The title is hilarious of course, likely the most pretentious one ever (just wait a bit and it will be considered blatantly evident) but it's easy to find this way.
I've gone through my 72 logia and there is just a bit in Mark that looks an awful lot like Thomas yet can't be found in Luke - best case scenario that is because it was in some proto-gospel but "Luke" didn't like it, worst case scenario that is because it wasn't present in Marcion so it must have come from elsewhere.
Working thesis or assumption still is that Thomas is the source to everything, but that Marcion turned it into something religion-ish and that it was Marcionite material that served as a basis for all, or at least most, of Christianity
Needless to say, we don't have Marcion - and I think that people who quote from the restored Q should be berated, fired, ridiculed or in any other way be confronted with the fact that they literally cite something that is non existent.
However... we most certainly have verbatim material from Marcion, and quite an awful lot even. I will never not say to always completely distrust any Church father, but this is the best we can do. And whereas I have a very great suspicion that e.g. Origen's alleged quotation of Celsus from the alleged Heavenly Dialogues "Oh lord many around cistern yet nothing in the well and so forth" is bogus, and likely meant only to distort and sow uncertainties, what we have here is in a sense completely reliable
. Bear with me
"No I didn't say that you're a fat fuck! I said that you have bad luck"
The best I can come up with, it's early.
There are a few observations here:
- The speaker most certainly has said something to the audience
- He said either one of the two sentences - although there's the incredibly small likelihood that he said something else and is lying about the lying
- It is highly likely that indeed he said the first thing and not the latter. The criterion of embarassment applies here, one of the very, very few occasions that it actually does (baptising Jesus was just a screw up by Mark and "written history" after that, although Mattew doth protest and John completely omits it. Nonetheless, brainless apologists keep using it as an example of said criterion. But I digress)
So, while we weren't there, we can make some intelligent guesses that go a very long way. But that is not precisely the scenario that we have, what we have is Tertullian and Epiphanius alleging that Marcion said something instead of Marcion refuting what was refuted by them.
- That means that (1) applies: no need to say that Marcion didn't say something that allegedly turned Luke stuff upside down if such weren't the case, or served no purpose.
- That means that (2) likely applies: they will lie on occasions as that is the Church father pattern and practice (and purpose, because all of it is about professing preposterous propaganda) but I'm guesstimating a 60-40 / 80-20 that their statements about Marcion usually are in the ballpark. I know, that is vairly (a lovely combination of very and fairly) vague, and just wishful thinking really - mathematically seen it's 50-50 of course.
- That means that it is impossible to state anything about (3)
So we end up with (1) and (2) - that is more than enough for me to go on
There are four occasions on which Mark has Thomasine material that isn't in Luke, and neither in Marcion. Matthew shares some of it some of the times, but that's it - and the question poses itself: where did Mark get this from?
With another 36 logia copied from Thomas (or indirectly via Marcion, which I still have to check) these 4 are guaranteed to not come from Luke but I counted none of them in my paper so it's exactly 10% of them all, if one were to count them.
But it's a start
Berean Interlinear, the Thomas translation is from my as of yet unpublished v1.8
A) Mark 4:26-29
26 Καὶ (And) ἔλεγεν (He was saying), “Οὕτως (Thus) ἐστὶν (is) ἡ (the) βασιλεία (kingdom) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (of God), ὡς (as) ἄνθρωπος (a man) βάλῃ (should cast) τὸν (the) σπόρον (seed) ἐπὶ (upon) τῆς (the) γῆς (earth),
27 καὶ (and) καθεύδῃ (should sleep) καὶ (and) ἐγείρηται (rise) νύκτα (night) καὶ (and) ἡμέραν (day), καὶ (and) ὁ (the) σπόρος (seed) βλαστᾷ (should sprout) καὶ (and) μηκύνηται (grow); ὡς (how) οὐκ (not) οἶδεν (knows) αὐτός (he).
28 αὐτομάτη (Of itself), ἡ (the) γῆ (earth) καρποφορεῖ (brings forth fruit)— πρῶτον (first) χόρτον (a plant), εἶτα* (then) στάχυν (an ear), εἶτα* (then) πλήρης (full) σῖτον* (grain) ἐν (in) τῷ (the) στάχυϊ (ear).
29 ὅταν (When) δὲ (then) παραδοῖ (offers itself) ὁ (the) καρπός (fruit), εὐθὺς (immediately) ἀποστέλλει (he sends) τὸ (the) δρέπανον (sickle), ὅτι (for) παρέστηκεν (has come) ὁ (the) θερισμός (harvest).”
Thomas logion 21 (partial): after-that the Fruit split did he come immediately his sickle in his(F) hand
The fruit and the sickle combined with the 'immediately' is what does it and establishes reasonable doubt. Karpos is the Greek loanword in Thomas, the rest is plain Coptic
Thomas logion 57 (partial): a(n) human has/ve he therein [dop] a(n) seed good did his enemy come within the(F) night did he throw-sow [dop] a(n) Zizanion upon the seed good
The night, the seed, and the not knowing have a remote likeness to Thomas. Matthew 13:24-30 has the real deal and as such shares the mysterious Zizanion only with Thomas - but naturally, because he's a thick-headed fool, he makes it plural as its symbolic meaning is far above his paygrade. That, on a side note
B) Mark 6:31
31 καὶ (And) λέγει (He said) αὐτοῖς (to them), “Δεῦτε (Come) ὑμεῖς (you) αὐτοὶ (yourselves) κατ’ (apart) ἰδίαν (own) εἰς (to) ἔρημον (a solitary) τόπον (place), καὶ (and) ἀναπαύσασθε (rest) ὀλίγον (a little).”
