Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:42 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:07 am
mlinssen wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 5:46 pm The order of texts:

Thomas writes his text about self salvation: the kingdom is of your inside and of your eye. It's not about any Jesus we know, not about Christianity, not even about Chrestianity: Thomas precedes all that

John takes that into a narrative, fully breathing the spirituality of Thomas: John has more occurrences of "father" than the Synoptics together (Matthew 64, Mark 18, Luke 55, John 137);

Marcion takes John and adds some 50+ logia from Thomas, and some really fierce anti-Judaism, among others the Transfiguration (cf. Christi Thora)

Mark counters Marcion by inverting the anti-Judaism, and catches two birds with one stone: he redirects the anti-Judaism to the Pharisees - and also invents the resurrection, blaming the women (from the Chrestian tradition) for the fact that no one had ever heard of that

Chrestianity still persists and after Mark an even bolder move is made: Marcion's *Ev gets redacted into Luke - by Matthew, who is writing his own gospel on the side

There's no historicity of anyone, the characters all are figments of the imagination, invented by Thomas and everyone who came after him: one will look in vain for XS or XRS in Thomas; there is no Chrest or Christ in his text, only an IS and IHS. Yet all the names in his text are in the NT

For Pete's sake Pete: concede. Let it all go, and find a hobby that has some return on investment.
Please
Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses:

1) Thomas draws from the Synoptics
2) The Synoptics draw from Thomas
3) Thomas and the Synoptics draw from a common source

None of these hypotheses can be proven IMO. On the basis of the evidence you (and Koepke et al) have adduced so far I cannot concede to the truth of hypothesis 2) that Thomas wrote first. Hypothesis 1 seems more likely IMO.

However on the basis that none of these three mutually exclusive hypotheses can be proven, beyond reasonable doubt to be the correct option, I have an open mind.
That's nonsense of course, and you omit the substantiation there for a good reason. You also, naturally, just make a statement here that reflects an unsubstantiated opinion instead of taking any one of the thousands of pages that have been written on this by Koepke and me alone, and actually refute something that we claim.
Your training and arguing is extremely weak Pete, you are worse than Bernard Muller

Redaction criticism demonstrates, time and again, far beyond reasonable doubt, that Thomas precedes the canonicals

1.

The splitting of logia by the gospel-writers, such as logion 79, is a solid case for them copying Thomas and not the other way around. Thomas joining Luke 11:27-28 with Mark 13:17 or Matthew 24:19? Good luck with arguing that case. Thomas joining the two masters of Luke 16:13 or Matthew 6:24 to their 5:36-39 respectively 9:16-17, so that he can have his logion 47 complete? The most brutal split occurs around logion 45 where the essential middle sentence is left out, that of the good man and his good storehouse, and the evil man and his evil storehouse. When and where it befits the gospel-writers they include it, and when and where it befits them they exclude it. Logion 39 has its doves and serpents moved to Matthew 10:16 whereas he has the other parts in chapter 23; he is the only one who has it so Thomas must have combined those two parts into one logion, because? Logion 76 is used only by Matthew in a particularly poor version in 13:45-46 while ramming through three logia in a row, yet it is Luke and Matthew who use 76d in 12:33-34 respectively 6:19-21. What on earth would the motive be for Thomas to combine these, and isn't it perfectly intelligible why Matthew didn't want it to follow his copy?

(The 72 logia of Thomas and their canonical cousins


I stated that it was my opinion that none of these three mutually exclusive hypotheses can be proven, beyond reasonable doubt to be the correct option. You state that this opinion is nonsense. You take the posture that you (and others) have proven far beyond reasonable doubt, that Thomas precedes the canonicals. The posture is sprinkled with ad homs.


Why should I be cautious? Because I consider the evidence to be insufficient.



p.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:


1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.


2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/arnal ... STIANS.htm



I will respond separately to your technical claims -- Logia 79, 47, 45, 39, 76 -- above that redaction criticism demonstrates far beyond reasonable doubt, that Thomas precedes the canonicals.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:42 pm Redaction criticism demonstrates, time and again, far beyond reasonable doubt, that Thomas precedes the canonicals


In the conclusion of that article you write

p.139

The metamorphosis model is a clear and evident indication of Thomas being original, although it is technically possible - yet extremely unlikely - that he took all of his from the (at that point not extant) New Testament, up to including Acts and Paul, and applied his beautifully intricate model to it.
So in 2020 you managed to articulate some caution by saying contra to the Thomasine priority argument that "it is technically possible - yet extremely unlikely" that it is wrong. Do you still subscribe to some caution (as expressed above) or have you thrown caution to the wind?
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Initial proposition: Redaction criticism demonstrates that Thomas precedes the canonicals. The argument is that the splitting of logia by the gospel-writers, is a solid case for them copying Thomas and not the other way around.

Counter-Proposition: Redaction criticism demonstrates, that the canonicals precede Thomas. The counter argument is that the synthesis of extracts from the gospels into the logia of Thomas is a solid case for him copying the gospels and not the other way around.


EXPLANATORY POWER:

So which proposition and argument has better explanatory power? Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis or theory to explain the subject matter (i.e. evidence) effectively to which it pertains.

When the evidence is limited to the arguments you have made above regarding the dependence of Logia 79, 47, 45, 39, 76 then clearly both proponents should be able to provide an agenda.


