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
(...) 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.
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?
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.
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
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