Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 10:03 am
mlinssen wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:44 am
Stuart wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 12:18 pm
A prototype is necessary for the construction of Matthew, Mark and the Marcionite gospel, but completely unnecessary for the compositions of John (both versions) and Luke
I agree with the gist of your analysis here, but wonder about this sentence
1) How can you make such a great distinction between Luke and Matthew, while they agree so very closely on the verbatim level? Although I'll agree that their audiences differ greatly, and so does their message / core (even though Luke has a few nasty Matthean elements)
2) How can you be fairly sure that Marcion wasn't the prototype - what does a prototype look like, how do you define it?
Theology. I accept the existence of the Marcionite gospel being essentially the base document, "proto-gospel," of Luke.
Matthew was written in response to the Marcionite gospel and copied elements from the Marcionite, creating much of the supposed "Q" material. But he added his own material.
Luke revised the Marcionite gospel and focused on correcting the "Catholic" presentation of Matthew which was too pro-Torah, so copied much from Matthew, although wrote his own protoevangelium and genealogy. Luke took the kitchen sink approach, copying from everything he could get his hands on. So he copied back material from Matthew to complete Marcionite text he inherited. The result was even more "Q" material. As far as agreeing with Matthew, the expanded material copied directly from Matthew of course does agree. But there are other verses where the Marcionite text agrees more with the Matthew text than Luke. Both indicate editorial activity. The common Matthew and Marcionite material itself comes from two sources, the first a common prototype, the second Matthew lifting from the Marcionite. (It appears Matthew lifted a few items from the Marcionite antithesis as well, as they show up in almost identical paraphrased form spoken by Marcionite champions and in one case a Manichean champion in the Patristic works, to support Marcionite positions.) Basically the argument of common words cuts both ways in arguments and proves neither point decisively on it's own.
Well, again, agree to most if not all of that.
Indeed, two extremely different audiences with similarly differing backgrounds and belief systems, requiring a fairly 180 spin on theology in between Luke and Matthew
But Matthew also copied from Luke, for instance
Luke 12:33 Πωλήσατε (Sell) τὰ (the) ὑπάρχοντα (possessions) ὑμῶν (of you) καὶ (and) δότε (give) ἐλεημοσύνην (alms); ποιήσατε (make) ἑαυτοῖς (to yourselves) βαλλάντια (purses) μὴ (not) παλαιούμενα (growing old), θησαυρὸν (a treasure) ἀνέκλειπτον (unfailing) ἐν (in) τοῖς (the) οὐρανοῖς (heavens), ὅπου (where) κλέπτης (thief) οὐκ (not) ἐγγίζει (does draw near), οὐδὲ (nor) σὴς (moth) διαφθείρει (destroy).
34 ὅπου (Where) γάρ (for) ἐστιν (is) ὁ (the) θησαυρὸς (treasure) ὑμῶν (of you), ἐκεῖ (there) καὶ (also) ἡ (the) καρδία (heart) ὑμῶν (of you) ἔσται (will be).
Matthew 6:19 Μὴ (Not) θησαυρίζετε (store up) ὑμῖν (for yourselves) θησαυροὺς (treasures) ἐπὶ (upon) τῆς (the) γῆς (earth), ὅπου (where) σὴς (moth) καὶ (and) βρῶσις (rust) ἀφανίζει (destroy), καὶ (and) ὅπου (where) κλέπται (thieves) διορύσσουσιν (break in) καὶ (and) κλέπτουσιν (steal);
20 θησαυρίζετε (store up) δὲ (however) ὑμῖν (for yourselves) θησαυροὺς (treasures) ἐν (in) οὐρανῷ (heaven), ὅπου (where) οὔτε (neither) σὴς (moth) οὔτε (nor) βρῶσις (rust) ἀφανίζει (destroy), καὶ (and) ὅπου (where) κλέπται (thieves) οὐ (not) διορύσσουσιν (do break in) οὐδὲ (nor) κλέπτουσιν (steal).
