SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

[mlinssen]

ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς - psyche translated as "life", really?

Primary definition listed in the LSJ: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... %3Dyuxh%2F. BDAG has a long discussion of its translation in a biblical context, and it, too, lists "life" before "soul" or the like.

19 καὶ ἐρῶ τῇ ψυχῇ μου Ψυχή, ἔχεις πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ κείμενα εἰς ἔτη πολλά· ἀναπαύου, φάγε, πίε, εὐφραίνου

The rich fool... And you translate it with "soul"

[mlinssen]

Back to "SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story". If it was the case "Matthew" did a very bad job by not including the Bethsaida mini-gospel into gLuke, when that section is in his own gospel and gMark.

Cordially, Bernard

That depends on motive and purpose, Bernard. I think there are more than enough similarities between Luke and Matthew, wouldn't you think so?

[Ben C. Smith]

Philosophical question though: how would you classify the Gospel of Thomas, if you had to pick between biblical and non biblical? First reaction please, just on impulse

Parabiblical.

ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς - psyche translated as "life", really?

Primary definition listed in the LSJ: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... %3Dyuxh%2F. BDAG has a long discussion of its translation in a biblical context, and it, too, lists "life" before "soul" or the like.

19 καὶ ἐρῶ τῇ ψυχῇ μου Ψυχή, ἔχεις πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ κείμενα εἰς ἔτη πολλά· ἀναπαύου, φάγε, πίε, εὐφραίνου

The rich fool... And you translate it with "soul"

I myself did not translate it at all for that page. I used the WEB version, as stated in the OP, since it eschews its copyright status without using archaic English.

I do not get hung up on translations. I care about the original languages. The translation is there as a courtesy, for convenience.

[mlinssen]

Arguments in favor of proving Marcion's gospel (of the Lord) was written after Luke's gospel: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html

Cordially, Bernard

I like the John argument, although it is plausible to use John without mentioning him if he just copies Mark 2:18

The other arguments are rather weak, to be honest. Heaven and earth passing away is a verbatim copy of Thomas, like most of Marcion

[mlinssen]

Philosophical question though: how would you classify the Gospel of Thomas, if you had to pick between biblical and non biblical? First reaction please, just on impulse

Parabiblical.

ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς - psyche translated as "life", really?

Primary definition listed in the LSJ: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... %3Dyuxh%2F. BDAG has a long discussion of its translation in a biblical context, and it, too, lists "life" before "soul" or the like.

19 καὶ ἐρῶ τῇ ψυχῇ μου Ψυχή, ἔχεις πολλὰ ἀγαθὰ κείμενα εἰς ἔτη πολλά· ἀναπαύου, φάγε, πίε, εὐφραίνου

The rich fool... And you translate it with "soul"

I myself did not translate it at all for that page. I used the WEB version, as stated in the OP, since it eschews its copyright status without using archaic English.

I do not get hung up on translations. I care about the original languages. The translation is there as a courtesy, for convenience.

True, you wrote that, sorry. I use the WEB as well, and I don't like it but I hadn't found a bible that would let me copy it without copyright trouble. I'm considering Young's literal, for future use, as the WEB is very inconsistent, exactly like this, even differently translating identical parallels

Translations are of the utmost importance if you want to reach an audience of more than a handful

Parabiblical - that's a fun one LOL

[MrMacSon]

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 (?)

² I don't get this: who hasn't been yet?

[MrMacSon]

A) My theory is that there was Thomas first, creating a movement of rebellious and disobedient citizens that asked nasty questions to and about religious leaders, that threatened the order of society at that time. Whether or not you buy that is irrelevant really, as...

B) Mark followed up on that and created his jesus from scratch, making up everything as he went. Just today I learned that his literary style is rather remarkable, with complex stlystic structures, but from a theological point of view I have always wndered whether mark was really after creating a new religion, or simply aimed at pissing off the Jews by confronting them with a self-proclaimed Messiah who pissed down their throats, nullified their food laws, called their religious leaders hypocrites, and what not

I agree that the possible Thomas priority is irrelevant ...

No it's not, and that's not what Martijn is saying might be irrelevant - Martijn's proposing Mark followed up on Thomas having created "a movement of rebellious and disobedient citizens that asked nasty questions to and about religious leaders, that threatened the order of society at that time".

Any allegorical reading of Mark ...

... would seem to be irrelevant, so any "confusion and [your proposition about] the enigmatic nature of this book" would be irrelevant.


You might have this right though [and have finally written something in context], -

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.

But then you talk crap, again, -

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:

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

[Ben C. Smith]

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 (?)

Marcion does not appear in Luke at all. 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.

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 reverses the order of events, making it so that Jesus has indeed been to Capernaum by this point of the narrative.

[MrMacSon]

There is one major *But*, of course: how the hell could the Church have accepted "Luke" when they rejected Marcion? And gotten away with that?

Granted, all they needed to do was just lie that Marcion copied Luke, but Marcion seemed to have been quite a movement, and there is brazenness and then there is brazenness...

Although, Marcion seems to have been excommunicated in 144, after which he returned to Asia Minor (Turkey). I would have dared to release a proper copy of his stuff in ... nowhere really, LOL.

Then again all of his stuff got trashed, so it seems that Someone was behind that?
.

Someone and 'those' afterwards; and Someone = Irenaeus.

The rest, as the phrase goes, is history ....

[Bernard Muller]

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