Thanks Bernard, I inserted numbers into your text, for reference in my response
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 15, 2020 1:20 pm
bolding is mine
In a nutshell, again: Thomas was the common source to Mark, Luke and Matthew.
Mark, creating his own story out of nowhere on top of only Thomas, tentatively copied a third of it, and made up the rest. He tried to make it legitimate by referring to scripture.
Luke and Matthew doubled what he copied from Mark, and went nuts with the rest.
A lot of gMark is not in gThomas: out of the 114 logions, only 19 of them contain gMark material (Ref: http://sites.utoronto.ca/religion/synop ... a-synt.htm
gThomas cannot be considered a basis for gMark.
gThomas has 26 logions with "Q" sayings (common to gMatthew ant gLuke, but not in gMark) (same reference). According to http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm
I counted around 110 Q packets of consecutive wordings.
gThomas cannot be considered a basis for Q.
I went to go back to "Matthew" and "Luke" working side-by-side in order to write their respective gospels (with copies of gThomas & gMark).
Why side-by-side? Do you explain that in your papers? In that case, give us where to find the explanation (or better, the whole text of the passage).
If not already explained in your papers, can you provide your explanation?
I seems to me you consider this "side-by-side" very critical and important in order to support your theory that gThomas came first and "Matthew" & "Luke" used it to make their gospels (beyond what they got from gMark).
I want to add: (according to your theory) "Matthew" or "Luke" had to generate a lot of Q material (by copying each other), well beyond what they found in gThomas.
Would it make sense, because this twosome (allegedly) created most of the Q material (by copying each other), that the rest of Q came from them and not from gThomas?
Similar remark for gMark: Would it make sense, because "Mark" (allegedly) made his gospel with little from gThomas, that this (alleged) gThomas material in gMark did not come from gThomas?
Coptic/English Interlinear of the Gospel of Thomas
Edited by Antoine Guillaumont, Henri-Charles Puech,
Gilles Quispel, Walter Till & Yassah ‘Abd al-Masih.
Leiden: E.J. Brill; New York: Harper & Brothers; London: Collins, 1959.
https://www.freelyreceive.net/metalogos ... tic/32.gif
https://www.freelyreceive.net/metalogos ... tic/33.gif
https://www.freelyreceive.net/metalogos ... tic/34.gif
I have the book if you require better print, but these are the parallels as advertised by these authors, the editio princeps of Thomas.
As beautifully ancient HTML as Marshall's site is - and one of my starting points many years ago - it doesn't give you a quick numerical overview, does it. But there are 19 blue books to be counted in the Thomas column indeed, with logion 13 ("compare me to others") not counted at all, etc.
Yet why hand out this, when there is so much more out there? Why not cite my own work for example, counting 35 parallels for Mark? You could even challenge what I say per logion!
I can't accept the count for Q either, given the enormous discrepancy in the Thomas count. We can safely exclude John W Marshall from the list of unbiased and objective scholars, especially as he doesn't have any way of explaining how he justified his parallels, what criteria he used.
The final decisions on parallels for this edition and the means of presenting them have been mine and thus so has the responsibility
He spends considerably more text on the HTML, its size and speed, and his merits are to be sought there, I presume...
Exactly how do you arrive at 110 "Q packets" and why do you count those? Shouldn't one look at total material and just take the relative percentage of words that belong to matching sentences?
And those 110 Q packets then do contain Markan material, so you take Thomas, exclude from it what matches Mark
Side by side is just three words denoting how Luke and Matthew knew each other and "worked together apart", it's not something magical describing they were joined at the hips while writing their gospels, for example
That can't come as a surprise, when I state
"Luke and Matthew sat side-by-side writing their different gospels together: they doubled the copies from Thomas, and simply made up the rest in unison; while Luke addressed the Thomas supporters, and Matthew the (moderate) Jews, both changed and added to Mark what was needed at that time.
For instance, Luke / Matthew decided to have the John B mini-stry he to copy it verbatim between them, as apparently contemporary criticism required a firm filling of that void ("hey, about that Prophet of Most High, the messenger of Jesus - shouldn't he have a bit more text than merely announcing Jesus and then going off-stage?")
The birth narrative? It was missing but not so essential as to have it verbatim. And there was the issue of using a prophecy for someone named Immanuel and apply that to a Jesus, of course, so some free form was welcome. And why narrate the John B copy of Samson twice? Etc
My https://www.academia.edu/40695711/Absol ... ory_manner
is meant largely to sketch my theory and to work out the pointer to Johannes the Immerser (Zedekiah who immerses Jeremiah in mud) and explain the rest of logion 46 (the broken eyes by Nebuchadnezzar, the "exalted" derived from Jehoiachin, the book of Chronicles starting with Adam and ending with Zedekiah).
If you want to research the direction of dependence between Thomas and the canonicals, then my 72 logia has spelled out all the material, and comments to go along with it.
If you never noticed the grand literary difference between the parables that are in Thomas and those that aren't, then my https://www.academia.edu/40951733/Two_t ... ht_and_day
will certainly enlighten you
If you disagree with me, fine. But please, stop handing me vague material from others who say differently than I do without them elaborating in their method of inclusion and exclusion. That's not scholarship or research, that's majority opinion, groupthink, and exactly that what makes religion in general an orthodox and deaf phenomenon, a one-way street. There are quite a few bigoted biblical scholars on both sides (practicing Christians and non-religious), and dialogue is futile there
Challenge what I say please, and e.g. refute the 35 parallels that I have for Mark, in stead of pointing me to John W Marshall who didn't have logion 13, the comparison of Jesus, nor 25, love your brother, and so on.