The peculiar case of the lamp under a bushel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of the lamp under a bushel

Post by mlinssen »

gryan wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:13 am Re: "Parsimony"

When you introduced Marcion into the explanation above, you lost me--the word "Parsimony" popped into my mind. It got too complicated. I'm looking for the the simplest explanation that fits the evidence (Mark Goodacre is fond of this criterion). I agree with Goodacre that Mark is the primary synoptic gospel and that Matt and Luke follow along later.

I'll accept your translation based on Crum:

not-usually anyone Indeed ignite candlestick and he place he at ear/measure

In accepting this translation, I'm aware of going against the mainstream consensus.

Ear makes better sense than measure. So it is strange that gMark opts for the less interesting idea: μόδιος/measure. The idea of ear is lost.

gMark and Thomas agree on the basics: a candle gets lit, it normally goes on a lamp stands, don't put it in a nonsensical place.

Supposing gMark is the source for gThomas in Greek, and that Greek Thom was translated to Coptic: There is plenty of space for creativity regarding nonsensical places to put a lit candle, and thus, "you don't light a candle and put it to your ear". Ha ha (I'm not actually laughing right now, but someone could). gMark's version of nonsense-- "put it under a measure/basket" -- is boring by comparison. This way of framing what gMark says is unsettling since the idea of measure could have come from the secondary meaning of ear in Coptic (Is this underlined part a correct reflection of your hypothesis?). Ugh (I actually do have an ugh feeling right now).
Thanks for the tip! I'll remove Marcion from the equation, as he doesn't add anything useful anyway

It is boring indeed, isn't it? Why on earth would you cover a candle with something like a bucket, it would probably set it on fire (assuming a wooden one)
This way of framing what gMark says is unsettling since the idea of measure could have come from the secondary meaning of ear in Coptic (Is this underlined part a correct reflection of your hypothesis?)
Absolutely. I'm unsure about the exact grammatical nature of the word, but here's the short version:

ⲙⲀⲀϪⲈ - ear
ⲙⲀⲀϪⲈ - a measure of grain, fruit etc.

In Crum they are two words, the first is on page 212b (https://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/crum- ... &tla=C2328)
and the second on page 213a (https://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/crum- ... &tla=C2330)

In anticipation of your next question, the preposition used in Thomas is equally ambivalent; notice the different numbers in the hyperlink:

ϩⲁ- (https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C6328)
  • under, in, at
  • from
  • by reason of
  • for, in respect of, on behalf of
  • for (of price)
  • against

And:


So both translations are perfectly possible, and of course all "translators" pick the one that is closest to the canonicals.
Yet the chance that Thomas meant to use "measure" and just happened to pick this word, a homonym for ear - which even is a specific measure for grain and fruits, highly unlikely to be used in a household?

https://coptic-dictionary.org/results.c ... ch=Measure

90 results, some false positives included...
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of the lamp under a bushel

Post by mlinssen »

I keep tweaking viewtopic.php?p=125462#p125462 here and there, in an attempt to make it complete yet concise, and clear yet constrained to just this logion 33

Hollor if it's a proper set up, then I'll use it for the other peculiar cases that I've lined up - some of them including a case for Coptic Thomasine provenance like this one, others just attesting to Thomasine Priority
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

The peculiar case of the lamp under a bushel (Chester Beatty II)

Post by mlinssen »

In the Chester Beatty papyri, we find an even shorter version of Luke 11:

THE CHESTER BEATTY BIBLICAL PAPYRI DESCRIPTIONS AND TEXTS OF TWELVE MANUSCRIPTS ON PAPYRUS OF THE GREEK BIBLE
FASCICULUS II
THE GOSPELS AND ACTS
BY FREDERIC G. KENYON


https://chesterbeatty.ie/assets/uploads ... xt-Opt.pdf

The book is almost a century old so the font can't be copy-pasted, and I don't feel like transcribing the Greek, so here's a screenshot: number / verse 33 is where it starts
Screenshot_20210804-121200_ReadEra_1.jpg
Screenshot_20210804-121200_ReadEra_1.jpg (419.64 KiB) Viewed 1680 times
Copied from a fresh bible, thus diacritics inherently added:

Οὐδεὶς λύχνον ἅ[ψ]ας εἰς κρύπτον τίθησιν ἀλλα ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόμ[ε]νοι τὸ φέγγος βλέπωσιν.

