Marcion and Thomas in all of Luke

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Marcion and Thomas in all of Luke

Post by mlinssen »

Stuart wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 8:40 am You have gone a bridge too far, much like Stephen Huller (Secret Alias) in creating a false dichotomy with reading Tertullian. It's not a case of always faithful or never faithful. Many things are at play, especially in a long work where a writer is trying to keep their train of thought over perhaps absolute accuracy.

In the main Tertullian reports faithfully text before him.
Indeed. Very faithfully - full of the faith, to be honest.
I have just showed you all of Epiphanius, from all his "against blahblah" booklets. He isn't consistent at all, and to be honest it doesn't matter really whether it's the third day or after three days

It's rhetoric and politics, all of it. And it will always be, it's what gave birth to Christianity, and it is what keeps it alive
Do not throw the baby out with the bath water, and do not create a false dichotomy of all accurate or just wild inaccurate reporting.
The question was, and is: is Tertullian accurate enough to give us Marcion in a reliable form?

No, most certainly not - is my conclusion. Likewise for Epiphanius.
But that doesn't mean that we can't "get some" from them; a page or two / three of allegedly absent material and a page or so of likely present material that's different from Luke

That's all
Rather we should weigh their testimony
Indeed
brewskiMarc
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:17 pm

Not Doubting Thomas, but Didymus something?

Post by brewskiMarc »

mlinssen wrote: If I'm correct, the gospel co-creation story is a fairly simple and plain one and every next stage comes not with removing present core material, but mostly with adding more from its source, Thomas, while also adding new core material
  • Paul ignores (2) completely
  • Paul ignores (3) completely
  • Why does Mark leave those [beatitudes] out then?
  • Mark pretends to not know anything regarding (5)
I got stuck on this a bit. It kinda says, “Each next step adds and doesn’t remove. Except when it does.”

“Pretends to not know” is also little too mind-read-y for me. You don’t know if he was pretending. As for the beatitudes: you’d have to explain why Mark chose to leave them out and Luke chose to put them back in.
Paul is turning it all towards Judaism
It’s entirely possible I have been misunderstanding this all along. But I always read Paul as trying to sell Judaism to the Gentiles, not the other way around.

Those are the ones to jump out at me on first read. Oh, and there is one other thing I’d like to see:
Thomas started it all with just a text
This does you a bit of disservice. Keep going with it. I doubt that whoever compiled Thomas did so in a vacuum. The quotes didn’t come out of nowhere. (Neither do I believe they were all spoken by one person at any one time.)

It almost looks like our choice is:
  • Someone gathered up a bunch of quotes he liked, attributed them to some name, put them in a collection and then got lucky that an audience formed and decided to expand on it. Or,
  • There was some existing group of people (however loosely connected) who thought some guy had sayings and wisdom and wouldn’t it be nice to gather them all together?
In short, you would need to know more about what inspired the compiler of Thomas beyond “Tao-like Eastern thought of non-duality”. Like specifically what inspired him? (And no, am not suggesting any real-life IS. But I think it will tell us a lot about how the material was treated and why.) What were his sources? Where did the quotes he compiled come from? And then, apply your technique of Next Step and what did he add?:

Thomas Compiler

TC takes individual saying, quotes, anecdotes, etc and compiles them into a volume.
TC (possibly) is the first to attribute some of all of these to IS.
CONTRIBUTION of the Compiler is unknown. (Can we isolate quotes that are unique vs any that we find, for example, in that Eastern thought?)
MOTIVATION of the Compiler is unknown. (To preserve and reference popular saying in some community perhaps?)
OPPORTUNITY of the Compiler is unknown. (I’ll buy that it is before 70 CE, though.)

Thanks for the read. I will go back over it all again in a bit.

Marc
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Not Doubting Thomas, but Didymus something?

