SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

[mlinssen]

to mlinssen,

There is also an argument about heaven and earth:

Furthermore, in Luke's gospel we have:
21:31 "So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
21:32 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all has taken place.
21:33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

However in Marcion's gospel, we read (according to Tertullian's Against Marcion, IV, XXXIX):
31 Even so you also, when you see these things happening, know that God's Kingdom is near.
32 Most certainly I tell you, heaven and earth will not pass away until except all things be accomplished.
33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will remain forever."

Here, "this generation" has been substituted by "heaven and earth".

Only if you assume Luke was prior to Marcion...
Let me introduce to you: Thomas

11 say(s) IS : this-one(F) heaven will make-be to-pass-by and she-who of the(F) heaven within she/r will make-be to-pass-by and they-who die they live not and they-who live they will die not the(PL) day was/ere you(PL) eat the(PL) dead was/ere you(PL) make-be within he of he-who live when you(PL) continue-to come-to-be in the light who/at? is(M) you(PL) will make-be he in the.day you(PL) make-be the(PL) one did you(PL) make-be of the two when however you(PL) continue-to come-to-be the(PL) two who/at? is(M) who/which you(r)(PL) will make-be he
111 say(s) IS : the(PL) heaven will curl-up and the earth within your(PL.) presence outward and he-who live outward in he-who live he will behold not death and-not fear IS tell within it : he-who fall as-regards he self he the World worth within he not

A whole mouthful, logion 11. Perhaps Lambdin is more legible:

(11) Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made it what is alive. When you come to dwell in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"
(111) Jesus said, "The heavens and the earth will be rolled up in your presence. And the one who lives from the living one will not see death." Does not Jesus say, "Whoever finds himself is superior to the world?"

Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tiny stroke of a pen in the law to fall. is also a likely candidate there, although flimsy.
But we also have

Mark 13:30 Most certainly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things happen.
31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

I labeled them C/D 3/4, even those of Mark and Matthew:
c:copy with major word variations 3:different meaning
d:completely different words yet same style 4:completely different meaning

And I really find Isaiah 51:6 a better candidate (https://biblehub.com/isaiah/51-6.htm) YLT:

Lift ye up to the heavens your eyes, And look attentively unto the earth beneath, For the heavens as smoke have vanished, And the earth as a garment weareth out, And its inhabitants as gnats do die, And My salvation is to the age, And My righteousness is not broken.

Marcion wouldn't want to pay much attention to John? Not that Mark pays much attention to John, of course.

But Marcion mentioned John regardless. And the first time he did that, it is abruptly, and not about John himself, but about his disciples.

You assume Jesus to be historical, the canonicals to be authentic, and that's your Beacon of Truth, to which you compare everything else. The outcome is predictable, and very biased and lopsided.
If you're wielding a hammer, everything looks like a nail

I did not assume anything. And what do you mean by "authentic" concerning the canonicals? So I won't comment on that yet.

Cordially, Bernard

I made the comment in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7267&start=30#p113458, and directly related to the quotation:

And because the other gospels do not describe Jesus as likely to utter anything resembling those, the authenticity of these sayings is very questionable:

You value the other gospels over Marcion, and use that to question the authenticity of Marcion - thereby implicitly labeling the canonicals as authentic, I would say? How else would they serve as tools to judge Marcion's authenticity?

[Bernard Muller]

to mlinssen,

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:34 am
to mlinssen,

There is also an argument about heaven and earth:
Furthermore, in Luke's gospel we have:
21:31 "So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
21:32 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all has taken place.
21:33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

However in Marcion's gospel, we read (according to Tertullian's Against Marcion, IV, XXXIX):
31 Even so you also, when you see these things happening, know that God's Kingdom is near.
32 Most certainly I tell you, heaven and earth will not pass away until except all things be accomplished.
33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will remain forever."

Here, "this generation" has been substituted by "heaven and earth".

Only if you assume Luke was prior to Marcion...
Let me introduce to you: Thomas

My point was not about "heaven & earth", but that Marcion got rid of "this generation" ("this" being Jesus' generation), implying Marcion wrote his gospel (from gLuke) well after all of Jesus' generation were dead.

You value the other gospels over Marcion, and use that to question the authenticity of Marcion - thereby implicitly labeling the canonicals as authentic, I would say? How else would they serve as tools to judge Marcion's authenticity?