The modion isn't present! So it looks like a later interpolation / harmonisation, or "it just fell off in here", of course.
It says κρύπτον in stead of κρύπτην

Here's the current Berean Interlinear version, bold for what's different and yellow highlight for what's now been added:

33 Οὐδεὶς (But no one) λύχνον (a lamp) ἅψας (having lit), εἰς (in) κρύπτην (secret) τίθησιν (sets it), οὐδὲ (nor) ὑπὸ (under) τὸν (the) μόδιον (basket), ἀλλ’ (but) ἐπὶ (upon) τὴν (the) λυχνίαν (lampstand), ἵνα (that) οἱ (those) εἰσπορευόμενοι (entering in) τὸ (the) φέγγος (light) βλέπωσιν (may see).

Unfortunately, Matthew and Mark's versions aren't in the same MSS, nor is Luke's other.
If anyone can explain exactly what the notes say about the other MSS, that would be of great help

It sure looks like a harmonisation here, and this fits very, very nicely in this version of Luke that I previously labeled as too black-and-white Thomas-and-the-canonicals. This version was extremely Thomasine:

Luke: But no one, a lamp having lit, in "hidden" sets it, but upon the lampstand, that those entering in the light may see
Thomas: Nor not-usually he place him in place he be-hiding, Rather "habitually" he place he from-upon the(F) Lampstand, in-
order-that every-one who/which going-inward and who/which be-coming outward they will behold [dop] his light

I've changed the faulty 'secret' for 'hidden'.
Next step: trace the other versions back to early MSS. I have a list, very handy - now all I need is easy access to MSS. Coptic, Greek, whatever
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of the lamp under a bushel (P75)

Post by mlinssen »

Oh my...

Mater verbi (P75, Bodmer XIV-XV) has the same "slim version":

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Han ... ter.Verbi)
The leaf is labeled 1B.3v, and verse 33 starts at line 8, counted from the bottom - I have conveniently placed it between thick red lines:
Mater verbi P75 Luke 11-33.png
Mater verbi P75 Luke 11-33.png (1.01 MiB) Viewed 1670 times
Οὐδεὶς λύχνον ἅψας εἰς κρύπτην τίθησιν οὐδὲ ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόμενοι τὸ φέγγο/ως βλέπωσιν

Highlighted what's missing, underlined what's changed.
Is says κρύπτην in stead of what the Chester Beatty in the previous post has, and φέγγος says φως. ἀλλα there says ἀλλ’ here.
There is a clear story here, such is for sure. My Greek is fair and I'd argue that krypton points to a hidden masculine something, whereas krypten would point to something feminine. The ⲙⲁ in Thomas is a native Coptic word, masculine. Light says ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ there, that is of no help

But I would think that the Beatty precedes this one - Kenyon dated that to the first half of the third CE. Paleographically, of course, like everything else

It gets even more interesting though:

Luke 8:16 Οὐδεὶς δὲ λύχνον ἅψας καλύπτει αὐτὸν σκεύει ἢ ὑποκάτω κλί/εινης τίθησιν, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ λυχνίας τίθησιν, ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόμενοι βλέπωσιν τὸ φῶς. 17 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ φανερὸν γενήσεται, οὐδὲ ἀπόκρυφον ὃ οὐ μὴ γνωσθῇ καὶ εἰς φανερὸν ἔλθῃ.

On leaf 1A.8r and 1A.8v (yes, the verse is split across two leaves) we can see that P75 misses the highlighted part

κλεινός means 'famous, renowned, illustrious' - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... kleino%2Fs and I feel like I'm barking up the wrong tree there
[EDIT: I've read quite a few MSS now, and it would appear that the Greek H, eta, frequently got spelled as EI in some particular cases]

Funny thing is, of course: all this has quite a dramatic effect on the alleged copying by Thomas from sources that didn't come into existence until well after its Greek copies

I am quite sure that just a few weeks of research, focusing entirely on the MSS, zooming in on Luke and Thomas alone, could shed even more light on this entire issue
Last edited by mlinssen on Thu Aug 05, 2021 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of the lamp under a bushel

Post by mlinssen »

Needless to say, Nestle Aland only has the variant reading for Luke 11:33, not Luke 8:16

Odd, given the fact that 60 years passed between the publication of the Bodmer papyri and the 2012 publication of NA28.
A copyright issue, perchance?
[EDIT: I used an online version of it, from https://www.academic-bible.com/en/onlin ... ne-bibles/

While it claims to use the NA28, I won't be using an online NA any longer. Hat tip to andrewcriddle viewtopic.php?p=125646#p125646

