Publisher's copyright statement:Copyright c Cambridge University Press. This paper has been accepted for publication and will appear in a revised form, subsequent to editorial input by Cambridge University Press, in 'New Testament Studies' published by Cambridge University Press. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=NTS Additional information:
Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Ammonius left off and attempted to accomplish the same goal, albeit using a different and improved method. Using the textual parallels presented in the Diatessaron-Gospel as his "raw data," Eusebius converted these textual units into numbers which he then collated in ten tables, or "canons" standing at the beginning of a gospelbook. The resulting cross-reference system, consisting of the Canon Tables as well as sectional enumeration throughout each gospel, allowed the user to find parallels between the gospels, but in such a way that the literary integrity of each of the four was preserved. Moreover, Eusebius also exploited the potential of his invention by including theologically suggestive cross-references, thereby subtly guiding the reader of the fourfold gospel to what might be called a canonical reading of the four. -2 -canonical gospels. To be sure, the Synoptic problem is a more precise question about the literary origins of the gospels, and it is unclear to what degree these two authors were pursuing an answer to this exact issue. Nevertheless, an articulation of the Synoptic problem begins with a simple observation of the degree of both convergence and divergence among Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and it is precisely such parallels and non-parallels that these two authors were aware of and attempting to investigate.