That's nonsense of course
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:07 am
mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 5:46 pm
The order of texts:
Thomas writes his text about self salvation: the kingdom is of your inside and of your eye. It's not about any Jesus we know, not about Christianity, not even about Chrestianity: Thomas precedes all that
John takes that into a narrative, fully breathing the spirituality of Thomas: John has more occurrences of "father" than the Synoptics together (Matthew 64, Mark 18, Luke 55, John 137);
Marcion takes John and adds some 50+ logia from Thomas, and some really fierce anti-Judaism, among others the Transfiguration (cf. Christi Thora)
Mark counters Marcion by inverting the anti-Judaism, and catches two birds with one stone: he redirects the anti-Judaism to the Pharisees - and also invents the resurrection, blaming the women (from the Chrestian tradition) for the fact that no one had ever heard of that
Chrestianity still persists and after Mark an even bolder move is made: Marcion's *Ev gets redacted into Luke - by Matthew, who is writing his own gospel on the side
There's no historicity of anyone, the characters all are figments of the imagination, invented by Thomas and everyone who came after him: one will look in vain for XS or XRS in Thomas; there is no Chrest or Christ in his text, only an IS and IHS. Yet all the names in his text are in the NT
For Pete's sake Pete: concede. Let it all go, and find a hobby that has some return on investment.
Thomas and the Synoptics: Relativity hypotheses:
1) Thomas draws from the Synoptics
2) The Synoptics draw from Thomas
3) Thomas and the Synoptics draw from a common source
None of these hypotheses can be proven IMO
. On the basis of the evidence you (and Koepke et al) have adduced so far I cannot concede to the truth of hypothesis 2) that Thomas wrote first. Hypothesis 1 seems more likely IMO.
However on the basis that none of these three mutually exclusive hypotheses can be proven, beyond reasonable doubt to be the correct option, I have an open mind.
Details here: viewtopic.php?p=144864#p144864
Other commentators posit interpolation. What do you say?
, and you omit the substantiation there for a good reason. You also, naturally, just make a statement here that reflects an unsubstantiated opinion instead of taking any one of the thousands of pages that have been written on this by Koepke and me alone, and actually refute something that we claim.
Your training and arguing is extremely weak Pete, you are worse than Bernard Muller
Redaction criticism demonstrates, time and again, far beyond reasonable doubt, that Thomas precedes the canonicals
The splitting of logia by the gospel-writers, such as logion 79, is a solid case for them copying Thomas and not the other way around. Thomas joining Luke 11:27-28 with Mark 13:17 or Matthew 24:19? Good luck with arguing that case. Thomas joining the two masters of Luke 16:13 or Matthew 6:24 to their 5:36-39 respectively 9:16-17, so that he can have his logion 47 complete? The most brutal split occurs around logion 45 where the essential middle sentence is left out, that of the good man and his good storehouse, and the evil man and his evil storehouse. When and where it befits the gospel-writers they include it, and when and where it befits them they exclude it. Logion 39 has its doves and serpents moved to Matthew 10:16 whereas he has the other parts in chapter 23; he is the only one who has it so Thomas must have combined those two parts into one logion, because? Logion 76 is used only by Matthew in a particularly poor version in 13:45-46 while ramming through three logia in a row, yet it is Luke and Matthew who use 76d in 12:33-34 respectively 6:19-21. What on earth would the motive be for Thomas to combine these, and isn't it perfectly intelligible why Matthew didn't want it to follow his copy?
(The 72 logia of Thomas and their canonical cousins
For example how do you explain:
(1) The Greek noun μοναχός (“single one/monk”) in Logia 16 & 23
You missed one:
single ⲟⲩⲱⲧ Adjective 4, 22, 23, 48, 76
Single-One ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ Noun 16, 49, 75
This would be an interesting exercise if you were to show the existence of the word in the Synoptics - yet in the context of your own question here this entire task is irrelevant, because the word doesn't exist in the NT
For example how do you explain:
(2) Jesus and the GOLD COIN in Logion 100
There is no gold coin in logion 100 Pete, you really try hard to use inaccurate translations (likely Lambdin here). You have no idea about any of this, nor do you possess the necessary skills to discuss the subtle nuances
ⲁ ⲩ ⲧⲥⲉⲃⲉ ⲓ̆ⲥ ̆ ⲁ ⲩ ⲛⲟⲩⲃ
did they show IS [dop] a(n) gold
A gold: a piece of gold
It's there, a piece of gold.
With regards to the story: praising Jesus for his particular ability to teach God's way and then questioning him about something so trivial, mundane and worldly as paying taxes strikes me as a wondrous pretext, but the Pharisees probably are supposed to play with the word Law.
I commented before that the gospel-writers once more miss the point of Thomas and go to extreme lengths in order to link the image on the coin to the punch line, thus introducing a silver coin (the denarius) instead of a gold one - most people would know that a denarius bears his image, and most people would have almost never even seen a gold coin. In Thomas it is unclear whether or not Caesar's image is on the coin and it is a trivial detail: who cares who you pay taxes to, it is part of the rules of society that you do so: this Caesar will die but he will just be replaced by another Caesar. Likewise it is part of the rules of society that you give to God, and that is equally as insignificant; this God might be replaced by another God but that won't change the System, you will still always be required to give to (a) God just as you're always required to give to (a) Caesar. Only one thing is most significant in your entire life, and that is you yourself: me - give me what is mine.
Yet both Luke as well as Matthew follow Mark's scene almost to the letter; where I labelled Mark as longwinded earlier, apparently his verses perfectly serve the gospel-writers' goal.
Praising Jesus, putting down the tricky Pharisees (and Herodians) and showing Jesus' marvellous cunning (and hostile attitude towards them) all at once: that is how they want it.
Given their close similarity, what about the order? The threads I have for Mark-Luke-Matthew are merely two. The end result in Mark is marvelled Pharisees, in Luke they marvel and become silent, in Matthew they marvel, leave him and go away; Luke expands Mark and Matthew expands Luke there. Similarly 'hypocrisy', 'craftiness' and 'wickedness' show a gradual change from just slightly evil and hiding it to outright evil.
Matthew's utmost accomplishment naturally is the fact that Jesus demands to see a tax coin, presumably unprepared, and on apparently suddenly seeing that it bears Caesar's face instantly creates the cunning one-liner - a perfection like that is highly unlikely to come from a first strike. Matthew certainly is last, Mark certainly comes before him, and Luke probably is in between. And Thomas undeniably is first with his beautifully concise version lacking any and all Church motive, directed solely at the true punch line of 'give me what is mine'.
Now answer the obvious difficulties in my point 1. please - it is evident that your examples won't lead to anything decisive.