stephan huller

FWIW (probably not much because it's coming from me) I think the evidence from all our sources suggests an anti-Marcionite Diatessaron which existed in the second half of the second century used in the East which was the immediate precursor to the quaternion (only now split up). Of course I am a jackass so take it as you will, as you may

stephan huller

From Baarda just now:

Markus 10:17 // Lk 18:18 // cf. Mt 19:16
and the Diatessaron.
re the question of Stephan Huller: I am sorry to be bothering you but I have a question when
you have a moment. I am interested in the reading of Mark 10:17 in Ephrem and Aphrahat.
Am I to assume that both are anplm I am specifically wondering if there are any examples of
'Domine Bone' anywhere?
1. anplm is not ‘dominus’, but ‘doctor’: persona qui docet, then: ‘magister’.
2. The word does not occur in Aphrahat’s reference to the Markan text or its parallels. It is in
Ephraem,
3. The Arabic Diatessaron (XXVIII:42) reads ايها المعلم الصالح , ‘O good teacher’.
The first reconstruction (Zahn, 1881): p. 173 (§ 53).
‘Magister bone’ This reading was based upon Aucher/Moesinger XV: , p. 172:19 Quod ille
dixit: Magister bone cf. 168:30: rursus ille dives bonum eum vocat (cf. 173:2f.: unus tantum
est bonus, 173:10: non est bonus, nisi tantum unus, 11f. unus tantum est bonusm...cf. 31: quid
vocas me bonum? cf. also 168:10f. cur vocas me bonum; cf. also 169:3, 7f., 12f.,
The last recondtruction (Ortiz de Urbina, 1967) p.257.
Remarkably, in his collection of quotations (p. 115f., nr. 1458) O.d’U. had collected texts
from Aphrahat and Ephraem, including (1458) abf anplm =‘Magister bone’ (= Ephr.), but
he fully neglects it in his reconstruction (p.257).
I asm not sure why you asked about this anplm=‘magister. The Syriac word Nplm / anplm
means someone who teaches and reflects Greek διδάσκαλος, e.g. 2 Macc 1,10, John 3:10.
It agrees with Aramaic מלפן , teacher, cf. M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian
Aramaic, 1990, 311.
Mk & Lk have ‘good teacher’ Mt redresses the text of his source and introduces the question
‘why do you ask me about the good (what is good)’ to prevent the idea that Jesus was not a
good teacher.
-

Jeffrey Gibson

What has any of this to do with the OP?

JG

stephan huller

It demonstrates that Tertullian's reading at Luke 18:18 is unsupported by any one else

stephan huller

Let me correct that as I write this from bed at 6 in the morning on my phone. I can't make sense of his interpretation of the reading which is otherwise unsupported. Or perhaps, praeceptor can mean one who teaches but Tertullian takes it to mean one gives precepts i.e. the Creator, this interpretation is as unknown as the reading itself.

Jeffrey Gibson

But he's not reading Lk. 18:18.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

Here is the Evans translation:

So then when he is asked by that certain man, Good Teacher (praeceptor optime) what shall I do to obtain possession of eternal life?, he inquired whether he knew—which means, was keeping—the Creator's commandments (praeceptis creatoris), in such form as to testify that by the Creator's commandments (praeceptis creatoris) eternal life is obtained: and when that man replied, in respect of the chief of them, that one thing thou lackest; sell all that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. Come now, Marcion, and all you companions in the misery and sharers in the offensiveness of that heretic, what will you be bold enough to say? Did Christ here rescind those former commandments (priora praecepta), not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to bear false witness, to love father and mother? Or is it that he both retained these and added what was lacking? And yet, even this commandment (praeceptorum) of distributing to the poor is spread about everywhere in the law and the prophets, so that that boastful keeper of the commandments (praeceptorum) was convicted of having money in much higher esteem. So then this also in the gospel remains valid, I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil. At the same time also he relieved of doubt those other questions, by making it clear that the name of God, and of supremely good, belongs to one only, and that eternal life and treasure in heaven, and himself besides, pertain to that one, whose commandments (praecepta), by adding what was lacking, he both conserved and enriched.

stephan huller

What do you think he is citing?

Jeffrey Gibson

As I told you before, the Markan parallel -- hence the "a certain man" rather than "a certain ruler".

And I never got a straight answer from you before on why it is exactly you think it's Lk 18:18 when there's no indication in the text that it is.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

Because it is generally assumed that Tertullian is arguing that the Marcionite gospel is a corruption of Luke.