Thomas-canonical parallels Coptic-NA28

[mlinssen]

Alright, let the games begin.
Short notes first, elaboration comes later

Going by Luke in his order, makes for easier reading of NA28.
Just using Lambdin for now, when it gets interesting I'll whip out my own translation including the Coptic. I'll keep the logia short as well

• Luke 4:23 - (31) Jesus said, "No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him."
  - minor variants only: different word for Capernaum as well as its prepositions
  + Matthew 13:57, that is a finished product: some variants inserted "idia" before patridi, but that's all
• Luke 5:31 - (14b) When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what they will set before you, and heal the sick among them
  - Jesus or the Jesus, Washingtoniensis and 1241 omit the entire phrase
  + Matthew 9:12, that is a finished product: some variants inserted "Jesus", but that's all
• Luke 5:33 - (104a) They said to Jesus, "Come, let us pray today and let us fast." etc
  - great differences for 33 and, seems like D (5th CE) attests verbatim to Thomas here. 35 is perfectly "unvarianted"
  + Matthew 9:14, that is a finished product: no variants at all whatsoever. Different story for 9:15, the variants there are once again in Codex Bezae alone, and strikingly interesting we can see how the variants in Luke are nothing more but harmonisations with Matthew. Highly interesting is that Bezae has "bridegroom", which again (again and again) exactly what Thomas has - the bridal chamber is a fix. "The sons of the bridegroom" is nonsense of course, and it is a HUGE surprise to me to see that Matthew here, in Bezae, has a more original reading than Luke ever had. That's a bit of shock to be honest, and the first time ever that I see Matthean priority over Luke. In my book that can only mean that this is a Matthean invention, and not in Marcion. After having read Ben's viewtopic.php?p=39309#p39309 - as well as Roth and Harnack, I can only conclude that this is unattested in Marcion, and Roth's conclusion on page 400 is typical
• Luke 5:36 - (47c) No man drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine etc
  - different order for ἀπὸ (of) τοῦ (the) καινοῦ (new). 37 untouched. 39 omitted in D, again - which by the way is Codex Bezae
  + Matthew 9:16, that is a finished product: no variants at all whatsoever. Different story for 9:17, the variants there are once again in Codex Bezae alone, and look identical to what Luke has
• Luke 6:20 - (54) Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven.
  - 20 "of spirit" inserted by some.
  + Matthew 5:3, that is a finished product: no variants at all whatsoever
• Luke 6:21 - (69c) Blessed are the hungry, for the belly of him who desires will be filled."
  - 21 "now" omitted by Marcion according to Eusebius. The entire weeping phrase is omitted by D - again
  + Matthew 5:6, that is a finished product: no variants at all whatsoever

Time to cook and walk the dog. Seems like I have to get Codex Bezae, which appears to have escaped the Churchian "fixing" process and as such, unfortunately for them, bears most similarity to Thomas. Syriac seems to behave in the same way, and I'm not surprised that James David Audlin is restoring the gospel of John via ao Palestinian lectionaries

A note on Codex Bezae:

The unusual writing style is only one of the curiosities surrounding the scribe of D. It is not clear whether his native language was Greek or Latin; both sides of the manuscript contain many improbable errors. (Perhaps the easiest explanation is that the scribe's native language was something other than Greek or Latin.)

"many improbable errors" - ahah...

On a side note: the almost utter lack of variants for Matthew is striking, more than striking. I only look at the NT from a Thomasine point of view, and it is impossible that Luke came after Matthew, as nobody touches Matthew but in stead tries awfully hard to harmonise Luke with him

[mlinssen]

From https://ia801309.us.archive.org/26/item ... 00scri.pdf

Bit of a quickie, the Greek has fallen off

Luke ii. 48, After is added only in D, Cureton’s Syriac, the Old Latin a. e. ff 2 . g\ l. q., gat. of the Vulgate, Ambrosiaster and Quaestiones ex utroque Testament, (perhaps of the fourth century).

Luke v. 14. The 32 words appended to this verse after , are derived with a few slight variations from Mark i. 45 — ii. 1, and are countenanced by no other authority whatsoever.

Luke vi. 5. In the room of this verse, which he transfers to a place between v. 10 and v. 11, the scribe of Cod. D sets “mira quaedam” as Tregelles terms them, a story told in 28 words, a ..., which if the antithesis were but less pointed, might be deemed not wholly unworthy of the' Divine Teacher 1 . As it stands it is one of the most interesting un- o canonical sayings imputed to the Lord which tradition has preserved, and is probably derived from one of the many i? (still surviving when the text of Cod. D was formed) which S. Luke’s Gospel was designed to supersede. This addition, like the last we noted, must be stated to rest on no other authority, for the duo codices vetustissimi alleged in what are called the Wechelian readings, can be none other than Cod. D and its counterpart ' Stephani.