Post by mlinssen »

brewskiMarc wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:43 am
mlinssen wrote: If I'm correct, the gospel co-creation story is a fairly simple and plain one and every next stage comes not with removing present core material, but mostly with adding more from its source, Thomas, while also adding new core material
  • Paul ignores (2) completely
  • Paul ignores (3) completely
  • Why does Mark leave those [beatitudes] out then?
  • Mark pretends to not know anything regarding (5)
I got stuck on this a bit. It kinda says, “Each next step adds and doesn’t remove. Except when it does.”
Fair enough. It's not as binary as you put it; the remark was in the context of Marcion who is accused of removing all the material that connects Jesus to Judaism. So it's not about either-or, it is about quality (does it involve primary or important material, or that of a lesser kind) and quantity (does it form a major minor (sic) part, or does it concern a handful of verses)
“Pretends to not know” is also little too mind-read-y for me. You don’t know if he was pretending. As for the beatitudes: you’d have to explain why Mark chose to leave them out and Luke chose to put them back in.
That would assume that they were available to Mark
Paul is turning it all towards Judaism
It’s entirely possible I have been misunderstanding this all along. But I always read Paul as trying to sell Judaism to the Gentiles, not the other way around.
He's doing both, really. But the stuff about circumcision, not abolishing the law, and everything Judaic in Paul - no Gentile could ever have cared for that

Those are the ones to jump out at me on first read. Oh, and there is one other thing I’d like to see:
Thomas started it all with just a text
This does you a bit of disservice. Keep going with it. I doubt that whoever compiled Thomas did so in a vacuum. The quotes didn’t come out of nowhere. (Neither do I believe they were all spoken by one person at any one time.)
That would assume that they were quotes. Spoken. By a person. That's 3 assumptions on top of each other. Can't it just be an imaginary play? Do you think Odyssey was real?
It almost looks like our choice is:
  • Someone gathered up a bunch of quotes he liked, attributed them to some name, put them in a collection and then got lucky that an audience formed and decided to expand on it. Or,
  • There was some existing group of people (however loosely connected) who thought some guy had sayings and wisdom and wouldn’t it be nice to gather them all together?
In short, you would need to know more about what inspired the compiler of Thomas beyond “Tao-like Eastern thought of non-duality”. Like specifically what inspired him? (And no, am not suggesting any real-life IS. But I think it will tell us a lot about how the material was treated and why.) What were his sources? Where did the quotes he compiled come from? And then, apply your technique of Next Step and what did he add?:
Those are the right questions. And the answer is: basically everything LOL. I could try to compact my 100-page Thomas Commentary here, but he read Philo, Plato, knew his Tanakh inside out, knew most of but all Greek works, and a bit about Egypt

He teaches about the Ego and Self, the two that we create when young. And to make those two one.
He rejects any and all religion, continuously, and has the disciples portrayed as ignorant clowns who can't get out of their religious mental models.
He gets deeply, deeply philosophical, for instance in the payable of the net, the sower and the mustard seed, while demonstrating at the same time what Seeking is, and how it must be done. He also sets out in 5 sets of 3 parables how the entire Quest will unfold, and what and where the pitfalls are.
Basically, he tells everyone to rebel, to go astray. To not walk The Path, because it leads to nothing.
He is polemic, hostile, vehemently anti religious. Nothing better to create a movement than a mutual enemy - nothing connects and binds or glues better than that
Thomas Compiler

TC takes individual saying, quotes, anecdotes, etc and compiles them into a volume.
You still can't shake the core of the story you have been programmed with, can you? This is a story, an enormously intricate work of poetry, made up from A through Z. Nothing in it ever happened for real - there are no sayings or quotes
TC (possibly) is the first to attribute some of all of these to IS.
CONTRIBUTION of the Compiler is unknown. (Can we isolate quotes that are unique vs any that we find, for example, in that Eastern thought?)
MOTIVATION of the Compiler is unknown. (To preserve and reference popular saying in some community perhaps?)
OPPORTUNITY of the Compiler is unknown. (I’ll buy that it is before 70 CE, though.)

Thanks for the read. I will go back over it all again in a bit.