The real NA28 does attest to this Luke 11:33 variant in P75
EDIT END]

A screenshot then, of Luke 8:16 in P75, broken up across two leaves, with the second half starting at page 1A.8v:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Han ... r.Verbi%29
Screenshot_20210804-160933_Chrome_1.jpg
Screenshot_20210804-160933_Chrome_1.jpg (586.97 KiB) Viewed 1643 times
Luke 8:16 Οὐδεὶς δὲ λύχνον ἅψας καλύπτει αὐτὸν σκεύει ἢ ὑποκάτω κλί/εινης τίθησιν, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ λυχνίας τίθησιν, ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόμενοι βλέπωσιν τὸ φῶς.
17 [οὐ γάρ] ἐστιν κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ φανερὸν γενήσεται, οὐδὲ ἀπόκρυφον ὃ οὐ μὴ γνωσθῇ καὶ εἰς φανερὸν ἔλθῃ.


The highlighted part is what is and should be visible: the bold is missing, the likely contents of the lacuna are put in between square brackets
Last edited by mlinssen on Thu Aug 05, 2021 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The peculiar case of the lamp under a bushel

Post by andrewcriddle »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 6:24 am Needless to say, Nestle Aland only has the variant reading for Luke 11:33, not Luke 8:16

Odd, given the fact that 60 years passed between the publication of the Bodmer papyri and the 2012 publication of NA28.
A copyright issue, perchance?

A screenshot then, of Luke 8:16 in P75, broken up across two leaves, with the second half starting at page 1A.8v:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Han ... r.Verbi%29

Screenshot_20210804-160933_Chrome_1.jpg

Luke 8:16 Οὐδεὶς δὲ λύχνον ἅψας καλύπτει αὐτὸν σκεύει ἢ ὑποκάτω κλί/εινης τίθησιν, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ λυχνίας τίθησιν, ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόμενοι βλέπωσιν τὸ φῶς.
17 [οὐ γάρ] ἐστιν κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ φανερὸν γενήσεται, οὐδὲ ἀπόκρυφον ὃ οὐ μὴ γνωσθῇ καὶ εἰς φανερὸν ἔλθῃ.


The highlighted part is what is and should be visible: the bold is missing, the likely contents of the lacuna are put in between square brackets
Nestle Aland does give the omission in Luke 8:16 as shared by P75 and Vaticanus (B). Check the footnotes.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add I think you may be using an online Nestle Aland without footnotes you really need a proper Nestle Aland.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of the lamp under a bushel

Post by mlinssen »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 7:37 am
mlinssen wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 6:24 am Needless to say, Nestle Aland only has the variant reading for Luke 11:33, not Luke 8:16

Odd, given the fact that 60 years passed between the publication of the Bodmer papyri and the 2012 publication of NA28.
A copyright issue, perchance?

A screenshot then, of Luke 8:16 in P75, broken up across two leaves, with the second half starting at page 1A.8v:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Han ... r.Verbi%29

Screenshot_20210804-160933_Chrome_1.jpg

Luke 8:16 Οὐδεὶς δὲ λύχνον ἅψας καλύπτει αὐτὸν σκεύει ἢ ὑποκάτω κλί/εινης τίθησιν, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ λυχνίας τίθησιν, ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόμενοι βλέπωσιν τὸ φῶς.
17 [οὐ γάρ] ἐστιν κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ φανερὸν γενήσεται, οὐδὲ ἀπόκρυφον ὃ οὐ μὴ γνωσθῇ καὶ εἰς φανερὸν ἔλθῃ.


The highlighted part is what is and should be visible: the bold is missing, the likely contents of the lacuna are put in between square brackets
Nestle Aland does give the omission in Luke 8:16 as shared by P75 and Vaticanus (B). Check the footnotes.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add I think you may be using an online Nestle Aland without footnotes you really need a proper Nestle Aland.
You're a star Andrew! That is exactly what is the case. I'll amend the post, and will be in the lookout for a decent NA28 copy then

My apologies, I assumed that, given the fact that the online version does attest to Luke 8:16, it would equally attest to 11:33

https://www.academic-bible.com/en/onlin ... ible-text/ was the site, looked pretty decent:

Greek New Testament following the text of the Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Nestle-Aland), 28. Edition and the UBS Greek New Testament

Thanks again Andrew, I learned something new (again!)
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of the lamp under a bushel

Post by mlinssen »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 8:42 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 7:37 am
mlinssen wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 6:24 am Needless to say, Nestle Aland only has the variant reading for Luke 11:33, not Luke 8:16

Odd, given the fact that 60 years passed between the publication of the Bodmer papyri and the 2012 publication of NA28.
A copyright issue, perchance?

