin Martyr and teacher in Rome in the latter half of the sec-
ond century, was recognized by later Christians such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and
Eusebius, as one of the most educated Christian thinkers of his day. However, a survey of an-
cient sources and modern scholarship on this gure reveals a number of competing “Tatians”
who are not easily reconcilable with one another: Tatian the Marcionite, the Valentinian, the
Encratite, the proto-Monarchian, the rhetorician, the gospel editor, and the founder of a school
that decisively shaped Syriac Christianity and later Antiochene theology. The present article
examines each of these representations in turn in order to highlight a series of unsolved prob-
lems related to Tatian and his legacy which require further research, while also suggesting that
the inconsistencies in our sources might be the result of Tatian’s own failure to formulate a co-
herent and compelling intellectual system that could command the allegiance of many
followers.
Among the many persons named in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History about whom Eusebius
knew far more than we do is the gure of Rhodon.1 Indeed, Rhodon is so obscure, that you
may not nd him listed in your nearest reference guide to early Christianity. Eusebius evidently
had at his disposal an anti-Marcionite treatise composed by this gure, from which he cited
several extracts. Relevant for our purpose is the fact that Rhodon claims in this treatise to have
been a disciple of Tatian’s in Rome,2 and he reports on a work of Tatian about which we
would otherwise be completely unaware. According to Rhodon, his mentor had, “busied him-
1. An earlier version of this article was presented at a one-day symposium on Christian intellectual life in the
second century, held at the Notre Dame Institute for Advanced Study in April 2015. I am grateful to the
comments received on that occasion, especially those from Prof. Blake Leyerle, Prof. Lewis Ayres, and Prof.
Michel Barnes. Later Mark DelCogliano read through the entire article and offered helpful suggestions that
have been incorporated. The research leading to this article was funded by the UK Arts and Humanities
Research Council, as a part of the research project titled “The Fourfold Gospel and its Rivals,” under the
guidance of Prof. Francis Watson.
2. Eusebius, EH 5.13.8 (Gustave Bardy, Eusèbe de Césarée. Histoire ecclésiastique. Livres V-VII, SC 41(Paris: Éditions du
Cerf, 1955), 44). ὁ αὐτὸς μεμαθητεῦσθαι ἐπὶ Ῥώμης Τατιανῷ ἑαυτὸν ὁμολογεῖ·
-1-
“The Problemata of Tatian” (07.01.16)
self with a book of Problems (Προβλημάτων βιβλίον) in which he promised to set forth the
obscurity and concealment of the divine scriptures.”3 It is striking that Rhodon reports only on
Tatian’s intention in composing this work, rather than describing what the nal product actu-
ally accomplished. The picture is further complicated by what Eusebius next says of Rhodon’s
own intentions: “Rhodon himself, in his own work, promised to set forth the explanations
(ἐπιλύσεις) for the problems of Tatian.”4 Rhodon too, it seems, made the “promise” of a liter-
ary work! We have no way of knowing whether he ever delivered on the offer, but the fact
that he intended to do so suggests that there was some perceived insufciency in his mentor’s
undertaking. It might be the case that Rhodon wanted to present the explanations to Tatian’s
problems simply because he thought he could do one better than his teacher. However, if that
were the case, we might have expected some criticism of Tatian’s solutions to justify Rhodon’s
own efforts. Hence it is equally possible that Tatian never actually offered explanations for any
of the issues he raised, either because he was unable to nish the work, or because he only
ever intended to “set forth” these obscurities and did not think it necessary to bring the uncer-
tainty to a resolution.5
Throughout the modern period one of the central aims of the scholarly task has been
the attempt to synthesize the evidence offered to us by the historical record in order to create
compelling accounts of past persons and events and to trace the lines of historical inuence
from one generation to another. The difculty of this endeavor was brought home to me re-
cently when I was tasked with writing a basic encyclopedia entry on Tatian for a forthcoming
reference work. This was not meant to be a controversial piece, but simply a presentation of
3. Eusebius, EH 5.13.8 (SC 41.44). φησὶν δὲ καὶ ἐσπουδάσθαι τῷ Τατιανῷ Προβλημάτων βιβλίον· δι’ ὧν τὸ
ἀσαφὲς καὶ ἐπικεκρυμμένον τῶν θείων γραφῶν παραστήσειν ὑποσχομένου τοῦ Τατιανοῦ. Cf. the similar
construction used to refer to Josephus’ works in HE 3.9.2: τοὺς δὲ σπουδασθέντας αὐτῷ λόγους βιβλιοθήκης
ἀξιωθῆναι.
4. Eusebius, EH 5.13.8 (SC 41.44). αὐτὸς ὁ Ῥόδων ἐν ἰδίῳ συγγράμματι τὰς τῶν ἐκείνου προβλημάτων
ἐπιλύσεις ἐκθήσεσθαι ἐπαγγέλλεται.
5. It is possible that some of the later testimonia related to Tatian refer to this lost work. The exegesis of Genesis
1:3 mentioned by Clement and Origen (see below) could have come from such a work. Moreover, Didymus
the Blind opposed Tatian’s exegesis of Psalm 119:91, according to which the days of the ancients were
shorter than present time since time depends upon God’s command to sustain it (Zach. 1.323; 4:10 (Louis
Doutreleau, Didyme l’Aveugle. Sur Zacharie, Tome I, SC 83 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1962), 364)). Didymus rejected
such a literal reading and instead proposed a spiritual one. The view of time as dependent upon God’s will
parallels Tatian’s view on the soul, which likewise depended on union with the Spirit to attain immortality
(Or. 13).
-2-
broadly uncontested information about this second-century gure. However, as I attempted to

write the article, it became increasingly obvious that drawing together the different strands of
Tatian’s legacy in ancient and modern sources is no easy undertaking. Because some of these
outstanding issues are insufciently recognized, and because lucidly stating a question is the
rst step towards resolving it, I intend in this article to set forth my own list of “problems”
outlining the most prominent “obscurities” regarding Tatian and his corpus. In keeping with
Tatian’s own endeavor, I must confess that I do not have adequate “explanations” for all these
issues, but I will argue in conclusion that the inconsistencies in our sources might derive from
Tatian’s own less than systematic intellect, and that this shortcoming could explain why his in-
uence upon the Christian tradition was far less signicant than some have imagined. My ap-
proach will be to follow closely Tatian’s reception in ancient sources and modern scholarship,
clarifying some existing areas of disagreement, highlighting unnoticed or unappreciated paral-
lels in the ancient sources, and drawing attention to several topics that require further investi-
gation. To some degree, this paper extends the revisionist account of Naomi Koltun-Fromm,
who in a 2008 article pointed out competing historical evidence for what might be regarded as
“two Tatians: the one constructed by his critics ... and the one he presents of himself.”6 How-
ever, as I hope to show in what follows, the problems arising from our sources are in fact even
more acute than Koltun-Fromm has realized. I begin with four problems related to Tatian the
heretic, then examine two problems surrounding Tatian the literary critic, and then nally turn
to consider the problem of Tatian’s legacy.
Problem 1: Tatian the Marcionite?

We begin with Tatian the heretic because this is the picture of him that our ancient
sources most often focus upon. In the earliest witness to this portrayal, Irenaeus, himself a con-
temporary of our author, accused Tatian of having afnities with the Encratites, Valentinus,
Marcion, and Saturninus—quite a mix! In Irenaeus’ opinion, after Justin’s martyrdom Tatian
took up his mentor’s mantle by becoming a teacher himself, though out of less than praise-
worthy motives. Irenaeus writes that Tatian, “being elated with the conceit of being a teacher
6. Naomi Koltun-Fromm, “Re-Imagining Tatian: The Damaging Effects of Polemical Rhetoric,” Journal of Early
Christian Studies 16 (2008): 12.
-3-
and puffed up as if he were superior to the rest, concocted his own form of teaching.”7 Given
that Irenaeus had links with Rome, and that he was writing only shortly after the events in
question, probably while Tatian was still alive, we should reckon seriously with his report. Let
us begin then with the accusation of adhering to the views of Marcion.
Irenaeus’ brief aside on Tatian arises in the course of his rebuttal of the Encratites, and,
since he had already asserted that the Encratites grew out of the heresies of Marcion and Sat-
urninus, it is not surprising that he should attribute the same genealogy to Tatian. The only
specically Marcionite charge that Irenaeus brings forward is that Tatian “designated marriage
as akin to corruption and fornication” (γάμον τε φθορὰν καὶ πορνείαν παραπλησίως
Μαρκίωνι καὶ Σατορνίνῳ ἀναγορεύσας).8 Shortly after Irenaeus, Hippolytus repeats this
charge, stating that Tatian was like Marcion in calling marriage “corruption” (φθορά).9
Around the same time Tertullian also compared Tatian with Marcion since both teachers re-
quired their followers to abstain from meat, which Tertullian took to reveal a negative attitude
towards the creation.10 So far these three authors have simply singled out ideas of Tatian that
appeared to them to be broadly similar to elements in Marcion’s teaching, specically ascetic
tendencies that were in their view too extreme.11 However, a fourth and nal ancient source
brings in another element. Clement of Alexandria, who evidently had direct access to certain of
Tatian’s own writings that are otherwise lost, commented
χωρίζει δὲ καὶ τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνδρα καὶ τὸν καινὸν ὁ Τατιανός, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὡς ἡμεῖς
φαμεν· παλαιὸν μὲν ἄνδρα τὸν νόμον, καινὸν δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον συμφωνοῦμεν αὐτῷ
καὶ αὐτοὶ λέγοντες, πλὴν οὐχ ᾗ βούλεται ἐκεῖνος καταλύων τὸν νόμον ὡς ἄλλου
7. Irenaeus, haer. 1.28.1 (Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau, Irénée de Lyon. Contre les Hérésies, Livre I, SC 264
(Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1979), 354-57). οἰήματι διδασκάλου ἐπαρθεὶς καὶ τυφωθεὶς ὡς διαφέρων τῶν
λοιπῶν, ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα διδασκαλείου συνεστήσατο. The Greek of Irenaeus in this section is preserved
because it was cited by Eusebius in his report about Tatian, about which see further below.
8. Irenaeus, haer. 1.28.1 (SC 264.356-57).
9. Hippolytus, ref. om. haer. 8.16 (Miroslav Marcovich, Hippolytus. Refutatio omnium haeresium (Patristische Texte und
Studien 25; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986), 336).
10. Tertullian, De ieiun. 15.1.
11. Cf. Judith M. Lieu, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2015), 83: “It is beyond doubt that Marcion’s ‘Gospel’ did not include the nativity stories
or references to Jesus’ parentage, and that Marcion himself denigrated marriage and procreation.”
-4-
θεοῦ·12
Now Tatian separates the old man and the new, but not as we say. We agree with him
and we ourselves say that the law is the old man and the gospel is the new (cf. Rom
7:1-6), but not in the way that he wants, by abolishing the law as if it belonged to
another God.
The context for this passage is a refutation of Tatian’s views on marriage, so one might argue
that Clement is here simply engaging in a reductio ad absurdum, attributing to Tatian the most ex-
treme conclusion that his position logically entails. However, Tatian’s comments about mar-
riage take the form of an exegesis of Paul, and there would be no reason for Clement to bring
up the issue of the law unless Tatian had rst done so. A further clue occurs just earlier in the
previous paragraph in which Clement, still dealing with Tatian’s view of marriage, argues that
the presence of the denite article on the word θεός in Genesis 4:25 (Ἐξανέστησεν γάρ μοι ὁ
θεὸς σπέρμα ἕτερον ἀντὶ Αβελ) denotes “the almighty ruler of the universe” rather than
“merely a god.”13 Such a counter-argument implies that Tatian attributed the law, which al-
lowed marriage, to some divine being other than the “almighty ruler of the universe,” perhaps
by pointing to some passage of scripture that lacked the denite article before θεός. I suggest,
therefore, that it is most plausible that in this passage Clement paraphrases or alludes to some
other portion of the treatise by Tatian that he has before him.14 To be sure, in this passage
Clement does not associate this notion with Marcion, but at this time the man from Pontus was
the most well known advocate of the view that the distinction between law and gospel was to
be traced back to a distinction within the divine realm, and, if it is correct that Tatian argued
on behalf of this notion, it might well have been under the inuence of Marcion or his
followers.
Thus is the evidence for Tatian’s supposed Marcionite views. If these sources are accu-
rate, then it would not be at all surprising to learn that a Christian in Rome in the latter half of
the second century carried forward Marcion’s perspective on asceticism and the law. However,
12. Clement, str. 3.12.82.2 (Otto Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus II, GCS 15 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich, 1906), 233).
13. Clement, str. 3.12.81.6 (Stählin, 233). οὐ γὰρ θεὸν ἁπλῶς προσεῖπεν ὁ τῇ τοῦ ἄρθρου προτάξει τὸν
παντοκράτορα δηλώσας.
14. Against Emily J. Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century: The Case of Tatian, Routledge Early Church Monographs
(London: Routledge, 2003), 50.
-5-
the historical record is not so neat and tidy. The aforementioned work by Rhodon quoted by
Eusebius took the form of a thorough attack on the various groups that Marcion’s movement
had split into after his death, with Apelles seemingly being most prominent. Therefore, if Tat-
ian did hold views that the Marcionites would have found at least somewhat agreeable, it
might be surprising to learn that his own student authored a polemic against the group. More-
over, even more problematic is the fact that in Tatian’s own Oration Moses and the law actually
take center stage, as the irrefutable proof that barbarian wisdom predated the learning of the
Greeks. It would, then, be very odd indeed to nd Tatian attributing the law to another God if
he held Moses in such high esteem. A further problem is that there is no evidence in Tatian’s
edition of the gospel, the Diatessaron, to suggest this negative view of the law. Rather, scrip-
tural citations from the Old Testament are present, in just the places one would expect them.15
Problem 2: Tatian the Valentinian?

