The History of the Short Form of the Tenth Commandment

[Stephan Huller]

The exact term appears in Jeremiah - 14Who says, “I will build for myself a house of dimensions with spacious upper rooms. And he frames/distinguishes (diestalmena) for himself windows, and panels in cedar. 4QJerc has qrw' (without a prefixed waw), supporting the LXX reading of a passive participle: diestalmena, "structured (for a window)."

[Stephan Huller]

So it would seem that there are two different renderings of the original gospel variant - the Greek with a passive participle diestalmena (= was disposed, given)/the Latin text with distincta (= 'is distinguished'). The fact that the saying 'combines' (according to our stupid way of looking at things) saying from John and one from the synoptics is surprising enough. I think if we investigate even further we will see that the entire Marcionite tradition was framed (= diestalmena) by the importance of saying.

"A new commandment I give unto you: "That you love one another" I now read what is distinguished in the Law "You shall love the Lord God with your whole mind" and secondly "Your neighbor as yourself."

With this interpretation Jesus said that in the Law (of Moses i.e. not the ten commandments) there is one relationship reserved for god and another for your neighbor (= humanity). As we have seen the gospel of early Christianity demanded of people to see God (= Jesus) in everyone around them.

But in the very manner the Church Fathers misrepresented all of the beliefs and practices of the Marcionites, Irenaeus et al essentially lie about this lost saying. The exaggerated and misconstrued the original context of diastello and said meant the Marcionites 'separated' the gospel and the Law. Over and over again, Tertullian speaks of what he calls 'the separation (separation) of the Law and gospel in the Marcionite tradition. I think this is reflective of the original saying again

The separation of Law and Gospel is the primary and principal exploit of Marcion (separatio legis et evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis). His disciples cannot deny this, which stands at the head of their document, that document by which they are inducted, into and confirmed in this heresy. For such are Marcion's Antitheses, or Contrary Oppositions, which are designed to show the conflict and disagreement of the Gospel and the Law, so that from the diversity of principles between those two documents they may argue further for a diversity of gods. Therefore, as it is precisely this separation (separatio) of Law and Gospel which has suggested a god of the Gospel, other than and in opposition to the God of the Law, it is evident that before that separation was made, <that> god was still unknown who has just come into notice in consequence of the argument for separation: and so he was not revealed by Christ, who came before the separation, but was invented by Marcion, who set up the separation in opposition to that peace between Gospel and Law which previously, from the appearance of Christ until the impudence of Marcion, had been kept unimpaired and unshaken by virtue of that <sound> reasoning which refused to contemplate any other god of the Law and the Gospel than that Creator against whom after so long a time, by a man of Pontus, separation has been let loose.

This short and sharp argument calls for justification on our part against the clatter and clamour of the opposite party. They allege that in separating the Law and the Gospel Marcion did not so much invent a new rule <of faith> as refurbish a rule previously debased. So then Christ, our most patient Lord, has through all these years borne with a perversion of the preaching about himself, until, if you please, Marcion should come to his rescue.

Now as a ninth century Greek - Latin Dictionary makes clear in one of its pages "Diastole : separatio, <h>ypodiastole subseparatio." https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 0786,d.cGU diastole is the noun formed from the verb diastello.

[Stephan Huller]

More on the exact meaning of διεσταλμένα. It was rare enough to merit a reference in Hesychius http://books.google.com/books?id=pmxBAQ ... B1&f=false where it is said to be the equivalent of the more common κατεσκευασμένα. It often had a negative meaning. Demosthenes for instance speaks of a time "when the matter reached the court, everything was contrived (kateskeuasmena) by them so that they had more time to plead their case than the speaker." The meaning however is not exclusively negative and indeed has the meaning 'was made,' 'was constructed' just as we saw with διεσταλμένα. Nevertheless it would be odd, when you think about it, to have Jesus declare:

A new commandment I give unto you: "That you love others" I now read what is established in the Law "You shall love the Lord God with your whole mind" and secondly "Your neighbor as yourself."