21 ὅπου (Where) γάρ (for) ἐστιν (is) ὁ (the) θησαυρός (treasure) σου (of you), ἐκεῖ (there) ἔσται (will be) καὶ (also) ἡ (the) καρδία (heart) σου (of you).
The italic part is verbatim, the bold italic is the gospel sandbox.
And once more we see how the free association works beautifully in Greek, with 'steal' inspiring ἀνέκλειπτον as well as κλέπτης and κλέπτουσιν. Assuming a Hebrew source behind this intricate labyrinth of verbatim Greek agreement is attesting to the fact that one knows nothing of textual criticism in the context of the NT, and has never read much if any of its MSS in the original language - or ine did the latter, and failed to see the overwhelming evidence for shared sources in the same language
The common Matthew and Marcionite material itself comes from two sources, the first a common prototype
From Thomas, I would argue - no comments from the CF's on this, see
viewtopic.php?p=39320#p39320
76 (a)said IS : the(F) reign-of(F) king of the father she/r is-comparable to a(n) human [al] trader has/ve he therein [dop] a(n) Consignment
did he fall to a(n) Pearl
(b) the trader who/which therein a(n) wise-person is did he give-away his Consignment
(c) did he buy to he [dop] that-one Pearl single
(d) yourselves likewise you(PL) seek-after his treasure
not-usually he perish in-case he be-remaining outward the place
not-usually moth make-to-approach inward [dop] the-place-there to eat Nor not-usually he worm destroy
Is Thomas referring to Isaiah 51:8 with his 76d?
Isaiah 51:7 "Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law. Don't fear the reproach of men, and don't be dismayed at their insults. 8 For the moth will eat them up like a garment, and the worm will eat them like wool; but my righteousness will be forever, and my salvation to all generations."
Bodies will be consumed like this when dead, so it's no use hoping that something great will happen after you're dead: seek elsewhere, is what Thomas seems to imply - although 'his treasure' is puzzling. Unaware of the Isaiah reference or not, the gospel-writers revert Thomas' message, pointing to heaven instead of earth - an opportunity that can't be missed out on.
Luke swaps the 'moth' for 'thief' and the 'worm' for 'moth'; his 'no thief approaches' is a rewording of 'no moth comes near' and once again Matthew changes that to the natural action of a thief: 'thieves don't break through and steal', highly likely inspired as well by logion 21e, which comes next. Luke is not very fluid with his 'treasure in the heavens that doesn't fail', and Matthew drops it. Thomas' 'destroys' is copied by Luke and changed to 'consume' by Matthew. Matthew also adds the very unique 'rust', possibly to move away from Thomas and cover his source, and repeats the dependent clause, juxtaposing earth to heaven - a beautiful effect
I've tried to reverse the order and pretend Thomas copying either Luke or Matthew - it is impossible, especially given the fact the 76d really makes no sense in the context of 76a-c, it is really alien to it. And of course, only Matthew has that piece, in an entirely different place:
Matthew 13:45 Πάλιν (Again) ὁμοία (like) ἐστὶν (is) ἡ (the) βασιλεία (kingdom) τῶν (of the) οὐρανῶν (heavens) ‹ἀνθρώπῳ› (a man), ἐμπόρῳ (a merchant) ζητοῦντι (seeking) καλοὺς (fine) μαργαρίτας (pearls); 46 εὑρὼν (having found) δὲ (now) ἕνα (one) πολύτιμον (very precious) μαργαρίτην (pearl), ἀπελθὼν (having gone away), πέπρακεν (he has sold) πάντα (all things) ὅσα (as many as) εἶχεν (he had), καὶ (and) ἠγόρασεν (bought) αὐτόν (it).
It is one of his 3-in-a-row quick and lazy copies of Thomas that make it impossible to reverse the direction of dependence. This is such blatant plagiarism with less than a minute spent on copying, tossing in a few very unimaginative words that summarise the essence of the Thomas logion, that only zealous would try to plea the opposite case.
Yet perhaps Neil Godfrey will come up with an Aramaic version of Thomas though, just like Perrin did - and "demonstrate" all kinds of "houses of cards", also exactly like Perrin did