In addition to being a purported follower of Marcion, Tatian is also accused in the an-
cient sources of holding views similar to those of Valentinus. According to Irenaeus, Tatian
“related a myth about invisible aeons similar to those of Valentinus,”16 and ps-Tertullian is
even briefer, stating elliptically that Tatian “smells altogether like Valentinus” (totus enim secun-
dum valentinum sapit).17 Hippolytus makes this accusation on two occasions, rst asserting that Ta-
tian, “said that there existed certain invisible aeons, inventing mythical accounts similar to
those from Valentinus,”18 and later adding that he attributed the creation of the world to “a
certain one of the aeons below.”19 The rst of Hippolytus’ statements appears to be dependent
15. Cf. Robert F. Shedinger, Tatian and the Jewish Scriptures: A Textual and Philological Analysis of the Old Testament Citations in
Tatian’s Diatessaron, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 591, Subsidia 109 (Louvain: Peeters, 2001).
An anti-Jewish tendency in the Diatessaron was posited by M. Elze, Tatian und seine Theologie (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), 125, but the evidence for this is ambiguous at best.
16. Irenaeus, haer. 1.28.1 (SC 264.356-57). αἰῶνάς τινας ἀοράτους ὁμοίως τοῖς ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου μυθολογήσας.
17. Ps-Tertullian, Adversus omnes haereses 7.1 (A. Kroymann, Tertulliani Opera. Pars II. Opera Montanistica (Turnhout:
Brepols, 1954), 1409).
18. Hippolytus, ref. om. haer. 8.16 (Marcovich, 336). ἔφη αἰῶνας <εἶναί> τινας ἀοράτους, ὁμοίως τοῖς ἀπὸ
Οὐαλεντίνου μυθολογήσας.
19. Hippolytus, ref. om. haer. 10.18 (Marcovich, 398). Τατιανὸς δὲ παραπλησίως τῷ Οὐαλεντίνῳ καὶ τοῖς ἑτέροις
φησὶν αἰῶνας εἶναί τινας ἀοράτους, ἐξ ὧν ὑπό τινος <τῶν> κάτω τὸν κόσμον δεδημιουργῆσθαι καὶ
<πάντα> τὰ ὄντα.
-6-
on Irenaeus,20 but the second goes beyond him in its specicity. Nevertheless, the statements
from these three early authors are notably laconic. They tell us almost nothing of the details of
Tatian’s system, how it differed from that of Valentinus, or the arguments he brought forward
to substantiate it.
These brief snippets from the heresiological tradition have led scholars to pick through
Tatian’s Oration with a ne toothed comb, looking for any hints of such a doctrine. The word
αἰών occurs only three times in the treatise, and, although any of these passing references could
be part of a grand Valentinian-like scheme, certainly they do not require or even suggest such a
reading.21 Still others have pointed to a possible allusion to the Gnostic notion of the “syzy-
gies” in Tatian’s statement that the “celestial Word became Spirit from the Father and Word
from the power of the Word.”22 Similarly, Tatian elsewhere afrms that the human soul can
only become immortal if it attains “union” (συζυγίαν) with the “divine Spirit.”23 The most
concerted effort to associate Tatian with Valentinian or Gnostic streams of thought came from
a series of publications by Robert Grant over the span of three and a half decades. Grant point-
ed out that Tatian, perhaps like the Valentinian Theodotus, presented demons as “robbers”
who deceive human souls.24 Yet elsewhere in the Oration Tatian reveals that he received this
idea from Justin, which indicates that it was not a notion unique to Valentinians.25 Further evi-
20. Hippolytus’ dependence upon Irenaeus here is also recognized by Trelenberg, Tatianos. Oratio ad Graecos. Rede an
die Griechen, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 165 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 206. Trelenberg’s new
edition of the Oration surpasses that of Molly Whittaker, Tatian: Oratio ad Graecos and Fragments, Oxford Early
Christian Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), though Whittaker’s edition helpfully presents later testimonia
about Tatian along with the text and translation of the Oration.
21. Tatian, Or. 6.1 (Trelenberg, 98): ἅπαξ δὲ τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς αἰώνων πεπερασμένων καὶ εἰς τὸ παντελὲς διὰ
μόνων τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὴν σύστασιν ἔσεσθαι χάριν κρίσεως. Or. 20.4 (Trelenberg, 138-40): τὰ δὲ ὑπὲρ
τοῦτον αἰῶνες οἱ κρείττονες οὐ μεταβολὴν ὡρῶν ἔχοντες. Or. 26.3 (Trelenberg, 154): οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς οὐ
γινώσκετε παρατρέχοντας μὲν ὑμᾶς, ἑστῶτα δὲ τὸν αἰῶνα, μέχρις ἂν αὐτὸν ὁ ποιήσας εἶναι θελήσῃ. Cf.
R.M. Grant, “The Heresy of Tatian,” The Journal of Theological Studies 1 (1954): 63-64.
22. Or. 7.1 (Trelenberg, 100). Λόγος γὰρ ὁ ἐπουράνιος πνεῦμα γεγονὼς ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ λόγος ἐκ λογικῆς
δυνάμεως. Note that Trelenberg here reads ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρός against some other editions that go with the
conjectural emendation ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος. Cf. William L. Petersen, “Tatian the Assyrian,” in A Companion to
Second-Century “Heretics”, ed. Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 76
(Leiden: Brill, 2005), 148.
23. Or. 13.3 (Trelenberg, 120). Cf. Grant, “The Heresy of Tatian,” 64.
24. Or. 14.2 (Trelenberg, 122). Cf. Grant, “The Heresy of Tatian,” 63; Petersen, “Tatian the Assyrian,” 149.
25. Or. 18.6 (Trelenberg, 134).
-7-
dence from the Oration for Tatian’s supposed Valentinianism is a brief section, clearly distinct
from the rest of the work, in which he engages in a bit of esoteric exegesis of gospel material,
referring allusively to parables of Jesus from the synoptic tradition which also have parallels in
texts like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Phillip.26 In my view, again, nothing necessitates a
Gnostic reading of this passage. Tatian may simply be attempting to sound mysterious so as to
pique the interest of his Greek hearers, drawing on pieces of the synoptic gospel tradition and
reworking them. Other evidence sometimes brought forward from the Oration for Tatian’s sup-
posed Gnosticism is similarly inconclusive.27
Clearer evidence to support the accusation of Valentinianism comes from two later, of-
ten overlooked, reports preserved by Clement and Origen. Both authors refer to, and reject, Ta-
tian’s exegesis of Genesis 1:3. Tatian, according to them, took the phrase γενηθήτω φῶς not as
a true imperative (i.e., “let there be light”) but with the force of an optative (i.e., “may light
exist”), as if the one speaking these words were making a request to another, presumably
higher, deity. Origen also cited Tatian’s justication for this exegetical conclusion, namely that
“God was in darkness” (ἐν σκότῳ ἦν ὁ θεός).28 Both authors regarded this exegesis as entailing
a multiplicity of divine beings, or at least division within the divine unity, a deduction that
seems clear enough, especially in light of the statement from Tatian cited by Origen.29 The fact
26. Or. 30.1-2 (Trelenberg, 162). Cf. Grant, “The Heresy of Tatian,” 66-67; Robert M. Grant, “Tatian (Or. 30)
and the Gnostics,” The Journal of Theological Studies 15 (1964): 65-69; Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second
Century (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988), 128-129. On this difcult passage see also F. Bolgiani,
“Taziano Oratio ad Graecos cap 30.1,” in Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten, Vol. 1, ed. P. Graneld and J. A.
Jungmann, (Münster: Verlag Aschendorff, 1970); Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century, 30-35.
27. Grant mentions certain verbal similarities with Ptolemy; Tatian’s afrmation that the humans retain a divine
spark; his views on the resurrection and human generation; parallels with Theodotus’ baptismal theology and
Christology; and his exegesis of John 1:5 (Grant, “The Heresy of Tatian,” 64-66). Petersen adduces two
more pieces of evidence for Tatian’s Valentinianism. First, he “clearly places an intermediary, a demiurge,
between God ‘the Father’ and the created orders of men and angels” and he condemns the philosopher Zeno
because he presented God as responsible for evil (Petersen, “Tatian the Assyrian,” 147-148). In response to
the rst point it must be said that nearly every second-century Christian author who was not a monarchian
held that the Logos played a mediatorial role in the creation of the universe, so this is hardly evidence of
Gnosticism. Petersen’s second point is even further off the mark, since not only Gnostics, but mainstream
Christians too would have denied that God “created” evil. On the issue of Tatian and Valentinianism, see also
Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century, 21-36, who similarly disagrees with Grant’s position. The issue has been
treated most recently by Trelenberg, Tatianos. Oratio ad Graecos. Rede an die Griechen, 204-219, who discerns
occasional traces of Gnostic inuence in Tatian’s Oration, but still sees him as “innerhalb des Rahmens
großkirchlicher Rechtgläubigkeit.”
28. Origen, orat. 24.5 (Paul Koetschau, Origenes Werke 2 (GCS 3; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899), 356); Clement, ec. proph.
38.1 (Otto Stählin and Ludwig Früchtel, Clemens Alexandrinus III, GCS (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970), 148).
29. Cf. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, 127, who speculates that this reading might have arisen under the
-8-
that Origen provides more detail than Clement indicates that he is not simply repeating the
same charge he has read in the prior Alexandrian, but presumably has direct access to Tatian’s
own words. Moreover, these reports from Clement and Origen at least partially corroborate the
only detail that Hippolytus reported about Tatian’s supposed system of aeons, that “a certain
one of the aeons below” was responsible for the creation of the world.30 In fact, it seems that
this Tatianic interpretation even made its way to Celsus, since this opponent of Christianity
noted the idiosyncratic reading in a passage that was cited and opposed by Origen.31
In connection with this exegesis of Genesis 1:3 Clement gives slightly more informa-
tion about Tatian’s views. He further species that, according to Tatian, “women are punished
on account of their hair and adornment by the δύναμις appointed over these things.” Appar-
ently in Tatian’s view this δύναμις accomplished a twofold function. It provided Samson with a
δύναμις through his hair, allowing him to accomplish his great feats, but it also “punished”
women who adorned their hair, since this would “impel them towards fornication.”32 It is
striking that here again we have the word πορνεία, which also occurred in Irenaeus’ report
about Tatian’s heresy. Moreover, the usage of the term δύναμις in this short extract agrees with
Tatian’s preference for δύναμις-language to refer to the Logos in the Oratio.33 Neither Clement
nor Origen use the word αἰών in these passages, but this is not necessarily problematic. We
must distinguish, so far as is possible, between what Irenaeus and Hippolytus actually read in
Tatian and how they interpreted it. When Clement speaks of Tatian’s views on what we can
only call the “hair-δύναμις,” we do seem to be close to something resembling a system of
heavenly or angelic beings each appointed over a distinct domain, probably with the Logos as
the preeminent “power” of the Father.34 Perhaps, then, what Irenaeus encountered in Tatian’s
inuence of 2 Cor. 4:4-6.
30. Hippolytus, ref. om. haer. 10.18 (Marcovich, 398).
31. Origen, Cels. 6.51.
32. Clement, ec. proph. 39.1 (Stählin and Früchtel, 148). ἔφασκεν δὲ καὶ διὰ τὰς τρίχας κολάζεσθαι καὶ τὸν
κόσμον τὰς γυναῖκας ὑπὸ δυνάμεως τῆς ἐπὶ τούτοις τεταγμένης, ἣ καὶ τῷ Σαμψὼν δύναμιν παρεῖχε ταῖς
θριξίν, ἥτις κολάζει τὰς διὰ κόσμου τριχῶν ἐπὶ πορνείαν ὁρμώσας.
33. Cf. Josef Lössl, “Zwischen Christologie und Rhetorik: Zum Ausdruck “Kraft des Wortes (λόγου δύναμις) in
Tatians “Rede an die Griechen”,” in Logos der Vernunft - Logos des Glaubens: Festschrift Edgar Früchtel zum 80. Geburtstag,
ed. F. R. Prostmeier and H. Lona, Millennium-Studien 31 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 129-147; Trelenberg,
Tatianos, 35-40.
34. It could be that Tatian’s musings were inspired by Paul’s notoriously difcult statement about hair and angels
-9-
teaching was this rather peculiar constellation of “powers,” and the closest analogy that came
to mind was Valentinus’ more well known mythology of aeons.
The aforementioned statement of Clement that Tatian attributed the Mosaic Law to
“another God” would be in keeping with his interpretation of Genesis 1:3 and his view of
human hair. Hence, even if the Oration provides no conclusive evidence for an afnity with
Valentinianism, these later reports are harder to deny. We should pause to note that this means
Clement and Origen are not simply repeating the accusation they have found in the earlier
heresiological tradition. In fact, neither author even mentions Valentinus when discussing Tat-
ian,35 yet the evidence they bring forward sheds further light on what might have elicited Ire-
naeus’ accusation. Tatian, it would seem, at least ascribed the creation of the world, the giving
of the law, and authority over human hair to some kind of a diversity of heavenly beings,
which some of his contemporaries took to be a host of Valentinian-like aeons.36 This in itself is
not necessarily problematic, but it will become so when we consider the next issue.
Problem 3: Tatian the Proto-Monarchian?

