Tertullian, Marcion, novelty, proximity, the Lord's Prayer, new wine & new wineskins, etc

[MrMacSon]

For posterity

- those parts of Marcion that are Thomasine
- Plus everything else of Thomas that can be found in Luke, so we know what the differences are between the three, with Thomas being the pivotal point

Luke 3.1-38, John the baptist, the preaching and imprisonment of John, the baptism and genealogy of Jesus.
Luke 4.31-37, teaching with authority and the exorcism of the Capernaum demoniac.
Luke 4.16-30, rejection at Nazareth.
+ 23 He said to them, “Doubtless you will tell me this parable, ‘ (31) Physician, heal yourself! (-31) Whatever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in your hometown.’ ”
+ 24 He said, “Most certainly I tell you, (31) no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. (-31)
Luke 4.38-44, the healing of the mother-in-law of Peter, the evening healings, departing from Capernaum, and in the synagogues.
Luke 5.1-11, the call of the first disciples.
Luke 5.12-16, the healing of a leper.
Luke 5.17-26, the healing of a paralytic.
Luke 5.27-32, the call of Levi, tax collectors and sinners.
+ 30 (14) Their scribes and the Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?”
+ 31 Jesus answered them, “Those who are healthy have no need for a physician, but those who are sick do. (14)

Luke 5.33-39, the controversy over fasting.
+ 33 They said to him, (104) “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.” (-104)
+ 36 He also told a parable to them. (47)“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, (-47) for he says, ‘The old is better.’ ”

[mlinssen]

For posterity

- those parts of Marcion that are Thomasine
- Plus everything else of Thomas that can be found in Luke, so we know what the differences are between the three, with Thomas being the pivotal point

Luke 3.1-38, John the baptist, the preaching and imprisonment of John, the baptism and genealogy of Jesus.
Luke 4.31-37, teaching with authority and the exorcism of the Capernaum demoniac.
Luke 4.16-30, rejection at Nazareth.
+ 23 He said to them, “Doubtless you will tell me this parable, ‘ (31) Physician, heal yourself! (-31) Whatever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in your hometown.’ ”
+ 24 He said, “Most certainly I tell you, (31) no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. (-31)
Luke 4.38-44, the healing of the mother-in-law of Peter, the evening healings, departing from Capernaum, and in the synagogues.
Luke 5.1-11, the call of the first disciples.
Luke 5.12-16, the healing of a leper.
Luke 5.17-26, the healing of a paralytic.
Luke 5.27-32, the call of Levi, tax collectors and sinners.
+ 30 (14) Their scribes and the Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?”
+ 31 Jesus answered them, “Those who are healthy have no need for a physician, but those who are sick do. (14)

Luke 5.33-39, the controversy over fasting.
+ 33 They said to him, (104) “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.” (-104)
+ 36 He also told a parable to them. (47)“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, (-47) for he says, ‘The old is better.’ ”

I hope you don't expect me to keep fixing the order that Ben so miraculously got wrong, twice

[MrMacSon]

I hope you don't expect me to keep fixing the order that Ben so miraculously got wrong, twice

You did that here viewtopic.php?p=146629#p146629

and I packaged it differently in the very next post in that thread:

Greek:

Ben's version

Martijn's Corrected version

. 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. .

. 36 Ἔλεγεν δὲ καὶ παραβολὴν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὅτι . . . . . 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. 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. .

English:

Ben's version

Martijn's Corrected version

. 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 He also told a parable to them. . . . . 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.’ 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.” .

Thomas:

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.

And you've stated

... Thomas and *Ev agree with the order of wine versus patch ...

For posterity: viewtopic.php?p=146554#p146554 which includes

So that settles that: Thomas and Marcion agree against the Synoptics

[MrMacSon]

For posterity:

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

---

And viewtopic.php?p=146579#p146579 which includes also looking at καινου and νεος; as well as rudis [which] equals καινος. And also includes:

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.

Removing the double negative gives:

it does seem ikely that *Ev has the Thomasine order with the Thomasine words, meaning that he also reserves καινος for the patch alone

Is that right?

[mlinssen]

For posterity:

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

---

And viewtopic.php?p=146579#p146579 which includes also looking at καινου and νεος; as well as rudis [which] equals καινος. And also includes:

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.

Removing the double negative gives:

it does seem ikely that *Ev has the Thomasine order with the Thomasine words, meaning that he also reserves καινος for the patch alone

Is that right?

