The peculiar case of the two masters

[Ben C. Smith]

I doubt the earliest ones (Paul, Simon Magus) are quoting from any text. I bet the saying derived from the logoi kuriou, some of which Paul quotes and many of which found their way into different texts at some point.

[mlinssen]

I doubt the earliest ones (Paul, Simon Magus) are quoting from any text. I bet the saying derived from the logoi kuriou, some of which Paul quotes and many of which found their way into different texts at some point.

Are you saying you actually believe that these words were spoken by some living person, that they were not written down, but passed down orally?

Then whence came a / the text that explains all the verbatim agreements?

[Ben C. Smith]

I doubt the earliest ones (Paul, Simon Magus) are quoting from any text. I bet the saying derived from the logoi kuriou, some of which Paul quotes and many of which found their way into different texts at some point.

Are you saying you actually believe that these words were spoken by some living person, that they were not written down, but passed down orally?

Yes.

Then whence came a / the text that explains all the verbatim agreements?

The ones I am referring to (Paul and Simon Magus) do not evince as many verbatim agreements. The later ones (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Hebrews) are probably copying from each other.

[mlinssen]

I doubt the earliest ones (Paul, Simon Magus) are quoting from any text. I bet the saying derived from the logoi kuriou, some of which Paul quotes and many of which found their way into different texts at some point.

Are you saying you actually believe that these words were spoken by some living person, that they were not written down, but passed down orally?

Yes.

Then whence came a / the text that explains all the verbatim agreements?

The ones I am referring to (Paul and Simon Magus) do not evince as many verbatim agreements. The later ones (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Hebrews) are probably copying from each other.

I haven't come across a text but Simon Magus as of yet, it's a lot like Marcion there, I understand.
But if it all was passed down orally, who can be copying of whom then?
Gospel of the Hebrews, isn't that one of the many infamous non extant texts that the Church fathers talk about?

[Ben C. Smith]

I haven't come across a text but Simon Magus as of yet, it's a lot like Marcion there, I understand.
But if it all was passed down orally, who can be copying of whom then?

Well, eventually someone wrote it down, and then copying was possible. I am just suggesting that we have no reason to think that this happened as early as Paul or Simon Magus.

Gospel of the Hebrews, isn't that one of the many infamous non extant texts that the Church fathers talk about?

Yes. We know it only from patristic quotations.

[davidmartin]

Hakeem's complaint against Thomas is unconvincing
"He said to them, "Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine."
When a three part saying was a common form, a standard device in those days (i don't remember where i read that, sorry)
it also happens to fit the two part saying perfectly, so what kind of evidence is this that Thomas is late? if this is the best people have got us early campers have little to worry about

For Simon Magus the best is Hippolytus's account and you might find some 'fire' related material there. Have you read it?
Eusebius is probably totally ignorant about the Simonians and makes stuff up but that saying about being amazed is also found in the gospel/traditions of Matthias

"Marvel at what is present," laying this down as the first step toward the knowledge of things beyond

[hakeem]

Hakeem's complaint against Thomas is unconvincing
"He said to them, "Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine."
When a three part saying was a common form, a standard device in those days (i don't remember where i read that, sorry)
it also happens to fit the two part saying perfectly, so what kind of evidence is this that Thomas is late? if this is the best people have got us early campers have little to worry about.

Your counter-argument is pitiful. I am sorry to hear that you can't remember where you read stuff.

I remember that even Christian writers admitted the Gospel of Thomas was an absurd forgery--worthless fiction --falsely attributed to Thomas.

Eusebius' Church History" 3.25.6

...we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

The NT Christians writers did not use gThomas at all.

[mlinssen]

I haven't come across a text but Simon Magus as of yet, it's a lot like Marcion there, I understand.
But if it all was passed down orally, who can be copying of whom then?

Well, eventually someone wrote it down, and then copying was possible. I am just suggesting that we have no reason to think that this happened as early as Paul or Simon Magus.

Gospel of the Hebrews, isn't that one of the many infamous non extant texts that the Church fathers talk about?

Yes. We know it only from patristic quotations.

Ben, it is my goal to analyse and draw conclusions based on textual evidence, in order to get closer to unravelling exactly how Christianity was created.
What you are saying in this thread is not only moving away from that, but in the opposite direction

I am handing you text and remarkable verbatim agreement, and your counteroffer is a vague and dubious theory.
Paul is playing with Thoms indeed, and dancing around the verbatim text but most definitely using the themes of darkness, light, body, flesh, father, son, and so on. He is desperately trying the name-dropping and it is embarassing really, with Galatians standing out:

Galatians 6:12 As many as desire to have a fair appearance in the flesh, these compel you to be circumcised, only that they might not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.[/box

[mlinssen]

Hakeem's complaint against Thomas is unconvincing
"He said to them, "Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine."
When a three part saying was a common form, a standard device in those days (i don't remember where i read that, sorry)
it also happens to fit the two part saying perfectly, so what kind of evidence is this that Thomas is late? if this is the best people have got us early campers have little to worry about.

Your counter-argument is pitiful. I am sorry to hear that you can't remember where you read stuff.

I remember that even Christian writers admitted the Gospel of Thomas was an absurd forgery--worthless fiction --falsely attributed to Thomas.

Eusebius' Church History" 3.25.6

...we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

The NT Christians writers did not use gThomas at all.

Hakeem, this thread is purely about textual criticism demonstrating a peculiar case of the extreme unlikeliness of Thomas copying from the canonicals.
If you are incapable of engaging at that level and can only quote the Church fathers as alleged evidence that such was done so nonetheless, you not only are using the naive assumption that said people were trustworthy, objective and reliable sources, but you also convey that you have nothing with which to explain this particular instance

[davidmartin]

I'm ignoring Hakeem for the most part, i think differently and there isn't much common ground or any room for debate, it seems pointless to engage him