The next accusation of heresy arises from a modern rather than an ancient source. In
light of the ancient testimonia that placed Tatian in Justin’s school, Roman Hanig, in an article
from 1999, undertook a close reading of the Oration in comparison with Justin’s surviving cor-
pus in order to determine the degree of doctrinal continuity or discontinuity between the
teacher and student.37 Hanig’s perhaps surprising conclusion was that, while Tatian displays
in 1 Corinthians 11:10. In later ascetic literature, angels who provided assistance were often referred to as
“powers” (cf. Ellen Muehlberger, Angels in Late Ancient Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013),
99-114), and Origen also included “powers” in his discussion of the species of “rational natures” (princ.
1.5.1-5).
35. According to Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century, 21, Clement also “claim[ed] that Tatian was a Valentinian
gnostic.” The passage she points to is str. 3.13.92 (Stählin, 238). Here, immediately after a quotation from
Julius Cassianus, Clement states τὰ παραπλήσια τῷ Τατιανῷ κατὰ τοῦτο δογματίζων. ὁ δ’ ἐκ τῆς
Οὐαλεντίνου ἐξεφοίτησε σχολῆς. At issue in this oblique statement is the implied subject of the verb
ἐξεφοίτησε. It seems best to me to read it as a reference to Cassianus.
36. Against Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century, 49-51, who discounts the charge of Valentinianism but fails to
take account of Tatian’s exegesis of Genesis 1:3.
37. R. Hanig, “Tatian und Justin. Ein Vergleich,” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 31-73. On the relationship of
Justin to Tatian, see most recently Trelenberg, Tatianos, 195-203, who helpfully prints parallel passages from
the two authors side-by-side. The distinction between the teachings of Justin and Tatian is also highlighted in
Christoph Markshies, Christian Theology and Its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire: Prolegomena to a History of Early
Christian Theology, Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Studies in Early Christianity (trans. Wayne Coppins; Waco: Baylor
- 10 -
clear inuence from Justin, on a number of points he takes his mentor’s views in a direction
that can only be described as Monarchianism, shifting to God various attributes or activities
that Justin ascribed to Christ. In order to grasp the weight of the argument, a brief summary of
its six main points is in order. First, both Justin and Tatian emphasize the Hebrew prophets as
central in their respective conversions to Christianity.38 However, whereas the old man im-
pressed upon Justin the prophets’ announcement of the coming of Christ and Justin according-
ly spoke of his love for “the prophets and those men who are friends of Christ” (ἔρως ἔχει με
τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων, οἵ εἰσι Χριστοῦ φίλοι),39 for Tatian the crucial fac-
tors were the age of the “barbarian writings” and their teaching on the “single ruler of the
universe” (τῶν ὅλων τὸ μοναρχικόν).40 Here Tatian makes no mention of Christ, and, rather
than speaking of the “friends of Christ,” as had Justin, he says that those who study the
prophetic writings become “friends of God” (θεοφιλεῖς).41
The second area concerns the doctrine of the Logos in Justin and Tatian, an issue to
which Hanig devotes more space than any other.42 Here there are clear points of similarity be-
tween the two, certainly enough to infer Justin’s inuence on Tatian, but also notable differ-
ences. For example, Justin gives the Logos a host of other names (δόξα, υἱός, σοφία, ἄγγελος,
University Press, 2015), 74-75, though Markshies makes no mention of Hanig’s study. For Markshies, the
difference between the student and teacher is best understood as “a consequence of the adoption of pagan
educational institutions.”
38. Cf. Hanig, “Tatian und Justin. Ein Vergleich,” 34-38.
39. Justin, dial. 8.1 (Philippe Bobichon, Justin Martyr, Dialogue avec le Tryphon: Edition critique, Paradosis 47 (Fribourg:
Academic Press Fribourg, 2003), 204).
40. Tatian, or. 29.2 (Trelenberg, 160-61). At or. 14.1 Tatian again references the divine μοναρχία in contrast to
Greek πολυκοιρανίη (Trelenberg, 122). On the latter point, cf. E. Norelli, “La critique du pluralisme grec
dans le Discours aux Grecs de Tatien,” in Les apologistes chrétiens et la culture grecque, ed. B. Pouderon and J. Doré,
Théologie historique 105, (Paris: Beauchesne, 1998). Hanig points out that Justin never himself refers to the
divine “monarchy” though the word does appear in the mouth of his opponent Trypho (dial. 1.3). Tatian’s
concern for “monarchy” gured prominently in the study of Elze, Tatian und seine Theologie who commented,
“Grundlage zu allem ist der strikte Monotheismus Tatians” (p.63).
41. Tatian, or. 12.4 (Trelenberg, 116). While Tatian does not explicitly mention the prophets here, they are
probably who he has in mind when he refers to the “divinely inspired interpretations, which from time to
time have been expressed in writing and have made those who study them real friends of God” (τὰς
θειοτάτας ἑρμηνείας, αἳ κατὰ χρόνον διὰ γραφῆς ἐξεληλεγμέναι πάνυ θεοφιλεῖς τοὺς προσέχοντας αὐταῖς
πεποιήκασιν).
42. Cf. Hanig, “Tatian und Justin. Ein Vergleich,” 39-57. Koltun-Fromm, “Re-Imagining Tatian,” 13, also points
out that for Tatian “the Logos does not exist on its own; it is a part of God.”
- 11 -
θεός, κύριος, ἀρχιστράτηγος),43 none of which Tatian ever uses. Instead, he prefers to speak
of the λόγος, δύναμις λογική and δύναμις λόγου, the latter phrases recalling his preference for
the term δύναμις to describe the authority placed in charge of human hair. Moreover, the verb
Tatian uses to refer to the procession of the Logos is προπηδάω (“spring forth”), a word that
almost never occurs with reference to the Logos, except in Justin’s description of his oppo-
nents who denied to the Logos an independent existence.44 In this same vein, Tatian seemingly
agrees with Justin’s opponents that the Logos is not “cut off” or “separated” from God.45 Simi-
larly, while Justin calls the Logos the πρωτότοκος of God,46 Tatian refers instead to the ἔργον
πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρός,47 thereby presenting the Logos as something less than the personal
entity that Justin envisions. Again, Justin quite clearly states that the Logos is, “according to
number” another thing alongside God,48 but such a statement of the Logos’ independent exis-
tence is entirely lacking in Tatian’s Oration. Finally, both Justin and Tatian use the image of a
re igniting another re to illustrate the procession of the Logos, but here again the student
parts ways with his teacher. Justin insists on two points: that the one emitting this re is not
diminished in any way, and that the result of this process is a πυρὰ ἕτερα alongside the rst,
“appearing with its own existence” (αὐτὸ ὂν φαίνεται).49 Tatian, however, seems only con-
cerned with the rst of these points, eager to emphasize that the source is in no way reduced
by this emission.50
The third distinction relates to creation.51 Justin states that God created all things
43. Justin, dial. 61.1-3.
44. Tatian, or. 5.2 (Trelenberg, 96); Justin, dial. 128.3 (Bobichon, 530).
45. Tatian, or. 5.3 (Trelenberg, 96): γέγονεν δὲ κατὰ μερισμόν, οὐ κατὰ ἀποκοπήν· τὸ γὰρ ἀποτμηθὲν τοῦ
πρώτου κεχώρισται, τὸ δὲ μερισθὲν οἰκονομίας. Justin, dial. 128.3 (Bobichon, 530): ἄτμητον δὲ καὶ
ἀχώριστον τοῦ πατρὸς ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν ὑπάρχειν.
46. Justin, 1 apol. 63.15 (Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies, Oxford Early Christian
Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 248). ὅς, καὶ λόγος πρωτότοκος ὢν τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ θεὸς
ὑπάρχει.
47. Tatian, or. 5.2 (Trelenberg, 96). ὁ δὲ λόγος οὐ κατὰ κενοῦ χωρήσας ἔργον πρωτότοκον τοῦ πατρὸς γίνεται.
48. Justin, dial. 128.4 (Bobichon, 530). ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν τί ἐστι.
49. Justin, dial. 128.4 (Bobichon, 530); 61.2 (Bobichon, 346).
50. Tatian, or. 5.4 (Trelenberg, 96).
- 12 -
“through the Logos” (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ), probably alluding to John 1:3.52 Tatian also cites John 1:3,
though he makes it a statement, not about Christ, but instead about the “only God,” asserting
that “all things were made by him and without him not a single thing has come into being.”
Here Tatian has replaced the Johannine prepositional phrase δι᾽ αὐτοῦ with the phrase ὑπ᾽
αὐτοῦ, removing thereby any reference to the Logos’s creative agency.53 Fourth, when it comes
to the incarnation, Tatian, in contrast to Justin, provides no allusion to Jesus or the Logos,54
speaking instead of “God coming to be in human form” (θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπου μορφῇ γεγονέναι)
and of the “suffering God” (τοῦ πεπονθότος θεοῦ).55 Fifth, whereas Justin repeatedly refers to
the “healing” brought by Jesus Christ, Tatian attributes such actions on several occasions di-
rectly to God, and never to Christ.56 Sixthly, and nally, Justin asserts that the nal judgment
will be doled at “by Christ,” while for Tatian it is “the Creator-God himself” who is the judge
of humankind.57
Some of these divergences between Justin and Tatian might be explained as the differ-
ing argumentative strategies of the two authors, with Tatian following the tactic of some other
second-century authors and not mentioning the name of Jesus, in contrast to his teacher.58
However, the cumulative weight of the above points suggests a stronger conclusion, that there
was a real distinction in doctrine between the two gures, at least with respect to the period at
which Tatian wrote or delivered his Oration. If so, then we must reckon with a Tatian who is
proto-Monarchian in sharp contrast to his mentor, leaving us with two unsolved problems.
First, why is it that none of our ancient sources bring this accusation against Tatian? Perhaps
these various assertions were simply too subtle to notice, or perhaps Tatian’s ancient readers
52. Justin, 2 apol. 5.3 (Minns and Parvis, 286).
53. Tatian, or. 19.9 (Trelenberg, 138).
55. Tatian, or. 21.1; 13.6 (Trelenberg, 140; 122). Cf. 1 apol. 5.4; 25.2.
56. Justin, dial. 69.3; 94.3 (Bobichon, 374, 442); 1 apol. 31.7; 48.1; 54.10 (Minns and Parvis, 166, 202, 224).
Tatian, or. 16.8; 17.5; 18.1; 18.4; 20.1 (Trelenberg, 128; 130; 132; 138). Cf. Hanig, “Tatian und Justin. Ein
Vergleich,” 69-70.
57. Justin, 1 apol. 8.4 (Minns and Parvis, 94); Tatian, or. 6.2; 25.4 (Trelenberg, 98; 152). Cf. Hanig, “Tatian und
Justin. Ein Vergleich,” 70-72.
58. Cf. Trelenberg, Tatianos, 219-224.
- 13 -
simply did not read him that closely. Second, how are we to square Tatian the proto-Monar-
chian with Tatian the Valentinian, since these two impulses seem to pull in opposite direc-
tions? Monarchianism elides the distinction between God and his Logos, attributing everything
to the divine being as such, while Valentinianism requires the multiplication of mediating
heavenly beings, each of which is apportioned some distinct role in the grand drama of cre-
ation and redemption. Perhaps the answer to this question lies in positing a development in
Tatian’s own thinking, but it must be admitted that this is a solution that is beyond our ability
to verify with any certainty.
Problem 4: Tatian the Encratite?

