mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:54 pmJohn2 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:33 pmdavidmartin wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 2:10 pm Check this out ML
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-ab ... edFrom=PDF
If they're right we have a window into a lost non-canonical gospel used by the earlier church fathers
The question then becomes - does this draw on Thomas sayings or are they all outside Thomas?
(did the canonical gospels use this source for the non-Thomas sayings)
I see the source used in the Clementines as being one of the translations that were made of the original Hebrew Matthew (not to argue about that, just to offer my point of view), in this case one that was used by Ebionites who opposed Paul. In this scenario, the Hebrew Matthew would pre-date that source and be in line with the Nazarenes (who are said to have used it and accepted Paul).
John, your argument would in essence imply that Clementine draws entirely from the canonicals then?
No, I'm suggesting that the Clementines used a non-canonical gospel created from one of the translations that were made of the original Hebrew Matthew, similar to the way that the canonical Matthew and Luke (in my view) had "mutilated" Mark and created new works of their own. And I think this is why it was described as being a "mutilated" version of Matthew.