AGENDA:

What are the two different agendas?
Why did the authors do what we think they did?

The initial proposition implies that the gospel writers were being in some way "mischievous" and had an agenda to break the original logia of Thomas apart and insert the pieces into the gospels. Would you like to elaborate on what you think their agenda was?

The counter proposition implies that Thomas was being in some way "mischievous" and had an agenda to synthesise extracts from the original gospels into the logia of Thomas. I have provided elaborations of this before. Thomas was a pernicious "master heretic".

I have used the term "mischievous" whereas others may like to coin a different term. Here are the synonyms of "mischievous": (1) naughty, bad, badly behaved, misbehaving, disobedient, troublesome, vexatious, full of mischief, rascally, roguish, prankish, delinquent, playful, teasing, wicked, impish, puckish, waggish. (2) malicious, malevolent, hostile, spiteful, bitter, venomous, poisonous, evil-intentioned, ill-natured, evil, baleful, vindictive, vengeful, vitriolic.

But feel free to impugn an agenda to these two situations by using a different term. Or at least to state the agenda of the pernicious gospel authors.



BROADER EVIDENCE:

The above should be considered to be directly related to the earliest primary manuscript evidence we have for the gospels and for Thomas. Let's keep it separate. I can't see how anyoe can determine either proposition to be "proven" with the above being said unless someone can provide an obvious agenda perhaps with a specific historical context.

However I note that the argument for Thomasine priority is not limited to the evidence directly involved in the initial proposition and counter proposition. The evidence base is beyond the theoretical and physical manuscripts.

For example:


The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas by Detlev Koepke


STATS gathered from p.126, 134, 142


These are the sayings of Thomas that are quoted by ancient Bibles as well as by the New Testament:

1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 16, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 47, 54, 55, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 68, 72, 76, 78, 79, 86, 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 100, 101, 104, 107 and 113.


There are 30 sayings of Thomas quoted fully by the Christian theologians:

3, 8, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 45, 46, 52, 53, 57, 62, 66, 68, 72, 77, 81, 82, 86, 93, 95, 104, 107, 113. Add to this 3 sayings (9, 36, 39) whose wordings of Thomas they quote


Here are the 38 sayings not quoted:

7, 11, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 42, 43, 49, 50, 53, 56, 59, 60, 67, 70, 74, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 97, 98, 102, 103, 110, 111, 112, 114. This includes 3 of the parables: 60, 97 and 98).

///


p.142

In conclusion: what all this diligent research shows is that over and over again, ancient editions of the Gospels, Christian theologians, Christian commentators and Christian liturgical literature cite the wording of the Gospel of Thomas over similar versions in the present-day New Testament. All the evidence shows that Christians knew the Gospel of Thomas well into the Middle Ages and that it continued to be regarded as the authoritative source for Jesus' words.


IMO this is where the propositions will be better tested. The ancient editions of the Gospels have been covered above, unless you would like to further propose a slam dunk agenda.


Who are these Christian theologians, Christian commentators and which Christian liturgical literature cite the wording of the Gospel of Thomas over similar versions in the present-day New Testament?

If you'd like to establish Thomas priority- which I assume to mean chronological priority of authorship - then let's look at the evidence adduced by Koepke and yourself.

Here is Koepke's evidence data related to Logion 8

SAMPLE:

p.129

Let us look at the quotes of Thomas by the ancient Christian writings in more detail. An excellent example is Saying 8 of Thomas. It is clear that Christian writers and Biblical compilers considered Saying 8 indeed to be the original text superior to Matthew's version for they universally cited it. The number of wordings of Matthew 13:47-48 quoted in ancient sources that are clearly from Saying 8 rather than from Matthew's later version is astounding, as follows:

1) MATT

The Parable of the Net

47“Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

2) Thomas 8

LAYTON

(8) And he said, "What human beings resemble is an intelligent fisherman who, having cast his net into the sea, pulled the net up out of the sea full of little fish. The intelligent fisherman, upon finding among them a fine large fish, threw all the little fish back into the sea, choosing without any effort the big fish. Whoever has ears to hear should listen!"

Martijn Linssen


8. and said he : the human is-comparable to a(n) fisher become-man of heart/mind this-one have cast [dop] his(F) dragnet to the.Sea did he draw [dop] she/r up-from the.Sea she/r being-full of fish [al] little within upper-part of heart/mind they did he fall to a(n) great [al] fish good viz. the fisher become man of heart/mind did he cast [dop] the(PL) little all [they] [al] fish outward downward to the.Sea did he choose [dop] the great [al] fish Exempt-from toil he-who there-be ear within he to hear let! he hear


p.129



1. "fisherman" rather than "fishnet" - Heliand 2629, the Armenian Commentary of Ephrem, Aphraates, Philoxenos of Mabbug (458-519 C.E.), Macarius, Clement of Alexandria.

2. "who cast his net" rather than "which was thrown" - Heliand 2629, the Armenian Commentary of Ephrem, Clement of Alexandria;

3. "he drew it up" rather than "men drew it ashore" - Greek and Latin Codex Bezae, Dutch, Venetian, Tuscan, Persian and Arabian Diatessaron, Heliand 2631, all Vetus Latina but Codex Colbertinus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis and Redhigeranus, Armenian Commentary of Ephrem, Syrus Sinaiticus and Curetonianus, Peshitta, Sahidic and Bohairic Bible, Philoxenos.

