The History of the Short Form of the Tenth Commandment

[Stephan Huller]

And then the other problem that always bothered me the exactness of the parallel in parts of the other discussion of commandments in Luke 10:27:

In the true Gospel, a certain doctor of the law comes to the Lord and asks, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life? "In the heretical gospel life only is mentioned, without the attribute eternal; so that the lawyer seems to have consulted Christ simply about the life which the Creator in the law promises to prolong,1030 and the Lord to have therefore answered him according to the law, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength," since the question was concerning the conditions of mere life. But the lawyer of course knew very well in what way the life which the law meant was to be obtained, so that his question could have had no relation to the life whose rules he was himself in the habit of teaching. But seeing that even the dead were now raised by Christ, and being himself excited to the hope of an eternal life by these examples of a restored one, he would lose no more time in merely looking on (at the wonderful things which had made him) so high in hope. He therefore consulted him about the attainment of eternal life. Accordingly, the Lord, being Himself the same, and introducing no new precept other than that which relates above all others to (man's) entire salvation, even including the present and the future life,1037 places before him1038 the very essence1039 of the law----that he should in every possible way love the Lord his God. If, indeed, it were only about a lengthened life, such as is at the Creator's disposal, that he inquired and Christ answered, and not about the eternal life, which is at the disposal of Marcion's god, how is he to obtain the eternal one? Surely not in the same manner as the prolonged life. For in proportion to the difference of the reward must be supposed to be also the diversity of the services. Therefore your disciple Marcion, will not obtain his eternal life in consequence of loving your God, in the same way as the man who loves the Creator will secure the lengthened life. But how happens it that, if He is to be loved who promises the prolonged I life, He is not much more to be loved who offers the eternal life? Therefore both one and the other life will be at the disposal of one and the same Lord; because one and the same discipline is to be followed for one and the other life. What the Creator teaches to be loved, that must He necessarily maintain1042 also by Christ,1043 for that rule holds good here, which prescribes that greater things ought to be believed of Him who has first lesser proofs to show, than of him for whom no preceding smaller presumptions have secured a claim to be believed in things of higher import. It matters not then, whether the word eternal has been interpolated by us. It is enough for me, that the Christ who invited men to the eternal----not the lengthened----life, when consulted about the temporal life which he was destroying, did not choose to exhort the man rather to that eternal life which he was introducing. Pray, what would the Creator's Christ have done, if He who had made man for loving the Creator did not belong to the Creator? I suppose He would have said that the Creator was not to be loved!

What is so interesting about Tertullian's discussion is that it strenuously asserts that Jesus did not introduce a new commandment - but is this true? If we look back at our version of the text:

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’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself

But Clement, Tertullian and others know of a different version of the last part seemingly cited from Leviticus 19:18 again. As Eric Obsorne right

If we begin from the neighbour we find that he is already identified with Jesus (Clement says elsewhere, 'You have seen your brother, you have seen your God'), and Jesus is identified with god because of his love (p. 149)

εἶδες γάρ τὸν ἀδελφόν σου, εἶδες τὸν θεόν σου

http://books.google.com/books?id=bqRGI6 ... 85&f=false

Even the Marcionite in De Recta in Deum Fide seems to approve of (John 13:34-35), Jesus said, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

This would certainly be the right context for this statement. But is there any evidence for this? Must revisit De Recta in Deum Fide later.

[Stephan Huller]

Yes it supports the idea

[Stephan Huller]

It would seem that an entire section in the Second Part of the text deals with this question:

AD. It is evident then that Marcus wants things to exist that are opposed to what has been commanded.
[MK:] But to commit adultery is opposed to the command, "You shall not commit adultery" murder opposes "You shall not murder" and in the same way stealing is against the command not to steal. Presumably then the rest of the commandments have been abrogated.
[AD:] But how could it be that Christ abrogated the Law? Let Marcus explained, please. For in the Law it stands written you shall not commit adultery you shall not bear false witness. Let him say then which one of these Christ abrogated? Whom does He order to commit adultery - he indeed who had actually rejected the more lustful look as unchastity? Whom did He command to kill - he who directed not to resist the evil man? Whom did the Saviour teach to steal in order that He might oppose the Lawmaker? These commands of the Saviour are not new but are from the Law and the prophets. The Saviour asserts "But I say to you not to resist evil" while the Old Scripture says "Say to those who hate and detest you, 'You are our brethren'" (Isa 66.5 LXX)
[MK:] When the Law again said, "do not steal," the Saviour said "Sell your possessions and give to the poor."
[AD:] But giving to the poor is not new teaching for it was commanded in the Old Testament "Do not refrain from doing good to the needy one whenever you hand can help." The Saviour's 'Love your enemies" is not new, but required in the Prophets: "If your enemy be hungry get him to eat: if he thirst give him to drink." But why must we prolong the discussion? It is at least clear that although the Saviour came to fulfil the Law, Marcus' people assert that he came to destroy it!
AD: It is like your party's audacity — to reverse (90) this statement, just as you have tampered with others! However, let the Apostle come forward to reprove your dishonesty.
MK. The Saviour clearly says, "A new commandment I give to you"(Jn 13:34 Petty's note Intriguingly Marcus again quotes from a gospel outside of Marcion's Luke as he does further on cf. the next note) 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"73. 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.
AD. 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 another" let me read what is written 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]

I strongly suspect Adamantius is citing yet another commonly shared (but unrecognized) textual variant. Luke 10:26 - 27 has a very awkward narrative:

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how do you read? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

ὁ δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν Ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τί γέγραπται; πῶς ἀναγινώσκεις; ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν Ἀγαπήσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου, καὶ τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.

Adamantius cites the same material as:

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

ὁ σωτὴρ λέγων·. "ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, ἀναγινώσκω τὰ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ διεσταλμένα· ἀγαπήσεις, φησί, κύριον τὸν θεὸν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου· καὶ δεύτερον· τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν."

[Stephan Huller]

It should be noted that the while Adamantius cites:

κύριον τὸν θεὸν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου (You shall love the Lord God with your whole mind)

The longer form in the gospels is:

Ἀγαπήσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ σου

But Justin's citation is like a hybrid of both the LXX and Adamantius:

And hence I think that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ spoke well when He summed up all righteousness and piety in two commandments. They are these: 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbour as thyself.' For the man who loves God with all the heart, and with all the strength, being filled with a God-fearing mind, will reverence no other god; and since God wishes it, he would reverence that angel who is beloved by the same Lord and God. And the man who loves his neighbour as himself will wish for him the same good things that he wishes for himself, and no man will wish evil things for himself. Accordingly, he who loves his neighbour would pray and labour that his neighbour may be possessed of the same benefits as himself. Now nothing else is neighbour to man than that similarly-affectioned and reasonable being--man. Therefore, since all righteousness is divided into two branches, namely, in so far as it regards God and men, whoever, says the Scripture, loves the Lord God with all the heart, and all the strength, and his neighbour as himself (ἀγαπᾷ κύριον τὸν θεὸν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος, καὶ τὸν πλησίον ὡς ἑαυτόν), would be truly a righteous man. But you were never shown to be possessed of friendship or love either towards God, or towards the prophets, or towards yourselves, but, as is evident, you are ever found to be idolaters and murderers of righteous men, so that you laid hands even on Christ Himself; and to this very day you abide in your wickedness, execrating those who prove that this man who was crucified by you is the Christ. Nay, more than this, you suppose that He was crucified as hostile to and cursed by God, which supposition is the product of your most irrational mind. For though you have the means of understanding that this man is Christ from the signs given by Moses, yet you will not; but, in addition, fancying that we can have no arguments, you put whatever question comes into your minds, while you yourselves are at a loss for arguments whenever you meet with some firmly established Christian.

The existing gospels harmonize the difference between the LXX and what Justin's gospel has:

“The second is: Love your neighbor as yourself., There is no other command greater than these.”
καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου. (Mark 12:31)

Indeed Mark12:31 helps account for the 'secondly' reference (and thus confirms the entire passage as an unrecognized variant). Adamantius again:

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

ὁ σωτὴρ λέγων·. "ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, ἀναγινώσκω τὰ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ διεσταλμένα· ἀγαπήσεις, φησί, κύριον τὸν θεὸν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου· καὶ δεύτερον· τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν."