Undoubtedly the most frequently adduced accusation against Tatian is that he was the
founder of the heretical sect known as the Encratites, espousing a degree of asceticism that
went beyond what the mainstream church found acceptable. It is primarily this representation
of our gure that Naomi Koltun-Fromm has contested in the aforementioned article from
2008. As I will explain momentarily, I think she is only partially successful in this attempt, but
rst let us closely observe what the ancient sources say regarding Tatian’s relationship with this
movement. The key point to be noted is that, although both some ancient and modern authors
assert Tatian’s leadership of the Encratites, in fact our earliest sources never draw this conclu-
sion.59 Irenaeus introduces Tatian for the rst time near the end of the rst book of Adversus
Haereses, and he does so, it is true, in the context of a discussion of the Encratites. However, his
only statement about the origins of the group is that they sprang forth from the errors of Sat-
urninus and Marcion. After reviewing their views on marriage and food, Ireneaeus notes that
the Encratites also deny Adam’s salvation, and it is only at this point that Tatian enters the pic-
ture, since, according to Irenaeus, Tatian “rst introduced this blasphemy.” This connection al-
lows Irenaeus to enter into a short digression on Tatian’s other views, associating him rst
with Justin, and then with the heretics Marcion and Valentinus. Irenaeus probably does envi-
sion Tatian as a member of the Encratites, since he rst says that the denial of Adam’s salvation
“was invented among them,” and then, with a dependent genitive-absolute clause, attributes
59. For modern examples, see the Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Notre Dame, IN: Christian Classics, n.d.), 221;
Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2014), I.800.
- 14 -
the origin of this idea to Tatian.60 However, Irenaeus does not present him as either the
founder or even a present leader among the group,61 though his view on marriage admittedly
aligns with theirs. When, in book three, Irenaeus revisits Tatian’s denial of Adam’s salvation,
he makes no reference to the Encratites, focusing on this as Tatian’s own idiosyncratic notion.62
This dissociation of Tatian from the Encratites is even more pronounced in Hippolytus who
provides entirely separate discussions of the two, neither mentioning the Encratites in his de-
scription of Tatian, nor naming Tatian in his review of the Encratites.63 Similarly, although
Clement strongly disagrees with Tatian’s views on marital intercourse, he never calls him an
Encratite.64
In fact, it is not until the fourth century that any source calls Tatian the founder of the
Encratites. This charge rst surfaces in Eusebius, who twice explicitly refers to Tatian as the
ἀρχηγός of the movement.65 Although the historian presents this not as his own idea, but as a
reliable tradition, his only source is Irenaeus, whom he quotes in full.66 Clearly Eusebius read
Irenaeus as asserting Tatian’s leadership of the Encratites, but, as I have just argued, this is in
fact a misreading of the passage. Nevertheless, after this point other authors make the same as-
sociation. In his catalogue of heresies, Epiphanius reverses Irenaeus’ order, rst devoting a sec-
tion to Tatian and then introducing the Encratites as the school that arose in succession to
him.67 Jerome unambiguously refers to Tatian on two occasions, calling him once the princeps of
60. Irenaeus, haer. 1.28.1 (SC 264.356). καὶ τοῦτο νῦν ἐξευρέθη παρ’ αὐτοῖς, Τατιάνου τινὸς πρώτως ταύτην
εἰσενέγκαντος τὴν βλασφημίαν.
61. Amidst his otherwise helpful discussion, Trelenberg, Tatianos, 206, also misreads Irenaeus on this point.
62. Irenaeus, haer. 3.23.1-8.
63. Hippolytus, ref. om. haer. 8.16; 8.20.
64. Clement, str. 3.12.81-82. On Clement’s own ascetic project, see David G Hunter, “The Language of Desire:
Clement of Alexandria’s Transformation of Ascetic Discourse,” Semeia 57 (1992): 95-111.
65. Eusebius, HE 4.29.1; 4.29.6 (Gustave Bardy, Eusèbe de Césarée. Histoire ecclésiastique, Livres I-IV (SC 31 (Paris:
Éditions du Cerf, 1951), 213, 214).
66. In 4.28.1 Eusebius has just discussed Musanus who composed a certain book against the Encratites. Whether
or not he had access to Musanus’ book he does not say, but the vague way in which Eusebius introduces his
discussion of Tatian in 4.29.1 (λόγος ἔχει...; “Word has it ...”) suggests that Musanus is not the source upon
which he was relying for calling Tatian the “originator” of the group. Against Trelenberg, Tatianos, 207, who
holds that Eusebius is dependent on Musanus for his report about Tatian.
67. Epiphanius, pan. 46.1.8; 47.1.1 (Karl Holl and Jürgen Dummer, Epiphanius II, GCS (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1980), 204, 215). The latter passage is the clearest: Ἐγκρατῖταί τινες οὕτω καλούμενοι τοῦτον τὸν
- 15 -
the Encratites, and again the patriarches of the group.68 However, both of these authors were
probably relying on Irenaeus’ report as misread by Eusebius, so they do not provide reliable
historical evidence to substantiate the link between Tatian and this group. Hence, we should
conclude that the image of Tatian as “the leader and/or founder of the Encratites” was an in-
vention of the fourth-century, with no basis in our earliest sources, and so it tells us nothing of
interest about our gure.69
As before with the charge of Valentinianism, modern scholars have searched the Oration
for evidence of encratism, and, although there are a few intriguing passages that might hint at
such a view, there is no unambiguous evidence to be found.70 The most recent attempt to res-
cue Tatian from the polemics of the heresiologists has come from Naomi Koltun-Fromm, who
ambitiously aims for a near wholesale revisionist account of Tatian the heresiarch. In her view,
his reputations for Christological and ascetic heresy “in fact reect polemical constructions cre-
ated to deect external anti-Christian polemic and internal cross-Christian conict onto another
Τατιανὸν διαδέχονται, φύσει ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ πεπλανημένοι τε καὶ ἠπατημένοι.
68. Jerome, In Amos 2.12 (apud Whittaker, 82); In ep. ad Tit. praef. (apud Whittaker, 82). There is a further passage at
In Gal. 6.8 in which Jerome might refer to Tatian, associating him again with the Encratites. However, as
noted by Whittaker, Tatian, 83, there are textual problems with this passage, since the manuscript tradition is
split, with some reading Tatianus but most reading Cassianus. In this passage Jerome also attributes to this gure
the origin of Docetism, which Clement says is true of Cassianus (str. 3.13). None of our oldest sources
attribute docetic ideas to Tatian, much less make him the founder of the sect, so this is probably an unreliable
report, if Tatianus is even the correct reading.
69. Cf. Kyle Harper, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2013), 105: “To call Tatian the ‘patriarch of the encratites,’ as Jerome would label
him, may well be an overstatement, prompted by the need to give heresy a more denite form and face than
in reality it possessed.”
70. Cf. Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century, 151-153; Koltun-Fromm, “Re-Imagining Tatian,” 4-6. The closest
Tatian comes to a condemnation of marriage is in his elliptical remark condemning Greeks who “marry, and
seduce boys, and commit adultery” (ὁ γαμῶν καὶ παιδοφθορῶν καὶ μοιχεύων) (or. 8.2 (Trelenberg, 102)).
The logic behind Tatian’s rejection of marriage has been explored in Kathy L. Gaca, “Driving Aphrodite From
the World: Tatian’s Encratite Principles of Sexual Renunciation,” Journal of Theological Studies 53 (2002): 28-52,
who draws on Tatian’s comments about the gods in the Oration, arguing that he simply could not accept
marriage because of its traditional association with Aphrodite. Gaca’s article is reprinted as chapter 8 in Kathy
L. Gaca, The Making of Fornication: Eros, Ethics, and Political Reform in Greek Philosophy and Early Christianity, Hellenistic
Culture and Society 40 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003). A similar attempt was made in Peter
Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, 20th Anniversary ed., Columbia
Classics in Religion (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008), 90-93. Brown focuses on Tatian’s view of
the Spirit in the Oration, specically the depiction of the Spirit as that which completes human nature (or. 13;
15), bringing it to immortality, and supposedly allowing no competing sexual union with other human
beings. Brown’s interpretation is plausible, but his reconstruction of Tatian’s thought depends heavily upon
Syriac texts, such as Odes of Solomon 6.1; 8.14; 42.8, which may or may not have been reecting Tatian’s own
ideas (see section 7 below).
- 16 -
group. That is to say that Tatian’s reputations emerge from Christian struggles for authority, le-
gitimacy, and orthodoxy both among Christians and in opposition to their surrounding cul-
tures and hence do not necessarily reect historical reality.”71 Koltun-Fromm’s argument falls
into two parts, the rst focused on the charge of encratism in the heresiological tradition, and
the second on the supposedly encratite glosses Tatian introduced into the Diatessaron. Central to
the rst accusation is a passage from Clement which I have not yet dealt with. Aside from the
Diatessaron and the Oration, it represents the only other surviving verbatim fragment from one of
Tatian’s works. Coming from a lost work titled On Perfection according to the Savior (Περὶ τοῦ κατὰ
τὸν Σωτῆρα καταρτισμοῦ), it is a snippet of exegesis of Paul’s comments about marriage in 1
Corinthians 7:5. Here is the text, along with my own translation:
συμφωνία μὲν οὖν ἁρμόζει προσευχῇ, κοινωνία δὲ φθορᾶς λύει τὴν ἔντευξιν. πάνυ
γοῦν δυσωπητικῶς διὰ τῆς συγχωρήσεως εἴργει· πάλιν γὰρ ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ συγχωρήσας
γενέσθαι διὰ τὸν σατανᾶν καὶ τὴν ἀκρασίαν, τὸν πεισθησόμενον ‹δυσὶ κυρίοις μέλλειν
δουλεύειν› ἀπεφήνατο, διὰ μὲν συμφωνίας θεῷ, διὰ δὲ τῆς ἀσυμφωνίας ἀκρασίᾳ καὶ
πορνείᾳ καὶ διαβόλῳ.72
Therefore, on the one hand, agreement coincides with prayer, but on the other hand
participation in corruption destroys the request73. At least [Paul] altogether prevents [it]
with a concession intended to bring shame. For granting that they might come togeth-
er again on account of Satan and lack of self-control, he showed that those who suc-
cumb74 are going to serve two masters, on the one hand they will serve God through
agreement, but on the other hand through lack of agreement they are going to serve
lack of self-control and fornication and the devil.
Earlier in this book of the Stromateis Clement referred to anonymous persons who teach that
marriage is “fornication” and was “handed on by the devil.” These individuals, he says, base
71. Koltun-Fromm, “Re-Imagining Tatian,” 2-3.
72. Clement, str. 3.12.81.1-2 (Stählin, 232). The passage may also be found in Whittaker, Tatian, 78-81.
73. John Ferguson translates the word ἔντευξις here as “intercourse,” a meaning that the word no doubt
sometimes carries (Stromates, Books 1-3 (FOTC 85; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press,
1991), 306). However, on this rendering, it is unclear what contrast is being made between the two halves
of the μέν-δέ clause. I suggest instead that ἔντευξις stands in parallel to προσευχή such that the two words are
basically synonymous in this context.
74. The future passive participle of πείθω here probably has the sense of “yield, succumb” (LSJ, s.v. πείθω, B.2),
in other words, the person who does not have sufcient self-control to abstain successfully. This sense is
preferable to Whittaker’s translation “anyone who would conform,” which is also followed by Koltun-
Fromm.
- 17 -
their own practice of celibacy on the observation that “the Lord did not marry.”75 Given the
common connection of marriage with the devil and “fornication,” the latter passage likely also
refers to Tatian, in which case he would be the earliest Christian author to make an argument
for virginity using Jesus as an exemplar.76
Kolton-Fromm, however, seems to express some doubt over whether or not this pas-
sage is even authentic, as if Clement were merely fabricating it. Moreover, even if it is genuine,
she thinks Clement seriously misreads his source, since Tatian instead focuses “not on sex per
se but on control.” On this reading, Tatian thinks sex is ne so long as the couple is exercising
restraint, a view not too far from Clement’s own perspective on marriage. This, it seems to me,
fails as a compelling reading of the preserved fragment. What Kolton-Fromm ignores is that
there is a clear dualism running throughout the fragment from the rst sentence to the last,
marked especially by the two μέν-δέ clauses that open and close the passage. In the opening
line Tatian presents two options: either “agreement” which serves prayer or “partnership in
corruption” which hinders, or perhaps even destroys, prayer. These two options are then re-
stated in the idiom of the Jesus tradition by way of reference to “serving two masters.” Finally,
in explication of the latter point Tatian once again draws a contrast between serving God
“through agreement” and serving the Satan “through lack of agreement.” Tatian no doubt is
concerned with self-control, as the title of his work suggests, but he presents a stark choice, ei-
ther service of God or Satan, agreement or disagreement. It might at rst be ambiguous in this
fragment what specic activities align on either side of this divide. However, in the Pauline
passage itself, acting “from agreement” refers to marital couples abstaining from sex. More-
over, when Tatian refers to “those who come together again,” who are divided and so are
serving two masters, he is clearly glossing the Pauline reference to married couples who come
back together after a period of abstinence.77 Hence, in Tatian’s view, it is married couples who
engage in sex who are serving two masters: God when they abstain in “agreement” and Satan
when they succumb to lack of self-control and so fall into “disagreement.” In this way, where-
75. Clement, str. 3.6.49.1 (Stählin, 218).
76. As noted by Karen L. King, “The Place of the Gospel of Philip in the Context of Early Christian Claims About
Jesus’ Marital Status,” New Testament Studies 59 (2013): 568n.13.
77. Tatian speaks of πάλιν ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ ... γενέσθαι which is a gloss on Paul’s πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἦτε. This group of
persons who “come back together” is then dened by Tatian as τὸν πεισθησόμενον ‹δυσὶ κυρίοις μέλλειν
δουλεύειν.
- 18 -
as Paul allows for three states, married abstaining couples devoted to prayer, married active
couples avoiding temptation, and married couples who engage in illicit sex, Tatian elides the
last two categories, treating even those married couples who come together as doing so from
their ἀκρασία. This is precisely the point of the second sentence of the extract, in which Tatian
interprets Paul’s “concession” as something stated in such a “shameful manner”
(δυσωπητικῶς) that it is intended as a prohibition.78 Hence, given the stark contrast that runs
throughout the passage, it is difcult to avoid the conclusion that here Tatian directly refers to
marital intercourse as “partnership in corruption” (κοινωνία φθορᾶς).79 If so, then it is
striking that this fragment preserved by Clement in fact substantiates the charge brought by
Irenaeus, even to the point of using both of the key terms found in Irenaeus’s earlier descrip-
tion (φθορά and πορνεία).80
Not only does this passage corroborate Irenaeus’ accusation, but it also parallels with an
even briefer statement from Hippolytus. It is in the context of his discussion of this fragment
from On Perfection according to the Savior that Clement engages in the aforementioned refutation of
Tatian’s notion that the law is due to the agency of another God.81 Hence, according to
78. Cf. the use of the adverb δυσωπητικῶς in Origen, Jo. 32.5.57; 32.7.76. On both occasions Origen is referring
to Peter’s query to Jesus in John 13:6, which was intended to forestall Jesus’ attempt to wash Peter’s feet.
Similarly, Tatian here views Paul’s concession as a statement aimed at preventing compliance. A fragment
attributed to Origen in Philocalia 27.12 applies the same adverb to Exodus 10:3, in which the Lord’s question
to Pharaoh is intended to shame him (PG 12.281).
79. In the remainder of this section, Koltun-Fromm argues that Tatian’s real “heresy” was an individualistic
soteriology, an underdeveloped Logos theology, and lack of interest in biblical exegesis (Koltun-Fromm,
“Re-Imagining Tatian,” 13-18), all issues which Irenaeus, representing the ecclesiastical class, found
unacceptable. Yet rather than “nitpick” over these ne points of theology, Irenaeus decided it would be more
strategic to dismiss him at one blow by condemning him as a radical ascetic, especially since this had the
added advantage of deecting the polemic arising from pagan critics against “the broader Christian
community.” I do not have space here to deal extensively with these issues, but I nd this treatment of
Irenaeus to be overly suspicious and deconstructive, and the reading of Tatian to be selective. For example,
Koltun-Fromm holds that Tatian was uninterested in biblical exegesis, in supposed contrast to Justin, but she
ignores the testimony from Rhodon that he composed a book of biblical “Problems.” Moreover, she is
probably assuming too much when she concludes that Tatian had an individualistic soteriology in contrast to
the ecclesial class, since the statement of his theology that we receive in the Oration is decidedly partial and
incomplete. It is one thing to show that evidence for these heresies are not explicitly found in the Oration and
it is quite another to demonstrate that the author of the Oration could not have held such views. The absence
of encratism in the Oration was already noted by Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century, 64-65.
80. The fragment is also viewed as encratic by Gaca, “Driving Aphrodite,” 33-35; Hunt, Christianity in the Second
Century, 154; Harper, From Shame to Sin, 106. Harper writes, “To say that Tatian lay outside the bounds of
proto-orthodox Christian sexuality should not be doubted, nor even controversial. What is most interesting
about Tatian’s encratism is his apparent desire to anchor it in a defensible hermeneutics of Pauline scripture.”
81. Clement, str. 3.12.82.2.
- 19 -
Clement, Tatian’s exegetical justication for rejecting marriage as “corruption” was to attribute
the law permitting marriage to another, lesser God, which had now been superseded by the
advent of the gospel. Similarly, Hippolytus highlighted not merely Tatian’s disavowal of mar-
riage but specically his “slander ... against the legislation concerning marriages.”82 Hippolytus
was likely writing after Clement, but his short testimony is in keeping with the fuller account
offered by the earlier Alexandrian. Thus, unless Hippolytus is dependent on Clement in this in-
stance, he serves as further verication that Tatian’s rejection of marriage depended on a set-
ting aside of the law which permitted marriage. Altogether then, the relatively early reports of
Irenaeus, Clement, and Hippolytus on Tatian’s view of marriage and the law are mutually rein-
forcing and should not be regarded as mere embellishments due to the internal momentum of
the heresiological tradition.
The second half of Koltun-Fromm’s argument deals with the Diatessaron, the gospel text
supposedly composed by Tatian.83 In one standard account that has been widely repeated, Tat-
ian radicalized the asceticism of Jesus in the gospels by incorporating encratite redactions into
his gospel version, and, since this became the liturgical gospel for Syriac-speaking Christians,
Syriac Christianity displayed a more pronounced ascseticism as a result.84 Koltun-Fromm
correctly points out the insufcient evidence for many of the supposed encratite glosses and
she observes that the earliest surviving Syriac authors (e.g., Aphrahat) look to places other than
the Diatessaron to legitimate their asceticism.85 Here her argument seems to me to be largely suc-
82. Hippolytus, ref. om. haer. 10.18 (Marcovich, 398). τὴν δυσφημίαν <κατά τε τῆς γεννήσεως> καὶ τῆς περὶ
γάμων νομοθεσίας.
83. Cf. Koltun-Fromm, “Re-Imagining Tatian,” 18-30.
84. For a classic statement of this theory, see Arthur Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient: A Contribution to the
History of Culture in the Near East, 3 vols., CSCO 184, 197, 500, Subsidia 14, 17, 81 (Louvain: Secrétariat du
CorpusSCO, 1958-88), 1.31-45. Vööbus’ reliance on certain Diatessaronic witnesses to build his case is now
methodologically outdated (cf. Ulrich Schmid, “The Diatessaron of Tatian,” in The Text of the New Testament in
Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, New Testament
Tools, Studies and Documents 42 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 115-142). Moreover, some of the examples he
brings forward can hardly bear the weight that he wants to place upon them. On this question see also Elze,
Tatian und seine Theologie, 125; William L. Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Signicance, and History
in Scholarship, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 25 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), 79-82; Petersen, “Tatian the
Assyrian,” 144-146. The presence of encratite glosses is also accepted by Brown, The Body and Society, 87,
though he does not posit this as the origin of Syrian asceticism.
85. The evidence for the encratite glosses in the Diatessaron was previously reviewed by Hunt, Christianity in the Second
Century, 145-150, who similarly pointed to the ambiguous and meager evidence for them, as well as to the
circular reasoning often employed by scholars of the Diatessaron on this issue.
- 20 -
cessful. There does remain some evidence for what could be termed ‘encratite’ tendencies in
the Diatessaron, such as revisions to Matthew 1 intended to maintain Mary’s perpetual virginity,86
but it is a stretch to see these redactions as the cause of later Syriac asceticism, since Greek and
Latin speaking Christians eventually came to hold to the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity as
well, even in the absence of a gospel text which explicitly stated as much. Hence, we are left
with a Tatian who did indeed condemn marital sex as corruption and service to Satan, yet his
relation to later Syriac asceticism and to the so-called Encratites is far from clear.
Problem 5: Tatian the Rhetorician?