I have shown already that gMarcion came after gLuke (with John's -- though his disciples -- abrupt appearance in gMarcion) and "his generation" being substituted.

About the dating of gMatthew: http://historical-jesus.info/57.html
About the dating of gLuke: http://historical-jesus.info/62.html

As for Marcion, Justin Martyr wrote in 150-160 CE, 1st apology ch.26: "And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works."

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to davidmartin,

That doesn't make sense when Paul is arguing against certain aspects of this "do not be quickly shaken from your composure or disturbed by a spirit, a message, or a letter thought to be from us, which says that the day of the Lord has already come"

2 Thessalonians is widely considered by critical scholars (and myself) as not from Paul, but written around 80-100.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to mlinssen,

And Thomas finds those verses, harmonises them, adds them to the longer versions, adds the old wine in new bags phrase, and then, as if all that weren't enough, prefixes the entire logion with the two bows

Seriously. How likely is that to have happened? Bernard?

It's about logion 47. We are talking here about a few words. That's not rocket science.
For example, how long it would take to devise the saying about the two bows and write it in front? A few minutes, at most.
And "Thomas'' is known to add to longer versions, and make changes. I do not know what you mean by "harmonize" pertaining to logion 47.

Mark has 2 little verses, his 21 and 22.

Mark's verses are not so little:

Mar 2:21
No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made.
Mar 2:22
And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh skins."

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to mlinssen,
You wrote in your paper:
Absolute Thomasine priority - the Synoptic Problem solved in the most unsatisfactory manner

Thomas was first and foremost and he created IC / Jesus, Jesus likely never existed, but most certainly didn't consider himself to be Jewish at all, whatsoever.In terms of the Synoptic Problem: Thomas is 'Q', Mark copied a third of it, and Luke and Matthew sat side-by-side writing their different gospels together: they doubled the copies from Thomas, and simply made up the rest in unison; while Luke addressed the Thomas supporters, and Matthew the (moderate) Jews, both changed and added to Mark what was needed at that time.

Thomas is not Q (Quelle). By definition Q primarily consists of the "double tradition" material, that which is present in both Matthew and Luke but not Mark. Furthermore, Q is mostly sayings with very few narrative elements. A lot of gThomas contents is not in any gospels. And are you sure gThomas has all the items that show in the Q of the definition I just gave? Probably not.

Luke and Matthew sat side-by-side writing their different gospels together ... they doubled the copies from Thomas, and simply made up the rest in unison;

Really! Where did you get that? Would that not conflict with "Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story"?
What "SACT" stands for?
But because you have gThomas written first, then next gMarcion, then next gMatthew & gLuke, Matthew/Luke would have also gMarcion & (maybe) gMark on their desk.

Cordially, Bernard

[mlinssen]

to mlinssen,

And Thomas finds those verses, harmonises them, adds them to the longer versions, adds the old wine in new bags phrase, and then, as if all that weren't enough, prefixes the entire logion with the two bows

Seriously. How likely is that to have happened? Bernard?

It's about logion 47. We are talking here about a few words. That's not rocket science.
For example, how long it would take to devise the saying about the two bows and write it in front? A few minutes, at most.
And "Thomas'' is known to add to longer versions, and make changes. I do not know what you mean by "harmonize" pertaining to logion 47.

Mark has 2 little verses, his 21 and 22.

Mark's verses are not so little:

Mar 2:21
No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; if he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made.
Mar 2:22
And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh skins."

Cordially, Bernard

Hi Bernard, you missed the most burning question:

Both Luke (16:13) and Matthew (6:24) will prove that they had access to the complete logion when they use the two masters metaphor at a later point.

Could you comment on that please? Thanks

[Bernard Muller]

to mlinssen,

Hi Bernard, you missed the most burning question:

Both Luke (16:13) and Matthew (6:24) will prove that they had access to the complete logion when they use the two masters metaphor at a later point.

Could you comment on that please? Thanks

"Luke" and "Matthew" copied one saying, word by word, from (conventional) Q, and then later "Thomas", looking at gLuke or/and gMatthew, condensed the saying and put it as part of Logion 47.

Cordially, Bernard

[mlinssen]

to mlinssen,

Hi Bernard, you missed the most burning question:

Both Luke (16:13) and Matthew (6:24) will prove that they had access to the complete logion when they use the two masters metaphor at a later point.