4. "from the sea" rather than "ashore" - Dutch, Venetian, Tuscan and Persian Diatessaron, Heliand, Armenian Commentary of Ephrem, Syrus Sinaiticus, Bohairic Bible, Philoxenos, Ludolph.

5. "full" rather than "filled" - Dutch, Venetian and Tuscan Diatessaron, Codex Claromontanus.

6. "of small fish", omitted in Mt - Dutch, Venetian, Tuscan, Old High German and Persian Diatessaron, all Vetus Latina except Codex Aureus and Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Codex Sangallensis, Philoxenos, Clement of Alexandria.

7. "he chose" rather than "he collected" - Codex Alexandrinus, Dutch, Tuscan, Old High German, Latin, Persian and Arabian Diatessaron, Armenian Commentary of Ephrem, Syrus Sinaiticus and Curetonianus, Peshitta, all Vetus Latina except Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Palatinus and Bobbiensis, Vulgate, Philoxenos, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom.

8. "the good fish" rather than "the good" - Dutch Diatessaron, Syrian Commentary of Ephrem, Syrus Curetonianus, Syrus Sinaiticus, Peshitta, Codex Vercellensis, Veronensis and Claromontanus, Aphraates, Philoxenos.

9. "large and good fish" - Venetian Diatessaron, Philoxenos.

10. "down into the sea", omitted in Mt - Heliand 2634, Macarius. (Quispel Tatian 53, 176, GnSt 58-59, Heliand 96)


The sources are:

Heliand 2629,
the Armenian Commentary of Ephrem,
Aphraates,
Philoxenos of Mabbug (458-519 C.E.),
Macarius,
Greek and Latin Codex Bezae,
Dutch, Venetian, Tuscan, Persian and Arabian Diatessaron,
Heliand 2631,
all Vetus Latina but
Codex Colbertinus,
Bezae Cantabrigiensis and
Redhigeranus,
Armenian Commentary of Ephrem,
Syrus
Sinaiticus and
Curetonianus,
Peshitta,
Sahidic and
Bohairic Bible,
Philoxenos,
Bohairic Bible,
Ludolph.
Tuscan Diatessaron,
Codex Claromontanus

etc


These need to be allocated date ranges and then sorted. I understand this is only one logion.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:32 am I will respond separately to your technical claims -- Logia 79, 47, 45, 39, 76 -- above that redaction criticism demonstrates far beyond reasonable doubt, that Thomas precedes the canonicals.
It's been a week now Pete - I'll take your argument of silence as your usual demonstration of being completely incapable of any textual criticism whatsoever

And that is no ad hominem, nor is anything that I lay at your feet: they are simple observations that have a very high rate of factuality.
If you were 5 feet tall and I were to call you a small man, a tiny man, a little man - would any of those be an ad hom?
You just can't be reasoned with Pete, and you have demonstrated that in this forum ad nauseam.
Your theory is a dumb ass theory and it has been precisely that since a few years after its inception, as you have never tried to falsify it by studying the texts that are part of it.
Now I have studied texts that are part of it, and I have studied Thomas like no one ever before - and while I don't consider myself a scholar or academic, I certainly don't hesitate to claim that my research on Thomas is the best and brightest ever done, and that it stands lonely at the top of all Thomas research ever done.
Real Thomas research that is, where Thomas is evaluated within its own content and context - and just as my translation is the first academic Thomas translation ever, so is my research

Does my research contain jabs at other researchers, does some of it make some of them completely ridiculous? No, I merely cite their work where it does so, and it is their own words and actions that I expose. And yes, I do voice my concerns over all that, in common ways

So, Pete, as you have mentioned me in 5 posts this week: can you please just stop wasting my very valuable time, or shall I just ignore you for the rest of my life because there is nothing tangible (let alone valuable) for me to get from you because you only goal is to babble your way out of the bottomless pit that you have dug yourself into?

Thomas precedes the gospels beyond any and all reasonable doubt, and as such cripples your silly theory.
Even if you attempt to argue that Thomas is redacted you won't be able to wiggle your way out of it.
So let me propose one case then, and it is a tough and hard one but you have had your chance and I now will put a knife to your throat so we can have it all done and dusted, and you can speak up one final time or forever hold your tongue. Because I am fed up with you and - I think - so is everyone else

1. Logion 47 has the order of wine skins and patch reversed just like Marcion has:
Concerning Tertullian’s testimony, first, in 4.11.9–10, Tertullian twice makes reference to the wine and then to the patch, which is the order found in Gos. Thom. 47. This is different from Tertullian’s order in 3.15.5, where the reverse order, found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 9:16–17//Mark 2:21–22//Luke 5:36–37), is followed.
When considering only Tertullian’s testimony, some hesitancy about conclud-ing that Tertullian definitively attests the reverse order of the elements for Marcion’s Gospel arises as Tertullian himself chose the variant order—wine then patch—in Or. 1.1. Second, Tertullian employed a word-play in his accu-sations leveled against Marcion in 4.11.9 that is suggestive of the underlying reading. The phrase pannum haereticae novitatis59 seems to play on ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου (as in Matt 9:16//Mark 2:21) and not on the Lukan ἐπίβλημα ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ (Luke 5:36).60
(Roth's Marcion page 97)