Luke xi. 2. Between and Cod. D interposes 16 words in substance from Matth vi. 7 : no other document has this reading.

Ibid. v. 30. The 23 words which follow the end of this verse bear, as in the foresroino· example, a general resemblance to the parallel place of S. Matthew (xii. 40), and are supported by ,e (which is so often found in alliance with D) and, omitting the clause by a and ff 2 also : but e omits the whole of v. 30 up to this point, and together with ff 2 has in cor .{corde ff 2 ) terrae at the end. Scholia in Cod. 237 (Matthaei’s d) and others countenance the same variation.

Luke xii. 42. After we find in D. 157. Lectionaries 60 (D’s compatriot, see p. xxxi), 63, Cureton’s Syriac, the Old Latin c. e. } perhaps the Aethiopic.

Luke xvi. 19. Before the beginning of this verse Cod. D sets , a prefix which is of some importance as bearing on the interpretation of the parable of Dives and Lazarus. But a solitary fragment of the Latin Vulgate, cited by Mill {bodl. of the seventh century) is D’s only support, for it is no real confirmation of the reading that the Evangelistaria and even the uncial codex M in its margin (which is full of liturgical matter) should contain such a note to serve (as usual) for the commencement of the Church lesson on the 5th Sunday of S. Luke, just as in our own book of Common Prayer we see in the openings of the Gospels for the 3rd and 4th Sundays after Easter, the 6th and 24th after Trinity. Add to this that the Scholiasts in several MSS. (36, 37, &c.), expressly declare?that . I should rather infer from this interpolation in D (what is credible enough in itself and not devoid of other evidence) that the lessons of the Eastern Church were settled even in that early age when the Greek text of our manuscript was formed. Certainly it is remarkable that Cod. D should read in Mark xiv. 41 ,where or (cf. D in Mark iii. 26) seems plainly a marginal note, obtruded into the text to the detriment of the sense, having been first designed to indicate the end of the lesson for the 3rd day of the 2nd week of the Carnival (v. 42). Yet D’s error is here .shared even by the Peshito Syriac (]» ^1), 0 by a. c. f jff" 2 . q. (sufficit finis q, exactly with our d) of the Old Latin, by the Philoxenian Syriac, by the Persian of the Polyglott, Erpenius’ Arabic, the Slavonian, and partly by the Armenian. Of Greek cursive MSS. it is found in 13. 47. 54. 56. 61. 69. 124. 346. 2 pe . c scr . w scr . marg., but 56 reads ,61 ,as if in perplexity as to the meaning.

Luke xix. 27. Here again Cod. D adds to the eud of the verse 19 words taken from the parallel passage (as it might seem to the scribe) Mattli. xxv. 30. As in

Luke v. 14 ; xi. 2, it is countenanced in this place by no other manuscript, version, or ecclesiastical writer.

Ibid. v. 38. is placed between kv and in D (which omits the preceding )a. q.ff 2 . i. and the Aethiopic. Cod. 157 (which has not o) and the Philoxenian Syriac (with an asterisk) add to these words, but the latter states in the margin that the clause is not found in all copies. Tischendorf, after Mill, but not Tregelles, cites the Aethiopic for LaparjX also.

Ibid. v. 45. The Philoxenian version makes a similar statement while it supports Cod. ) in adding to the 13 words derived from mingling the parallel Gospels Matth. xxi. 12 ; Mark xi. 15 ; John ii. 15. Cod. A and its kindred MS. 262, a. c. e. jff 2 . g 2 . i, the Aethiopic, the Armenian in part, Ambrose, contain them with some slight variations.

Luke xxii. 61. Here again is added to the verse from v. 34 of this chapter in L> ( only in 71 or g scr), partly confirmed by the Armenian and a. b. The Latin d does not recognise this addition.

Luke xxiii. 37., To this verse Cod. I) and c (imposuerunt autem) add (inponentes d) very much out of place, since the scene of this act of mockery, as assigned by the other three Evangelists, is Pilate’s Praetorium. So also Cureton’s Syriac, only that 00(71 olaCOO might be fairly (though not necessarily) rendered “ now they had set ” (“ and they had set,” Cureton), which would remove all difficulty as regards the sense.

Ibid. v. 40. Here ) adds the manifest gloss after , but d has et nos sumus without rendering the preceding et. Epiphanius is cited for this addition by Mill (followed by Griesbach and Scholz), but the silence of Wetstein and Tischendorf may lead us to suspect that the quotation cannot be verified.

Ibid. v. 42. Cod. D alone begins this verse with the w^ords , for which Tischendorf quotes (in substance) the apocryphal Acta Pilati.

Ibid. v. 53. To this verse I) makes a strange addition, conceived somewhat in the Homeric spirit, (posito eo d, as if he had read ) : yet this reading is supported by c of the Old Latin and by the Thebaic version, which latter however does not render .

