(
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?
