Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Thank you Mark. You omitted one of the six typical Thomasine admonitions though:

... and in the night which in there, he died.
he whom there are ears within him, let him hear

Layton:

... and that very night the man died • Whoever has ears should listen!”

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:21 am Peter Gurry has posted a (tentative) synopsis:

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... e-and.html

And he questioned the influence of Luke.

davidmartin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:20 am All you're saying is the similarities the MS has with the canonical texts allowed it to be identified as related to them
But the reconstructed text is different from the canonical text

The question of whether this MS is a syncretic blending of Thomas, Luke and Matthew or an earlier version of Luke or a source used by Matthew or Luke still stands equally as valid as thinking it syncretic

The fact the similarities to the canonicals helped identify it doesn't make it automatically a syncretic text when we could be dealing with a closely related but earlier version

I mean, many of us suspect Luke originally began where Marcion's evangelion did which implies a text with a lot of history and revisions. So when MS like this turn up with differences why do they have to be syncretic creations? But the point I also wanted to make is the synoptics are syncretic creations so looking for texts that might have influenced their development is what it's all about. So, why not this one?

So nothing supports Thomas being Synoptic derived, its quite the opposite

The canonical synoptic gospels are syncretic texts. If they were not the argument that this MS or Thomas were syncretic from the canonicals would be more believable, but this isn't the case. The canonicals are syncretic and also show a long period of revision, so when MS like this turn up why on earth should it be assumed they waited for the final release then went syncretic on it? That's like saying "When this MS was written all they had was Luke (as we have it today)". Yeah sure, that is a major assumption that goes against all the evidence

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:33 pm Goodacre:
"Here's an English word-aligned Synopsis of #POxy5575 with the parallels in Matt, Luke, & Thom. Using editors' translation & reconstruction of 5575, NRSVUe of Matt & Luke, & adjusted Layton POxy 1 & 655 for Thomas 36 & 27. Greek to follow later. https://markgoodacre.org/POxy5575EngSynopsis.pdf"

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Mon Sep 11, 2023 7:55 pm Peter Gurry:
"On Friday, I put together a Greek synopsis of #POxy5575, Matt, Luke, and Thomas for my own use. But I thought others might find it useful. Feel free to use and share. It’s here: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... e-and.html"

This image, from that webpage, may be clearer (it seems the image on that webpage -Gurry's- gets clearer when one clicks on it):

" ... For this, I have simply adopted the editors’ reconstructed text even though there are places where I’m of a different mind ...

Peter_J_Gurry_Synopsis_of_P.Oxy._5575.png (607.52 KiB) Viewed 1701 times

"One initial observation from making this synopsis is that the inclusion of Luke is, to my mind, somewhat precarious. I don’t see anything in the fragment that is distinctive of Luke. The material from the canonical Gospels is from the so-called double tradition and, in the few places where Matt and Luke diverge, our fragment is lacunose, follows neither, or follows Matthew. I don’t see any point where it distinctly follows Luke. If so, then parsimony would suggest we leave Luke out of the equation in explaining what this fragment is. But maybe others will see something I missed—as I said, I only had an afternoon to spend with it so far ... "

[1/2] Yeah, it could. I think what I have there is a reflection of my skepticism about that part of the overlap. There must be more between βαλλόμενον and ὁ πατηρ in P.Oxy. 5575 which makes me skeptical that the three pronouns (ὑμας) line up between the three.

[2/2] Also, the verso of my synopsis reflects some editorial fatigue on my part!
[.color]

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:54 pm Are you claiming only that another theory can explain the evidence equally well as the theory that the author of P. Oxy 5575 primarily followed Luke 12 but conflated it with material from Matthew and Thomas, so we should not simply assume the latter theory.

Or are you claiming that you have another theory that explains the evidence better than that theory (as your older post seems to indicate)? If so, what theory are you advocating and what advantage does it have over the theory that the author of P. Oxy. 5575 conflated Luke 12 with material from Matthew and Thomas?

davidmartin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 11:48 pm

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 6:54 pm Are you claiming only that another theory can explain the evidence equally well as the theory that the author of P. Oxy 5575 primarily followed Luke 12 but conflated it with material from Matthew and Thomas, so we should not simply assume the latter theory.

Or are you claiming that you have another theory that explains the evidence better than that theory (as your older post seems to indicate)? If so, what theory are you advocating and what advantage does it have over the theory that the author of P. Oxy. 5575 conflated Luke 12 with material from Matthew and Thomas?

come on ken it's almost as if your trying to avoid considering the alternative with piffling about the wording i used which ends up the same basic point!

if you won't consider the possibility that 5575 represents an earlier version then you're not going to see it as supporting Thomas most strongly but rather the opposite yet both theories are valid. i'm only taking that other viewpoint, which is mentioned in the p.oxy LXXXVII book itself "at the other extreme we could view 5575 as a work created after Thomas had taken shape with our composer drawing upon it"

that is exactly what i'm talking about, really its looking more obvious Thomas already existed at the time of the composition of the synoptics and they used it as a source as this text does.