SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6241
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story < argumentation

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:28 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:01 pm
mlinssen wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:49 am
Marcion starts at Luke chapter 4:16,1 and the infamous error that Luke makes is that he gets told to repeat what he did in Capernaum, where in Luke he hasn't been yet.2
1 I presume you mean - a better way of putting it would be - Marcion doesn't appear in Luke until 4:16 (?)
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:20 pm
Marcion does not appear in Luke at all.
Yes I know. I was referring to aspects of - reflections of - the Marcionite gospel [as it is currently reconstructed] in G.Luke.

This helps (b/c I was thinking Luke 3:1, at least) -
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:20 pm
At any rate, the beginning of the Marcionite gospel appears to have been Luke 3.1 + Luke 4.31-35 + Luke 4.16-30, in that order. I think what Martin means is that Luke 4.16 begins the first actual Lucan event in its current Lucan order which appears in the usual reconstructions of Marcion.

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:20 pm
2 I don't get this: who hasn't been yet?
Jesus has not yet been to Capernaum in Luke 4.23, which has people asking him to replicate the miracles he did in Capernaum. The Marcionite gospel is not as disjointed here, since it [has] the order of events [reversed], making it so that Jesus has indeed [more logically] been to Capernaum by this point of the narrative.
Cheers :cheers:

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6241
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:31 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 1:30 pm
Two arguments in favor of proving Marcion's Pauline epistles were written after the "canonical" ones: http://historical-jesus.info/73.html
Interesting, Bernard

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3394
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Oct 11, 2020 3:24 pm

to mlinssen,
That depends on motive and purpose, Bernard. I think there are more than enough similarities between Luke and Matthew, wouldn't you think so?
Most of the similarities can be explained by "Matthew" & "Luke" having gMark & Q. gLuke & gMatthew have also noticeable important differences.
Note: the Q authors had knowledge of gMark.

I have a webpage on Q: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3394
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Oct 11, 2020 3:34 pm

to mlinssen,
About the so-called Bethsaida gospel, I explained here why it was not included in gLuke, even if "Luke" had a copy of gMark:
The great omission in Luke's gospel, http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html

Cordially, Bernard

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8142
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story < argumentation

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:28 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:12 pm
But then you talk crap, again, -
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:13 am
In particular, when Jesus rejects his mother and brothers, he seems to be amoral. Is this amorality of Jesus the price the proponents of Mark's priority have to pay ? I think that the answer is yes. You don't invent a god who rejects his mother and his family.

- which Martijn deals with:
mlinssen wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:23 am

Thomas irrelevant hey?

55. say(s) IS : he-who hate his father not with his(F) mother he will be-able make-be disciple not to I and not he hate his(PL) brother with his(PL) sister not he carry of his cross within my(F) manner he will come-to-be not he make-be worthy-one to I

99. say(s) the(PL) disciple to he : your(.PL) brother with your(F) mother they stand-on-foot they on the part of the-outside say(s) he behold : they-who of these place who/which make-be of the desire of my father these are my(PL) brother with my(F) mother themselves is(M) who/which will go inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king of my father
I think that Thomas here depends on Marcion: Jesus is without brothers and mother, and the false disciple is tempting him to inquiry if he is really without mother and brothers. The Jesus's answer doesn't leave doubts: he is not human. He is not part of a numerous family, as the Jews have usually.

This is, humbly, my mere opinion.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6241
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story < argumentation

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:16 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:28 pm
I think that Thomas here depends on Marcion: Jesus is without brothers and mother, and the false disciple is tempting him to inquiry if he is really without mother and brothers. The Jesus's answer doesn't leave doubts: he is not human. He is not part of a numerous family, as the Jews have usually.
Ok, Cheers. But how does what you say there explain why Thomas would depend on Marcion? Which 'Jesus answer' are you referring to?