Well let me be very clear then, for a change, and prevent you from denegativising anything

1. Thomas has wine first and patch last, no debate about that.
2. The canonicals have the reverse, no debate about that.
3. *Ev has the Thomasine order if we read between the lines because none of the FF attest to any of that openly, yet the order in which they attest to the parable makes clear that it is inverse to that of the canonicals - and then coincides with that of Thomas

As viewtopic.php?p=146579#p146579 indeed shows: 5 out of 7 for the Thomasine order - and of course we have the very outspoken statement by BeDuhn, as well as that of Klinghardt

A. So it is highly likely that *Ev has the Thomasine order.
B. If so then it is guaranteed that he also reserves καινος for the patch alone unless he had special reasons to do otherwise.
C. Yet if we look at the FF then none of them attests to καινος wine or wineskin, only to the patch, once

So *Ev agrees with Thomas - and the FF - against the canonicals.
Even though there still is the old patch <-> new garment in Thomas, which has become swapped in *Ev, and that gets copied by the canonicals because they can repurpose the context without modifying the content

(and with the Diatessaron MSS dating to 15th+ I really can't be bothered to do any digging there, even though https://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image ... 89808/138/ shows the parable of the seed and the Zizania for example)

[MrMacSon]

1. Thomas has wine first and patch last, no debate about that.
2. The canonicals have the reverse, no debate about that.
3. *Ev has the Thomasine order if we read between the lines because none of the FF attest to any of that openly, yet the order in which they attest to the parable makes clear that it is inverse to that of the canonicals - and then coincides with that of Thomas

As viewtopic.php?p=146579#p146579 indeed shows: 5 out of 7 for the Thomasine order - and of course we have the very outspoken statement by BeDuhn, as well as that of Klinghardt

A. So it is highly likely that *Ev has the Thomasine order.
B. If so then it is guaranteed that he also reserves καινος for the patch alone unless he had special reasons to do otherwise.
C. Yet if we look at the FF then none of them attests to καινος wine or wineskin, only to the patch, once

So *Ev agrees with Thomas - and the FF - against the canonicals.
Even though there still is the old patch <-> new garment in Thomas, which has become swapped in *Ev, and that gets copied by the canonicals because they can repurpose the context without modifying the content

• Cheers. Most of my focus on this is that this issue shows the canonicals at odds with the Church [F] Fathers, which is kinda weird. I had wondered if it showed relative chronology, but, with it being an issue across so many FFs, and most of this four being 4th century, perhaps not
  
  The relevant Father's dates:
  1. Tertullian : early 2nd 3rd! century
  2. Epiphanius : c.310–320 – 403
  3. Philastrius : d. ~397 (so contemporaneous with Epiphanius)
  4. Adamantius : vague : the Dialogue attributed to 'Adamantius' is dated late 3rd century or 4th century. Interestingly Origen was also known as Origen Adamantius and, in fact, 'Adamantius' is also known as Pseudo-Origen.
  So, Epiphanius, Philastrius, and Adamantius/Pseudo-Origen are likely contemporaneous or near contemporaneous with each other

(and with the Diatessaron MSS dating to 15th+ I really can't be bothered to do any digging there, even though https://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image ... 89808/138/ shows the parable of the seed and the Zizania for example)

• It's going to take a Vinzent, Klinghardt, Litwa or the like to sort out less-commonly-considered texts like this, but it's still worth keeping in mind wrt this issue

[mlinssen]

• Cheers. Most of my focus on this is that this issue shows the canonicals at odds with the Church [F] Fathers, which is kinda weird. I had wondered if it showed relative chronology, but, with it being an issue across so many FFs, and most of this four being 4th century, perhaps not

No, this is just a perfect case of catching the FF red-handed at obscuring the truth, and there are many other examples such as Tertullian attesting to "kingdom of the heavens" but then Schaff in turn decides to obscure that for the English reader

Christianity is like an onion: limitless layers of linguistically laced lies, impenetrable unless one masters them all

[MrMacSon]

this is just a perfect case of catching the FF red-handed at obscuring the truth, and there are many other examples such as Tertullian attesting to "kingdom of the heavens" but then Schaff in turn decides to obscure that for the English reader

• I don't disagree | ie. I agree.
  
  My comment was about the relative chronology of the Fathers wrt the synoptic/canonical* gospels (* tho I don't think John is involved)
  
  It seems clear, as you've alluded, that Thomas and *Ev precede the canonical and the Fathers, but I think the chronology wrt the Fathers relative to the canonicals - ie. priority of one or the other - seems hard to determine
  
  Or do you think you've got it sorted?
  With -
  

  So *Ev agrees with Thomas - and the FF - against the canonicals.

