'Secret Mark' and the Epitome of Luscinius

I am always happy to discover that I don't know everything. I had never even heard of the 'Luscinian Epitome' but it clearly provides a related but independent Diatessaronic chronology related to the closing days of Jesus' ministry. I will cite from Appendix C of Samuel Hemphill's Diatessaron of Tatian for the necessary background information about the Epitome:

THE EPITOME CONSTRUCTED FROM SOME GREEK FRAGMENTS BY LUSCINIUS.

OTTMAR NACHTIGALL, the Humanist, who styled himself Luscinius, was born at Strasbourg, A.D. 1487. After studying at Paris, Louvain, Padua, and Vienna, and travelling through many countries of Europe and Asia, he settled at Augsburg, where he gave lessons in Greek. He afterwards moved to Fribourg. He was a great opponent of the Reformation, the leaders of which, Luther and von Hiitten, were the object of his bitter satires. The title of the work which he published at Augsburg, 4, A.D. 1523, is Evangelicat historiae ex quatuor Evangelistis perpctuo tenor e continuata narratio, ex Ammonii Alexandrini fragmentis quibusdam, e Graeco per Ottomarum Luscininm versa : qua et tedio sacre (sic) lectionis studioscrum succurrit, ct ordine pulcherrimo mire juvat memoria.

In his Preface Luscinius refers to the corrupt morals and mock philosophies of his time, and prescribes the law of the Lord as the only thing which will do people real lasting good. He, however, excuses himself from translating the four Gospels from the Greek on the ground that he had little leisure, and considers it more profitable that he should weave together one out of the four, and in consecutive order. This will spare the reader trouble, and will assist his memory: for in the Gospel narratives many things are put out of their proper order. To the possible objection that he is thus seeking to supersede the Canonical Gospels,
he replies that he is only following the example of such men as Juvencus, Augustine, Eusebius, and more especially Ammonius of Alexandria "in cujus fragmenta jampridic incidimus, modo fallax noil sit titulus. Quern quidem e Graeco vertimus per otium, etc"

From the whole tone of this Preface, and from the character of the work itself, it is likely that Luscinius handled his Greek fragments with great freedom, not so much translating them into Latin, as constructing a Latin Epitome on the lines which they suggested. That these Greek fragments had been in some way derived from.

Tatian's Diatessaron is evident from the numerous coincidences in erroneous order which anyone can see between the Diatessaron and the Luscinian Epitome, as represented by the following table of contents which I have made. Note the order in which the Diatessaron, the Codex Fuldensis, and the Epitome of Luscinius agree in presenting the following:

(A.) Tne first words of S. John's Gospel.
(B.) The Episode about Martha and Mary.
(C.) The Mission of the Seventy.
(D.) The rejection at Nazareth.
(E.) The discourse on the Bread of Life.
(F.) The Syrophenician or Canaanite woman.
(G.) The infirm man at Bethesda.
(H.) The parables in S. Luke xv.
(I.) The murdered Galileans.
(J.) The Skenopegia.
(K.) The visit of Nicodemus.
(L.) The mission of the officers to sieze Jesus.

It is remarkable that a German translation of the Epitome in which Tatian's name occurs was published at Augsburg, 8 VO , A.D. I524- 1 So that the doubt about the Ammonian authorship, which Luscinius had expressed the year before, seems to have given place to a sure conviction that the Work was ultimately traceable to Tatian.

Zahn (pp. 313-328), gives a tolerably full discussion of the origin of this Epitome : he does not think (p. 327) that it was derived from the Harmony found by Victor. Several other Edd. of the Epitome were published, as Basle, 1555: Cologne, 1618. (Hempfill, p. 63, 64)

What draws our attention to this chronology is that it represents yet another variation of the Diatessaronic gospel. The section of text, superficially approximating Mark chapter 10, places the raising of Lazarus in John immediately after the material related to Luke chapter 14 but between the Question of the Rich Youth (Mark 10:17 - 31) and Jesus Foretelling of his death in Jerusalem (Mark 10:32 - 34). Here is how Luscinius reconstructs this portion of the gospel chronology:

Speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance.
The rich fool.
The discourse in S. John viii.
The man blind from his birth.
The rich young ruler.
Peter's question, what shall we have therefore ?
Dives and Lazarus.
The unjust steward.
Labourers in vineyard.
At Pharisee's house. The chief seats. On inviting the poor.
Feast of the Enkainia. Solomon's porch.
Attempt to stone Jesus.
Retreat beyond Jordan. Lazarus raised.
Plot against Jesus. Caiaphas.
Jesus goes to Ephraim.
The ten lepers.
The Samaritan village
Jesus predicts his death.
Request of sons of Zebedee.
Zacchseus.
Blind men at Jericho.
At house of Simon the leper. Christ's head anointed.
Sends two disciples. Public entry (into Jerusalem).

As we have noted many times before the basic Diatessaronic pattern first noted by CW Phillips is confirmed here. In other words we see:

the Rich Fool
the Rich Young Ruler (Mark 10:17 - 31)
Dives and Lazarus
Jesus Predicts his Death (Mark 10:32 - 34)
Requests of the Sons of Zebedee (Mark 10:35 - 45)
The Entry into Jericho (Mark 10:46 - 52)
Zacchaeus

The raising of Lazarus narrative follows this sequence in the Codex Fuldensis and the Arabic Diatessaron. Here comes before Mark 10:32 - 34. The 'secret' Gospel of Mark only represents yet another variation - undoubtedly the original where a similar narrative follows Mark 10:32 - 34. The second addition noted in the Letter to Theodore bears striking similarities with all the existing Diatessaronic gospel. We have noted this before and will undoubtedly do so again in the near future.