I had noted
MrMacSon wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:12 pm
You might have this right though [and have finally written something in context], -
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:13 am
I think that a bit of plausible clarity may be thrown on Mark if read as a gospel written in reaction to Marcion, just as Matthew and as Luke.
Yes, "clarity may be thrown on Mark if read as a gospel written in reaction to Marcion [just as in Matthew and as Luke]."

mlinssen
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Post by mlinssen » Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:44 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:23 pm
to mlinssen,
I like the John argument, although it is plausible to use John without mentioning him if he just copies Mark 2:18
Why would Marcion see only Mk 2:18, but not Mk 1?
Furthermore, I do not think my arguments are weak.

About gThomas, I have a web page with many arguments demonstrating gThomas is dependent on the gospels and not the other way around: http://historical-jesus.info/thomas.html

Cordially, Bernard
Marcion wouldn't want to pay much attention to John? Not that Mark pays much attention to John, of course

In essence, you have only one argument on the page you cited, and that is "this John issue". The remainder of your arguments is derived from Church fathers, unless I
have overlooked something

I managed to get halfway on your Thomas page, it reminds me of the typical biblical "analysis" that is shallow, based on what others say, and founded on the belief that Christianity was first and foremost: the canonicals are compared to themselves, their similarity is stressed, and then the finger is pointed at Thomas who doesn't share this; apparently that is enough grounds to conclude that Thomas was dependent on the canonicals...

[EDIT BEGIN: this is a splendid appearance of your circular reasoning:

And because the other gospels do not describe Jesus as likely to utter anything resembling those, the authenticity of these sayings is very questionable:


You assume Jesus to be historical, the canonicals to be authentic, and that's your Beacon of Truth, to which you compare everything else. The outcome is predictable, and very biased and lopsided.
If you're wielding a hammer, everything looks like a nail

EDIT END]


You want a solid comparison between Thomas and the canonicals? The parable of the Net says it all

https://www.academia.edu/43780115/The_P ... ng_to_find

There is someone "up high" working on a counter to that as we speak, by the way. A well-known author and researcher, etc, but I would like to hear your response too

Other material by me, just an excerpt: https://www.academia.edu/40695711/Absol ... ory_manner - my paper on Absolute Thomasine priority; Thomas invented "IS", 80 pages
https://www.academia.edu/41668680/The_7 ... al_cousins - 140 pages looking at the parallels between Thomas and the canonicals, in full
https://www.academia.edu/40951733/Two_t ... ht_and_day - the strikingly different style between the parables that are in Thomas and those that aren't. Structure, theme, characters - everything

And last but not least, my translation

https://www.academia.edu/40695711/Absol ... ory_manner

Everything is based on solid, detailed, elaborate textual criticism, and the only regret that I have is that I don't compare Coptic Thomas to Greek canonicals. But even without that the evidence is overwhelming

They even copied incorrectly Bernard. The parable of the leaven is about colostrum, not yeast. And there's more like that
Last edited by mlinssen on Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:56 am, edited 3 times in total.

davidmartin
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Post by davidmartin » Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:15 am

I think Bernard has a point about both Matthew and Luke drawing from Mark that could explain quite a bit
I think it is interesting how both Matt and Luke have the birth narratives and yet they are quite different
Anyone arguing that Luke influenced Matthew in this area could be onto something but they would have to explain the differences
No doubt Matthew needed a birth narrative - if it previously lacked one and by that time birth narratives were all the rage it might need one

I did read Bernards page on Thomas. He says realized eschatology is a late feature of Thomas
That doesn't make sense when Paul is arguing against certain aspects of this "do not be quickly shaken from your composure or disturbed by a spirit, a message, or a letter thought to be from us, which says that the day of the Lord has already come"
You could argue realized eschatology is an early feature not a late feature

You can even see this in Papias
"The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, 'I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me
...all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man
...Judas said 'How shall such growths be accomplished by the Lord?' the Lord said, 'They shall see who shall come to them.' These, then, are the times mentioned by the prophet Isaiah: 'And the wolf shall lie, down with the lamb,'

mlinssen
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Post by mlinssen » Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:18 am

mlinssen wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:44 pm
Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 2:23 pm
to mlinssen,
Just a quote to trigger. I don't mean any disrespect, but let me just highlight one of your "cases":

2.4 Logion 47:
CoGTh 47 "Jesus said, "It is impossible for a man to mount two horses or to stretch two bows [no parallel]. And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously [Mt6:24,Lk16:13]. No man drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine [Lk5:39 only]. And new wine is not put into old wineskins, lest they burst; nor is old wine put into a new wineskin, lest it spoil it [Mk2:22,Mt9:17,Lk5:37-38]. An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, because a tear would result [Mk2:21,Mt9:16,Lk5:36].""