  - from the end of:

1. Thomas has wine first and patch last, no debate about that.
2. The canonicals have the reverse, no debate about that.
3. *Ev has the Thomasine order if we read between the lines because none of the FF attest to any of that openly, yet the order in which they attest to the parable makes clear that it is inverse to that of the canonicals - and then coincides with that of Thomas

As viewtopic.php?p=146579#p146579 indeed shows: 5 out of 7 for the Thomasine order - and of course we have the very outspoken statement by BeDuhn, as well as that of Klinghardt

A. So it is highly likely that *Ev has the Thomasine order.
B. If so then it is guaranteed that he also reserves καινος for the patch alone unless he had special reasons to do otherwise.
C. Yet if we look at the FF then none of them attests to καινος wine or wineskin, only to the patch, once

So *Ev agrees with Thomas - and the FF - against the canonicals.
Even though there still is the old patch <-> new garment in Thomas, which has become swapped in *Ev, and that gets copied by the canonicals because they can repurpose the context without modifying the content

eta
There may be a case to say the canonicals - or these pericopes in them - post-date the Church Fathers (or, perhaps, some of the Chruch Fathers don't know what the canonicals have)

[mlinssen]

this is just a perfect case of catching the FF red-handed at obscuring the truth, and there are many other examples such as Tertullian attesting to "kingdom of the heavens" but then Schaff in turn decides to obscure that for the English reader

• I don't disagree | ie. I agree.
  
  My comment was about the relative chronology of the Fathers wrt the synoptic/canonical* gospels (* tho I don't think John is involved)

Ah, that certainly didn't come to my mind

It seems clear, as you've alluded, that Thomas and *Ev precede the canonical and the Fathers, but I think the chronology wrt the Fathers relative to the canonicals - ie. priority of one or the other - seems hard to determine

Or do you think you've got it sorted?
With -

So *Ev agrees with Thomas - and the FF - against the canonicals.

- from the end of: [/list]

1. Thomas has wine first and patch last, no debate about that.
2. The canonicals have the reverse, no debate about that.
3. *Ev has the Thomasine order if we read between the lines because none of the FF attest to any of that openly, yet the order in which they attest to the parable makes clear that it is inverse to that of the canonicals - and then coincides with that of Thomas

As viewtopic.php?p=146579#p146579 indeed shows: 5 out of 7 for the Thomasine order - and of course we have the very outspoken statement by BeDuhn, as well as that of Klinghardt

A. So it is highly likely that *Ev has the Thomasine order.
B. If so then it is guaranteed that he also reserves καινος for the patch alone unless he had special reasons to do otherwise.
C. Yet if we look at the FF then none of them attests to καινος wine or wineskin, only to the patch, once

So *Ev agrees with Thomas - and the FF - against the canonicals.
Even though there still is the old patch <-> new garment in Thomas, which has become swapped in *Ev, and that gets copied by the canonicals because they can repurpose the context without modifying the content

eta
There may be a case to say the canonicals - or these pericopes in them - post-date the Church Fathers (or, perhaps, some of the Chruch Fathers don't know what the canonicals have)

You'd have a gem really - I guess what you are saying is that the FF should have protested to this order because it is considered falsified from their corner of the ring?
And what you REALLY are saying is that they are just protesting against the Chrestian text without having anything else in front of them because no canonical existed at that time - save for John, who is rather irrelevant in this regard

[mlinssen]

The relevant Father's dates:

1. Tertullian : early 2nd century
2. Epiphanius : c.310–320 – 403
3. Philastrius : d. ~397 (so contemporaneous with Epiphanius)
4. Adamantius : vague : the Dialogue attributed to 'Adamantius' is dated late 3rd century or 4th century. Interestingly Origen was also known as Origen Adamantius and, in fact, 'Adamantius' is also known as Pseudo-Origen.

So, Epiphanius, Philastrius, and Adamantius/Pseudo-Origen are likely contemporaneous or near contemporaneous with each other [/list]

Early third CE for the Turtle I'd say

It perhaps wouldn't be too far fetched to have the creation of the NT in 4th CE, as it would certainly explain the gross anomalies with regards to time and space involving Palestine. It would also explain the crazy LukeMatthew quotes by Justin Martyr FF - yet if nothing did stir until 300-350 CE then surely all the FF that preceded were retrofitted just like the NT, and perhaps it all started with Constantine

But I think it much more likely that the FF just kept their foul mouths shut at this, identical to the dozens of cases where they silently attested to *Ev material