Andrew and I have speculated about the original author of Against Marcion using a gospel harmony to explain certainly of the anomalies (i.e. the accusation that Marcion 'cut things' from Matthew). Here is the smoking gun:
So let us ask once for all a question I have already discussed elsewhere, whether, while coming down through the Creator's territory and in opposition to him, he could have expected the Creator to let him in, and allow him to pass on from thence into the earth, which no less is the Creator's. Next however, admitting that he came down, I demand to know the rest of the order of that descent. It is no matter if somewhere the word 'appeared' (appamisse) is used. 'Appear' (Apparere) suggests a sudden and unexpected sight, <by one> who at some instant has cast his eyes on a thing which has at that instant appeared (apparuit). To have come down, however—when that takes place the fact is in view and comes beneath the eye: it also puts the event into sequence, and enforces the inquiry in what sort of aspect, in what sort of array, with how much speed or moderation, as also at what time of day, or of night, he came down: and besides that, who saw him coming down, who reported it, and who gave assurance of a fact not easily credible even to him who gives assurance. It is quite wrong in fact, that Romulus should have had Proculus to vouch for his ascent into heaven,3 yet that Christ should not have provided himself with a reporter of his god's descent from heaven—though that one must have gone up by the same ladder of lies by which this one came down. Also what had he to do with Galilee, if he was not the Creator's Christ, for whom that province was predestined <as the place> for him to enter on his preaching? For Isaiah says: Drink this first, do it quickly, province of Zebulon and land of Naphtali, and ye others who <dwell between> the sea-coast and Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light: ye who inhabit the land, sitting in the shadow of death, a light has arisen upon you.a It is indeed to the good that Marcion's god too should be cited as one who gives light to the gentiles, for so there was the greater need for him to come down from heaven—though, if so, he ought to have come down into Pontus rather than Galilee.
I've always wondered about the interest in the author with respect to the word 'appeared.' While Against Marcion now cites the prophesy of Isaiah as it appears in Greek - where the word 'appeared' is not present - the Arabic Diatessaron reads:
And he left Nazareth, and came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea shore, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali: that it might be fulfilled which was said in Isaiah the prophet, who said, The land of Zebulun, the land of Naphtali, The way of the sea, the passage of the Jordan, Galilee of the nations: The people sitting in darkness Saw a great light, And those sitting in the region and in the shadow of death, There appeared to them a light.
This is clearly what the original author was referring to despite the distraction of the 'normative' citation of Isaiah.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
videte lumen magnum: qui habitatis terram, sedentes in umbra mortis, lumen ortum est super vos (Against Marcion 4.7)
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
And he left Nazareth, and came and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea shore, in the borders of Zebulun and Naphtali: that it might be fulfilled which was said in Isaiah the prophet, who said, The land of Zebulun, the land of Naphtali, The way of the sea, the passage of the Jordan, Galilee of the nations: The people sitting in darkness Saw a great light, And those sitting in the region and in the shadow of death, There appeared to them a light.
And he taught them on the sabbaths. And they wondered because of his doctrine: for his word was as if it were authoritative. And there was in the synagogue a man with an unclean devil, and he cried out with a loud voice, and said, Let me alone; what have I to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth?
And then the commentary in Adv Marc 4:
For in the meanwhile he fulfilled the prophecy in respect of place. From heaven straightway into the synagogue. As the saying goes, let us get down to it: to your task, Marcion : remove even this from the gospel, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and, It is not <meet> to take away the children's bread and give it to dogs:c for this gives the impression that Christ belongs to Israel.
In other words, the author was using a Diatessaron not the gospel of Luke. The Luke-based argument was built on top of a Diatessaron-based original text.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Then he went down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, and on the Sabbath he taught the people. 32 They were amazed at his teaching, because his words had authority.