Note: Let's do some visual comparison with the corresponding synoptic gospel sayings:
GTh "And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously"
"Q" Mt6:24/Lk16:13 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."
If we suppose, for an instant, the GThomas author used the canonical gospels:
"hate" and "despised" are replaced by a common "treat contemptuously"; then "love" and "be loyal" are substituted by one "honor". That allows the elimination of the "one" and "other" clauses. The overall result is excellent rewriting, allowing to express the same idea concisely!
Enough dreaming! But one can wonder why the "Q" author would have been so wordy, if a shorter and more concise version was known then.
GTh "And new wine is not put into old wineskins, lest they burst; nor is old wine put into a new wineskin, lest it spoil it"
Mk2:22 "And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins."
Mt9:17 "Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."
Lk5:37-38 "And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins."
GThomas drops 'new wine to be put in new wineskins' but adds 'old wine not to be put in new wineskins'. Once again, we note the economy of words in GThomas. Also let's notice the rewriting from Markan material of both "Matthew" and "Luke". And then, none of the synoptic writers seems to have known about the GThomas version.

GTh "An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, because a tear would result"
Mk2:21 "No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; or else the new piece pulls away from the old, and the tear is made worse."
Mt9:16 "No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse."
Lk5:36 "... No one puts a piece from a new garment on an old one; otherwise the new makes a tear, and also the piece that was taken out of the new does not match the old."
The simplification in the GThomas version is again obvious.
"Luke" added "and also the piece that was taken out of the new does not match the old"
Here, it looks that the new piece is at fault, and the old garment is worthy of special consideration. In the next saying, it is clear that "Luke" liked the "old".

GTh "No man drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine"
Lk5:39 "And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, 'The old is better.'"
Here, except for "for he says "the old is better"", GThomas and GLuke versions are very similar.
In "Parables and gospels", I made an argument which I reproduce now:

<< In 'Acts', "Luke" is a staunch supporter of Paul and consequently would be against any unPauline Christian teaching. See more about Luke's coloring in The great omission in Luke's gospel.
Luke's community was probably warned against new Christian teaching: keep the old one, it is better! Then "But new wine must be put into new wineskins" gets a different meaning: take that new unwanted stuff somewhere else! >>

Note: in Mk2:22 & Mt9:17, the new wine & wineskins are good, the old wineskins are bad and there is NO mention of old wine! "Luke" considerably distorted Mk2:22 through Lk5:39.
In conclusion, "No man drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine", because of:
- Close similarity of wording between GThomas and GLuke's version
- Appearing only (relative to the N.T.) in GLuke and as an addition on Markan material
- Thoroughly explained by Luke's coloring & bias "The old is better"
originated from GLuke and consequently the GThomas version came later.

Colouring not reproduced, sorry

It's a lot of text, with very little information, and perhaps only one argument. What is the point here, what is being argued, how, with which arguments?

Yet the first thing to comment on is utterly left unspoken, and that is the part that I highlighted in bold:

CoGTh 47 "Jesus said, "It is impossible for a man to mount two horses or to stretch two bows [no parallel]. And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously [Mt6:24,Lk16:13]. No man drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine [Lk5:39 only]. And new wine is not put into old wineskins, lest they burst; nor is old wine put into a new wineskin, lest it spoil it [Mk2:22,Mt9:17,Lk5:37-38]. An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, because a tear would result [Mk2:21,Mt9:16,Lk5:36].""

Mark has 2 little verses, his 21 and 22.
Luke and Matthew have those, plus more: yet that "more" is located in an entirely different place, 3 chapters earlier in Matthew and 11 chapters later in Luke.
And then Luke has his "Sondergut" in his 5:39, astonishing

And then Thomas comes along, manages to - in the first centuries CE - lay his hands on all the NT material, and neatly spots that Matthew 6 / Luke 16 would actually go along fine with Mat 9 / Luke 5?!
Seriously?
And if that were not enough, he adds the bows to it, even at the very front of it all?