A screenshot then, of Luke 8:16 in P75, broken up across two leaves, with the second half starting at page 1A.8v:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Han ... r.Verbi%29

Screenshot_20210804-160933_Chrome_1.jpg

Luke 8:16 Οὐδεὶς δὲ λύχνον ἅψας καλύπτει αὐτὸν σκεύει ἢ ὑποκάτω κλί/εινης τίθησιν, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ λυχνίας τίθησιν, ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόμενοι βλέπωσιν τὸ φῶς.
17 [οὐ γάρ] ἐστιν κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ φανερὸν γενήσεται, οὐδὲ ἀπόκρυφον ὃ οὐ μὴ γνωσθῇ καὶ εἰς φανερὸν ἔλθῃ.


The highlighted part is what is and should be visible: the bold is missing, the likely contents of the lacuna are put in between square brackets
Nestle Aland does give the omission in Luke 8:16 as shared by P75 and Vaticanus (B). Check the footnotes.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add I think you may be using an online Nestle Aland without footnotes you really need a proper Nestle Aland.
You're a star Andrew! That is exactly what is the case. I'll amend the post, and will be in the lookout for a decent NA28 copy then

My apologies, I assumed that, given the fact that the online version does attest to Luke 8:16, it would equally attest to 11:33

https://www.academic-bible.com/en/onlin ... ible-text/ was the site, looked pretty decent:

Greek New Testament following the text of the Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. Nestle-Aland), 28. Edition and the UBS Greek New Testament

Thanks again Andrew, I learned something new (again!)
Got it. Almost got a German one, got a bit melancholic.
Nice to know which texts don't attest to something or which have a variant, but a quick (and dirty) calculus shows that 13 of the 26 MSS omit the entering / seeing. I'll see whether I can come up with something better and more accurate
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of the lamp under a bushel - all MSS with dates

Post by mlinssen »

Well,

that is quite an impressive work, the NA. Never had it in full, but errrr, well, you know - never too old to learn, they say.
I find it hard to believe that any biblical academic piece is written without referencing it (and then I don't mean for simply copying the Greek, as usually happens). Of course, it makes it all seem a lot less simple - but if such is the case, then so be it

Alright, a bit of help wanted here. I have taken all MSS named in Luke 8:4-24, that seemed like a nice set: 21 verses.
Why? Because I'm looking for a date, just to please those who like to play the dating game

Why take +/- 10 verses preceding and following the one verse at hand?
  1. Because I doubt that there is any manuscript that is verbatim identical to any other for 20 consecutive verses in a row, so any MS appearing among these 21 verses highly likely "completes the set"
  2. Because I think it is a safe bet that taking consecutive verses will get us in the ballpark regarding "comparibility" - the method here is rough but the assumption is that taking Luke chapter 4 and Luke chapter 8 will result in MSS that are a lot less likely to share Luke 8:16 than the surrounding verses to Luke 8:16
What then am I looking for? I am looking for a full set of early MSS that contain Luke 8:16, so that I can make a fair guesstimation at
  1. The percentage of MSS that support the additional ἵνα οἱ εἰσπορευόμενοι βλέπωσιν τὸ φῶς as shown in viewtopic.php?p=125612#p125612
  2. We can see what the dates are to the MSS that do support that addition
So, here's the list:

33IX
565IX
579XIII
700XIII
892IX
1241XIII
1424IX/X
2542XIII
(e)???
(s T)IX
(syc)V
1.???
700cXIII
AV
aindividual Old Latin manuscript
BIV
B (sa)IV
b*individual Old Latin manuscript
boCoptic Bohairic
bomsCoptic Bohairic
cindividual Old Latin manuscript
coCoptic
Cyr???
DV
eindividual Old Latin manuscript
findividual Old Latin manuscript
f1Family 1
f1.13Family 1 and 13
f13Family 13
ff2???
itItala: all or a majority of Old Latin witnesses
KIX
LVIII
L*VIII
latthe Vulgate and a part of Old Latin witnesses
LcVIII
?V-X
NVIII
N2aVI
P75III
pm"many"
r1???
saCoptic Sahidic
sa boCoptic Sahidic Bohairic
samsCoptic Sahidic
sy.s.c.p.Syriac Sinaitic, Curetonian, Peshitta
syhSyriac Harklensis
sypSyriac Peshitta
vgIV
WIV/V
GXIII
?IX
TIX
?VI
?IX/X

There are a few that I can't make sense of: e, 1., Cyr, ff2, r1 - help much appreciated!
Likewise, the "Family" concept is a mystery to me, how do those get dated?