We move now from the heresiological tradition to Tatian’s literary or scholarly reputa-
tion. Tatian himself claims to have had a thorough training in Hellenistic παιδεία,87 and his
Oration bears out this claim, given the numerous references and allusions on nearly every page
of the work. Eusebius afrms this as well, stating that he “lectured in the subjects of Greek
learning, winning no small amount of fame in them and leaving behind many monuments in
his writings.”88 The word used here to describe Tatian’s activities is σοφιστεύω, which was
probably intended to present Tatian as a member of the class of professional rhetors known as
sophists.89 It is naturally impossible for us to know whether Eusebius actually knew of other
writings composed by Tatian, or whether he simply inferred their existence on the basis of the
degree of learning displayed in the Oration itself. Two other works are mentioned in the Oration.
At one point Tatian refers to a treatise titled On Animals which he had previously composed, and
86. Cf. Tjitze Baarda, “The Diatessaron of Tatian: Source for an Early Text At Rome or Source of Textual
Corruption?,” in The New Testament Text in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Lille Colloquium, July 2000, ed. Christian-
B. Amphoux and J. Keith Elliott, Histoire du texte biblique 6 (Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 2003), 93-138
(especially the examples in sections 4.3, 4.5, 4.11, 4.27, and 4.30), whose sober judgments surpass the
fanciful reasoning of many scholars of the Diatessaron.
87. Tatian, or. 42 (Trelenberg, 190-92). Ταῦθ’ ὑμῖν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἕλληνες, ὁ κατὰ βαρβάρους φιλοσοφῶν
Τατιανὸς συνέταξα, γεννηθεὶς μὲν ἐν τῇ τῶν Ἀσσυρίων γῇ, παιδευθεὶς δὲ πρῶτον μὲν τὰ ὑμέτερα, δεύτερον
δὲ ἅτινα νῦν κηρύττειν ἐπαγγέλλομαι.
88. Eusebius, HE 4.16.7 (SC 31.192). Τατιανός, ἀνὴρ τὸν πρῶτον αὐτοῦ βίον σοφιστεύσας ἐν τοῖς Ἑλλήνων
μαθήμασι καὶ δόξαν οὐ σμικρὰν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἀπενηνεγμένος πλεῖστά τε ἐν συγγράμμασιν αὐτοῦ καταλιπὼν
μνημεῖα.
89. On the usage of such terminology, and especially the distinction between “rhetoricians” and “sophists,” see
G. W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 11-14, who posits that a
“sophist” was rhetor who had “embarked upon his professional, public career as a performing rhetor.”
- 21 -
he elsewhere speaks of his intent to write a work titled To Those who have Propounded Ideas about God.90
As with his book of biblical “Problems,” there is no way to know whether Tatian ever made
good on this intention. Regardless, recent scholarship has increasingly emphasized Tatian’s
learning in grammar, and especially rhetoric, in some contrast to his mentor Justin Martyr who
appears as much more of a philosopher by background.91 This modern view of Tatian the
rhetorician is plausible, and conrms Eusebius’ estimation. Nevertheless, this recognition of
his erudition raises a further problem, namely, why such a well trained rhetorician composed a
text that is lacking any apparent order. Indeed, any reader of the Oration will encounter difcul-
ty in assessing the structure and progression of the work.92
Broadly speaking, two attempts have been made to explain this conundrum. The rst
focuses on the genre of the work. In a 1993 article, Michael McGehee argued that the treatise is
in fact a representative of the genre of the ancient protrepticus.93 The goal of such an oratorical
exercise was to attract students to philosophical instruction, and to do so by simultaneously de-
riding rival schools and introducing a number of distinctive traits of one’s own school without
exploring any in detail.94 McGehee might be correct that the Oration is closest to a protrepticus, but
it is not clear that this sufciently accounts for the disorderliness of the work.95 Surely a trained
rhetorician would expect his protrepticus to be more coherent and orderly if he wished to attract
educated hearers to his school. Hence, a second solution has been offered, namely, that the
Oration is a compilation of multiple pre-existing pieces. This idea was rst put forward by A.E.
90. Tatian, or. 15.4; 40.3 (Trelenberg, 124; 188).
91. Cf. Molly Whittaker, “Tatian’s Educational Background,” Studia Patristica 13 (1975): 57-59; Grant, Greek
Apologists of the Second Century, 112-132; Dimitrios Karadimas, Tatian’s Oratio Ad Graecos: Rhetoric and Philosophy/
theology, Scripta Minora Regiae Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 2000-2001 (Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2003); Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians At Rome in the First Two
Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 285-291; Lössl, “Zwischen Christologie und
Rhetorik.”
92. Cf. Whittaker, Tatian, xx: “The incoherence of the work as a whole is on a par with his often confused and
incoherent arguments and the obscurity of his style.”
93. M. McGehee, “Why Tatian Never ‘Apologized’ to the Greeks,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 1 (1993):
143-158. On the genre of the Oratio, see most recently the survey in Trelenberg, Tatianos, 230-240.
94. “However, if the speech is understood as a protrepticus, Tatian need not be faulted for digressions since a
protrepticus did not have to be systematic. Further, unexplored ideas were common within a protrepticus since it
was expected that a teacher would elaborate on them once students began studying. And, nally, abuse was a
standard technique in protreptic discourse” (McGehee, “Why Tatian Never ‘‘Apologized’,” 149).
95. A conclusion also reached by Karadimas, Tatian’s Oratio Ad Graecos, 9.
- 22 -
Osborne in an unpublished doctoral dissertation in 1969, and has been revived recently by
Dimitrios Karadimas. Osborne divided the work into two parts, with chapters 1-30 and 42
representing a dialexis, and the intervening chapters coming from an otherwise lost work of Tat-
ian.96 Karadimas’ explanation is more elaborate, with at least three pre-existing elements incor-
porated into the nal form of the work. He views chapters 8-11 as a piece of deliberative ora-
tory on fate, chapters 32-35 as an example of judicial oratory defending Christians against
pagan attacks, and chapters 22-30 as a statement of epideictic rhetoric aimed at undermining
condence in Hellenistic cultural achievements.97 In the view of Karadimas, these three sec-
tions have their own internal consistency and are successful as individual pieces of rhetoric, so
Tatian must have re-used these preformed sections when composing the Oration that we have
before us today.98
The explanation of Karadimas is a plausible one, but it only partially solves the problem
at hand. Even if these three sections were written earlier, for some other purpose, why have
they now been compiled into the wandering diatribe that has come down to us with the title ὁ
λόγος πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας?99 Surely a rhetorician would be concerned about the nal form of
his work if he intended for it to succeed in its aims. I suggest, therefore, that the question of
the literary nature of the Oration has yet to be satisfactorily resolved, and so the problem of Tat-
ian the rhetorician remains.
Problem 6: Tatian the Gospel Editor?