And he adds, which you of course omit, the perfect balance that the so divisive gospel writers want to avoid?

Mark takes only the new from Thomas: new patch onto old, new wine in old skins.
Luke 5 follows him to the letter, only adding the odd And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.
Matthew 9 follows Mark to the letter

"nor is old wine put into a new wineskin, lest it spoil it" is left out, or in your view, introduced by Thomas. Your entire comment to that is

GThomas drops 'new wine to be put in new wineskins' but adds 'old wine not to be put in new wineskins'. Once again, we note the economy of words in GThomas.

Let me give you my analysis here, and it's in the next reply

mlinssen
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

Post by mlinssen » Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:32 am

(copied from my 72 logia / canonical cousins)

Logion 47 is next: Thomas is lovely concise and complete here: he first posits his theorem that no one can handle two objects simultaneously (47a) and elaborates on that in serving two masters at the same time (47b).
Then he zooms in on the aspect of time by exemplifying one side of the coin (47c), building a case for the fact that it takes time to transition from old to new.
Switching to inanimate objects he then handles the compatibility of the old and the new, while shedding light on both sides: they are mutually incompatible because new destroys old and old spoils new (47d).
And then in (47e) he falls back on the example in (47c) with this time looking at the other side of the coin: (47c) shows that old doesn't immediately desire new, (47e) shows that new doesn't desire or endure (a piece of) the old

Thomas is perfectly balanced, unbiased, looking at old and new from both sides, starting with the general observation that there can be only one at a time: either old or new, never both.
As stated before when discussing Mark, not surprisingly the gospel-writers completely omit the old wine hurting the new skins, and likewise turn the old patch on a new garment into a new patch on an old garment. Doing so they make their version fit with the image of Christians being applied to Judaism (which would hurt) while leaving ample room for Jews flocking to Christianity (old wine drinkers can very well have an appetite for new):

(47a) Jesus said, "It is impossible for a man to mount two horses or to stretch two bows.
(47b) And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise, he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously.
(47c) No man drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine.
(47d) And new wine is not put into old wineskins, lest they burst; nor is old wine put into a new wineskin, lest it spoil it. (47e) An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, because a tear would result."


Mark 2:21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, or else the patch shrinks and the new tears away from the old, and a worse hole is made. 22 No one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine will burst the skins, and the wine pours out, and the skins will be destroyed; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins."

Luke 5:36 He also told a parable to them. "No one puts a piece from a new garment on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 No one puts new wine into old wine skins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. 38 But new wine must be put into fresh wine skins, and both are preserved. 39 No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, 'The old is better.'"

Emphasis is on the differences. Where Mark focuses on the old (hole) getting damaged if the patch fails, Luke pays attention to the new (patch)! Even more surprising is that by adding verse 39, Luke adds 47c to his version of Mark - with a slight comment at the end. Should that be read 'After Jewish religion no one desires Jesus'? That can't be the general idea, I think - fortunately Luke retains the so very crucial word 'immediately' - in this bible translation. Yet it is no small wonder that Matthew leaves out 47c entirely as it is so openly pointing to Jews being converted to Christianity.
Again, Matthew makes it all concise, also by leaving out the odd explanation Luke introduces by stating that the new patch will not match the old. And again, Luke shows that they read a part of Thomas that they chose to omit. What is Luke doing here?

Matthew 9:16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch would tear away from the garment, and a worse hole is made. 17 Neither do people put new wine into old wine skins, or else the skins would burst, and the wine be spilled, and the skins ruined. No, they put new wine into fresh wine skins, and both are preserved."