Think about it. He is either (a) conceived as a human being who is establishing a 'new commandment' on his own authority or (b) he is a god establishing a new commandment on his divine authority. Nevertheless he speaks of the ordinance as something 'new.' Indeed this is undoubtedly why - if we look back at the Dialogue, Marcus immediately emphasizes the 'newness' of the commandment:

MarKus the Marcionite. The Saviour clearly says, "A new commandment I give to you"(Jn 13:34) The new one is not the same as the old, for the Saviour says again, "New wine they put into new wineskins, and both are preserved". The new commandment is not the complement of the old one, for the Saviour says again, "Nobody puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment" (Matt 9:16) Neither Christ nor the Apostle is the complement of the Law.
ADamantius. Observe as judge noble Eutropius how my opponent hunting after words takes in a wrong sense instructions so clearly laid down! Please request the Gospel to be read, and it will be revealed what new commandment the Saviour enjoined.
EUTR: Let it be read!
AD. I will read: "A new commandment" he says "I give to you that you love one another as the Father has loved you" (cf. Jn 13:34 different than main recension)
EUTR. It is plain that He designated Love as a new commandment.
AD. Yet the new command is no stranger to the old one previously existing.
MK. The old command of the Law belongs to the Creator God, but the new one comes from the Good God, for He says "Nobody puts unshrunk cloth on an old garment"
AD. How can the new cloth possibly be foreign to the old garment when it is one and the same substance (ousia cf. Arianism) natural to sheep from which woolen are made? But even the art of working in wool had to do with one and the same thing, for it makes both the old and the new. But then even wine is from the same vine that produces both the old and the new. Yet so that I may the more clearly establish the fact that the Saviour did not enjoin anything unheard of before when He said, "A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another [as the Father has loved you]" let me read what is established in the Law "You shall love the Lord God with your whole mind [...] and secondly "[...] your neighbor as yourself."
MK: How it then that the Apostle says "If anyone is in Christ he is a new creature the old things have passed away. Behold all things have become new?"
AD. Please show Marcus what new creature He created; what new heaven or earth, and what new human being. Surely you realize that old things renewed are called 'new' although the same substance still exists?
EUTR. The new things are not different from the old ones in material or kind. The case is like that of a man who should want to remodel one of his vessels that has become old. Using his skill anew, he made out of a piece of material different from that of the old. So what you thought to offer, Marcus, as fresh, new proof, will be found written in the Law, and to assert that there is a God previously unknown who lays down decrees previously unknown is inconceivable.
AD. Paul will demonstrate to you very clearly that love is the fulfilling of the Law. With your permission, I now read the passage referring to this: for "You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal' and if there be any other commandment it is comprised of this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" Love works no evil to one's neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law. (Rom 13.9 - 10 with slight variation from the main recension)
MK. The word 'comprised' shows that the former law has been annulled.
EUTR. I have listened to the Apostle speaking of the fulfillment of the Law. If what is lacking is made up what is already there is not different from what is supplied but is united with it and the completed whole will not be different from what was there before.
AD: The Saviour will more clearly convince you of this in the Gospel. Someone came to him and asked "Good Teacher what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said, 'Why do you call me good? None is Good except One - God." And he said "I know the commandments, (ὁδὲ ἔφη· τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα) "Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness. Honor your father and mother." And he said " All these things I have kept from my youth." When Jesus heard this he said to him "One thing you lack: Sell everything you have and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven."
EUTR. See Marcus! All the audience is astounded at your incredible proofs! He who came as you said to annul the Law and to lay down decrees previously unknown, stated, "You will still lack one thing so that you may receive treasure in heaven?" Therefore the "one thing" is quite clearly revealed as a 'fulfilling' of the others. The Apostle is in complete agreement with this statement when he sets forth "one thing" as the fulfilling of many, that is Love. (p. 95 - 98)

[Stephan Huller]

The same verb comes up quite a bit within the anti-Marcionite tradition reflecting undoubtedly the importance of this (lost) gospel fragment. Consider Clement's statement:

To these, then, and certain others, especially the Marcionites, the Scripture cries, though they listen not, "He that heareth Me shall rest with confidence in peace, and shall be tranquil, fearless of all evil." What, then, will they have the law to be? They will not call it evil, but just distinguishing (διαστέλλοντες) what is good from what is just.