If we sort the list on date, here is what that looks like:

pm"many"
(e)???
1.???
Cyr???
ff2???
r1???
coCoptic
boCoptic Bohairic
bomsCoptic Bohairic
saCoptic Sahidic
samsCoptic Sahidic
sa boCoptic Sahidic Bohairic
f1Family 1
f1.13Family 1 and 13
f13Family 13
aindividual Old Latin manuscript
b*individual Old Latin manuscript
cindividual Old Latin manuscript
eindividual Old Latin manuscript
findividual Old Latin manuscript
itItala: all or a majority of Old Latin witnesses
syhSyriac Harklensis
sypSyriac Peshitta
sy.s.c.p.Syriac Sinaitic, Curetonian, Peshitta
latthe Vulgate and a part of Old Latin witnesses
P75III
BIV
B (sa)IV
vgIV
WIV/V
(syc)V
AV
DV
?V-X
N2aVI
?VI
LVIII
L*VIII
LcVIII
NVIII
33IX
565IX
892IX
(s T)IX
KIX
?IX
TIX
1424IX/X
?IX/X
579XIII
700XIII
1241XIII
2542XIII
700cXIII
GXIII

I put the dateable ones at the end. I think we can safely exclude Coptic and Syriac and Latin from the list, when looking for direction of dependence between Thomas and the canonicals.
The first century that we encounter, is the 3rd - and I could stop right there, with the Greek Oxyrhynchus fragments dated 50 - 140 CE - but that would ruin all the fun.
So, time for a screenshot:
NA28 Luke 8-16.png
NA28 Luke 8-16.png (309.66 KiB) Viewed 1603 times
As one can see, there is a little square preceding the phrase at hand, and it indicates an omission.
Looking at the footnotes, end of the third line from the top, P75 and B are mentioned there

So that means that P75 and B omit this phrase, and that the remainder doesn't. We can be sure that all MSS mentioned in this footnote to verse 8:16 do have it, but I thought to widen the set a bit. When we take the table with centuries in it, here is the new list:

[highlight=red][/highlight]
P75III
BIV
B (sa)IV
vgIV
WIV/V
(syc)V
AV
DV
?V-X
N2aVI
?VI
LVIII
L*VIII
LcVIII
NVIII
33IX
565IX
892IX
(s T)IX
KIX
?IX
TIX
1424IX/X
?IX/X
579XIII
700XIII
1241XIII
2542XIII
700cXIII
GXIII

The valid list starts at vg, the Vulgate, which I just assigned IVth, but needless to say the oldest MS that we have from it is many centuries older. Next to that, it is Latin - strike that.
W is IV/Vth CE, Washington (032). "Generally dated to the fifth century, though some have preferred a date in the late fourth century", and Luke 8 is designated as Byzantine.
syc is Syriac, strike that.
A is Vth CE, fine.
D is Vth CE, fine

And that concludes the list as far as dates are concerned, the remainder is VIth CE or later.
And the question is, naturally: well where is the text that Thomas used to copy his logion from?
If the earliest MS that we have extant, attesting to "that those who enter in may see the light", then how could one possibly assert that the canonicals preceded Thomas here, whose Coptic text is dated to IV-Vth whereas his Greek (sadly, not attesting to any of this logion due to being severely fragmented) is dated IInd?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The peculiar case of the lamp under a bushel - Tertullian shows that Marcion was Thomas

Post by mlinssen »

Tertullian, Against Marcion, BOOK IV, Chapter XIX.—The Rich Women of Piety Who Followed Jesus Christ’s Teaching by Parables.
The Marcionite Cavil Derived from Christ’s Remark, When Told of His Mother and His Brethren. Explanation of Christ’s Apparent Rejection Them.