Luke and Matthew share the 'both are preserved' and Mark and Matthew share the 'worse hole is made'.
This is a crucial allegory for the gospel-writers, positioning their new religion next to Judaism. It is a perfect example of how, why and where the gospel-writers twist and turn Thomas, and why Thomas is first and not the other way around.
Whereas Thomas also puts emphasis on negative effects of the old being applied to the new (with regards to the wine; the tear will likely be in the patch but that's inconclusive), the gospel-writers only stress the new wine being spilled and the new garment being torn. The underlying message is that the new religion and the old Judaism are incompatible, with the new - their primal focus point - being wasted and damaging the old if it were to be applied onto it.
In that light, the unbiased metaphor of the two masters doesn't add to their specific business case at this point either, and is simply left out - to be used by Luke and Matthew in an entirely different context at a later point in time

Thomas is balanced, impartial, unbiased, purely showing the incompatibility between two, not picking any side - and that's the very opposite of what the so strongly polarising gospel-writers are aiming for. Let it also be noted that Thomas doesn't explain at all why or how the patch would tear the garment or vice versa, which indeed is an absolutely trivial detail if you're not interested in or biased towards either piece of cloth.
That little void results in the gospel-writers taking turns in order to fill it with an explanation, each varying rather greatly from the other. Whenever the gospel-writers show vast differences among themselves, they are handling content that is entirely of their own yet very closely related to Thomas content.
I call that the gospel sandbox: material that doesn't directly originate from either of their two pillars (copying Thomas and fulfilling scripture), and as such isn't subject to more or less strict rules. Especially Matthew will play around in the gospel sandbox, sometimes even grossly ignoring or elaborating on material from his predecessors

Regarding this logion and these verses, the order is strikingly clear: Thomas, Mark, Luke, Matthew: it couldn't possibly be any other way. Or could it? Is it feasible that Thomas takes these so extremely one-sided and biased verses and turns them into his beautifully unbiased logion? No.
Both Luke (16:13) and Matthew (6:24) will prove that they had access to the complete logion when they use the two masters metaphor at a later point. They also prove right here that they very well knew about the old wine put into new skins because of using the word 'destroyed' (or 'ruined') in their own extra reason for not putting new wine into old skins, with all three adding the detail of the wine being poured out or spilled.
The skins being destroyed or ruined are highly likely inspired by Thomas' 'spoil', the word that only occurs in the last phrase of 47d which is deliberately not used by all three. How useful is it to add that the skins are destroyed or ruined, after having stated that they (have been) burst? On a side note, the Coptic ⲡⲱϩ means "break, burst, tear, divide" and I like to translate it with "split"; a "division" or "split" is what comes to be when you sow an old rag onto new garments; when you fill a baby with all your own stories, models and habits, it will become divided, separated, dualised.

Luke chapter 16 finally delivers logion 47b, thus far missing from the copies all three made. Luke adds his own clue of 'God and money' (Mammon) which is quite limitative and rather unimaginative but perfectly fits the theme of his chapter here. Matthew copies Luke word by word and uses it in his sermon on the mount:

(47a) Jesus said, "It is impossible for a man to mount two horses or to stretch two bows.
(47b) And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise, he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously.
(47c) No man drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine.
(47d) And new wine is not put into old wineskins, lest they burst; nor is old wine put into a new wineskin, lest it spoil it. (47e) An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, because a tear would result."


Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You aren't able to serve God and Mammon."

Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can't serve both God and Mammon.

Mammon in Hebrew means money. Even here it is evident that Matthew comes after Luke as he drops the Thomas pointer of 'servant' - it's the only word that differs between the two of them.
Of course one could make the case that Luke chose to specify 'servant' over the general 'one', possibly also wanting to get closer to Thomas, and came after Matthew. And that Matthew dropped the Mammon moral entirely out of the blue in his Sermon, and forced Luke to write an entire paragraph on money just to accommodate...

We have the logion complete now, and perhaps with the knowledge gained it now is so very clear that these 5 sentences perfectly fit together? How feasible is it that these really are two separate pieces in the gospels that Thomas more than magically managed to piece together? Luke has the other part in chapter 5, Matthew has it in chapter 9. 11 chapters earlier, or 3 chapters later.
And Thomas finds those verses, harmonises them, adds them to the longer versions, adds the old wine in new bags phrase, and then, as if all that weren't enough, prefixes the entire logion with the two bows

Seriously. How likely is that to have happened? Bernard?

Post Reply