The portion of Tatian’s legacy that has been poured over more than any other is un-
doubtedly his compilation of a gospel text compiled from the four canonical versions, which
has spawned its own sub-discipline within the eld of New Testament studies. The nature of
the surviving evidence for this work is unusually complex in comparison with other texts from
96. Alfred Ernst Osborne, “Tatian’s Discourse to the Greeks: A Literary Analysis and Essay in Interpretation”
(diss., University of Cincinnati, 1969), 4-28.
97. Karadimas, Tatian’s Oratio Ad Graecos, 9-24.
98. “A possible answer to this problem [of the lack of any ordered scheme] may be that Tatian had some subjects
ready, when he set out to write this work, and he inserted them at what he apparently regarded as the most
suitable points” (Karadimas, Tatian’s Oratio Ad Graecos, 9).
99. On the title to the work, see Lössl, “Zwischen Christologie und Rhetorik,” 129nn.1-2.
- 23 -
antiquity, and, as a result, the eld of Diatessaronic studies is often mired in exceptionally
complex methodological debates.100 Even Tatian’s purported authorship of the Diatessaron has
been called into question. In the aforementioned article offering a revisionist account of Tat-
ian’s legacy, Naomi Koltun-Fromm states, “I seriously question Tatian’s association with the
Diatessaron or any gospel harmony that was popular in Syriac-speaking communities.”101 The
reason for this skepticism is at least twofold. On the one hand, a reading of the Oration would
on its own hardly lead one to believe that its author was also engaged in rewriting the church’s
gospel literature. On the other hand, the rst author even to name this text and associate Tatian
with it is Eusebius in the early fourth-century.102 None of our earlier sources which have at
least some awareness of Tatian—Irenaeus, Hippolytus, ps-Tertullian, Clement, and Origen—
give any indication that he produced an edition of the gospel. Moreover, even in the passage
wherein Eusebius asserts Tatian’s authorship of the so-called Diatessaron, he makes clear that he
is passing on another tradition and has no direct knowledge of the work. For these reasons, the
connection between Tatian and the unied gospel edition used by Syriac-speaking Christians
might appear to dangle by the thread of Eusebius’ second-hand report. Nevertheless, Eusebius
does not usually merely make up entirely false information, however much he may massage
earlier works to suit his own purpose, and Tatian would surely be an odd person to pick at
random as a ctive author of this text unless there was some kernel of historical truth here.103
Given the complex nature of Diatessaronic studies it must be confessed that there are
many remaining unsolved “problems” related to this matter, some of which will likely forever
remain so. Here I would like to highlight one that has received scant mention, which neverthe-
less impinges upon the fundamental issue at stake with respect to this idiosyncratic gospel edi-
tion. It was rst highlighted over fty years ago in Robert Grant’s slim monograph The Earliest
Lives of Jesus, but has scarcely been taken up in subsequent scholarship. For example, William Pe-
tersen’s magisterial 1994 survey of scholarship on the Diatessaron makes no mention of Grant’s
100. For a survey of literature up to the late twentieth-century, see Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron. However, see
also the important methodological shifts that have occurred in the past two decades, reviewed in
Schmid, “The Diatessaron of Tatian,” 115-142.
101. Koltun-Fromm, “Re-Imagining Tatian,” 29.
102. Eusebius, HE 4.29.6.
103. Cf. Matthew R. Crawford, “‘Reordering the Confusion’: Tatian, the Second Sophistic, and the so-called
Diatessaron,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 19 (2015): 235-36.
- 24 -
book. In what follows allow me to restate the main points of Grant’s argument before ending
with a particular illustration of the problem as I see it. One of the larger goals of his book is to
demonstrate how second-century Christians like Papias, Justin, and Irenaeus began appropriat-
ing the grammatical and rhetorical tradition in their analysis of the emerging body of gospel
literature, largely in response to challenges from Marcionites and Valentinians.104 Grant situates
Tatian’s work in this same trajectory, a sensible move in light of the clear evidence in the Ora-
tion that Tatian received a thorough education in grammar and rhetoric, probably more so than
any of the other aforementioned second-century Christians.105 We should also note that the
sheer nature of this task would have demanded such skills. It required a thorough and precise
comparison of all four gospels, and a talent for combining these sometimes disparate sources
into a continuous new text, all in an age prior to chapters and verses, much less concordances
or gospel synopses. One of the most remarkable things is just how successful Tatian was in
nding parallel passages and drawing in distinct details from all four gospels, sometimes even
single phrases or words. Indeed, the Diatessaron should be regarded as one of the most ambitious
and successful attempts by Christians in the second-century to appropriate the Hellenistic intel-
lectual heritage. Yet the form of this text as it has come down to us is puzzling. For the most
part the work follows closely the exact wording found in what are now the four canonical
gospels. Moreover, examining the sequence which Tatian gave to his new composition allows
one to draw conclusions about his assessments of his source texts. After giving a short sample
of such analysis Grant concludes that Tatian “believed that Matthew provided the most reliable
historical account of the ministry of Jesus before the passion, while John’s passion narrative
was the most trustworthy of the four. Mark’s order is accurate in so far as it corresponds with
that of Matthew. But Luke’s arrangements of the teaching of Jesus possesses almost no histori-
cal validity whatever.”106
It is at this point that we encounter a conundrum. As Grant points out, “This means
that in Tatian’s view the evangelists cannot have been inspired in such a way that they were
104. Robert M. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), 14. Cf. Markshies, Christian
Theology and Its Institutions, 229-30, who also emphasizes the “philological methods” employed by Tatian.
105. “Tatian clearly built upon the results achieved by his predecessors in analyzing the nature of the gospels.
... Moreover, Tatian’s conception of the gospels as historical documents is very much like that set forth
by both Papias and Justin” (Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus, 22).
106. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus, 25-26.
- 25 -
provided with absolutely accurate historical-chronological information about Jesus,” since he