The emboldened word is removed from the Arabic Diatessaron. But if you think about it. If the Diatessaron-gospel of Ammonius was Matthew-based, then we would have had the left most column cite Matthew 4:15 - 17:
Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him. Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee. And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
But the Arabic Diatessaron - and the author of Against Marcion for that matter - does not follow this order. Instead he switches 'straight to the synagogue.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
He notes that Clement alludes to the prophesy in a way that reflects 'Marcionite' understanding of the 'light' here:
a light from heaven brighter than the sun has shined upon us who have been buried in darkness and shut up in the shadow of death
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
we arrive at the verb ﺪﻧﺪﻳﺩ [didand] or "they saw" (perhaps better: "they realized"). ﺪﻧﺪﻳﺩ is in the simple past tense because the action happens once within a defined and short interval (in an instant they realized). Since the people are realizing (thinking) something, what comes next will be reported in the modified direct mode--from the time perspective of the people doing the thinking
.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
The Diatessaronic text could, of course, be explained as just a simple omission on Tatian's part of one word from the OTP if not for the existence of a grammatical tension running through several of the Diatessaronic witnesses, an issue that will prove to be very instructive.
In several witnesses, a grammatically singular subject is paired with a plural verb, a pattern that would have to be considered very unusual in both of the languages involved, especially in translations from texts which do not exhibit this same grammatical tension. Consider the following:
Ephrem 1.7 The people who are sitting (sing.) in darkness have seen (pl.) a great light
Sypal: The community which sat (sing.) in mourning has seen (pl.) a great light
Western witnesses: Populus qui sedebat in tenebris uidit lucem magnam ("the community which sat (sing.) in mourning have seen (pl.) a great light")
Because of the evident tension between the singular subject and plural verb in each of these texts, it is clear that each one underwent a similar kind of corruption”. But what is the source of this corruption?
More than a century ago, D.R. Anger proposed that this citation in Matthew from Isa. 9:1 had been influenced by an allusion to the similarly worded text in Ps. 107:10”. Based on the Diatessaronic evidence adduced here, I would argue that Matthew made more than just an allusion to Ps. 107:10, rather he nearly quoted it verbatim in the middle of this longer citation from Isaiah.
If we look back to the text of the Persian Harmony, we find that it has collapsed the two halves of this poetic parallelism from Isaiah into a single statement, “The people who sat in darkness, in the shadow of death, have seen a great light." But the phrase “who sat in darkness, in the shadow of death” is precisely the reading of Ps. 107:10 in its LXX form (106:10 in the LXX). The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, at least in its extant form, preserves both halves of the parallelism, but in the second half it too preserves the exact wording of Ps. 107:10 “Those sitting in darkness and the shadow of death” against the Greek Gospel text's “To those dwelling in the region and shadow of death." Moreover, two other early texts not associated with the Diatessaron preserve the wording of the Psalm against that of Isaiah, while a third alludes to this same wording.
... We can now understand the problems that arise in the Diatessaronic witnesses observed above. The omission of any reference to “region” or “land” in a host of Diatessaronic witnesses is due simply to the fact that the original text of Matthew lacked this reference. Matthew read “in darkness and the shadow of death” with Ps. 107:10 not “in the region and shadow of death” with Isaiah. In terms of the plural verb “have seen” in several Diatessaronic witnesses — which agrees with the plural verb of the MT of Isaiah but against the singular verb of the Greek text of Matthew (eiðev) — the plural verb can be maintained if one is using the phrase from Ps. 107:10 (106:10 LXX: ko6muévoug £v okótel koi okus, Bovátou) as the subject (with, of course, the appropriate change of case) since ko.6muévoug is plural. Greek Matthew, in reading the singular ko6muevog from the first part of the parallel structure in Isa. 9:1 as the subject, must change the plural verb ("Non) to the singular (eiðev).
9:1 LXX was introduced, but the plural verb was not changed to the singular in all cases, leaving the observed
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light: ye who inhabit the land, sitting in the shadow of death, a light has arisen upon you.
populus qui sedetis in tenebris, videte lumen magnum: qui habitatis terram, sedentes in umbra mortis, lumen ortum est super vos.
Vulgate:
populus qui ambulabat in tenebris vidit lucem magnam habitantibus in regione umbrae mortis lux orta est eis
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote