Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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: Tue Dec 06, 2022 2:19 am
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
  • Sure. But it's a pity Roth doesn't [seem to] see it, and, as I inferred, he seems to be off on a tangent
Let's look at these passages through the Marcionite lens c/o Ben's use of Roth.

First, Martijn's quote of Roth:
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:20 pm
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. 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)


Then Ben's work:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:09 pm

..... a reconstruction [of the Marcionite Evangelion] of sorts,
..based primarily on the work of Dieter T. Roth - pp.412-436 of The Text of Marcion’s Gospel - and secondarily on the work of Jason BeDuhn ...
  • Words or phrases specifically attested to some degree as present in the Marcionite text, according to Roth, are in blue boldface. Roth specifies several degrees of probability for such verbatim attestation, but I do not replicate those degrees here ...
  • Words or phrases generically attested as present in the Marcionite text, according to Roth, but with no way of determining exact wording, are in blue italics.
  • Words or phrases attested as present in Marcion but either absent from or rendered differently in canonical Luke, according to Roth, are underlined in blue boldface (being, virtually by definition, specifically attested as present in the Marcionite text). If the underlined words are replacing Lucan material (that is, if the underlined words are differently rendered in Luke and not merely absent), that replaced (or differently rendered) Lucan material is given first in blue italics, as described above, and then the Marcionite material is given in brackets immediately thereafter.
  • Words or phrases which are not attested either as absent or as present, according to Roth, are in plain black.
  • Words or phrases attested as absent from the Marcionite text, according to Roth, are in red.

In the following, the English texts has been placed first and the Latin or Greek second and the font color made grey.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Luke 5.33-39

.
33 They said to him,Why do John’s disciples often fast and pray, likewise also the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink?” 34 He said to them,The friends of the bridechamber cannot fast as long as [Marcion: while] the bridegroom is with them, can they?
35 But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them. Then they will fast in those days.”
.
.
.
36 He also told a parable to them. “No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric 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.’ ”
.
.
33 Οἱ δὲ εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτόν, Οἱ μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου νηστεύουσιν πυκνὰ καὶ δεήσεις ποιοῦνται, ὁμοίως καὶ οἱ τῶν Φαρισαίων, οἱ δὲ σοὶ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ πίνουσιν. 34 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Μὴ δύνασθε τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ νυμφῶνος ἐν ᾧ ὁ νυμφίος μετ' αὐτῶν ἐστιν ποιῆσαι νηστεῦσαὶ; [Marcion: μὴ δύνανται νηστεύειν ο υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ὁ νύμφιος.] 35 ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡμέραι, καὶ ὁταν ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ' αὐτῶν ὁ νυμφίος τότε νηστεύσουσιν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις.
.
36 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ. 37 καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή γε, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται· 38 ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον. 39 [καὶ] οὐδεὶς πιὼν παλαιὸν θέλει νέον· λέγει γάρ, Ὁ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν.
.



Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.15.5: 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," 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? / [5] Quomodo denique docet novam plagulam non adsui veteri vestimento, nec vinum novum veteribus utribus credi, adsutus ipse et indutus2 nominum senio? Quomodo abscidit evangelium a lege, tota lege vestitus, in nomine scilicet Christi? Quis illum prohibuit aliud vocari, aliud praedicantem aliunde venientem, cum propterea nec corporis susceperit veritatem ne Christus creatoris crederetur?

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.11.9-10: 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, 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. 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 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. [10] For new wine is not put into old bottles, except by one who has the old bottles; 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. / [9] Errasti in illa etiam domini pronuntiatione qua videtur nova et vetera discernere. Inflatus es utribus veteribus et excerebratus es novo vino, atque ita veteri, id est priori evangelio, pannum haereticae novitatis assuisti. In quo alter creator, velim discere. Cum per Hieremiam praecepit, Novate vobis novamen novum, nonne a veteribus avertit? cum per Esaiam edicit, Vetera transierunt, et ecce nova quae ego facio, nonne ad nova convertit? Olim hanc statuimus destinationem pristinorum a creatore potius repromissam a Christo exhiberi, sub unius et eiusdem dei auctoritate, cuius sint et vetera et nova. [10] Nam et vinum novum is non committit in veteres utres qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et novum additamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento nisi cui non defuerit et vetus vestimentum. Ille non facit quid, si faciendum non est, qui habeat unde faciat, si faciendum esset. Itaque si in hoc dirigebat similitudinem, ut ostenderet se evangelii novitatem separare a legis vetustate, suam demonstrabat et illam a qua separabat alienorum separatione non fuisse notandam, quia nemo alienis sua adiungit ut ab alienis separare possit.

Epiphanius, Panarion 42.2.1: And he began—at the very beginning, as it were, and as though at the starting-point of the questions at issue—to put this question to the elders of that time: 'Tell me, what is the meaning of, 'Men do not put new wine into old bottles, or a patch of new cloth unto an old garment; else it both taketh away the fullness, and agreeth not with the old. For a greater rent will be made.' / Καὶ ἄρχεται ὡς εἰπεῖν ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ ὡς ἀπὸ θυρῶν τῶν ζητημάτων προτείνειν τοῖς κατ' ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ πρεσβυτέροις τοῦτο τὸ ζήτημα λέγων «εἴπατέ μοι, τί ἐστι τό· οὐ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιοὺς οὐδὲ ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ πλήρωμα αἴρει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει. μεῖζον γὰρ σχίσμα γενήσεται».

Philastrius, Book of Diverse Heresies 45.2: What is it, says he, that is written in the gospel, the Lord speaking? "No one puts a piece of raw fabric on an old garment, nor new wine in old skins, or else the skins are ruptured and the wine is poured out." And again: "It is not a good tree which makes evil fruit, nor an evil tree which makes good fruit". / Quid est, inquit [Marcion], quod in evangelio dicente domino scriptum est? "Nemo pannum rudem mittet in vestimentum vetus, neque vinum novum in utres veteres, alioquin rumpuntur utres et effunditur vinum." Et iterum: "Non est arbor bona quae facit malum fructum, neque arbor mala quae faciat bonum fructum.

Adamantius Dialogue, according to Dieter T. Roth (page 359): 90,5–9 (2.16)—[Mark.] [follows citation of John 13:34] . . . λέγει γὰρ πάλιν ὁ σωτήρ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς νέους καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται. . . . πάλιν γὰρ λέγει ὁ σωτήρ οὐδεὶς ἐπιβάλλει ἐπιβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ. . . . | . . . Dicit enim salvator quia Si mittatur vinum novum in utres novos, utraque conservabuntur. . . . Et iterum: Nemo assuit assumentum panni rudis ad vestimentum vetus. . . . | 90,22–23 (2.16)—[Mark.] . . . οὐδεὶς γάρ, φησίν, ἐπιβάλλει ἀπὸ ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ. | . . . Nemo enim, inquit, assuit pannum rudem ad vestimentum vetus.

Pseudo-Ephrem, An Exposition of the Gospel, according to Roth (page 400): 64—You cannot order the bridegroom’s companions to fast, as long as the bridegroom shall be with them.

Ephrem, Hymns Against Heresies, according to Roth (page 400): 47.4—Auch der Fremde . . . kannte . . . als Bräutigam jeden Tag (Freude und) Ergötzen—während Johannes in Trauer, Entsagung und Fasten (lebte).—Nicht können die Söhne des Brautgemaches fasten. Die Leute des Schöpfers sind Faster,—der Fremde, der nicht existiert, ist ein Schlemmer.

Ephrem, Hymns Against Heresies, according to Roth (page 400): 44.6–7—Nicht tut man neuen Wein in abgenützte Schläuche. Er gab (neue) Sinne—wie (neue) Gebote, neues Ohr—wie (neues) Gebot. Denn von einem alt gewordnen Ohr—werden neue Melodien nicht vernommen. Darüber muss man staunen, dass er (neue) Gebote gab,—nicht die alten, und dass er (die alten) Glieder gab,—nicht fremde! Die Sinne, die er heilte,—verkünden laut von ihm: Auch wenn neu sind—die Aussprüche, die er tat, ist er (dennoch) nicht der Fremde!

Roth remarks (page 414) concerning verses 36-38: This parable is attested in multiple sources; however, the precise wording can no longer be reconstructed. It is likely that ὁ οἶνος was discussed before τὸ ἐπίβλημα; and the Matthean ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου may have been present in Marcion’s text. The attestation of v. 38 is uncertain.


For posterity:
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:20 pm
'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


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

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Luke 5.36-39 / Marcion's Evangelion (in blue)

.
36 He also told a parable to them. “No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric 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.’ ”
.
.
36 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ. 37 καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή γε, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται· 38 ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον. 39 [καὶ] οὐδεὶς πιὼν παλαιὸν θέλει νέον· λέγει γάρ, Ὁ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν.
.

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
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: Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:21 pm
mlinssen wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 2:19 am
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
  • Sure. But it's a pity Roth doesn't [seem to] see it, and, as I inferred, he seems to be off on a tangent
Let's look at these passages through the Marcionite lens c/o Ben's use of Roth.

First, Martijn's quote of Roth:
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:20 pm
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. 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)


Then Ben's work:
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:09 pm

..... a reconstruction [of the Marcionite Evangelion] of sorts,
..based primarily on the work of Dieter T. Roth - pp.412-436 of The Text of Marcion’s Gospel - and secondarily on the work of Jason BeDuhn ...
  • Words or phrases specifically attested to some degree as present in the Marcionite text, according to Roth, are in blue boldface. Roth specifies several degrees of probability for such verbatim attestation, but I do not replicate those degrees here ...
  • Words or phrases generically attested as present in the Marcionite text, according to Roth, but with no way of determining exact wording, are in blue italics.
  • Words or phrases attested as present in Marcion but either absent from or rendered differently in canonical Luke, according to Roth, are underlined in blue boldface (being, virtually by definition, specifically attested as present in the Marcionite text). If the underlined words are replacing Lucan material (that is, if the underlined words are differently rendered in Luke and not merely absent), that replaced (or differently rendered) Lucan material is given first in blue italics, as described above, and then the Marcionite material is given in brackets immediately thereafter.
  • Words or phrases which are not attested either as absent or as present, according to Roth, are in plain black.
  • Words or phrases attested as absent from the Marcionite text, according to Roth, are in red.

In the following, the English texts has been placed first and the Latin or Greek second and the font color made grey.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Luke 5.33-39

.
33 They said to him,Why do John’s disciples often fast and pray, likewise also the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours eat and drink?” 34 He said to them,The friends of the bridechamber cannot fast as long as [Marcion: while] the bridegroom is with them, can they?
35 But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them. Then they will fast in those days.”
.
.
.
36 He also told a parable to them. “No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric 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.’ ”
.
.
33 Οἱ δὲ εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτόν, Οἱ μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου νηστεύουσιν πυκνὰ καὶ δεήσεις ποιοῦνται, ὁμοίως καὶ οἱ τῶν Φαρισαίων, οἱ δὲ σοὶ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ πίνουσιν. 34 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, Μὴ δύνασθε τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ νυμφῶνος ἐν ᾧ ὁ νυμφίος μετ' αὐτῶν ἐστιν ποιῆσαι νηστεῦσαὶ; [Marcion: μὴ δύνανται νηστεύειν ο υἱοὶ τοῦ νυμφῶνος, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ὁ νύμφιος.] 35 ἐλεύσονται δὲ ἡμέραι, καὶ ὁταν ἀπαρθῇ ἀπ' αὐτῶν ὁ νυμφίος τότε νηστεύσουσιν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις.
.
36 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ. 37 καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή γε, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται· 38 ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον. 39 [καὶ] οὐδεὶς πιὼν παλαιὸν θέλει νέον· λέγει γάρ, Ὁ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν.
.



Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.15.5: 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," 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? / [5] Quomodo denique docet novam plagulam non adsui veteri vestimento, nec vinum novum veteribus utribus credi, adsutus ipse et indutus2 nominum senio? Quomodo abscidit evangelium a lege, tota lege vestitus, in nomine scilicet Christi? Quis illum prohibuit aliud vocari, aliud praedicantem aliunde venientem, cum propterea nec corporis susceperit veritatem ne Christus creatoris crederetur?

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.11.9-10: 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, 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. 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 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. [10] For new wine is not put into old bottles, except by one who has the old bottles; 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. / [9] Errasti in illa etiam domini pronuntiatione qua videtur nova et vetera discernere. Inflatus es utribus veteribus et excerebratus es novo vino, atque ita veteri, id est priori evangelio, pannum haereticae novitatis assuisti. In quo alter creator, velim discere. Cum per Hieremiam praecepit, Novate vobis novamen novum, nonne a veteribus avertit? cum per Esaiam edicit, Vetera transierunt, et ecce nova quae ego facio, nonne ad nova convertit? Olim hanc statuimus destinationem pristinorum a creatore potius repromissam a Christo exhiberi, sub unius et eiusdem dei auctoritate, cuius sint et vetera et nova. [10] Nam et vinum novum is non committit in veteres utres qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et novum additamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento nisi cui non defuerit et vetus vestimentum. Ille non facit quid, si faciendum non est, qui habeat unde faciat, si faciendum esset. Itaque si in hoc dirigebat similitudinem, ut ostenderet se evangelii novitatem separare a legis vetustate, suam demonstrabat et illam a qua separabat alienorum separatione non fuisse notandam, quia nemo alienis sua adiungit ut ab alienis separare possit.

Epiphanius, Panarion 42.2.1: And he began—at the very beginning, as it were, and as though at the starting-point of the questions at issue—to put this question to the elders of that time: 'Tell me, what is the meaning of, 'Men do not put new wine into old bottles, or a patch of new cloth unto an old garment; else it both taketh away the fullness, and agreeth not with the old. For a greater rent will be made.' / Καὶ ἄρχεται ὡς εἰπεῖν ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ ὡς ἀπὸ θυρῶν τῶν ζητημάτων προτείνειν τοῖς κατ' ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ πρεσβυτέροις τοῦτο τὸ ζήτημα λέγων «εἴπατέ μοι, τί ἐστι τό· οὐ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιοὺς οὐδὲ ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ πλήρωμα αἴρει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει. μεῖζον γὰρ σχίσμα γενήσεται».

Philastrius, Book of Diverse Heresies 45.2: What is it, says he, that is written in the gospel, the Lord speaking? "No one puts a piece of raw fabric on an old garment, nor new wine in old skins, or else the skins are ruptured and the wine is poured out." And again: "It is not a good tree which makes evil fruit, nor an evil tree which makes good fruit". / Quid est, inquit [Marcion], quod in evangelio dicente domino scriptum est? "Nemo pannum rudem mittet in vestimentum vetus, neque vinum novum in utres veteres, alioquin rumpuntur utres et effunditur vinum." Et iterum: "Non est arbor bona quae facit malum fructum, neque arbor mala quae faciat bonum fructum.

Adamantius Dialogue, according to Dieter T. Roth (page 359): 90,5–9 (2.16)—[Mark.] [follows citation of John 13:34] . . . λέγει γὰρ πάλιν ὁ σωτήρ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς νέους καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται. . . . πάλιν γὰρ λέγει ὁ σωτήρ οὐδεὶς ἐπιβάλλει ἐπιβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ. . . . | . . . Dicit enim salvator quia Si mittatur vinum novum in utres novos, utraque conservabuntur. . . . Et iterum: Nemo assuit assumentum panni rudis ad vestimentum vetus. . . . | 90,22–23 (2.16)—[Mark.] . . . οὐδεὶς γάρ, φησίν, ἐπιβάλλει ἀπὸ ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ. | . . . Nemo enim, inquit, assuit pannum rudem ad vestimentum vetus.

Pseudo-Ephrem, An Exposition of the Gospel, according to Roth (page 400): 64—You cannot order the bridegroom’s companions to fast, as long as the bridegroom shall be with them.

Ephrem, Hymns Against Heresies, according to Roth (page 400): 47.4—Auch der Fremde . . . kannte . . . als Bräutigam jeden Tag (Freude und) Ergötzen—während Johannes in Trauer, Entsagung und Fasten (lebte).—Nicht können die Söhne des Brautgemaches fasten. Die Leute des Schöpfers sind Faster,—der Fremde, der nicht existiert, ist ein Schlemmer.

Ephrem, Hymns Against Heresies, according to Roth (page 400): 44.6–7—Nicht tut man neuen Wein in abgenützte Schläuche. Er gab (neue) Sinne—wie (neue) Gebote, neues Ohr—wie (neues) Gebot. Denn von einem alt gewordnen Ohr—werden neue Melodien nicht vernommen. Darüber muss man staunen, dass er (neue) Gebote gab,—nicht die alten, und dass er (die alten) Glieder gab,—nicht fremde! Die Sinne, die er heilte,—verkünden laut von ihm: Auch wenn neu sind—die Aussprüche, die er tat, ist er (dennoch) nicht der Fremde!

Roth remarks (page 414) concerning verses 36-38: This parable is attested in multiple sources; however, the precise wording can no longer be reconstructed. It is likely that ὁ οἶνος was discussed before τὸ ἐπίβλημα; and the Matthean ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου may have been present in Marcion’s text. The attestation of v. 38 is uncertain.


For posterity:
MrMacSon wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:20 pm
'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


Thank you very much Mac, for this handy overview.
Let's do some bean counting shall we?

Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.15.5: patch-wine
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.11.9: wine-patch
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.11.10: wine-patch
Epiphanius, Panarion 42.2.1: wine-patch
Philastrius, Book of Diverse Heresies 45.2: patch-wine
Adamantius Dialogue, according to Roth: wine-patch (οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς νέους - ἐπιβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ)
Tertullian De Oratione 1: wine-patch (Oportebat enim in hac quoque specie nouum uinum nouis utribus recondi et nouam plagulam nouo adsui uestimento)

7 occurrences of the order of both, consecutively, and 2 out of those have patch-wine, and 5 have the reverse - we have a clear winner here

Roth's comment indeed:

5:36–38 [4.4.6; 6.4.5; 7.4.2; 8.6]—[This parable is attested in multiple sources;
however, the precise wording can no longer be reconstructed. It is likely that
ὁ οἶνος was discussed before τὸ ἐπίβλημα
and the Matthean ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους
ἀγνάφου may have been present in Marcion’s text. The attestation of v. 38 is
uncertain]

BeDuhn? Page 134:

Order: 5.37–38 precedes 5.36 Adam* 2.16; Epiphanius, Pan. 42.2.1;
Tertullian, Marc. 4.11.9–12; Ps.-Eph A 9, 15, 18. That Marcion’s text
had the two parables of 5.36–38 in an order the reverse of that found
in Mark, Matthew, and Luke is one of the best attested facts we have
about the text
, demonstrated by the order they are discussed in
Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, and the anti-Marcionite tract
Pseudo-Ephrem A. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that both
Thomas 47 and the Diatessaron follow the order of the Evangelion.
This would suggest that the order now found in Luke may be a late
conformation of the text to Matthew and Mark (apparently already so
in Tertullian’s copy of Luke, see Marc. 3.15.5).
5.37–38 Adam* 2.16; Epiphanius, Pan. 42.2.1; Tertullian, Marc. 4.11.9–12;
Ps.-Eph A 9; Philastrius, Div. her. 45. Based on the preponderance
of witnesses, the Evangelion (as OL ms e) in v. 38 reads “must be
poured,” in agreement with the wording in v. 37 and the parallel in
Matt 9.17, and not “must be cast” as in almost all witnesses to Luke.
Pseudo-Ephrem A appears to attest the “minor agreement” between
Matuhew and Luke here (“the wine is spilled out”). Harnack con-
cluded that the Evangelion probably lacked “and the bags will be
ruined” (Marcion, E37), but this, too, is atuested by Pseudo-Ephrem A.
It appears to have had the additional clause “and both are preserved”
at the end of the verse (Adam* 2.16), which is a harmonization to
Matt 9.17, and is attested as well in several Greek manuscripts, the
Old Latin (OL), and other versions of Luke; but in this case Pseudo-
Ephrem A lacks the clause. Such variants among the witnesses attest
typical textual variation in circulating copies of the Evangelion,
carrying forward variants that had already been introduced into the
transmission of the Evangelion before it became isolated within the
Marcionite community.

Klinghardt? See attached:
Klinghardt_Wine-patch.jpg
Klinghardt_Wine-patch.jpg (174.4 KiB) Viewed 620 times
So that settles that: Thomas and Marcion agree against the Synoptics

On a side note, the crazy preference for the verb 'to cast' in the NT must have struck some nerve by now as well, I hope

cast ⲛⲟⲩϫⲉ; Verb Logion 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 26, 47, 73, 93
cast-off ⲛⲟⲩϩⲉ; Verb Logion 28

One thing at a time though, right? Wrong:

https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=Co ... NTERLEAVED

I have said it a thousand times before and I will say it again: all translations have been horribly Christifed and falsified.
Click the words and details will appear, and here is the text:

οὐδεὶς δὲ ἐπιβάλλει ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπὶ ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ· αἴρει γὰρ τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱματίου, καὶ χεῖρον σχίσμα γίνεται.
δὲ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή γε, ῥήγνυνται οἱ ἀσκοί, καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἐκχεῖται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπόλλυνται. ἀλλὰ βάλλουσιν οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς, καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται.

Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἐπιράπτει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ μή, αἴρει τὸ πλήρωμα ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ, καὶ χεῖρον σχίσμα γείνεται.
Καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἐκχεῖται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται· ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς.

λεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει, καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ.
καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή γε, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος τοὺς ἀσκοὺς καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται, καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται·
ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον.

From StepBible:

βάλλω (ballō) 'to throw: put' (G0906H)
(Verb Present Active Indicative 3rd Singular )
: put/lie
to cast a fishnet (a round net with small weights along its edge)

This word occurs about 123 x


ἐπιβάλλω (epiballō) 'to put on/seize' (G1911)
(Verb Present Active Indicative 3rd Singular )
(tr.) to throw over; to place; lay hold of, seize, arrest; to sew on; (intr.) to break over

This word occurs about 18 x

Strictly seen verbatim agreement doesn't dictate direction of dependence - but the plot thickens, doesn't it?
Last edited by mlinssen on Tue Dec 06, 2022 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:34 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:10 pm
Luke 5.36-39 / Marcion's Evangelion (in blue)

.
36 He also told a parable to them. “No one puts a piece of unshrunk fabric 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.’ ”
.
.
36 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου ἀπὸ ἱματίου καινοῦ σχίσας ἐπιβάλλει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ μή γε, καὶ τὸ καινὸν σχίσει καὶ τῷ παλαιῷ οὐ συμφωνήσει τὸ ἐπίβλημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ καινοῦ. 37 καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή γε, ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος ὁ νέος τοὺς ἀσκούς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχυθήσεται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται· 38 ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινοὺς βλητέον. 39 [καὶ] οὐδεὶς πιὼν παλαιὸν θέλει νέον· λέγει γάρ, Ὁ παλαιὸς χρηστός ἐστιν.
.

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.



And needless to say, Ben's miraculous quotation of Roth and BeDuhn resulting in something that is absent in Roth yet hinted at by Roth in the reverse order, and which is present in BeDuhn in the reverse order, reveals the true ben Smith
This thread, then, is a reconstruction of sorts, based primarily on the work of Dieter T. Roth and secondarily on the work of Jason BeDuhn
Slip of the pen? Ah, that darn pen! Always slipping in the convenient direction, isn't it
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: Tue Dec 06, 2022 2:28 pm
BeDuhn? page 134 [of The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon, Polebridge; Salem, Oregon; 2013]:


Order: 5.37–38 precedes 5.36 Adam* 2.16; Epiphanius, Pan. 42.2.1;
Tertullian, Marc. 4.11.9–12; Ps.-Eph A 9, 15, 18. That Marcion’s text had the two parables of 5.36–38 in an order the reverse of that found in Mark, Matthew, and Luke is one of the best attested facts we have about the text, demonstrated by the order they are discussed in Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, and the anti-Marcionite tract Pseudo-Ephrem A. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that both Thomas 47 and the Diatessaron follow the order of the Evangelion. This would suggest that the order now found in Luke may be a late conformation of the text to Matthew and Mark (apparently already so in Tertullian’s copy of Luke, see Marc. 3.15.5).


re the green highlighted text, "Particularly noteworthy is the fact that both Thomas 47 and the Diatessaron follow the order of the Evangelion":
  • it's possible the Evangelion follows Thomas on this. Where the Diatessaron fits in would be worth someone [better than me] examining/investigating


re the Klinghardt photo of p.564 : Appendix I

(where footnote 6 had double vertical lines, I've used bolded single vertical lines - I - because two vertical lines would be spaced too far apart thus: || (I could've used two upper case 'I's thus: II, but I don't think that would've worked that well)


4. Most striking in this pericope is the altered sequence of the two metaphors *5,37f.36 in the canonical text. The three main witness for *EV presume the sequence of wine/skins - garment/sowing that is also found in EVThom 47.6 This documentation provides another affirmation for assuming *Ev priority. Otherwise the heretically contested text would have had a far-reaching influence even beyond the Marcionite churches.


6 ... EvThom occasionally displays a proximity to *Ev,
cf. eg. Lg. 55 | *14,26f | Matt 10,38; Lg. 64 | *14,14-24 | Matt 22,1-10; Lg. 79 | *23,29; Lg. 86 | *9,58; Lg. 95 | *6,34f.


I'm not sure of the various relationships in footnote 6 : I think I can understand there's a relationship between two references between the vertical lines - where there's a canonical reference and a logion - but there's three instances where there's only one reference eg. Lg.55 (at the beginning); then *14,26f (which seems to be an *Ev reference); and, at the end, *6,34f on its own. Has there been a mistake in the type-setting here?

ETA
aha: maybe it's the citations/references either side of the | lines ie.


Lg. 55 | *14,26f | Matt 10,38;
Lg. 64 | *14,14-24 | Matt 22,1-10;
Lg. 79 | *23,29;
Lg. 86 | *9,58;
Lg. 95 | *6,34f.



And, of course most of footnote 6 is


Since EVThom elsewhere presupposes a post *Ev text (cf. EVThom 65f | Mark 12,1-12ff par.), this reception of *Ev can be seen as further evidence of the 'interference' between the pre-canonical and the canonical edition. Otherwise, EvThom occasionally displays a proximity to *Ev, cf. eg.
Lg. 55 | *14,26f | Matt 10,38;
Lg. 64 | *14,14-24 | Matt 22,1-10;
Lg. 79 | *23,29;
Lg. 86 | *9,58;
Lg. 95 | *6,34f.


Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:48 am, edited 4 times in total.
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: Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:18 pm
  • it's possible the Evangelion follows Thomas on this. Where the Diatessaron fits in would be worth someone [better than me] examining/investigating
Whether *Ev precedes Thomas or vice versa, the likelihood of both of them preceding the canonicals in this case is evident, isn't it
I'm not sure of the various relationships in footnote 6 : I think I can understand there's a relationship between two references between the vertical lines - where there's a canonical reference and a logion - but there's three instances where there's only one reference eg. Lg.55 (at the beginning); then *14,26f (which seems to be an *Ev reference); and, at the end, *6,34f on its own. Has there been a mistake in the type-setting here?
The separation character is the semi column
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: Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:33 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:18 pm
  • it's possible the Evangelion follows Thomas on this. Where the Diatessaron fits in would be worth someone [better than me] examining/investigating
Whether *Ev precedes Thomas or vice versa, the likelihood of both of them preceding the canonicals in this case is evident, isn't it?
Sure. And it's possible the authors of Thomas and *Ev were reacting to each other's texts



mlinssen wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:33 pm
I'm not sure of the various relationships in footnote 6 : I think I can understand there's a relationship between two references between the vertical lines - where there's a canonical reference and a logion - but there's three instances where there's only one reference eg. Lg.55 (at the beginning); then *14,26f (which seems to be an *Ev reference); and, at the end, *6,34f on its own. Has there been a mistake in the type-setting here?
The separation character is the semi column
The semi-colon?

I since figured that:
MrMacSon wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:18 pm
ETA
aha: maybe it's the citations/references either side of the | lines [the semi-colons are the 'separators'] ie.


Lg. 55 | *14,26f | Matt 10,38;
Lg. 64 | *14,14-24 | Matt 22,1-10;
Lg. 79 | *23,29;
Lg. 86 | *9,58;
Lg. 95 | *6,34f.


And, of course most of footnote 6 is


Since EVThom elsewhere presupposes a post *Ev text (cf. EVThom 65f | Mark 12,1-12ff par.), this reception of *Ev can be seen as further evidence of the 'interference' between the pre-canonical and the canonical edition. Otherwise, EvThom occasionally displays a proximity to *Ev, cf. eg.
Lg. 55 | *14,26f | Matt 10,38;
Lg. 64 | *14,14-24 | Matt 22,1-10;
Lg. 79 | *23,29;
Lg. 86 | *9,58;
Lg. 95 | *6,34f.


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

The FF attest even further: no displaced καινος in their *Ev

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:21 pm [ML tagging of Mac: Hey Mac, watch this!]
More than most interestingly, Bezae once again comes to the rescue:

Folio 204v Image Quire_26-4v (flesh) Luke 5

36ελεγεν δε και παραβολην προς αυτους
24οτι ουδεις επιβλημα απο ϊματιου καινου
σχισας επιβαλλει επι ϊματιον παλαιον
ει δε μη γε και το καινον σχεισει και τω
27παλαιω ου συνφωνησει το απο του καινου
επιβλημα 37και ουδεις βαλλει οινον νεον
εις ασκους παλαιους ει δε μη γε ρηξει
30ο οινος ο νεος τους ασκους τους παλαιους
και αυτος εκχυθησεται και οι ασκοι
απολουνται 38αλλα οινον νεον εις ασκους
33καινους βαλλουσιν και αμφοτεροι ((τηρουνται))

((τηρουνται)) is on the next leaf, I smuggled it in here just to finish Luke's

Folio 205r Image Quire_26-5r (flesh) Luke 5

36dicebant autem et parabolam ad eos
24quoniam nemo inmissuram tunica rude
scindens inmittit in tunicam ueterem
si quominus et rudem scindet et
27ueteri non conueniet a rude
inmissura 37et nemo mittit uinum nouum
in utres ueteres si quominus rumpet
30uinum nouum utres ueteres
et ipse effundetur et utres
peribunt 38sed uinum nouum in utres
33nobos mittent et ambo ((seruantur))

((seruantur)) is on the next leaf, I smuggled it in here just to finish Luke's

The idea is clear, I hope: the Latin equally crazily has two words for 'new' just as all the Greek and all the Coptic: novus and rudis - save for the last word, which indeed says exactly that: https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/390

So let's look at the attestation by the FF again, shall we? Novus equals νεος, rudis equals καινος

Ben's quotations viewtopic.php?p=39309#p39309
(And ignore the false reconstruction please as it is neither based on Roth nor on BeDuhn)

Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.15.5: patch-wine
novam plagulam - vinum novum

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.11.9: wine-patch
novo vino - pannum haereticae novitatis

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.11.10: wine-patch
vinum novum - novum additamentum

Epiphanius, Panarion 42.2.1: wine-patch
οἶνον νέον - ἐπίβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου

Philastrius, Book of Diverse Heresies 45.2: patch-wine
pannum rudem - vinum novum

Adamantius Dialogue, according to Roth: wine-patch (οἶνον νέον, ἀσκοὺς νέους - ἐπιβλημα ῥάκους ἀγνάφου)

Tertullian De Oratione 1: wine-patch (nouum uinum, nouis utribus - nouam plagulam, nouo uestimento)

The U naturally is a V - and it is more than striking that only Philastrius has 'rudem' as adjective, and no one else does; nor does anyone use the Greek equivalent καινος which in my theory comes from Thomas alone and is used uniquely for the patch alone - yet by swapping the order made it to the top sentence in the canonicals and as such got multiplied, as the Bezae fragments above exemplify.
So, all in all, only one single hit for the second adjective for 'new' - and it even goes with the correct noun

What's the goal of this? Hard to say really, as it is unlikely that the FF are reading from a Latin *Ev. But it doesn't seem unlikely that *Ev has the Thomasine order with the Thomasine words, meaning that he also reserves καινος for the patch alone.
Rudis is not a nice word really, it means 'coarse / undeveloped, rough, wild' and it is obvious that the Greek forces them to pick a word that is not 'novus' even though καινός does mean 'new, fresh, newly-invented, new-fangled, novel'. But 'rudis' is unlikely to be picked "top of the head" when reading Greek and translating into Latin
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses

Post by davidmartin »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:46 am I don't quite understand what you mean David.
What I meant was, that any text has a 'self-awareness' of the criticism liable to be levelled against it. Which is rather obviously true unless one assumes total naivety of an author - and this facet of textual criticism is fascinating

So in the case of Thomas, one could argue that it is self-aware that truth is habitually corrupted, and thus a hidden uncorrupted text becomes a 'thing' and aligns with its own self-proclaimed identity. (This is different from a Pauline 'previously hidden revelation' - and has a gnostic flavour)

The upshot is - Thomas has the awareness that it is revealing an uncorrupted truth into a world where truth is habitually corrupted
Is it, then, a co-incidence that we think the canonicals are corrupted and Thomas may preserve an earlier version?
Isn't this just the message of Thomas explaining itself via its message?
In other words, doesn't textual criticism favouring Thomas agree with what Thomas says?
Would this be a rare case that a text being studied agrees with the modern textual criticism method used to study it?
If so come on, that is a unique state of affairs - and hardly worth passing over or not giving a thought to


>Christianity will cease to exist in due time, as will religion.
Educated people aren't religious, it is as simple as that.
Christianity is dead, David - and I don't need to invest in what is dead.

I don't know what "Christianity" is. If I don't know what it is, how can I know if it is dead?
What Thomas itself says is that false religion is dead
It becomes then a question of filtering or separation of what is living from what is dead, according to some methodology
I do not know if empty abandoned churches are more authentic than ones filled with people
I do not know if a seemingly dead religion is not more authentic than one that is popular
If ultimate authenticity was so unpopular no-one existed who followed it - you could say truth itself was dead
So these comparisons and statements are interesting but only throw the question back at the person asking it I think
I mean, if truth is like holding mercury then we have a problem on our hands. That's the way it seems to me and maybe it isn't a problem, maybe it's salvation after all. Anything is possible. So I don't know what the answer is. Are you saying that because I don't know I am religious?!
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: Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:54 am
mlinssen wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:46 am I don't quite understand what you mean David.
What I meant was, that any text has a 'self-awareness' of the criticism liable to be levelled against it. Which is rather obviously true unless one assumes total naivety of an author - and this facet of textual criticism is fascinating

So in the case of Thomas, one could argue that it is self-aware that truth is habitually corrupted, and thus a hidden uncorrupted text becomes a 'thing' and aligns with its own self-proclaimed identity. (This is different from a Pauline 'previously hidden revelation' - and has a gnostic flavour)

The upshot is - Thomas has the awareness that it is revealing an uncorrupted truth into a world where truth is habitually corrupted
Is it, then, a co-incidence that we think the canonicals are corrupted and Thomas may preserve an earlier version?
Isn't this just the message of Thomas explaining itself via its message?
In other words, doesn't textual criticism favouring Thomas agree with what Thomas says?
Would this be a rare case that a text being studied agrees with the modern textual criticism method used to study it?
If so come on, that is a unique state of affairs - and hardly worth passing over or not giving a thought to


>Christianity will cease to exist in due time, as will religion.
Educated people aren't religious, it is as simple as that.
Christianity is dead, David - and I don't need to invest in what is dead.

I don't know what "Christianity" is. If I don't know what it is, how can I know if it is dead?
What Thomas itself says is that false religion is dead
It becomes then a question of filtering or separation of what is living from what is dead, according to some methodology
I do not know if empty abandoned churches are more authentic than ones filled with people
I do not know if a seemingly dead religion is not more authentic than one that is popular
If ultimate authenticity was so unpopular no-one existed who followed it - you could say truth itself was dead
So these comparisons and statements are interesting but only throw the question back at the person asking it I think
I mean, if truth is like holding mercury then we have a problem on our hands. That's the way it seems to me and maybe it isn't a problem, maybe it's salvation after all. Anything is possible. So I don't know what the answer is. Are you saying that because I don't know I am religious?!
I still don't understand.
Thomas has written a text about how to reach salvation - and the first thing he does is point to where salvation can not be retrieved from, in logion 3: not from your leaders who point to the sky or the sea for salvation, or the singular heaven

Then in logion 8 he lifts all veils and demonstrates how the fisherman who only thinks he spots a Great Good fish in a sea of small fish discovers that there is no fish at all: the fish that he chooses is no longer Good, but only Great. And he doesn't pick the fish, hug it, embrace it: no, he merely makes the Choice that there is no fish.
There is no Grand Prize, no Answer to any Question

And then the Quest starts in logion 9 with the Sower, who "comes forth", ejaculates, naturally by reaching deep down within, where the kingdom resides as he tells in said logion 3: it is of your inside, and of your eye

Thomas tells us how to liberate ourselves from the two that we made when we were one (logion 11), and that turns out to be the slaveowner (ego) and the slave (self).
We are neither - we started out as the living father

The mistake that Thomas made is that his text is way too cryptic, too hidden its meaning.
That it was taken into a narrative by John who was in turn taken over by Marcion is not something that he could have foreseen, not that such in turn would lead to Marcion being taken over by Christianity

There is not even a Christ in Thomas - Thomas is not aware of anything that came much, much later.
So of course Thomas was naive in that sense, just like you and I are naive towards what will happen 30-50 years from now: one can only be aware of (or naive towards) the past, never the future.
And that is a facet of direction of dependence, which is an essential part of redaction criticism. Shall I take your response here and turn it into something terrible, and then accuse you of having been naive towards that? That would be impossibly unfair, wouldn't it?

"textual criticism favouring Thomas" is impossible, textual criticism (or rather, redaction criticism) passes a verdict on a text about it being prior or later to another one. Talk to Goodacre about plagiarism, he makes for a good chat: the later text can be a lot better and usually is because practice makes the master - but that doesn't change the fact that the source precedes it

Thomas and everything that came after are about entirely different things - they have nothing in common but content that is placed in an entirely different context.
It's like someone taking Harry Potter and putting him in a Nazi environment, a futuristical 2430 CE or what not - there's nothing that JK Rowling could have done to anticipate that
Post Reply