sometimes so radically rearranges events that he must have held “all the evangelists were sub-
ject to error.”107 This in itself would not be problematic. After all, when Matthew and Luke
rewrote Mark, they altered the sequence of their predecessor in sometimes signicant ways.108
The difference between Tatian’s approach and theirs is that neither Matthew nor Luke thought
it necessary to preserve the precise wording of their source(s) to the same degree that Tatian
apparently did. Matthew tends to produce shortened versions of the stories he has found in
Mark, and Luke also feels free to change the wording of the material of his source texts. How-
ever, Tatian usually reproduces the four canonical gospels verbatim. As Grant explains,
Without a foundation in a strange doctrine of verbal inspiration—verbal but non-con-

textual—it is hard to see how the method can be justied. And it is difcult to believe
that a doctrine of inspiration which pays attention to syllables, so to speak, and neglects
the sequences intended by the evangelists is a doctrine of inspiration at all. The real up-
shot of Tatian’s method seems to be that the evangelists wrote neither scripture nor
history.109
It is possible to misunderstand this point. Tatian certainly does not always reproduce the pre-
cise wording of the canonical gospels but instead makes occasional emendations. However,
this only heightens the problem. If he was such a well trained rhetorician, why did he not
‘write up’ the story more than he did? Someone who was simply using these sources as raw
material for writing a proper history would not a priori feel the need to incorporate nearly every
detail into the new text, since this would inevitably create redundancies, as indeed can be
demonstrated in Tatian’s composition.
The only surviving Greek portion of Tatian’s work actually illustrates this problem
rather well. This small fragment of text preserves the conclusion of the episode of the women
gazing upon the crucied and now dead Jesus as well as the the beginning of the account of Je-
sus’ burial by Joseph of Arimatheia. Tatian’s commitment to his sources is evident in the fact
that he reproduces verbatim the various statements about Joseph, admitting only two single
107. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus, 26.
108. On this issue, see chapters three and four of Francis Watson, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013).
109. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus, 28.
- 26 -
adjectives, even though this results in a piling up of descriptions that gives the appearance of
being rather overdone. Yet in what is the most striking departure of this text from the canoni-
cal accounts, Tatian replaced Luke’s participial phrase ὁρῶσαι ταῦτα (Luke 23:49) with the
more arresting ὁρῶσαι τὸν σταυρωθέντα.110 Such a replacement means that Tatian did not
view his sources as being so sacrosanct that their wording could not be altered. But if this is
the case, then why did he so slavishly follow the four descriptions of Joseph? A comparison
with Marcion’s gospel and method is instructive at this point. He too often closely follows
Luke’s gospel, making smaller or larger emendations along the way, but attempting to preserve
as much of his source as possible. Marcion’s method has a discernible logic, since he regarded
Luke’s gospel as authoritative and yet riddled with later interpolations, with his own task as
simply the restorer of an original textual purity.111 Tatian’s respect for the exact wording of his
sources is broadly parallel, but one searches in vain for a rationale that can account both for the
degree to which he follows his sources and the radical revisions he makes of them. This, it
seems to me, is a problem lying at the heart of Diatessaronic studies, and a solution for it re-
mains to be found.
Problem 7: Tatian’s Legacy?

The seventh and nal problem related to Tatian the “Assyrian” is the legacy he left be-
hind, or, more precisely, his lack of a legacy.112 As we have already seen, Irenaeus’ statement
about Tatian is very brief, and the only truly distinctive aspect of his thought that he can
identify is the denial of Adam’s salvation. It is possible that Irenaeus himself already intended
110. On the Dura fragment see my forthcoming study “The Diatessaron, Canonical or Non-canonical?
Rereading the Dura Fragment,” New Testament Studies 62 (2016).
111. On Marcion see the new reconstruction of his gospel in Dieter T. Roth, The Text of Marcion’s Gospel, New
Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 49 (Leiden: Brill, 2015) and the study of Lieu, Marcion and the
Making of a Heretic.
112. For a perceptive analysis of Tatian’s self-presentation as an “Assyrian” or “barbarian” philosopher, see
Nathanael Andrade, “Assyrians, Syrians and the Greek Language in the Late Hellenistic and Roman
Imperial Periods,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 73 (2014): 299-317. It is sometimes held that this
description must imply an origin in Mesopotamia, but, as Andrade demonstrates, this need not be the
case. On the wider context of this appreciation for “barbarian” philosophy, which appears also, for
example, in the Middle Platonist Numenius, see J.H. Waszink, “Some Observations on the Appreciation
of ‘the Philosophy of the Barbarians’ in Early Christian Literature,” in Mélanges offerts à Mademoiselle Christine
Mohrmann (Utrecht: Spectrum, 1963), 41-56.
- 27 -
to claim that Tatian founded a school to propagate his strange amalgam of ideas. While the
Latin translation of his work is ambiguous on this point, referring merely to Tatian’s doctrina,
Irenaeus’ Greek text as quoted by Eusebius reads διδασκαλεῖον.113 Irenaeus might mean
διδασκαλεῖον here simply in the sense of “doctrine” or “teaching,” as the Latin translator has
taken it, but he might also envisage the more concrete sense of “school.” Further evidence
comes from Eusebius’ Chronicon which lists for the year 172 the cryptic remark Tatianus haereticus
agnoscitur, a quo Encratitae, apparently marking Tatian’s departure from the Roman church and the
establishment of his own movement.114 The founding of such a school would presumably have
left behind some trace in the historical record, some sign of the inuence of Tatian’s teaching.
Indeed, it was precisely in this way that Epiphanius understood this tradition, as if Tatian’s
“school” was represented by the Encratites, although Epiphanius was probably only relying on
Eusebius, who, as I have already argued, misread Irenaeus. Hence this assertion is likely just
further evidence of how little information about Tatian’s legacy Epiphanius had at his disposal.
The Encratites were a heretical sect without a clear founder, and Tatian was a heretic with an
unnamed school, so it must have seemed natural to draw a link between the two.
There are, nevertheless, slight traces in Greek sources of what we might call Tatian’s
“legacy.” The aforementioned Rhodon is the clearest example, the one named gure whom
we can condently say studied with him in Rome. Still, there is virtually nothing we can say
about how exactly Tatian inuenced his pupil, beyond the fact that Rhodon set about complet-
ing Tatian’s likely unnished study of biblical “problems.” Other early sources that name Tat-
ian and still have access to some of his works tend to focus on a single aspect of his thought as
especially worth perpetuating. Clement, Origen, and Eusebius were all evidently very im-
pressed by Tatian’s argument for the antiquity of Moses.115 For Clement, it was the “accuracy”
(ἀκριβῶς) of this presentation that struck him, and Origen noted “the very great learning”
113. Irenaeus, haer. 1.28.1 (SC 264.356).
114. Eusebius, chron. 172 (Rudolf Helm, Eusebius Werke 7, Die Chronik des Hieronymus, Teil 1, GCS (Leipzig: J.C.
Hinrich, 1913), 206). Cf. Epiphanius, pan. 46.1.6, who confuses Marcus Aurelius Antoninus with
Antoninus Pius. On Tatian’s “school” see also Markshies, Christian Theology and Its Institutions, 74.
115. On this point see Arthur J. Droge, Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture,
Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 26 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989), 91-96; Martin.
Wallraff, “The Beginnings of Christian Universal History From Tatian to Julius Africanus,” Zeitschrift für
Antikes Christentum 14 (2011): 540-555.
- 28 -
(πολυμαθέστατα) that had allowed Tatian to draw together so many historians who had treat-
ed this topic.116 Finally Eusebius, perceiving in Tatian a historical mindset similar to his own,
called the Oration the “best and most useful of all his works,” for this very reason.117 Modern
scholarship echoes this assessment of Tatian’s achievement, with Arthur J. Droge arguing that
Tatian went beyond his mentor in proving the antiquity of Moses not merely “on the basis of
comparative literature” as had Justin, but rather “scientically,” that is, relying on chronology
and Greek literary scholarship.118 The three aforementioned ancient authors incorporated Tat-
ian’s argument into their own respective projects, and so, to this degree, they may be regarded
as heirs of his legacy. Nevertheless, what is noticeable even here is the limited engagement
with Tatian’s thought that these three authors demonstrate.
Sources from further east are even murkier. The Diatessaron continued to be used among
Syriac speakers until the early fth century when bishops like Rabbula and Theodoret sought to
extirpate the practice, so this too represents an aspect of Tatian’s legacy. Yet, what is striking is
that our earliest Syriac sources not only do not know much of Tatian’s corpus; they do not
even have a record of his arrival in the east, his authorship of the Diatessaron, or even his exis-
tence,119 in contrast to other gures like Marcion and Bardasian who left behind a historical
memory in Ephrem and other Edessene sources. It is not until the Syriac translation of Euse-
bius’ history that Syriac authors begin naming Tatian, and by that point their knowledge is
entirely dependent upon the Caesarean historian.120 Nevertheless, this reticence within the an-
cient Syriac sources has not prevented scholars from grand statements about Tatian’s legacy in
the East. For example, Arthur Vööbus once described Tatian’s inuence as “far-reaching” and
then commented, “Wherever it was that Tatian exerted his energy and devotion, his work con-
stituted a major event in the growth and development of Syrian Christianity.”121 Han J.W. Dri-
116. Clement, str. 1.21.101.2 (Stählin, 64); Origen, Cels. 1.16 (Marcel Borret, Origène. Contre Celse, Tome I, SC
132 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1967), 118).
117. Eusebius, HE 4.29.7; prep. ev. 10.11. See also the preface to Eusebius’ Chronicon where he lists Clement,
Africanus, and Tatian as authorities on the antiquity of Moses (Helm, 7).
118. Droge, Homer or Moses, 92-93, 96.
119. Cf. Koltun-Fromm, “Re-Imagining Tatian,” 20.
120. See the survey of Syriac and Arabic testimonia in Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron, 35-67.
121. Vööbus, History of Asceticism, 1.36, 39.
- 29 -
jvers was even more emphatic. While Vööbus was primarily concerned with the inuence of
encratite glosses in the Diatessaron, Drijvers examined the Oration, concluding “Marcion and Tat-
ian were the most inuential personalities in the shaping of that typical Syriac theology which
gave rise to so many speculations and fantasies.” He further claimed, “third century writings
like the Syriac apocryphal Acts of Thomas and the Odes of Solomon reect his ideas to such an extent
that they can be considered a commentary on them.”122 Drijvers even went on to assert that Ta-
tian’s thought “can be considered the rst phase of later Antiochene theology,” such that he
stands at the fountainhead of the stream that would subsequently include such luminaries as
Lucian of Antioch, Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.123 In her 2003 mono-
graph, Emily J. Hunt agreed with the assessment of Drijvers, highlighting the following fea-
tures evident both in Tatian’s Oration and in these early Syriac works: an individualistic soteriol-
ogy, the requirement of continence upon conversion, and nally the notion of the union of
the soul with the divine, expressed with clothing imagery.124
I nd many of these purported parallels to be so general that they can scarcely bear the
weight that scholars would like to place upon them. Without going through all of the alleged
parallels in detail, one fundamental difculty should not be overlooked. If the Odes of Solomon,
the Acts of Thomas, Aphrahat, and Ephrem really were so inuenced by Tatian, why is it that no
Syriac sources remember his name or attribute these ideas to him? Drijvers’ explanation is that
“Tatian’s religious ideas ... were common coin in the East Syrian area, so that there was no ex-
plicit need to mention his name as the founder of a special sect as Irenaeus and others did.”125
Yet this intended solution in fact only makes clearer the problem. If Tatian’s “religious ideas”
were really so at home in the East Syrian area, how can the presence of such ideas in these texts
be attributed to his inuence? The more like his surroundings Tatian appears, the less we are
able to assert his signicance in the forming of that milieu. For example, was it really the case
122. Han J.W. Drijvers, “East of Antioch: Forces and Structures in the Development of Early Syriac Theology,”
in East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity, (London: Variorum Reprints, 1984), 3, 7.
123. Drijvers, “East of Antioch,” 17. He carried forward this argument in Han J.W. Drijvers, “Early Forms of
Antiochene Christology,” in After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor Albert Van Roey
for His Seventieth Birthday, ed. C. Laga, J.A. Munitiz, and L. Van Romay, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 18
(Leuve: Peeters, 1985), 99-113.
124. Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century, 155-175.
125. Drijvers, “East of Antioch,” 7.
- 30 -
that his emphasis on a supposedly “individualistic soteriology” was so distinctive that we can
attribute its later presence in other texts to his inuence? I think the answer here must be
negative.
Conclusion: Tatian and Second-Century Christianity

