Marcion and the Diatessaron (Victor Codex / Bonifatianus)

[mlinssen]

Tatianus, Epistulae Pauli, Actus Apostolorum, Epistulae Catholicae, Apocalypsis

Shelfmark: 100 Bonifatianus 1 (Victor-Codex)

https://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image ... 289808/118

(...) quia nemo
assumentum pannis
rudis assuit uestimen
to ueteri· alioquin au
fert supplementum
nouum a ueteri· et ma
ior scissura fit· 22 et ne
mo mittit uinum no
uum in utres ueteres
Alioquin rumpet uinum
nouum utres et ipsud
effunditur et utres
peribunt· sed uinum

https://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image ... 289808/119

nouum in utres nouos
mittendum est· et utra
que conseruantur

There we have it, parable of the patch and the wineskins, from the Diatessaron, diplomatic transcription

The Latin is in Roth, Adamantius Dialogue:

7.4.2 Luke 5:36, 38
90,5–9 (2.16)—[Mark.] [follows citation of John 13:34] . . . λέγει γὰρ πάλιν ὁ
σωτήρ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς νέους καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται. . . . πάλιν
γὰρ λέγει ὁ σωτήρ οὐδεὶς ἐπιβάλλει ἐπιβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἱματίῳ
παλαιῷ. . . . | . . . Dicit enim salvator quia Si mittatur vinum novum in utres novos,
utraque conservabuntur. . . . Et iterum: Nemo assuit assumentum panni rudis ad
vestimentum vetus. . . . | 90,22–23 (2.16)—[Mark.] . . . οὐδεὶς γάρ, φησίν, ἐπιβάλλει
ἀπὸ ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ. | . . . Nemo enim, inquit, assuit pannum
rudem ad vestimentum vetus.

The Diatessaron contains the dative, Adamantius the accusative. The latter uses the preposition 'ad' which drives that declension
The Diatessaron order is the canonical one, not the Thomasine / *Ev one.
Let's line 'm up:

D: nemo assumentum pannis rudis assuit uestimento ueteri

A: Nemo assuit assumentum panni rudis ad vestimentum vetus
A: Nemo enim, inquit, assuit pannum rudem ad vestimentum vetus

D: sed uinum nouum in utres nouos mittendum est· et utraque conseruantur

A: Si mittatur vinum novum in utres novos, utraque conservabuntur

Slight fumbling of the tenses there, and slight change of word order. Then again, there aren't many ways to say these words without any of it turning up much differently from what we have here. Philastrius then? Roth again

Philastrius, Diversarum hereseon liber 45.2—Quid est, inquit [Marcion], quod
in evangelio dicente domino scriptum est: Nemo pannum rudem mittet in vesti-
mentum vetus, neque vinum novum in utres veteres, alioquin rumpuntur utres, et
effunditur vinum?

Nemo pannum rudem mittet in vestimentum vetus

neque vinum novum in utres veteres, alioquin rumpuntur utres, et effunditur vinum

et nemo mittit uinum nouum in utres ueteres Alioquin rumpet uinum nouum utres et ipsud effunditur (et utres peribunt)

Very similar, again a tense shuffle, and slight word order. Tertullian? Hat tip to Roth again:

3.15.5—Quomodo denique docet novam plagulam non adsui veteri vestimento,
nec vinum novum veteribus utribus credi, . . . | 4.11.9—Errasti in illa etiam domini
pronuntiatione qua videtur nova et vetera discernere. Inflatus es utribus veteribus
et excerebratus es novo vino, atque ita veteri, id est priori evangelio, pannum hae-
reticae novitatis adsuisti. | 4.11.10—Nam et vinum novum is non committit in vet-
eres utres qui et veteres utres habuerit, et novum additamentum nemo inicit veteri
vestimento nisi cui non defuerit et vetus vestimentum. | Or. 1.1—Oportebat enim
in hac quoque specie novum vinum novis utribus recondi et novam plagulam
novo adsui vestimento. | Res. 44.3—Perituris enim peritura creduntur, sicut vet-
eribus utribus novum vinum.

Line 'm up!

T: novam plagulam non adsui veteri vestimento
T: novum additamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento nisi cui non defuerit et vetus vestimentum

D: nemo assumentum pannis rudis assuit uestimento ueteri
D: alioquin aufert supplementum nouum a ueteri

Tertullian's nova plagula doesn't equate to the panis rudis, alas, and the additamentum is alien also. Forget about the second sentence!