Τούτοις τε οὖν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἑτέροις τισί, μάλιστα δὲ τοῖς ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος ἐμβοᾷ οὐκ ἐπαΐουσιν ἡ γραφή· ὁ δὲ ἐμοῦ ἀκούων ἀναπαήσεται ἐπ' εἰρήνης πεποιθώς, καὶ ἡσυχάσει ἀφόβως ἀπὸ παντὸς 2.8.39.2 κακοῦ. τί τοίνυν τὸν νόμον βούλονται; κακὸν μὲν οὖν οὐ φήσουσι, δίκαιον δέ, διαστέλλοντες τὸ ἀγαθὸν τοῦ δικαίου. [Strom 2.8.39.3]

This is very, very important reflecting the lost gospel juxtaposition perfectly:

the Savior said, "A new commandment I give unto you: "That you love another" I read what was established in the Law (τῷ νόμῳ διεσταλμένα) "You shall love the Lord God with your whole mind and secondly "Your neighbor as yourself."

and even stronger without the passive form in the earlier Latin translation:

the Savior said, "A new commandment I give unto you: "That you love another" I read what was distinguished in the Law (in lege distincta sunt) "You shall love the Lord God with your whole mind and secondly "Your neighbor as yourself."

Before my discovery we didn't have a clue why Tertulian repeats over and over again that Marcion 'juxtaposes' the gospel and the Law contrary (contrario) to one another. Now we finally know and we know even clearer that the present canon was a falsified arranged, deliberately established against the Marcionite canon.

[Stephan Huller]

Interestingly Clement elsewhere references the same underlying arguments and puts forward his own 'juxtaposition' - faith vs. perfection - which is a familiar theme. I bet anything he knew the falseness of the claims about the Marcionites (i.e. that they didn't 'reject' the ten commandments) but posited this faith vs perfection understanding too:

For perfection in faith differs (διαστέλλεται), I think, from ordinary faith. (4.16.101.1)

In other words 'faith vs perfection' is just another way of distinguishing 'ten commandments vs new commandment.' Similarly with respect to those Clement says:

We proceed now to the sequel, and must again contemplate faith; for there are some that draw the distinction (διαστέλλοντες), that faith has reference to the Son, and knowledge to the Spirit. (5.1)

[Stephan Huller]

Believe it or not my seven year old figured the solution to this 2000 year old mystery. You can't both "love God with all your love" and then have anything left for your neighbor. It was originally conceived as an antithesis. Jesus was saying choose (spiritual) communism

[Stephan Huller]

Some more examples of this albeit in Latin

For such are Marcion's Antitheses, or Contrary Oppositions (contrariae oppositiones), which are designed to show the conflict and disagreement of the Gospel and the Law, so that from the diversity of principles between those two documents they may argue further for a diversity of gods [1.13]

So also in the rest of his acts you accuse him of inconsequence and inconsistency, alleging that his instructions are in contradiction (contrarietates praeceptorum) with one another: he forbids labour on sabbath days, and yet at the storming of the city of Jericho he commands the ark to be carried round during eight days which include the sabbath. [2.21]

His antitheses are in conformity with his own world: for it is composed and regulated by elements contrary to each other, yet in perfect proportion etc

[Stephan Huller]

Another thing to notice. Philo understands there to be a distinction between duty to God and duty to your fellow man in Jewish religion.