Luke xxiv. 1. The addition to this verse ..., in substance from Mark xvi. 3 (where reference to Mark xv. 46 is of course implied) is maintained by the same authorities as that in ch. xxiii. 53 and by none other. Both glosses were obviously intended to account for before in ch. xxiv. 2.

Ibid. v. 31. This verse thus begins in Cod. D, its Latin allies c. e., and once in Origen : v . ,but all this is plainly implied in the context : in v. 33 again D’s gloss is also supported only by c. e. and the Thebaic version

The story to "many improbable errors" is a grammatical one, and Scrivener is rightly most amazed (and not so pleased LOL) at genders being swapped, declinations being abused such as accusativus for ablativus or vice versa, and so on. He suspects a Gaul writer, but it sure "ain't pretty" on a grammatical level.
Question is: with the effect being clear, can we look for a possible cause?

[mlinssen]

Partial logion 104:

ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ϩⲟⲧⲁⲛ ⲉⲣϣⲁⲛ ⲡ ⲛⲩⲙⲫⲓⲟⲥ ⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ̄ ⲡ ⲛⲩⲙⲫⲱⲛ ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲙⲁⲣ ⲟⲩ ⲛⲏ`ⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲙⲁⲣ ⲟⲩ ϣⲗⲏⲗ`
ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ϩⲟⲧⲁⲛ ⲉⲣϣⲁⲛ ⲡ- ⲛⲩⲙⲫⲓⲟⲥ ⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ- ⲡ- ⲛⲩⲙⲫⲱⲛ ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲙⲁⲣⲉ- -ⲟⲩ ⲛⲏⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲙⲁⲣⲉ- -ⲟⲩ ϣⲗⲏⲗ
Rather Whenever "should" the Bridegroom come from the Bridal-chamber Then let! they Fast and let! they pray

Usual three rows, consult my Translation if need be

Matthew 9:15 as it is now:

15 Καὶ (And) εἶπεν (said) αὐτοῖς (to them) ὁ (-) Ἰησοῦς (Jesus), “Μὴ (Not) δύνανται (can) οἱ (the) υἱοὶ (sons) τοῦ (of the) νυμφῶνος (bridechamber) πενθεῖν (mourn) ἐφ’ (as) ὅσον (long as) μετ’ (with) αὐτῶν (them) ἐστιν (is) ὁ (the) νυμφίος (bridegroom)? ἐλεύσονται (Will come) δὲ (however) ἡμέραι (days) ὅταν (when) ἀπαρθῇ (shall have been taken away) ἀπ’ (from) αὐτῶν (them) ὁ (the) νυμφίος (bridegroom), καὶ (and) τότε (then) νηστεύσουσιν (they will fast).

The Bridegroom taken away? No, he needs to leave the Bridalchamber - one could interpet that in a dozen ways and more, but we need literal agreement. And Codex Bezae has it - yet for Luke, but not for Matthew!

Et dixit eis ihs numquid possunt fili sponsi iaiunare in quantum cum ipsis est sponsus uenient autem dies · cum tollatur ab eis sponsus · et tunc iaiunabunt in illis diebus

Latin I can just copy, Greek I can't, but this just says:

Et dixit eis ihs numquid possunt fili sponsi iaiunare in quantum cum ipsis est sponsus
And said to-them IHS not can the-sons of-the-bridegroom fast as long with them is bridegroom
uenient autem dies · cum tollatur ab eis sponsus · et tunc iaiunabunt in illis diebus
will-come that day - in-which taken from them bridgeroom - and then they-will-fast in those days

the-sons of-the-bridegroom! What does Luke have?

34 Ὁ (-) δὲ (And) Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) εἶπεν (said) πρὸς (to) αὐτούς (them), “Μὴ (Not) δύνασθε (are you able) τοὺς (the) υἱοὺς (sons) τοῦ (of the) νυμφῶνος (bridechamber) ἐν (in) ᾧ (which time) ὁ (the) νυμφίος (bridegroom) μετ’ (with) αὐτῶν (them) ἐστιν (is), ποιῆσαι (to make) νηστεῦσαι (to fast)? 35 ἐλεύσονται (Will come) δὲ (however) ἡμέραι (days) καὶ (also) ὅταν (when) ἀπαρθῇ (shall be taken away) ἀπ’ (from) αὐτῶν (them) ὁ (the) νυμφίος (bridegroom); τότε (then) νηστεύσουσιν (they will fast) ἐν (in) ἐκείναις (those) ταῖς (-) ἡμέραις (days).”

The sons of the bridechamber. Granted, that word is in Thomas - but why did Matthew not have it, and why does he have it now?
Did Matthew get harmonised with Luke?
Odd, as not only Bezae but "The entire Latin tradition" attested to it