The Reference to the 'Diatessaron of Alexandria' in Ishodad of Merv

It was William Petersen who drew my attention to the existence of an 'Alexandrian Diatessaron' sometimes distinguished - sometimes confused - with the Diatessaron of Tatian ('confused' because neither text was originally called 'the Diatessaron'). I have been reading Ishodad of Merv in an English translation and I can't help but see a remembrance of this longer Alexandrian gospel which I identify with Secret Mark. Ishodad writes:

Others say that the book of the Diatessaron which was composed in Alexandria says instead of the passage of the Diatessaron 'it is written in Isaiah' [it is written] in the prophets.

The passage is also garbled even further in Bar Salibi's narrative which copies Ishodad at least in part:

Others [say] that in the book of the Diatessaron which is preserved [or was composed] in Alexandria and was written by Tatianus the Bishop

Now there is no doubt that a number of manuscripts of canonical Mark share the same reading - Codex A ("Alexandrinus") and Codex W, both from the fifth century, as well as the majority of Byzantine mss., the Harclean Syriac, the writings of Asterius (4th century), just to name a few. Yet it is noteworthy that Irenaeus cites Mark as having this reading:

Wherefore Mark also says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets." [Irenaeus AH iii.10.5 and 14.3]

Now what does it mean that Ishodad distinguishes between two Diatessaron's - one which reads 'it is written in Isaiah' and another which says 'it is written in the prophets'? I don't know, but I have already written about the fact that Clement's Gospel of Mark in Quis Dives Salvetur HAS TO RESEMBLE the structure of a Diatessaron (i.e. includes the story of Zacchaeus and has it follow shortly after Mark 10:17 - 31).

I think what we know of 'Secret Mark' from the Mar Saba document suggests uncanny parallels with the Diatessaron.

And then there are other 'little bits' to consider too. Like what what Rev C.A. Phillips observed:

that the harmonies followed the Parable of the Rich Fool with the Story of the Young Ruler which was then followed by the Parable of Dives and Lazarus. Elements of this combination as well as specific variants from the harmonies, are found in the Gospel 'secundum Hebraeos' as quoted by Origen, Comm in Matt XV.14 (on Matt 19.16ff). Origen's quotation begins "The other of the two rich men said to him ..." implying Origen knew a text which joined the stories of the two rich men. Also in Origen Jesus tells him to "do the Law" a variant found in Ephrem's Commentary, Aphrahat, Syr [c], the Georgian, and at Mark 10.20 in Greek MSSf1 565 1542. [p.257]

I have found an allusion to this same 'harmonized passage' in the writings of Clement of Alexandria:

And again: "Let not your almsgiving and faithfulness lapse." And: "Poverty brings a man low, but the hands of the energetic are made rich." And he adds: "Behold the man who has not given his money on usury is accepted." And does he not declare expressly, " A man's wealth is judged to be his soul’s ransom"? Just as the world is composed of opposites, of heat and cold, dry and wet, so also is it made up of givers and receivers. Again when he says, "If you would be perfect, sell your possessions and give to the poor," he convicts the man who boasts that he has kept all the commandments~ from his youth up. For he had not fulfilled "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Only then was he taught by the Lord who wished to make him perfect, to give for love's sake.

Accordingly he has not forbidden us to be rich in the right way, but only a wrongful and insatiable grasping of money. For "property gained unlawfully is diminished." "There are some who sow much and gain the more, and those who hoard become impoverished." Of them it is written: "He distributed, he gave to the poor, his righteousness endures for ever." For he who sows and gathers more is the man who by giving away his earthly and temporal goods has obtained a heavenly and eternal prize; the other is he who gives to no one, but vainly "lays up treasure on earth where moth and rust corrupt"; of him it is written: "In gathering motley, he has gathered it into a condemned cell." Of his land the Lord says in the gospel that it produced plentifully; then wishing to store the fruits he built larger store-houses, saying to himself in the words dramatically put into his mouth "You have many good things laid up for many years to come, eat, drink, and be merry. You fool," says the Lord, "this night your soul shall be required of you. Whose then shall be the things you have prepared?"[Stromata III.53 - 56]

Let's not forget that in McCarthy's translation of Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron she constructs the following section which parallels Clement's citation of 'Secret Mark':

XV 1 - 11 The Rich Man
XV 12 - 13 The Rich Man and Lazarus
XV 14 - 17 The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard
XV 18 - 19 The Request of James and John
XV 20 - 21 Zacchaeus

It must be said that IF the Alexandrian gospel that Clement and Origen knew was 'like' its Syrian cousin then Clement COULD HAVE BEEN comparing canonical Mark to a text misidentified by later sources as an 'Alexandrian Diatessaron.' Just a thought ...

Which takes us to the last 'clue' that I have uncovered so far, the introduction of the Borgian MS and the Old Latin harmony where it says:

out of the four evangelists-Matthew the elect, whose symbol is M, Mark the chosen, whose symbol is R, Luke the approved, whose symbol is K, and John the beloved, whose symbol is H

The name 'Mark' emerges by taking the first letter of the 'Matthew,' the second letter of the name 'Mark,' the third letter of the name 'Luke' and the fourth letter of the diminutive form of the name 'John' all in Aramaic.

In other words, while a text called 'Secret Mark' is not witnessed by any ancient writer BUT there is a vague recollection of a single, long gospel (identified as 'the Diatessaron' but then again the single, long gospel is ALWAYS so identified) of Mark or of Alexandria or both.

I'm sure there are more clues out there. I just haven't found them yet ...