2. Logion 47.1 contains the two bows that are nowhere else to be found and which are succeeded by 47.2, the two masters that are in Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13
3. The canonicals have the remainder in Mark 2:21-22, Luke 5:36:37, Matthew 9:16-17 - which is quite a distance from the verses in (2)
4. And to finish it all of, Luke finishes off his version with a phrase in Thomas that precedes all these, namely 47.3b: Luke 5:39

47.1. IS said: there is not strength of a human to be mounted on two horses and to stretch two bows,
47.2. and there is not strength of a slave to serve two slaveowners, Or he will make be Honour the one and the other one he will make be "Hubrize" him;
47.3a. not usually a human drinks old wine and
47.3b. within the hour he Desires to drink new wine, and
47.4. not usually they cast new wine to old Wineskin in order that they will not split; and
47.5. not usually they cast old wine to new Wineskin So that he will not destroy him;
47.6. not usually they glue~ old rag old to new* garment Since therefore a split will come to be.

So, Pete:
A. Marcion does his thing, and then Thomas copies his order?
B. Then Thomas invents the two bows all by himself and takes either Luke 16:13 or Matthew 6:24 in order to start his version with?
C. Then Thomas takes Luke 5:39
D. Then Thomas takes either Mark 2:21-22, Luke 5:36-37 or Matthew 9:16-17?
E. As you might notice, Thomas has two words for 'new' and it is marked here with an asterisk: ϣⲁⲉⲓ is unattested in Crum and I think it is another wordplay in Thomas for ϣⲁ ⲉⲓ, "towards me" even though that would be grammatically incorrect as the pronominal form would be required, ϣⲁⲣⲱ.
The thing is, this word occurs uniquely in Thomas, in the last seven words of this logion.
Yet what happens when you invert the order?! You move the word up front - and indeed, every single canonical copy also contains two different words for 'new', with one great distinction:

καινος - Luke 5:36, 38
νέος - Luke 5:37, 38, 39
Both: Luke 5:38

καινος - Mark 2:21, 22
νέος - Mark 2:22
Both: Mark 2:22

καινος - Matthew 9:17
νέος - Matthew 9:17
Both: Matthew 9:17

Each of the canonicals demonstrate that they have no particular distinction for both nouns - but most importantly they demonstrate that they will reuse the word. And utmost importantly, the first time they use it is in the patch verse.
Thomas does not suffer from any of this: he has only one word for 'new', uses it three times for the wine and uses an entirely different word solely for the patch.
So if the canonicals don't distinguish, why does Thomas?
And if the canonicals mix, why doesn't Thomas?
And isn't it obvious that turning the order around allows them to mix the words without distinction? So why doesn't Thomas?

And we can see how Mark's ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς gets copied by Luke and Matthew and elaborated on at start and end - just as we can see that Thomas must have had a very peculiar order for copying, as Matthew doesn't have a new or old patch.
We can also see that 'unshrunk' just doesn't cut it: ἀγνάφου occurs in Mark and Matthew so Thomas can only have taken his version from Luke 5:36 - and Luke 5:36b obviously betrays the expansion of Thomas 47.3
F. Let's just highlight all the differences and agreements:

Bold and italic denote the same, they're just different so the parts are smaller and easier to compare.
Including the variants going by NA28, yellow highlight indicates a variant, orange highlight denotes one that is omitted in at least one MS

Mark 2:21 Οὐδεὶς (No one) ἐπίβλημα (a patch) ῥάκους (of cloth) ἀγνάφου (unshrunk) ἐπιράπτει (sews) ἐπὶ (on) ἱμάτιον (clothing) παλαιόν (old); εἰ (if) δὲ (now) μή (not) αἴρει (tears away) τὸ (the) πλήρωμα (patch) ἀπ’ (from) αὐτοῦ (it), τὸ (-) καινὸν (new) τοῦ (from the) παλαιοῦ (old), καὶ (And) χεῖρον (worse) σχίσμα (a tear) γίνεται (takes place).
22 Καὶ (And) οὐδεὶς (no one) βάλλει (puts) οἶνον (wine) νέον (new) εἰς (into) ἀσκοὺς (wineskins) παλαιούς (old); εἰ (if) δὲ (now) μή (not), ῥήξει (will burst) ὁ (the) οἶνος (wine) τοὺς (the) ἀσκούς (wineskins), καὶ (and) ὁ (the) οἶνος (wine) ἀπόλλυται (will be destroyed), καὶ (and) οἱ (the) ἀσκοί (wineskins). ἀλλὰ (Instead), οἶνον (wine) νέον (new) εἰς (into) ἀσκοὺς (wineskins) καινούς (new).”


