Another Proof that Marcion's Gospel was Diatessaronic

[Secret Alias]

Here is another interesting proof that I stumbled upon. I happened to have Maries and Merciers (Patrologia Orientalis Tome XXVIII) French translation of Eznik sitting in the cupboard of my laundry room (!). I was doing the laundry and took it out and found an important gem. The way Eznik argues against Marcion is very reminiscent of not only Ephrem (because of the underlying Diatessaron) but also the ur-text to Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem. Let me show you what I mean. Apologies about the French:

Le Christ aux pauvres beautitude donne aux misericordieux aussi savoir: "qu'ils peuvent compter trouver misericorde" (Mt v:3,7) et le Dieu de la Loi a tel point montre misercorde que devant la bete de somme d'un ennemi, tontbec sous le faix, il defend de passer son chemin (Ex 23:5) que (cet ennemi) soit quelqu'un du peuple (d'Israel) ou des nations etrangeres. Et, chevreau dans le lait de la mere, il defend de (le) cuire (Ex 23:19) et une mere-oiseau sur oeufs ou poussins assise, ensemble avec eux il defend de la prendre (Dt 22:6,7)!
La, (le Juste) dit: "Tu aimeras ton prochain comme toi-meme" (Lev 19:18); et ici (Jesus) dit: "Tu aimeras le Seigneur Dieu de tout ton coeur et tu aimeras ton prochain comme toi-meme; parce que a ces deux commandments se tiennent suspendus la Loi et les Prophetes."(Mt 22:37,39,40)
Puis, il dit: "Point ne suis-je venu abolir la Loi ou les Prophetes, mais bien accomplir."(Mt 5:17) Comment donc oppose a la Loi serait-il celui-la qui est venu accomplir la Loi et les Prophetes?
Et il disait au lepreux qu'il avait purife: "Va, presente offrande pour cette tienne purification, comme l'a commande Moise dans la Loi." (Mt 8:4)
Et au Docteur de la Loi qui lui demanda "Quelle chose ayant faite, aurai-je la vie eternelle en heritage?" Il dit "Les commandments de la Loi, tu les connais" Et en response a sa seconde demande "Quels commandements?" Il dit "Le "Point ne commets adultere!" Le "Pointe ne vole!" Le "Point ne tue" (editors note - Eznik parait avoir ici contamine Mth 19:16 avec Mk 10:17 - 31; Luke 18:18 - 30) et Luke 10:25 sv. le Docteur de la Loi n'est qu'en Luc 10:25).

Excuse me for not getting all the accents down correctly. There is a lot of interest.

The first thing is clearly that Eznik cites mostly Matthew against Marcion. Now when I was under the spell of all the professional 'Marcionites' in the scholarly community, I would look at this passage as if Eznik is speaking to his readers. The fact that he prefers Matthew over Luke here isn't strange. No, no. Eznik knows that Marcion corrupted Luke (even though he never comes out and says it). He's just engaged in 'odd behavior.'

But then when we look at Tertullian the same quotes emerge. The same habit of citing Matthew against Marcion. Then I went through this stage where I tried to prove that the Marcionite gospel was Diatessaronic by the fact that the arguments against Marcion were mostly made from Matthew.

But now I look at this section and I am drawn to the fact that Eznik must have used a Diatessaron. Look at the strange mixture of Luke 10:25 and the stuff from Matthew 19/Mark 10/Luke 18. The proper word for this is 'harmonized.' It is a 'harmonized' reading. If Eznik is using a Diatessaron what does he know about Luke? What does he know about Marcion corrupting Luke? Probably not much.