If by Marcion’s god it be given, by Marcion’s god also will it be taken away. Now, for whatever reason He threatens the “deprivation,” it will not be the work of a god who knows not how to threaten, because incapable of anger. I am, moreover, astonished when he says that “a candle is not usually hidden,”4194 who had hidden himself—a greater and more needful light—during so long a time; and when he promises that “everything shall be brought out of its secrecy and made manifest,”4195 who hitherto has kept his god in obscurity, waiting (I suppose) until Marcion be born

A verbatim copy of Thomas:

33. said IS he-who you will hear [dop] he in your ear in the other ear proclaim [dop] he from-upon your(PL.PL) roof
not-usually anyone Indeed ignite candlestick and he place he at ear
Nor not-usually he place he in place he be-hiding
Rather "habitually" he place he from-upon the(F) Lampstand in-
order-that every-one who/which going-inward and who/which be-coming outward they will behold [dop] his light


The case in point is the word ⲙⲁⲣⲉ, https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C2005

It is the negative prefix for the aorist and initiates the Habitual Tense in Coptic. With Plumley widely available on the Internet, consult https://www.suscopts.org/deacons/coptic ... y-1948.pdf

§204. Tense of Habitude. This tense, which has the distinctive syllable 4a4a, has the meaning of repeated instantaneous action. Customary action is indicated, but it is to be noted that a series of reiterated actions may not only be regarded as effected in the past, but also due to be effected in the future. This tense has been named, somewhat misleadingly, Praesens Consuetudinus; but the basic notion of a repetition of Past Action demands the relinquishing of the term Praesens at least.
§204a. I Habitude: e.g. 4are.peu.p\\n\\a\\ ei ebol ‘Their spirit is wont to come forth’ (Ps 104:29?), 4are.ni.4a`e e.q.oou take ni.6ht et.nanou.ou ‘Evil words will go on destroying good hearts’ (I-Cor 15:33), e.u.4an.56e 4a.3.ka pet.2o`b ‘When they become drunken, he will go on putting forth that which is defective’ (Jn 2:10), 4a.3.swlp n--.n--.6alusis ‘He was wont to break the chains’ (Mk 5:4).
§205. Negation of I Habitude: e.g. mere.pe.tn-.sa6 5 te3.kite ‘Your master is not wont to pay his tribute’ (Mt 17:24), me.u.`ere ou.6hbs ‘They do not go on lighting a lamp’ (Mt 5:15).
§206. II Habitude. This tense expresses the notion of repeated instantaneous action, the main stress in the sentence being laid on the Adverbial Extension; e.g. e.4are.p.rwme n--.agaqos taue.agaqon ebol 6m-.pa6o m--.pe3.6nt et.nanou.3 ‘Out of the treasure of his good heart the good man is wont to send out goodness’ (Lk 6:45), e.4a.3.ka p.hrp e.6rai+ et.nanou.3 n--.4orp ‘First of all he is wont to put out the good wine’ (Jn 2:10).
§207. Negation of II Habitude. Negation of this tense is effected by means of the particle anan (§203); e.g.
mh e.4a.3 `oo.s an na.3 `e sobte m-pe.5.na.ouom.3 ‘Prepare that which I shall eat!, is he not wont to say to him?’ (Lk 17:8): stress laid upon direct speech introduced by `e.

I'm too lazy to replace the old Coptic font by Unicode, apologies - it is tiring, especially on mobile

What does the Latin say? https://archive.org/details/corpusscrip ... ew=theater

si a deo Marcionis dabitur, ab eo et auferetur. quo-quo tamen nomine comminatur ablationem, non erit eius dei, qui nescit comminari, qui non no uit israci. miror autem, cum lucernam negat abscondi solere qui se tanto saeculo absconderat, maius et necessarins lumen, cum omnia de occulto in apertum repromittit qui deum suum usqae adhuc obumbrat, expectans, opinor, nasci Marcionem.

Exactly the same - exactly the same. Right here we see verbatim agreement between Tertullian and Thomas - against the Synoptics. Does this even come close to Luke's second copy?

Luke 11:33 Οὐδεὶς (But no one) λύχνον (a lamp) ἅψας (having lit), εἰς (in) κρύπτην (secret) τίθησιν (sets it), οὐδὲ (nor) ὑπὸ (under) τὸν (the) μόδιον (basket), ἀλλ’ (but) ἐπὶ (upon) τὴν (the) λυχνίαν (lampstand), ἵνα (that) οἱ (those) εἰσπορευόμενοι (entering in) τὸ (the) φέγγος (light) βλέπωσιν (may see).

Nope, not at all. The sense of habit comes from Thomas and Tertullian alone. It's Tertullian reading Thomas here or Marcion? We'll never know, but highly likely this is what was in Marcion

It's even in Ben's magnificent Marcion thread viewtopic.php?p=39313#p39313 - and I overlooked it!

Again, this is textual criticism: look at the content, the words, the letters, the details.
It's unattested in NA28, oddly
Post Reply