Matthew 9:16 Οὐδεὶς (No one) δὲ (however) ἐπιβάλλει (puts) ἐπίβλημα (a patch) ῥάκους (of cloth) ἀγνάφου (unshrunk) ἐπὶ (on) ἱματίῳ (clothing) παλαιῷ (old); αἴρει (tears away) γὰρ (for) τὸ (the) πλήρωμα (patch) αὐτοῦ (of it) ἀπὸ (from) τοῦ (the) ἱματίου (garment), καὶ (and) χεῖρον (a worse) σχίσμα (tear) γίνεται (emerges).
17 Οὐδὲ (Nor) βάλλουσιν (pour they) οἶνον (wine) νέον (new) εἰς (into) ἀσκοὺς (wineskins) παλαιούς (old); εἰ (if) δὲ (now) μή¦γε (lest) ῥήγνυνται (are burst) οἱ (the) ἀσκοί (wineskins), καὶ (and) ὁ (the) οἶνος (wine) ἐκχεῖται (is poured out), καὶ (and) οἱ (the) ἀσκοὶ (wineskins) ἀπόλλυνται (are destroyed). ἀλλὰ (But) βάλλουσιν (they pour) οἶνον (wine) νέον (new) εἰς (into) ἀσκοὺς (wineskins) καινούς (new), καὶ (and) ἀμφότεροι (both) συντηροῦνται (are preserved).”

White is irrelevant, green is Mark, red is Matthew, underlined is uniquely Lukan, italic is verbatim yet adjusted for syntax, plain is shared with Mark and Matthew

Luke 5:36 Ἔλεγεν (He was speaking) δὲ (now) καὶ (also) παραβολὴν (a parable) πρὸς (to) αὐτοὺς (them) ὅτι (-): “Οὐδεὶς (No one) ἐπίβλημα (a piece) ἀπὸ (of) ἱματίου (a garment) καινοῦ (new) σχίσας (having torn), ἐπιβάλλει (puts it) ἐπὶ (on) ἱμάτιον (a garment) παλαιόν (old); εἰ (if) δὲ (however) μή¦γε (otherwise) καὶ (also) τὸ (the) καινὸν (new) σχίσει (he will tear), καὶ (and) τῷ (the) παλαιῷ (old) οὐ (not) συμφωνήσει (will match), τὸ (which is) ἐπίβλημα (the piece) τὸ (-) ἀπὸ (of) τοῦ (the) καινοῦ (new).
37 Καὶ (And) οὐδεὶς (no one) βάλλει (puts) οἶνον (wine) νέον (new) εἰς (into) ἀσκοὺς (wineskins) παλαιούς (old); εἰ (if) δὲ (now) μή¦γε (otherwise), ῥήξει (will burst) ὁ (the) οἶνος (wine) ὁ (-) νέος (new) τοὺς (the) ἀσκούς (wineskins), καὶ (and) αὐτὸς (it) ἐκχυθήσεται (will be spilled out), καὶ (and) οἱ (the) ἀσκοὶ (wineskins) ἀπολοῦνται (will be destroyed).
38 ἀλλὰ (But) οἶνον (wine) νέον (new) εἰς (into) ἀσκοὺς (wineskins) καινοὺς (fresh) βλητέον (must be put).
39 καὶ (And) οὐδεὶς (no one) πιὼν (having drunk) παλαιὸν (old wine) θέλει (desires) νέον (new); λέγει (he says) γάρ (for), ‘Ὁ (The) παλαιὸς (old) χρηστός (better) ἐστιν (is).

As usual, omissions occur in Bezae, the Italian tradition and Bohairic

G. Last but not least, Thomas presents a perfectly balanced logion here, viewing it all from both sides:

This grand narrative starts out very balanced with observing the impossibility of simultaneously handling two (in)animate objects, and then plots that to humans, and finally names what it is all about: the slave who can only serve one slaveowner because when serving two he will raise one up a pedestal and tear the other one down from it - and there is a hint in there that should startle the reader and make him wonder why a slave would or should serve even one slaveowner.
Thomas then slowly zooms in on either side of these coins while changing the animate, human subject to inanimate objects; wine and wineskin, elaborating on both sides as well: if change is from old to new, does that mean that the old wineskin gets filled with new wine? Or does it mean that old wine gets cast into a new wineskin? Neither scenario ends well, with both taking damage - and there is a lesson there, a very hard and harsh lesson, and that is that casting new into old results in a split of both, whereas casting old into new ends in destruction of both - and both verbs there, 'split' as well as 'destroy' will surface again in Thomas, and have already done so before.
It all ends, rather abruptly, with yet another subject, clothing, and only considering one single side, and the new word for new is highly conspicuous - but what is described is what has happened to all of us, to the "garment" that we got to "wear" when born: all kinds of old ideas were glued to us, we inherited tons of legacies from our parents, our peers, and they stuck it to us like glue, they taught us all that until we could recite it all, by "heart". And that applying of old onto new, unlike the casting of wine into the wineskin, did result not in destruction but in a split - and we did split, and became the slave as well as the slaveowner

For the really astute observer there is a scheme here:

Be mounted on two horses & stretch two bows: 2:2
Serve two slaveowners & honour one and hubrise the other: 2:1-1.
Drink old wine & immediately desire new wine: 1:1
Cast new wine into old wineskin & both split: 1-1:2
Cast old wine into new wineskin & (which?!) one destroys the other: 1-1:1-1
Glue old rag to old garment & a split will occur: 1-1:1

The interaction comes before the ampersand and is between one person and two animate objects, two animate humans, a single inanimate object - followed by two inanimate objects being applied one to the other three times in a row.
The result follows after the ampersand and is between one person and two animate objects, one and one animate humans, a single inanimate object - followed by two inanimate objects exerting the same action, one acting on the other, and one action happening to both, or either

I could study Thomas for a few more years before seeing all the gems, his text stands at an unprecedented level of majestic magnificence. Even the mere notion of him taking the complete rubbish of the NT as a source is breathtakingly hilarious

Go on then please
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:32 amI will respond separately to your technical claims -- Logia 79, 47, 45, 39, 76 -- above that redaction criticism demonstrates far beyond reasonable doubt, that Thomas precedes the canonicals.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:26 pm
Initial proposition: Redaction criticism demonstrates that Thomas precedes the canonicals. The argument is that the splitting of logia by the gospel-writers, is a solid case for them copying Thomas and not the other way around.