[Secret Alias]

"Christ gave happiness to the poor, and to the compassionate because they are among those who will find compassion." (Matt 5:3-7) And the God of the Law demonstrated such compassion that he would not allow neglect of the load of the saddle horse of a fallen enemy, even if it might belong to the people of foreign tribes (cf. Ex 23:5). And he would not allow a kid to be cooked in its mother's milk (cf. Ex 23:19); nor a bird brooding on eggs or its nestlings to be taken together. (cf. Deut 22:6) There it says: "You will love your neighbor as yourself." (Lev 19:18) And here it says "You will love the Lord God with all your heart, and you will love your neighbor as yourself.' (Matt 22:39) "Because by these two commandments hang the Law and the prophets." (Matt 22:37-40; cf. Deut 6:5) And it says: "I did not come to abolish the laws or the prophets, but to fulfil them" (Matt 5:17)

So how is he in opposition to the Law, he who came to fulfil the law and the prophets? And he said to the leper whom he cleansed: "Go, make a sacrifice for the sake of your being purified as Moses commanded in that law." (Matt 8:4) And to the lawyer who questioned him: "What is to be done in order that I might inherit eternal life?" He said "Know the commandments of the Law."

And a second time he was asked, "What commandments?" He said, "Do not commit adultery!" "Do not steal!" "Do not kill!" (Luke 10:25-27; 18-20) By which it is clear that he was not teaching in opposition to the laws but rather in agreement with them. Again, as for the not being angry, the not killing, it is not that there is any opposition, but rather assuredly they are in agreement. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&h ... He+said%22

[Secret Alias]

I've noticed this before in the anti-Marcionite literature. Luke 10:25 - 29 was originally a part of Mark 10:17f. Notice how Luke 10:25 reads in the standard version:

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

Again I want to stress, the old me would try to argue that Marcionite gospel was Diatessaronic. I still believe that. But it is a slam dunk argument to make the case for Marcion's opponents gospel being Diatessaronic, no?

[Secret Alias]

Matthew 19:16f:

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

But notice that Eznik's first commandment is the same as Aphrahat who certainly used a Diatessaron:

And again, regarding that rich [man] who came before our Lord, and said to him, 'What shall I do that I may inherit life eternal?'. Our Lord says to him, 'You shall not commit adultery."

The adultery first order of the commandments is a feature of the Diatessaron:

https://books.google.com/books?id=HftEA ... on&f=false

[Secret Alias]

Epiphanius's sources's gospel has "instead of, 'Thou knowest the commandments' says, 'I know the commandments.' This must have been said by the youth with whom Jesus is speaking. So:

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life? I know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”

[Secret Alias]

Ephrem's Diatessaron was not the source of the "I know" the Commandments:

Ephrem presents the meeting between the rich man and Jesus as a conflict between the old and the new. The rich man 'kept the old (Kcyno) Law perfectly' (xv:6), but, in the person but, in the person of Jesus, he encountered a 'new (i<^) preaching... of grace' and someone who 'was about to give a new commandment' (xv:9). It is through this new preaching that the former ( <h^v>) [commandments] are cultivated' (xv:8). According to Ephrem, the rich man was being challenged to recognize that 'what was lacking in the old (rCdxn^) has been fulfilled in the new' (xv:4). The same categories are found in the Sermon commentary, according to which the former (rC^nno) things have passed away, and have been replaced by the commands of the New ( k^) Testament (vi:3b). As portrayed by Ephrem, the rich man failed to trust in heavenly bread or to reflect on what is above, because his mind was turned towards the earth. If Ephrem understands the rich man as a case of misplaced trust, he also suggests that he labours under a misplaced love. In xv:4 he addresses the rich man in the following terms: 'If only one is good, and he is in heaven, lift up your love (ns*^) from the earth to the Good One, whom you love (>i)'. He implies, therefore, a conflict within the rich man between his proclaimed love for the Good One in heaven and his actual love for the goods of the earth ... Ephrem states that when the rich man was faced with the greater demands of the Lord's perfection he 'turned himself aside' (xv:9). In the language of the ... the old and the new. In commenting on the Lord's question to the rich man, "Do you (not) know the commandments?'', he remarks that the Lord, thereby, 'showed that there were life-giving commandments prior (j*,w) to him, and he also showed that