But among the vast number of particular truths and principles there studied, there stand out practically high above the others two main heads: one of duty to God, as shown by piety and holiness, one of duty to men as shown by humanity and justice, each of them splitting up into multiform branches, all highly laudable. [Special Laws 2.63]

Of course Philo doesn't come out and describe this 'juxtaposition' as an 'antithesis' per se but it is clearly divided nonetheless down to the very structure of the Ten Commandments. There are two tables, 1 - 5 deal with man's obligation to God, 6 - 10 humanity's duty to one another:

And after this commandment relating to the seventh day he gives the fifth, which concerns the honour to be paid to parents, giving it a position on the confines of the two tables of five commandments each; for being the concluding one of the first table, in which the most sacred duties to the Deity are enjoined, it has also some connection with the second table which comprehends the obligations towards our fellow creatures; and the cause of this, I imagine, is as follows: The nature of one's parents appears to be something on the confines between immortal and mortal essences. Of mortal essence, on account of their relationship to men and also to other animals, and likewise of the perishable nature of the body. And of immortal essence, by reason of the similarity of the act of generation to God the Father of the universe.

But it has often happened that men have attached themselves to one of these divisions, and have seemed to neglect the other; for being filled with a sincere love for piety, they have renounced all other occupations and considerations, and have devoted the whole of their lives to the service of God. But they who have thought that beyond their duties to their fellow men there was no such thing as goodness, have clung solely to their fellowship with and to the society of men, and, being wholly occupied by a love of the society of men, have invited all men to an equal participation in all their good things, labouring at the same time to the best of their power to alleviate all their disasters.

Now, one may properly call both these latter, these philanthropic men, and also the former class, the lovers of God, but half perfect in virtue; for those only are perfect who have a good reputation in both points: but those who do not attend to their duties towards men so as to rejoice with them at their common blessings, or to grieve with them at events of a contrary character, and who yet do not devote themselves to piety and holiness towards God, may be thought to have changed into the nature of wild beasts, the very preeminence among whom, in point of ferocity, those are entitled to who neglect their parents, being hostile to both the divisions of virtue above mentioned, namely, piety towards God, and their duty towards men.

Let them, then, not be ignorant that they are convicted before the two tribunals which are the only ones which exist in nature, of impiety as regards their duty towards God, as not worshipping those who have introduced beings who do not exist into existence, and who, in this respect, have imitated God; and as regards their duty towards men, of misanthropy and cruelty. For to whom else will those men do good who neglect their nearest relations and those who have bestowed the greatest gifts upon them, some of which are of so great a character that they do not admit of any requital? For how can he who has been begotten by a parent, in requital again beget his parents, since nature has bestowed on parents this especial endowment in respect of their children, which can never be requited or recompensed?

On which account it is becoming to a man to feel exceeding indignation when people, because they are unable to make a full return for the benefits which they have received, do not choose to make the very slightest; to whom I might say, with perfect propriety, that wild beasts even must be made tame towards men; and, indeed, I have frequently known instances of lions being domesticated, and bears and leopards, and made gentle, not only to those who feed them, by reason of their gratitude for necessaries, but also to others, on account, in my opinion, of their resemblance to their feeders. For it is always well that what is worse should follow what is better, from a hope of deriving improvement; but in this case I shall be constrained to use an entirely opposite language. You who are men, are imitators of some wild beasts ... it is impossible that the invisible God can be piously worshipped by those people who behave with impiety towards those who are visible and near to them. [Decalogue 109 - 120]

It is interesting that the gospel has the man who questions Jesus cite only from the second tablet - the one which deals with humanity's obligation to one another given, as we suggest, Jesus commands humanity to 'love one another as the Father loves you."

[Stephan Huller]

Ok after a long - and hopefully interesting diversion - I finally found the answer to the original question. This pretty much confirms what I suspected. I will cite the source in full (meaning I will stay up an hour or so transcribing The Origin and History of Hebrew Law by J. M. Powis Smith):