Counter-Proposition: Redaction criticism demonstrates, that the canonicals precede Thomas. The counter argument is that the synthesis of extracts from the gospels into the logia of Thomas is a solid case for him copying the gospels and not the other way around.


EXPLANATORY POWER:

So which proposition and argument has better explanatory power? Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis or theory to explain the subject matter (i.e. evidence) effectively to which it pertains.

When the evidence is limited to the arguments you have made above regarding the dependence of Logia 79, 47, 45, 39, 76 then clearly both proponents should be able to provide an agenda.


AGENDA:

What are the two different agendas?
Why did the authors do what we think they did?

The initial proposition implies that the gospel writers were being in some way "mischievous" and had an agenda to break the original logia of Thomas apart and insert the pieces into the gospels. Would you like to elaborate on what you think their agenda was?

The counter proposition implies that Thomas was being in some way "mischievous" and had an agenda to synthesise extracts from the original gospels into the logia of Thomas. I have provided elaborations of this before. Thomas was a pernicious "master heretic".

I have used the term "mischievous" whereas others may like to coin a different term. Here are the synonyms of "mischievous": (1) naughty, bad, badly behaved, misbehaving, disobedient, troublesome, vexatious, full of mischief, rascally, roguish, prankish, delinquent, playful, teasing, wicked, impish, puckish, waggish. (2) malicious, malevolent, hostile, spiteful, bitter, venomous, poisonous, evil-intentioned, ill-natured, evil, baleful, vindictive, vengeful, vitriolic.

But feel free to impugn an agenda to these two situations by using a different term. Or at least to state the agenda of the pernicious gospel authors.



BROADER EVIDENCE:

The above should be considered to be directly related to the earliest primary manuscript evidence we have for the gospels and for Thomas. Let's keep it separate.

I can't see how anyone can determine either proposition to be "proven" with the above being said unless someone can provide an obvious agenda perhaps with a specific historical context.

mlinssen wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:13 amIt's been a week now Pete - I'll take your argument of silence as your usual demonstration of being completely incapable of any textual criticism whatsoever
In my argument from silence (reproduced above) I outlined the two competing proposition / hypotheses both of which are asserted to be substantiated by textual criticism.

Initial proposition: Redaction criticism demonstrates that Thomas precedes the canonicals. The argument is that the splitting of logia by the gospel-writers, is a solid case for them copying Thomas and not the other way around.

Counter-Proposition: Redaction criticism demonstrates, that the canonicals precede Thomas. The counter argument is that the synthesis of extracts from the gospels into the logia of Thomas is a solid case for him copying the gospels and not the other way around.

Given only the texts of the gospels and Thomas I honestly can't see how anyone can determine either proposition to be "proven" over and above the other.

You and those who support the initial hypothesis will consistently claim Thomas obviously precedes the gospels while many others who support the counter hypothesis will consistently claim that the gospels precede Thomas.

Assertion.
Counter assertion.
Assertion,
Counter assertion.
Stalemate.

In case you are not aware textual criticism has its limits in historical reconstructions. It cannot IMHO decide on this issue given just the texts of Thomas and the synoptics. Neither will the answer be resolved by a duel of assertions at ten paces.

In my earlier response I offered a way forward by introducing the claim that external texts (a broader textual evidence base) - the texts of the church fathers - appear to quote from Thomas rather than from the synoptics, may be able to contribute to the outcome of the debate. Koepke outlines and uses this argument. I cited some sources. I am happy to work through these with you and determine whether they support the hypothesis of Thomas priority over and above the accepted mainstream hypothesis of synoptic priority.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:13 am
1. Logion 47 has the order of wine skins and patch reversed just like Marcion has:


Concerning Tertullian’s testimony, first, in 4.11.9–10, Tertullian twice makes reference to the wine and then to the patch, which is the order found in Gos. Thomas 47. This is different from Tertullian’s order in 3.15.5, where the reverse order, found in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 2:21–22/Matt 9:16–17/Luke 5:36–37), is followed.

When considering only Tertullian’s testimony, some hesitancy about concluding that Tertullian definitively attests the reverse order of the elements for Marcion’s Gospel arises as Tertullian himself chose the variant order—wine then patch—in Or. 1.1.a Second, Tertullian employed a word-play in his accusations levelled against Marcion in 4.11.9 that is suggestive of the underlying reading. The phrase pannum haereticae novitatis59 seems to play on ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου (as in Mark 2:21/Matt 9:16) and not on the Lukan ἐπίβλημα ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ (Luke 5:36).60

(Roth's Marcion, p.97)


a 'Or' is De Oratione / On Prayer:


