Physical Characteristics:
Measurement is 9.5 x 10.5 cm
Written on one side of the parchment, so presumably from a roll
The parchment has, for an unknown reason, been cut on three sides (left-top-right) creating straight edges. In contrast the bottom edge is badly damaged. This suggests that the original ms. was cut up prior to this fragment being buried.
The right margin of the text is clearly visible, but cutting on the left edge has resulted in the loss of some text, such that on average the first five letters must be reconstructed for each line.
Text Included:
Contains c.15 lines, of which 14 are legible. The text preserved represents two pericopae of gospel text, demarcated from one another by a large space on line three at the end of one section and start of the next. The first is the pericope recording the scene at the cross and the second is the beginning of the pericope about Jesus’ burial.
The text presents a compilation of phrases drawn from the parallel accounts of the four canonical gospels, albeit with some additional editorial work done as well, such as the usage of τον σταυρωθεντα in place of the ταυτα in Luke 23:49. For this reason, since the publication of the editio princeps the majority opinion has been that the fragment represents the only surviving Greek portion of Tatian’s Diatessaron. The fragment was therefore seized upon by Diatessaronic scholars to see what information it could offer, and was put to serve in debates about the original language of the Diatessaron, whether Greek or Syriac. A minority opinion, arguing against identification with the Diatessaron, was put forward by Parker et al. in 1999, but their arguments were cogently answered by Joosten 2003, who proved beyond reasonable doubt that this fragment does indeed represent Tatian’s gospel. Specifically, Joosten highlighted that the sequence of descriptions of Joseph of Arimathea found in the fragment also occurs with minor variations in other Diatessaronic witnesses, such as Codex Fuldensis and the later Arabic harmony. The concurrence of sequence could hardly be a coincidence and therefore demonstrates a literary relationship.
Date:
Kraeling, who edited the editio princeps (1935), dated it to the third century, assuming that it was created afresh when the Christian house church in Dura came into existence sometime between 222 and 235. Parker et al. (1999) argue that the connection with the house church is unproven and propose instead, on paleographical grounds, that the fragment is more suited to the second half of the second century. The definite terminus ante quem is 256/267 when the parchment was buried in a defensive embankment in preparation for a Sassanian attack that resulted in the destruction of the city.
Other Features:
Three nomina sacra occur: ιη for Ιησου(ς) in line 10; θυ for θεου in line 13; and στα for σταυρωθεντα in line 3. The latter is the only known occurrence of this abbreviation, though since the editio princeps it has been universally agreed that it stands for σταυρωθεντα. Other forms of σταυροω are abbreviated in other mss., however. Parker et al. argue that the earlier version of σταυροω abbreviation is στ- (see Codex Bezae and P46) which was fairly quickly abandoned in favor of στρ-. If so, then the Dura fragment represents the earlier version of this abbreviation. It might also be relevant that the form τον σταυρωθεντα also occurs in a similar context in the Gospel of Peter (13.56).
Online Resources:
High quality images have been made available online by the Beinecke Library of Yale University.
There is an introduction to the Dura Fragment at Early Christian Writings, which also provides a transcription and translation based on Parker et al. 1999.
Leuven Database of Ancient Books Number 3071
Yale University Art Gallery has an online exhibit of Dura-Europos, including virtual tours of the Christian house church, Synagogue, and Mithraeum in the city.
Print Resources:
For the editio princeps, see Carl H. Kraeling, A Greek Fragment of Tatian’s Diatessaron from Dura, Studies and Documents 3 (London: Christophers, 1935)
The final version published in the Dura series was C.B. Welles, The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report 5, pt. 1 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), 74.
An overview of the role the fragment played in Diatessaronic scholarship may be found in William L. Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 196-203.
More recent studies of the fragment are D. C. Parker, D. G. K. Taylor, and M. S. Goodacre, “The Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony,” in D. G. K. Taylor, Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, SBL Text-Critical Studies 1 (Atlanta, GA 1999), 192-228; and Jan Joosten, “The Dura Parchment and the Diatessaron,” Vigiliae Christianae 57 (2003): 159-75.
The existence of the fragment in the vicinity of the Christian house church has also inspired efforts to coordinate the artwork of the Christian baptistry with scenes from the Diatessaron. Along these lines see Ulrich Mell, Christliche Hauskirche und Neues Testament. Die Ikonologie des Baptisteriums von Dura Europos und das Diatessaron Tatians, Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 77 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). However, alternative proposals have also been put forward for interpreting the artwork. See, e.g., Michael Peppard, “Illuminating the Dura-Europos Baptistry: Comparanda for the Female Figures,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20 (2012): 543-74.
Gospel Manuscripts 