Could you comment on that please? Thanks

"Luke" and "Matthew" copied one saying, word by word, from (conventional) Q, and then later "Thomas", looking at gLuke or/and gMatthew, condensed the saying and put it as part of Logion 47.

Cordially, Bernard

Ah, Q to the rescue, of course. Let's give the benefit of the doubt to a non extant, never mentioned text, and ignore an extant, mentioned text.
How about that

In-depth & documented research on the historical Jesus and the beginning of Christianity, from available evidence & critical methodology

you advertise with? http://historical-jesus.info/

[EDIT 20201013]
And how extremely unlikely is it that Thomas combines these so very separated verses? Of course, you'll argue that they have little in common.

Thomas logion 39 combining Matthew 23:13 with Matthew 10:16? Coincidence, you'll likely say
Thomas logion 62 combining Matthew 13:11 with Matthew 6:3? Coincidence, you'll likely say
Thomas logion 69 combining Luke 6:22 and 6:21 by changing the order, like Matthew 5:10 with Matthew 5:6? Coincidence, you'll likely say
Thomas logion 76 combining Matthew 13:45 with Matthew 6:19? Coincidence, you'll likely say
Thomas logion 79 combining Luke 11:26-27 with Luke 23:29? Coincidence, you'll likely say

Ah, coincidences. Who needs to embrace "Q" when it finally turns up at Nag Hammadi in 1945 when you have coincidences.
No, nonono, Thomas ain't Q! Thomas is the evidence for the existence of Q because he looks so very much like it! But he's NOT Q, do you hear me? NOT!!!

[Bernard Muller]

to mlinssen,

There are many items of (conventional) Q which are not in gThomas such as:
1) Mt12:22-30 & Lk11:14-23, Jesus & Beelzebub, with Q material incorporated in the gMark passage.
2) Mt3:12 & Lk3:17, John and Jesus' baptisms, with Q material following a gMark verse (Mk1:8, Mt3:11 & Lk3:16).
Note: not in gMarcion also!
3) Mt4:1-11 & Lk4:4:1-13, "Jesus' temptation", with Q considerably expending of gMark version (1:12-13).
Note: not in gMarcion also!
4) Mt8:5-13 & Lk7:1-10, Jesus heals the centurion's servant in Capernaum
5) There are many other cases of the same nature, such as the sign of Jonah, woe against Galilean towns, woe against the Pharisees, the queen of the south & Solomon & Jonah, etc.

It is obvious here that "Matthew" & "Luke" did have a common source, additional to gMark, and that source was not gThomas (or gMarcion).

Of course I do not buy "Matthew" and "Luke" wrote their gospel side by side in unison, or "Matthew" wrote gLuke.

As far as Q not been discovered as an ancient document, I think copyists did not feel the need to rewrite the Q text (preserving it) when the hosting papyrus or parchment became worn out and the text hard to read, because Q was already incorporated in gMatthew and gLuke.

Ancient texts, including Christian ones were lost often. One example would be one of Paul's letters to the Corinthians, as implied in 1 Corinthians 5:9.
And since each Corinthians epistle were the combination of 3 original letters, we don't have these 6 letters (probably not recopied because incorporated in the two canonical epistles to the Corinthians).

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to mlinssen,

And how extremely unlikely is it that Thomas combines these so very separated verses? Of course, you'll argue that they have little in common.

Thomas logion 39 combining Matthew 23:13 with Matthew 10:16? Coincidence, you'll likely say
Thomas logion 62 combining Matthew 13:11 with Matthew 6:3? Coincidence, you'll likely say
Thomas logion 69 combining Luke 6:22 and 6:21 by changing the order, like Matthew 5:10 with Matthew 5:6? Coincidence, you'll likely say
Thomas logion 76 combining Matthew 13:45 with Matthew 6:19? Coincidence, you'll likely say
Thomas logion 79 combining Luke 11:26-27 with Luke 23:29? Coincidence, you'll likely say

So, what's new? Perfectly explained if "Thomas" used the canonical gospels to write some of his logions.

gThomas is not Q? but that's what you wrote in your paper: Absolute Thomasine priority - the Synoptic Problem solved in the most unsatisfactory manner:

In terms of the Synoptic Problem: Thomas is 'Q', Mark copied a third of it, and Luke and Matthew sat side-by-side writing their different gospels together: they doubled the copies from Thomas, and simply made up the rest in unison;

Cordially. Bernard