mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:42 pmThat'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.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:07 amThomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses: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
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.
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.