Mark 12:28 - 33:

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

Καὶ προσελθὼν εἷς τῶν γραμματέων, ἀκούσας αὐτῶν συζητούντων*, ἰδὼν* ὅτι καλῶς ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς, ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτόν Ποία ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων; ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι Πρώτη ἐστίν Ἄκουε, Ἰσραήλ, Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν, καὶ ἀγαπήσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου. δευτέρα αὕτη Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν. μείζων τούτων ἄλλη ἐντολὴ οὐκ ἔστιν. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ γραμματεύς Καλῶς, Διδάσκαλε, ἐπ’ ἀληθείας εἶπες ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος πλὴν αὐτοῦ·

So now we can see that all these variants emerged from the shared Marcionite-proto-Orthodox text still used in the East at the time of the Dialogue which is almost certainly would appear 'Diatessaronic' to us because bits and pieces of our 'Gospel of John' appeared within. Not only the 'new commandment' here but also the Paraclete prophesy repeatedly referenced in the Acts of Archelaus and noted to be Marcionite in Origen's Homily on Luke.

[Stephan Huller]

The bullshit is obvious whenever you see a Jewish teacher agree with Jesus. The original gospel set up inevitable hostility between the two. This is clearly secondary even though it is in canonical Mark. Canonical Mark is only one corrupted version of the original gospel associated with the Marcionite community. You see everyone, isn't it exciting to discover something new! Here it is, a new discovery, at this lowly discussion forum where all that happens is religious people fighting with atheists and vice versa. Me revoilà, bon Dieu que la vie est bête!

[Ulan]

You see everyone, isn't it exciting to discover something new! Here it is, a new discovery, at this lowly discussion forum where all that happens is religious people fighting with atheists and vice versa.

Now you just have to somehow bring Antigonus and Cesar into this, and everyone is happy *duck*

[MrMacSon]

Now you just have to somehow bring Antigonus and Cesar into this, and everyone is happy *duck*

" ... and everyone is happy; *duck*" ??

or

" ... and everyone is [a] happy *duck*" ?? ....

[Stephan Huller]

It is interesting to note the Latin text's rendering:

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

ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, ἀναγινώσκω τὰ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ διεσταλμένα· ἀγαπήσεις, φησί, κύριον τὸν θεὸν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου· καὶ δεύτερον· τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.

Mandatum nouum inquit do vobis, ut diligatis inuicem, recito ca quae in lege distincta sunt: Diliges, inquit, Dominum Deum ex tota mente tua secundo, Proximum tuum, sicut teipsum

distincta comes of course from distinctus which means "distinct, separate." But this is also the principal meaning of the original Greek διεσταλμένα = διαστέλλω 'separate, divide.' But it seems implausible that Adamantius would be assisting the Marcionite argument by saying that he is reading how the Law is distinct from the commandment. Interesting.

[Stephan Huller]

When we look at examples of διαστέλλω by the evangelist it becomes clear it has a negative sense:

He strictly ordered (διεστείλατο) them that no one should know this, and commanded that something should be given to her to eat. (Mark 5:43)

He commanded (διεστείλατο) them that they should tell no one, but the more he commanded (διεστέλλετο) them, so much the more widely they proclaimed it. (Mark 7:36)

He warned (διεστέλλετο) them, saying, “Take heed: beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.” (Mark 8:15)

As they were coming down from the mountain, he commanded (διεστείλατο) them that they should tell relate to no one what things they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead. (Mark 9:9)

Then he commanded (διαστέλλω) the disciples that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. (Matt 16:20)

In the LXX it maintains its meaning 'separate, distinguish':

Yahweh said to her, “Two nations are in your womb. Two peoples will be separated (διασταλήσονται) from your body. The one people will be stronger than the other people. The elder will serve the younger.” (Gn 25:43)

and that you are to make a distinction (διαστεῖλαι) between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean; (Lv 10:10)

to make a distinction (διαστεῖλαι) between the unclean and the clean (Lv 11:47)

Thus you shall separate the Levites ...

Clearly then when Jesus said (as we suggest) - ""A new commandment I give unto you: "That you love others" I now read what is distinct (διεσταλμένα/distincta) in the Law "You shall love the Lord God with your whole mind" and secondly "Your neighbor as yourself."

The Marcionites took it in the sense that what was originally given in the ten commandments was distinct from the 'new commandment.' I think this is because Jesus is not only asking them to love God or the one who is near but everyone.

Kittel writes "in the NT five of eight instances are in Mark. Jesus is the subject in these cases, and the term expresses the categorical nature of his prohibitions in 5:43; 7:36 (twice); 9:9, and of his warning in 8:15."