Why then did such an educated Christian as Tatian not leave behind a more discernible
trace in the historical record? Here I think I do have the beginnings of an answer, though it is
perhaps not an entirely satisfying one. Scholars tend to assume that the gures they are study-
ing have grand systems of thought, in which each passing assertion has a rationale behind it,
once its position in the greater whole has been ascertained. Exemplifying this laudable tenden-
cy, Emily J. Hunt, in the most recent English monograph on Tatian, claims to discern a “strong
principle of internal consistency” in the Oration that would have precluded any signicant, sub-
sequent changes in his theological views.126 Yet I wonder if we have not been taken in rather
too much by Tatian’s rhetorical prowess. There is no doubt that his Oration is a oratorical re-
works show, demonstrating in short compass a stunning breadth of learning. Indeed, one
would be hard pressed to nd another Christian work from the second-century, or even from
all of late antiquity, that had such a concentration of references to Hellenistic paideia in such a
short compass. But a demonstration of wide learning on a range of diverse topics is something
different from the intellectual ability required to consolidate that learning and appropriate it in
the service of a larger aim. Those gures from the second century who did leave lasting lega-
cies exemplify the latter skill. Marcion had one central insight, a truly new idea in the history
of Christian thought, which he used to create a new canon and an entire system of theology. If
anything Valentinus’ system was even grander, with its elaborate hierarchy of aeons populating
the realm between heaven and earth, along with accompanying exegetical and ritualistic prac-
tices. Irenaeus may not have been as educated as Tatian, but he managed to produce an overar-
ching theological vision uniting the church’s emerging canon with its rule of faith that would
inspire centuries of Christian reection. We can point to each of these gures as bringing forth
new ideas, or at least radicalizing existing tendencies, and assimilating them into some sort of
intellectual system, with the result that they left behind legacies of followers who carried for-
126. Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century, 50-51.
- 31 -
ward their insights. But the same cannot be said for Tatian. The only truly distinctive ideas we
can attribute to him are 1) the “scientic” proof of Moses’ antiquity; 2) the denial of Adam’s
salvation; and 3) the creation of a gospel edition uniting the four canonical sources. In con-
trast, his system of Valentinian-like aeons or rather “powers”—whatever they may have
been—was not striking enough for anyone to bother saying much about it, and his rejection of
marriage was likely just one further example of the encratite mood existing among some sec-
ond-century Christians, rather than being the cause of that movement. Even his proof of
Moses’ antiquity, impressive though it is, appears as a one-off scholarly achievement rather
than an integrated piece of a comprehensive approach to human intellectual endeavor.
Maybe after all Irenaeus was right. Maybe Tatian did take elements from a number of
existing Christian thinkers and movements, no doubt with some modication of his own to
give them an air of sophistication and erudition. But it remains open to question whether he
succeeded in turning these isolated emphases into an overall system of thought that could
command the allegiance of a great many followers. The most glaring of these conicting lines
of evidence is that he evidently attributed the Mosaic law to a lesser divine being in order to
deny the ongoing validity of marriage, while at the same time using Moses’ antiquity to argue
for Christianity’s truth and subsuming the agency of the Logos into that of God himself. More-
over, he emphasized the importance of “order” in theology, cosmology, and morality, while
failing to achieve a clear order in his sole surviving work, and he displayed remarkable skill in
editing gospel literature though the rationale for his creation remains frustratingly elusive. Fi-
nally, he established a “school” whose later history and inuence is almost indiscernible. Per-
haps, then, the best indicators we have of Tatian, the second-century Christian intellectual, are
the seemingly haphazard structure of his Oration and the unnished, or unexplained, list of mis-
cellaneous biblical “problems.” Tatian may have been the most educated Christian of his age,
but it would be another generation before the burgeoning Christian movement could claim as
its own an intellectual who managed to assimilate a thorough grounding in Hellenistic paideia
with a compelling vision for a distinctly Christian intellectual project, one which drew upon a
deeper grounding in Hellenistic philosophy than was probably available to Tatian the
rhetorician.
- 32 -

The Problemata of Tatian Recovering The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Problemata of Tatian Recovering The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“The Problemata of Tatian” (07.01.

“The Problemata of Tatian: Recovering the Fragments of a

broadly uncontested information about this second-century gure. However, as I attempted to

Problem 1: Tatian the Marcionite?

8. Irenaeus, haer. 1.28.1 (SC 264.356-57).

10. Tertullian, De ieiun. 15.1.

Problem 2: Tatian the Valentinian?

25. Or. 18.6 (Trelenberg, 134).

inuence of 2 Cor. 4:4-6.

30. Hippolytus, ref. om. haer. 10.18 (Marcovich, 398).

31. Origen, Cels. 6.51.

Problem 3: Tatian the Proto-Monarchian?

38. Cf. Hanig, “Tatian und Justin. Ein Vergleich,” 34-38.

43. Justin, dial. 61.1-3.

48. Justin, dial. 128.4 (Bobichon, 530). ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν τί ἐστι.

49. Justin, dial. 128.4 (Bobichon, 530); 61.2 (Bobichon, 346).

50. Tatian, or. 5.4 (Trelenberg, 96).

51. Cf. Hanig, “Tatian und Justin. Ein Vergleich,” 57-59.

52. Justin, 2 apol. 5.3 (Minns and Parvis, 286).

53. Tatian, or. 19.9 (Trelenberg, 138).

54. Cf. Hanig, “Tatian und Justin. Ein Vergleich,” 61-63.

58. Cf. Trelenberg, Tatianos, 219-224.

Problem 4: Tatian the Encratite?

62. Irenaeus, haer. 3.23.1-8.

63. Hippolytus, ref. om. haer. 8.16; 8.20.

Τατιανὸν διαδέχονται, φύσει ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ πεπλανημένοι τε καὶ ἠπατημένοι.

71. Koltun-Fromm, “Re-Imagining Tatian,” 2-3.

75. Clement, str. 3.6.49.1 (Stählin, 218).

81. Clement, str. 3.12.82.2.

83. Cf. Koltun-Fromm, “Re-Imagining Tatian,” 18-30.

Problem 5: Tatian the Rhetorician?

90. Tatian, or. 15.4; 40.3 (Trelenberg, 124; 188).

95. A conclusion also reached by Karadimas, Tatian’s Oratio Ad Graecos, 9.

Problem 6: Tatian the Gospel Editor?

97. Karadimas, Tatian’s Oratio Ad Graecos, 9-24.

101. Koltun-Fromm, “Re-Imagining Tatian,” 29.

102. Eusebius, HE 4.29.6.

106. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus, 25-26.

provided with absolutely accurate historical-chronological information about Jesus,” since he

Without a foundation in a strange doctrine of verbal inspiration—verbal but non-con-

107. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus, 26.

109. Grant, The Earliest Lives of Jesus, 28.

Problem 7: Tatian’s Legacy?

113. Irenaeus, haer. 1.28.1 (SC 264.356).

118. Droge, Homer or Moses, 92-93, 96.

119. Cf. Koltun-Fromm, “Re-Imagining Tatian,” 20.

121. Vööbus, History of Asceticism, 1.36, 39.

124. Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century, 155-175.

125. Drijvers, “East of Antioch,” 7.

Conclusion: Tatian and Second-Century Christianity

126. Hunt, Christianity in the Second Century, 50-51.

You might also like