T: nec vinum novum veteribus utribus credi
T: Nam et vinum novum is non committit in veteres utres qui et veteres utres habuerit

D: nemo mittit uinum nouum in utres ueteres
D: Alioquin rumpet uinum nouum utres et ipsud effunditur et utres peribunt·
D: sed uinum nouum in utres nouos mittendum est· et utraque conseruantur

Well, absolutely nothing here. So, one final look at it all:

quia nemo assumentum pannis rudis assuit uestimento ueteri· alioquin aufert supplementum nouum a ueteri· et maior scissura fit· 22 et nemo mittit uinum nouum in utres ueteres Alioquin rumpet uinum nouum utres et ipsud effunditur et utres peribunt· sed uinum nouum in utres nouos mittendum est· et utraque conseruantur

for no one sews a patch of raw cloth on an old garment; otherwise he takes away a new supply from the old, and a greater tear is made; 22 and no one puts new wine into old bottles otherwise the new wine breaks the bottles and is poured out, and the bottles will perish; but new wine must be put into new bottles, and both will be conserved

Adamantius:

quia Si mittatur vinum novum in utres novos, utraque conservabuntur
(sed uinum nouum in utres nouos mittendum est· et utraque conseruantur)
Nemo assuit assumentum panni rudis ad vestimentum vetus
(nemo assumentum pannis rudis assuit uestimento ueteri)
Nemo enim, inquit, assuit pannum rudem ad vestimentum vetus
(nemo assumentum pannis rudis assuit uestimento ueteri)

That is pretty verbatim, with the third sentence merely a rephrasing of the second

Philastrius is certainly not a quote, but more a paraphrasing:

Nemo pannum rudem mittet in vestimentum vetus
(nemo assumentum pannis rudis assuit uestimento ueteri)
neque vinum novum (mittet) in utres veteres, alioquin rumpuntur utres, et effunditur vinum
(et nemo mittit uinum nouum in utres ueteres Alioquin rumpet uinum nouum utres et ipsud effunditur)

That is also pretty verbatim, although the mittet is very awkward, 'cast' - although that is exactly what Thomas has throughout his text, and there are over 300 occurrences of the stem in the NT.
Well, certainly worth the work, and deserving a few more pokes and peaks here and there, I think. Roth is full of Arabic and Persian Diatessaron but I thought this would be a much more verifiable exercise

[yakovzutolmai]

Tatianus, Epistulae Pauli, Actus Apostolorum, Epistulae Catholicae, Apocalypsis

Shelfmark: 100 Bonifatianus 1 (Victor-Codex)

There we have it, parable of the patch and the wineskins, from the Diatessaron, diplomatic transcription

Isn’t the Victor Codex written using the vulgate, and simply relied on Tatian for ordering?

Diatessaron was probably Syriac.

The hypothesis is that when documents cross over to Nisibis and Arbella, or the other way, between Greek and Syriac, they are received with minimal context. The first recipients of Diatessaron in Assyria only know Christianity as an apocalyptic Jewish sect, and the gospel historical narrative is entirely novel and “Roman”. Jesus of Nazareth then, they see as “Roman” which at that time is equivalent to “Marcionite” or Gnostic. Their Jamesian, apocalyptic Jesus is better. Tatian proposes to them the evidence of history rather than prophecy or mystic revelation, as a source of truth.

As the Roman worship slowly moves East, creating more proto-Marcionites, the Tatianized Jamesian idea crosses back past it, leaping over the imperial margins once again, and this eastern apocalyptic cult now also accepts the gospel narrative as historical truth, advocating this methodology in the West. I think, possibly adding Revelations out of Elchasai. This becomes, in Judea and Syria, later Egypt and Asia, the seed of catholicism.

Where the textual argument replaces certain kinds of mystic speculation. This could easily motivate the mystics to record their beliefs as gospel histories to compete, leading to an argument over canon.

With the catholic canon settled, from these Western arguments, the polemic against other texts crosses back over to the East, and the Diatessaron is discouraged.

Meanwhile, the “Roman” Christians in Arbella, the Marcionites, favor still the Roman text given by Tatian. The echo wave of catholicism doesn’t tolerate this “old” Roman worship and is bringing the new style. This anti Marcionite polemic comes back West.

The imperial margins create some confusion and there is no critical examination of what is causing change in the other empire, just receiving the results or sending, a black box of cultural and theological transmission.

In this hypothesis, the “new” Roman textual canon results from Syriacs converted by the Diatessaron to historical literalism, but not the Gnostic style of worship. So they do not recognize the irony in discouraging the Diatessaron at some point, while outright antagonizing Marcionites. The journey West and back again has created the idea of catholicism by textual canonicity, where before the gospels were “nice to have”.

Therefore, if the Marcionites are competing in a similar mode to Gnostics, by arguing for the authenticity of a not-catholic canon, then they will want to uphold the antiquity and authenticity of their traditional texts.

This would imply perhaps, out of the catholicizing argument occurring in the East, that the oldest Syriac Diatessaron is taking by Marcionites from Syria and translated by them into Greek. This being the source text against which church fathers are arguing.

In any event, I still see the shrouded East as the obvious source of the anti-Gnostic element in Christianity, going back to the even more shrouded post-temple Judaism of the Babylonian and Syrian Jews.

The evolution being complicated by the phenomenon of new arguments on one side of the border being unaware of previous arguments from the other side, so new concepts appear out of thin air and cannot be traced to previous developments from that side of the border.