The Spirit of God, and the Word of God, and the Reason of God--Word of Reason, and Reason and Spirit of Word -- Jesus Christ our Lord, namely, who is both the one and the other -- has determined for us, the disciples of the New Testament, a new form of prayer; for in this particular also it was needful that new wine should be laid up in new skins, and a new breadth be sewn to a new garment. Besides, whatever had been in bygone days, has either been quite changed, as circumcision; or else supplemented, as the rest of the Law; or else fulfilled, as Prophecy; or else perfected, as faith itself. For the new grace of God has renewed all things from carnal unto spiritual, by superinducing the Gospel, the obliterator of the whole ancient bygone system; in which our Lord Jesus Christ has been approved as the Spirit of God, and the Word of God, and the Reason of God: the Spirit, by which He was mighty; the Word, by which He taught; the Reason, by which He came. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian22.html


I. [1] Dei spiritus et Dei sermo et Dei ratio, sermo rationis et ratio sermonis et spiritus utriusque, Iesus Christus Dominus noster, nouis discipulis noui testamenti nouam orationis formam determinauit. Oportebat enim in hac quoque specie nouum uinum nouis utribus recondi et nouam plagulam nouo adsui uestimento. Ceterum quicquid retro fuerat, aut demutatum est ut circumcisio aut suppletum ut reliqua lex aut impletum ut prophetia aut perfectum ut fides ipsa. [2] Omnia de carnalibus in spiritualia renouauit noua Dei gratia, superducto euangelio, expunctore totius retro uetustatis, in quo et Dei spiritus et Dei sermo et Dei ratio approbatus est Dominus noster Iesus Christus, spiritus quo ualuit, sermo quo docuit, ratio qua uenit. http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0350/_P1.HTM



Tertullian Against Marcion IV,11


Wherefore, then, do you make his Christ a bridegroom? This is the designation of Him who united man and woman, not of him who separated them. You have erred also in that declaration of Christ, wherein He seems to make a difference between things new and old.

You are inflated about the old bottles,b and brain-muddled with the new wine; and therefore to the old (that is to say, to the prior) gospel you have sewed on the patch of your new-fangled heresy [presumably the pannum haereticae novitatis Roth refers to]. I should like to know in what respect the Creator is inconsistent with Himself. When by Jeremiah He gave this precept, "Break up for yourselves new pastures," does He not turn away from the old state of things? And when by Isaiah He proclaims how "old things were passed away; and, behold, all things, which I am making, are new," does He not advert to a new state of things?

We have generally been of opinion's that the destination of the former state of things was rather promised by the Creator, and exhibited in reality by Christ, only under the authority of one and the same God, to whom appertain both the old things and the new.

For new wine is not put into old bottles,b except by one who has the old bottles;b nor does anybody put a new piece to an old garment, unless the old garment be forthcoming to him.

That person only does not do a thing when it is not to be done, who has the materials wherewithal to do it if it were to be done. And therefore, since His object in making the comparison was to show that He was separating the new condition of the gospel from the old state of the law, He proved that that from which He was separating His own ought not to have been branded as a separation of things which were alien to each other; for nobody ever unites his own things with things that are alien to them, in order that he may afterwards be able to separate them from the alien things. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... an124.html


a I presume 'bottles' should be wineskins


Tertullian Against Marcion III,15


The name of Christ, however, does not arise from nature, but from dispensation; and so becomes the proper name of Him to whom it accrues in consequence of the dispensation. Nor is it subject to be shared in by any other God, especially a rival, and one that has a dispensation of His own, to whom it will be also necessary that He should possess names apart from all others. For how happens it that, after they have devised different dispensations for two Gods they admit into this diversity of dispensation a community of names; whereas no proof could be more useful of two Gods being rival ones, than if there should be found coincident with their (diverse) dispensations a diversity also of names? For that is not a state of diverse qualities, which is not distinctly indicated in the specific meanings of their designations. Whenever these are wanting, there occurs what the Greeks call the 'katachresis' of a term, by its improper application to what does not belong to it. In God, however, there ought, I suppose, to be no defect, no setting up of His dispensations by 'katachrestic' abuse of words. Who is this god, that claims for his son names from the Creator? I say not names which do not belong to him, but ancient and well-known names, which even in this view of them would be unsuitable for a novel and unknown god.

How is it, again, that he tells us that "a piece of new cloth is not sewed on to an old garment," or that "new wine is not trusted to old bottles",b when he is himself patched and clad in an old suit of names?

How is it he has rent off the gospel from the law, when he is wholly invested with the law -- in the name, forsooth, of Christ? What hindered his calling himself by some other name, seeing that he preached another (gospel), came from another source, and refused to take on him a real body, for the very purpose that he might not be supposed to be the Creator's Christ? Vain, however, was his unwillingness to seem to be He whose name he was willing to assume; since, even if he had been truly corporeal, he would more certainly escape being taken for the Christ of the Creator, if he had not taken on him His name. But, as it is, he rejects the substantial verity of Him whose name he has assumed, even though he should give a proof of that verity by his name. For Christ means anointed, and to be anointed is certainly an affair of the body. He who had not a body, could not by any possibility have been anointed; he who could not by any possibility have been anointed, could not in any wise have been called Christ. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... an123.html




For posterity:
mlinssen wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:13 am
G.Thomas Logion 47


(1) IS said: there is not strength of a human to be mounted on two horses and to stretch two bows,
(2) and there is not strength of a slave to serve two slaveowners, or he will make be Honour the one and the other one he will make be "Hubrize" him;
(3a) not usually a human drinks old wine and (3b) within the hour he Desires to drink new wine, and
(4) not usually they cast new wine to old Wineskin in order that they will not split; and
(5) not usually they cast old wine to new Wineskin So that he will not destroy him;
(6) not usually they glue~ old rag to new garment Since therefore a split will come to be.