Marc
You have to go beyond it all. What you are looking at, and what you have in your mind, basically is the same story that the nazis told the Germans about the Jews - with great success, of course. But there was not a grain of truth in it, nothing. Everything, from beginning to end, is a lie

I've been around for a while in Thomas circles. Forums, emails, discussions, all that. I've left it long ago, because even they can't shed the Christian skin. Even they still want to believe that there was a Jesus, no matter how minimal, no matter how far removed from the canonical Jesus.
Somehow, he has to exist

He doesn't. We're like the monkeys in the cage who have heard that you get the firehose up your ass when you climb up and reach for the banana.
But no one has ever tried
brewskiMarc
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Not Doubting Thomas, but Didymus something?

Post by brewskiMarc »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 11:35 am what you have in your mind
Ok, I wanna start with this one. It’s a really bad plan to tell me what’s going on in my mind. Mr. Alias kept doing that to me.

In fact, you have me quite wrong. I am not influenced one bit by the traditional Jesus stories, I am skeptical that he existed and frankly it wouldn’t make the slightest difference to me one way or another if he did. Please stop trying to paint my remarks as the result of someone biased by old religious ties.

Now, on to your response:
It's not as binary as you put it
I am suggesting that it is you who should phrase it less binary. Tone down the absolutes. For example, “comes with removing less core material” rather than “comes not with removing present core material.”
That would assume that they were available to Mark
It was your question, not mine.
Marcion: creates the beatitudes (he sticks to the Thomasine "blessed are those" versus "you"). Why does Mark leave those out then?
Marcion had (or created) them. Luke had them. Your theory is that Mark sits between them. Why are they missing from Mark? I am only pointing out that if we go in the sequence you propose, there is material not in the later which is in the earlier.
But the stuff about circumcision, not abolishing the law, and everything Judaic in Paul - no Gentile could ever have cared for that
Really? My parents were Gentiles and went with circumcision 7 times. Those absolutes likes “no one ever” are tempting but you really should try to avoid them.
That would assume that they were quotes. Spoken. By a person.
[sigh] I made no such assumption. I just didn’t use the correct terminology.

Let me try again:
  • I doubt that whoever compiled Thomas did so in a vacuum. The logia didn’t come out of nowhere. (Neither do I believe they were all attributable to one person at any one time.)
Note in the part I highlighted that I explicitly stated I do not believe in the single-person origin.
You still can't shake the core of the story you have been programmed with, can you? This is a story, an enormously intricate work of poetry, made up from A through Z. Nothing in it ever happened for real - there are no sayings or quotes
When I write, “So-and-So said,” what follows is a quote! It doesn’t matter if so-and-so existed! We recite quotes from Shakespearean characters all the time! I quote Sheldon Cooper all the time.

Either I am doing a poor job of making my point or you’re only hearing what you think I mean to say.

Whoever compiled Thomas did so for a reason. He picked particular logia. With a particular theme. IMO for a particular audience (because that is how most people act.) Then why? What was the point and purpose? And for whom? You want to get to the origins, why are you stopping with the first compilation? Go back further.

I am not sure why you’re interpreting my interest in learning what prompted the compilation as "I can't except a non-Jesus origin," or possibly you're interpreting it as “I can’t accept your theory."

m
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Not Doubting Thomas, but Didymus something?

Post by mlinssen »

brewskiMarc wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 4:45 am Either I am doing a poor job of making my point or you’re only hearing what you think I mean to say.
Likely, both - the answer usually is both
Whoever compiled Thomas did so for a reason. He picked particular logia. With a particular theme. IMO for a particular audience (because that is how most people act.) Then why? What was the point and purpose? And for whom? You want to get to the origins, why are you stopping with the first compilation? Go back further.