In looking for the Mosaic germ out of which the full- grown tradition originated, the natural place to turn is to the Decalogue, which is to be found in Exodus, chapter 20, and in Deuteronomy, chapter 5. There are three different recensions of the original Decalogue.1 That neither one of them is the Decalogue in its original form is practically certain. The differences between them are many, and in some cases very significant. For example, the reason for the observance of the fourth commandment in Exod. 20 : 1 1 is found in the fact that God rested from his creative activity upon the seventh day; hence men should likewise rest upon that day and hallow it; in Deut. 5:14 f. the reason lies in the fact that God delivered Israel from slavery in Egypt, and especial stress is laid upon Israel's duty to give its own slaves rest upon the Sabbath. In the tenth commandment the order of clauses in Exod. 20 : 17 is first the home, second the wife; in Deut. 5:21 the order is just the reverse, and the fields are added to the things not to be coveted. These and several other variations show quite clearly that the Decalogue was changed either deliberately or accidentally in the course of its history. Another fact pointing in the same direction is indicated by the name "Decalogue." This is a translation of a Hebrew phrase meaning "the ten words." The Hebrew term ddbar , rendered "word," is sometimes used where we should speak of a phrase (Job 15:3; Judg. 13:9); but neither "word" nor "phrase" is applicable to such commands as the second, fourth, and fifth. On the other hand, such commands as the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth could quite literally be described by such a term. The Hebrew language differs radically in its word formations from English; so that while "thou shalt not kill" requires four words in English, in Hebrew it is said by means of but two, and one of these is a mere negative prefix. Consequently, the term "words" or "phrases" would fit a group of laws such as the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth perfectly. That the original code was made up wholly of concise laws like these is suggested not only by the name, but also by the tradition that they were engraved upon two stone tablets (Exod. 32 : 15 f., 19; 34: 1- 4, 28; Deut. 5:22). The lapidary style inevitably becomes brief and concise. The original form of the Decalogue therefore was probably after this order:

1. I Yahweh am your God.
2. You shall have no other gods.
3. You shall not invoke the name of your God for evil.
4. Remember to keep the Sabbath holy.
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. You must not commit murder
7. You must not commit adultery.
8. You must not steal.
9. You must not bear false witness.
10. You must not covet your neighbour's house.

This is the form of the primitive Decalogue accepted by some scholars. So, for example, B. W. Bacon, The Triple Tradition of the Exodus page 113; G. Wildeboer, Die Liter atur des Alien ... page xlviii; T. K. Cheyne, The Expositor, February, 1892, page 109; S, R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pages 30-34; Ewald, History of Israel, II, 18f; J. P. Peters, The Religion of the Hebrews, pages 97 f . ; W. P. Paterson, Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, I, 581.

1 Two of these are in Exodus, chap. 20, and Deuteronomy, chap. 5; the third is to be found upon a recently discovered fragment of papyrus. The text of the papyrus fragment sometimes follows Deuteronomy and sometimes Exodus; but in four cases it goes its own way. The Nash Papyrus, as it is called, will be found in text and translation in PSBA for 1902; and in the Jewish Quarterly Review January 1903.

The author goes on to note that this is a minority position. However it is invaluable to have at your disposal a list of likeminded academics to help support your case. I can add to this list Solomon Goldman (The Book of Human Destiny, From Slavery to Freedom 1958) who cites Smith approvingly

[Stephan Huller]

S, R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (an extremely respected source) suggests the following:

It is an old and probable conjecture (Ewald, Hist. ii. 159, Di. al.) that the Commandments were originally all expressed in the same terse and simple form in which the first, and the sixth to the ninth still appear, and that the explanatory comments appended in certain cases were only added subsequently. Thus, according to this view, the and, 4th, and 5th Commandments read originally—— “ Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image.” “ Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy" "honour they father and they mother" All the Commandments would thus be moulded in uniform shape, and would be expressed in the same terse and simple form in which the rst, and the 6th to the 9th, appear now. It has further been conjectured that, as the comments in v 9 10 and 12 bear a singular resemblance to the style of Dt., they were in the first instance added in that book, and thence transferred subsequently to Ex.; and that, as it is scarcely probable that the author of Dt. would omit part of the Decalogue (though he might [32] for the purpose of explanation add clauses), v. 11 may have been only introduced into the text of Ex. after Dt. was written. As regards the first of these conjectures, it is no doubt attractive and plausible. In the phrase " them that love me " v. 6 there is embodied a thought which in the Pent, is confined to Dt., viz. the love of God, which in that book is made the foundation ...