User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:20 pm
Dieter Roth wrote:

... Second, Tertullian employed a word-play in his accusations levelled against Marcion in 4.11.9 that is suggestive of the underlying reading. The phrase pannum haereticae novitatis59 seems to play on ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου (as in Mark 2:21/Matt 9:16) and not on the Lukan ἐπίβλημα ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ (Luke 5:36).60

(Roth, Marcion, p.97)



Mark 2:21a / Matt 9:16


...ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου
...epiblēma .rhakous .agnaphou
...a patch .of cloth .unshrunk


“No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made."



Luke 5:36


“No one tears a piece from a new garment and sews it on an old garment; otherwise the new will be torn, and the piece from the new will not match the old."


I'm not sure the point Roth makes or tries to make needs to be made, unless one is considering why Tertullian and G.Thomas 47 align and/or perhaps considering the relative roles of Mark 2.21 and Matt 9:16 versus Luke 5:36 in being witness to either Tertullian and or G.Thomas (or vice versa)

On a different point:
mlinssen wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:13 am
every single canonical copy also contains two different words for 'new', with one great distinction:

..καινος - Luke 5:36, 38
..νέος - Luke 5:37, 38, 39
..Both: Luke 5:38

..καινος - Mark 2:21, 22
..νέος - Mark 2:22
..Both: Mark 2:22

..καινος - Matthew 9:17
..νέος - Matthew 9:17
..Both: Matthew 9:17

Thomas...has only one word for 'new', uses it three times for the wine and uses an entirely different word solely for the patch.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:02 pm
I'm not sure the point Roth makes or tries to make needs to be made, unless one is considering why Tertullian and G.Thomas 47 align and/or perhaps considering the relative roles of Mark 2.21 and Matt 9:16 versus Luke 5:36 in being witness to either Tertullian and or G.Thomas (or vice versa)
In NT terms: Marcion and Thomas agree against the Synoptics on the order of wine(skin) and patch/garment - and agreement vs disagreement is one of the main measures for direction of dependence
On a different point:
mlinssen wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:13 am
every single canonical copy also contains two different words for 'new', with one great distinction:

..καινος - Luke 5:36, 38
..νέος - Luke 5:37, 38, 39
..Both: Luke 5:38

..καινος - Mark 2:21, 22
..νέος - Mark 2:22
..Both: Mark 2:22

..καινος - Matthew 9:17
..νέος - Matthew 9:17
..Both: Matthew 9:17

Thomas...has only one word for 'new', uses it three times for the wine and uses an entirely different word solely for the patch.

Yes, isn't that interesting?
No one's noticed that one before, but it's also a very fine form of leaving traces while shuffling around material, much like Luke betrays his copying of Thomas 104 in Mar.2.18-20, Luk.5.33-35, Mat.9.14-15 by uniquely mentioning the word pray but never referring to it again

On a side note, it is evident that Pete's cowardly response
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:32 pm
serves once and for all as conclusive evidence that the man is a complete waste of time: he alleges that it is not possible to determine the order of texts based on solely those texts themselves and advocates for dragging in others by the hairs, whereas for his own simple and silly theory it suffices to not consult any texts whatsoever

In 3.5 years - the length of my Thomas study - no one has come up with convincing arguments for even a single logion being a copy of the canonicals. I have come up with dozens of arguments, and at best they have been countered in Pete's way right here: by deflecting, re-contexting, evading, misresponding and disengaging.
He's very similar to the trolls that linger around in increasing numbers, that likewise fail to amount to anything
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by davidmartin »

ML you might as well suggest that the reason people knock Thomas is the reason Thomas was written in the first place
In that case, it proves itself automatically but on a higher principle than those that oppose it are willing to admit
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 5:57 am ML you might as well suggest that the reason people knock Thomas is the reason Thomas was written in the first place
In that case, it proves itself automatically but on a higher principle than those that oppose it are willing to admit
I don't quite understand what you mean David.
But I don't even want Thomas to be first, I don't give a damn about religion or Christianity; all I care for and about is Thomas and I will leave all these blatantly obvious directions of precedence for what they are, and finish the other half of the Commentary

Christianity will cease to exist in due time, as will religion.
Educated people aren't religious, it is as simple as that.
I was in Sicily for a week of hiking and the island is littered with churches and cathedrals - all of which are in a shabby state and completely empty. In Palermo the main church on Wednesday had a dozen visitors, average age 65, with a tape playing from the battered altar because there's no money for that either.
In 2009 only 17% in NL went to church at least once a month; guesstimate today is that it sits below 10%

Christianity is dead, David - and I don't need to invest in what is dead.
But please, be my guest and refute the obvious Thomasine Priority in viewtopic.php?p=146463#p146463

You'd be the first...

And when interested in the beautifully deep message of Thomas - https://www.academia.edu/46974146/Compl ... Commentary will be finished next year or the one after that.
Tons of demonstrations in there of Thomasine priority, especially of Coptic Thomas over Greek Thomas - that, on a side note
Post Reply