I am not sure why you’re interpreting my interest in learning what prompted the compilation as "I can't except a non-Jesus origin," or possibly you're interpreting it as “I can’t accept your theory."

m
Let's pick Homer, Odyssey
  • Whoever compiled Odyssey did so for a reason.
    • Indeed, he wanted to write a story. A long one, too
  • He picked particular "logia".
    • Indeed he did, didn't he? He picked all that he picked, and those that he didn't pick, did not get picked. It's amazing
  • With a particular theme.
    • Indeed! A bit of history in there, heroics, drama. Sketching the scenery, a walk in the park they call Greece+, something like that
  • IMO for a particular audience (because that is how most people act.)
    • Undoubtedly so! The level of the language and choice of words raise or lower the bar, usually, including the choice of language. Then the themes and background drive a certain demarcation of an audience
  • Then why?
    • He was bored? Had a great ego? Thought he had to tell the world something?
  • What was the point and purpose?
    • That may even be irrelevant, the point is what the audience thought of it, and what it became. A story never exists on paper, only in the heads of people - it is they who make and live a story. Pretty much like the NT really: read it and you'll be amazed that it actually is believed, let alone at the scale that it is. And when you talk to religious people, you'll notice that hardly any of them have read much of the NT
  • And for whom?
    • See the previous answer
  • You want to get to the origins, why are you stopping with the first compilation? Go back further.
    • Say what? Why do you assume that there is anything further than the first point of creation? Do you think that Harry Potter precedes JK Rowling in any way?
I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I am trying to demonstrate that your questions are driven by something beyond regular, neutral and objective interest - you seem to not be standing on ground zero.

I will answer your questions with regard to Thomas now:

- Thomas wrote his text in order to give people a tool for salvation - from religion, themselves, and suffering in general.
In order to do that, he created this imaginary play / setting just like Homer did, and countless other writers
- Setting: typical Judean and Judaic one, around 1 BCE - 1 or 2 CE just about (Roman occupation = post quem, Pharisees = post and ante quem. Destruction of Temple is real ante quem)
- Theme: Platonic ones, Hellenic ones, religio-spiritual ones. Light/dark, life-death, very agriculturally oriented, hunger-eating, thirst-drunken, old-new, infant-old man, to name a few
- Audience: small, well educated. Not a text to just throw over the wall; very cryptic and couldn't be left unattended
- Point and purpose: to set people free. To give them (back) control over their life, to have them reject religion, Judeans, Judaism. To make them independent in general, superior, FREE
- This is the origin. This text started with Thomas, and is a curious mix of Tao-like ideas mixed with Hellenic ones. I know of no text like it, so I can't go back. This is it, this is the very source. Inspiration from others, yes, but almost all of the text is a refutation of what others have claimed.
This is it, this is the origin - the first compilation is the origin
brewskiMarc
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:17 pm

Re: Not Doubting Thomas, but Didymus something?

Post by brewskiMarc »

You know what? I had a whole bunch of clarifications and questions written up. But I’ve just deleted them all.

This line did it.
mlinssen wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:31 amIndeed he did, didn't he? He picked all that he picked, and those that he didn't pick, did not get picked. It's amazing
Instead of trying to engage with me and help me understand what’s bugging me about it, you went with condescension.

I’m too old and tired for that.

Thank you for some nice conversations, but I think you’re right and it’s probably both: I am doing a poor job of making my point and you’re only hearing what you think I mean to say.

Take care,
Marc
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Not Doubting Thomas, but Didymus something?

Post by mlinssen »

brewskiMarc wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 8:22 am You know what? I had a whole bunch of clarifications and questions written up. But I’ve just deleted them all.

This line did it.
mlinssen wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 5:31 amIndeed he did, didn't he? He picked all that he picked, and those that he didn't pick, did not get picked. It's amazing
Instead of trying to engage with me and help me understand what’s bugging me about it, you went with condescension.

I’m too old and tired for that.

Thank you for some nice conversations, but I think you’re right and it’s probably both: I am doing a poor job of making my point and you’re only hearing what you think I mean to say.

Take care,
Marc
The passive-aggresive, my favourite! And even including a guilt trip, how nice

Be-bye
Post Reply