mlinssen wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 6:27 am
And the next step is to link Thomas to Marcion, which is work in progress publication-wise. Yet logion 47 has been the first test case, and very convincing
That was what I was getting at when I posted this specificG.Thomas—G.Marcion information
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:29 am
BeDuhn also noted that 'nineteen passages [from G.Thomas have] a strong relationship to material in Luke',96 and
. ... none of them derives from sections of Luke known to have been absent in the Evangelion1 ...
BeDuhn then notes " only four of the nineteen have content unattested for in the Evangelion97 "
97 Luke 6.44 in Thomas 45; 5:39 in 47; 17.34 in 61; 23.59 in 79
1 ie. all of the nineteen G.Thomas logia in G.Luke are in G.Marcion
But you seemed to miss-the-point and widened your 'focus' to all the logia in the canonical gospels and in G.Luke:
mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 6:14 am
The exact quote is:
The bulk of its material has parallels in the canonical gospels, nineteen passages with a strong relationship to material in Luke.96
Here's what I found in Luke regarding Thomas: 59 logia copies ...
I have yet to go by Luke and see what matches with *Ev, but Luke contains 59 Thomas logia. Mark has 35 already so I can't imagine that there are only 19 in Luke that are also in *Ev.
Not a very scientific measurement, my imagination, so I'll follow up on it
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 9:03 pm ... Having read Charbonnel, Justin seems to me [ to be] one of the promotors of 'the midrashical school' about the Gospel Jesus
And such a midrashical school' would likely have been the one that produced the canonical gospels;
or perhaps advanced 2nd, 3rd or even 4th editions of them
Accordingly, if Justin knew already the catholicized version of *Ev, i.e. our Luke and Acts, as Klinghardt claims, then the midrash, of which Dubourg and Charbonnel have talked, assumes...an anti-marcionite function ...
Mid-second century midrash would very likely have been be anti-marcionite, anyway
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 9:03 pm
At contrary, if one assumes with Vinzent that Justin didn't know the canonical Gospels but only the "memories of the apostles" and the hated Evangelion of Marcion (written by Marcion himself), then Charbonnel would be right to consider the midrash known by Justin (and preceding Marcion) as an innocent operation, designed not against anti-demiurgists but for more innocent goals.
It's very likely that Justin knew the Evangelion of Marcion, whoever wrote it.
The "memories of the apostles" Justin refers to are likely to be very early versions of the canonical gospels; or something like the Didache or an early version of the Diatessaron, especially if the canonical gospels are post-Marcion[ite] developments (and maybe even if the canonical gospels are not post-Marcion[ite])
The Didache begins "The teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles (or Nations) by the twelve apostles".
According to Wikipedia
A Vetus Latina1 version of Tatian's Syriac text appears to have circulated in the West from the late 2nd century; with 'a sequence adjusted' to conform more closely to that of the canonical Gospel of Luke; and also including additional canonical text (such as the Pericope Adulterae), and possibly non-canonical matter from the Gospel of the Hebrews.
1 Vetus Latina is a collection of biblical manuscript texts that are Latin translations of Septuagint and New Testament passages that preceded Jerome's Vulgate.
What does "'a sequence adjusted' to conform more closely to that of the canonical Gospel of Luke" mean ??
Just that it conformed closely with the Gospel of Luke? Perhaps it confirmed more closely with Marcion's Evangelion ??
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:37 pm
The "memories of the apostles" Justin refers to are likely to be very early versions of the canonical gospels; or something like the Didache or an early version of the Diatessaron, especially if the canonical gospels are post-Marcion
The Didache is too naive to be what I has defined 'first exercises in midrash'.
They couldn't be early versions of the canonical gospels, since the canonical gospels are based on Ev*, the gospel used (and possibly written) by Marcion. So, if Justin had not known Ev* from Marcion, then the only tradition that would have replaced the tradition inaugurated by Marcion's Evangelion would have been very probably the tradition built on the 'memories of the apostles' known by Justin.
Without Marcion, we would have had a more innocent midrash, a midrash made for pure sake of midrash, not to polemize against a so disturbing rival figure.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:02 am
They couldn't be early versions of the canonical gospels, since the canonical gospels are based on Ev*
I did not propose the Didache and/or the Diatessaron are 'versions of the canonical gospels': see the *or* in the relevant sentence in my post. Besides, your qualified statment is not logical: it's a non-sequitur.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:02 am
The Didache is too naive to be what I has defined 'first exercises in midrash'
The Didache doesn't seem to be an exercise in midrash[im]. And I didn't suggest it was/is.*
A Vetus Latina1 version of Tatian's Syriac text appears to have circulated in the West from the late 2nd century; with 'a sequence adjusted' to conform more closely to that of the canonical Gospel of Luke; and also including additional canonical text (such as the Pericope Adulterae), and possibly non-canonical matter from the Gospel of the Hebrews.
1 Vetus Latina is a collection of biblical manuscript texts that are Latin translations of Septuagint and New Testament passages that preceded Jerome's Vulgate.
What does "'a sequence adjusted' to conform more closely to that of the canonical Gospel of Luke" mean ??
Just that it conformed closely with the Gospel of Luke? Perhaps it confirmed more closely with Marcion's Evangelion ??
Although there appear to have been early Latin Gospel harmonies of some sort, I doubt if there was a Latin harmony based on Tatian before 250 CE.