Thomas logion 60 (partial): yourselves likewise you(PL) seek-after a(n) Place you(PL) inward a(n) Repose in-order-that Shan't! you(PL) come-to-be [al] Corpse and they eat you(PL)
ⲛ̄ⲧⲱⲧⲛ̄ ϩⲱⲧ` ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ̄ ϣⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁ ⲟⲩ ⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ ⲛⲏ ⲧⲛ̄ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉ ⲩ ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉ ⲧⲛ̄ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲙ̄ ⲡⲧⲱⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ ⲥⲉ ⲟⲩⲱⲙ` ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ̄
Mark turns Thomas' noun (anapausis) into a verb, and makes this a perfect verbatim copy in disguise
C) Mark 9:43-47
43 Καὶ (And) ἐὰν (if) σκανδαλίζῃ* (should cause to stumble) σε (you) ἡ (the) χείρ (hand) σου (of you), ἀπόκοψον (cut off) αὐτήν (it); καλόν (better) ἐστίν (it is) σε (for ou) κυλλὸν (crippled) εἰσελθεῖν (to enter) εἰς (into) τὴν (-) ζωὴν (life), ἢ (than) τὰς (-) δύο (two) χεῖρας (hands) ἔχοντα (having), ἀπελθεῖν (to go away) εἰς (into) τὴν (-) γέενναν (hell), εἰς (into) τὸ (the) πῦρ (fire) τὸ (-) ἄσβεστον (unquenchable). c
45 καὶ (And) ἐὰν (if) ὁ (the) πούς (foot) σου (of you) σκανδαλίζῃ (should cause to stumble) σε (you), ἀπόκοψον (cut off) αὐτόν (it); καλόν (better) ἐστίν (it is) σε (for you) εἰσελθεῖν (to enter) εἰς (into) τὴν (-) ζωὴν (life) χωλὸν (lame), ἢ (than) τοὺς (the) δύο (two) πόδας (feet) ἔχοντα (having), βληθῆναι (to be cast) εἰς (into) τὴν (-) γέενναν (hell). d
47 καὶ (And) ἐὰν (if) ὁ (the) ὀφθαλμός (eye) σου (of you) σκανδαλίζῃ (should cause to stumble) σε (you), ἔκβαλε (cast out) αὐτόν (it); καλόν (better) σέ (for you) ἐστιν (it is) μονόφθαλμον (with one eye) εἰσελθεῖν (to enter) εἰς (into) τὴν (the) βασιλείαν (kingdom) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (of God), ἢ (than) δύο (two) ὀφθαλμοὺς (eyes) ἔχοντα (having) βληθῆναι (to be cast) εἰς (into) τὴν (-) γέενναν (hell),
48 ὅπου (where) ‘Ὁ (the) σκώληξ (worm) αὐτῶν (of them) οὐ (not) τελευτᾷ (dies), καὶ (and) τὸ (the) πῦρ (fire) οὐ (not) σβέννυται (is quenched).’ e
Thomas logion 22 (partial): Whenever if you(PL) "should" make-be the two one
and if you(PL) "should" make-be the inner-part in.the.manner of the part outside and the part outside in.the.manner of the inner-part
and the part of the(F) heaven in.the.manner of the part of the ground and
So-that you(PL) will make-be [dop] the.male reign-of(F) woman to that-one one single in-order-that Shan't! the.male make-be male and the(F) woman make-be woman
Whenever if you(PL) "should" make-be [dop] some(PL) eye to the place of a(n) eye
and a(n) hand to the place of a(n) hand
and feet to the place of feet
a(n) Image to the place of a(n) Image
Then you(PL) will go-inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king
Well, another remote copy. Yet the body parts and the 'one' versus 'two' establish reasonable doubt here; this can't be a coincidence
D) Mark 15:21
21 Καὶ (And) ἀγγαρεύουσιν (they compel), παράγοντά (passing by) τινα (one), Σίμωνα (Simon) Κυρηναῖον (of Cyrene), ἐρχόμενον (coming) ἀπ’ (from) ἀγροῦ (the country), τὸν (the) πατέρα (father) Ἀλεξάνδρου (of Alexander) καὶ (and) Ῥούφου (Rufus), ἵνα (that) ἄρῃ (he might carry) τὸν (the) σταυρὸν (cross) αὐτοῦ (of Him).
Thomas logion 42: said IS : come-to-be you(PL) make-be Pass-by
ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓ̄ⲥ̄ ϫⲉ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉ ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ ⲣ̄ ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲅⲉ
There's a bit of passing-by going on in the NT, yet while Luke has this scene, he doesn't have the word. On a metaphysical level Jesus does come into (a new) being after his death, but I'll gladly admit that this a very remote copy if at all - but it must be mentioned as a possible Thomas parallel not in Luke (or Marcion)
That's all folks!
So far, this is all of the material in Mark, from Thomas, which is not in Luke, and not attested for in Marcion. None of these are verbatim copies or even fair copies, some of you will discard all of them I think
Did Mark get this from a proto-Luke, or a proto-Marcion? Possibly, but the material didn't make it into Luke
What's next? To establish how much of Luke is in Marcion, but that is for another day.
Logion 57 is a pivotal one though, as it is absent in Luke, only has a ghost image at best in Mark, and a quite verbatim copy in Matthew
Score so far: that means that everything that Mark has and which has parallels with Thomas, is present in Luke - save these 4. For a change I'm going to state it neutrally.
Possibility that Mark did not use another source than what Luke used: very high (imagination and creativity don't count towards "sources")