Thank you so much to Martijn Linssen, who sent his paper to me, which links to hi res images and a transcription.
![Image]()
This is much better than the first pass transcription that I was going to foist off here.
The [ἀπέθ]ανε ending that comes first would easily be explained, as the authors do, as Thomas Logion 63. Which is, of course, very similar to a summarized version of Luke 12:16-21.
So what do we have? This is a summary and syncretization of Matthew and Luke's stories, with a relevant interpolation by whoever did the summary and syncretization. Later on, Gospel of Thomas evidently uses it as a source.
It can't have gone the other direction, from Thomas to this syncretization. That is, from separate Logion 27 and 63 into this text. If it had, it would be hard to explain why it follows the ordering of Luke 12. The author would have had to recognize the Logion 63 and Luke 12:16-21 parallel and recreate the order.
Another piece of evidence that this is older than Logion 27, is Logion 27's unique use of "βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ", missing elsewhere in Thomas, as it is dropped here. I expect that this syncretic text is the original "τοῦ θεοῦ" dropper, and we've had it accidently added back in Thomas.
Far from being a sayings collection that proves Q, this discovery seems to buttress Goodacre's "Case Against Q" that Thomas is really a Synoptic-derivative document.
This is much better than the first pass transcription that I was going to foist off here.
Spoiler
Show
ανε υ.
ερι μν.
οντι .α.
.ωμ .πυ
ωγ.ρ.μ
στευσ
ωηευρη
αν καιεα . λη
τστονκ ..
τετ .πδ
αρνσα
α καιοτσαυ
ουρα..ο.
μεσ.ντ
ολγ
.ω..
πωσα
ετ.α.
ενα ου
..ωντσ
.τηδοιεη
.οιτουτου.
.σαιεισαιε
λουενσν.
πατ.ρ
ωισ
με οτι
υτσ
θρστσ....
εα.ε...
ενετε.
ερι μν.
οντι .α.
.ωμ .πυ
ωγ.ρ.μ
στευσ
ωηευρη
αν καιεα . λη
τστονκ ..
τετ .πδ
αρνσα
α καιοτσαυ
ουρα..ο.
μεσ.ντ
ολγ
.ω..
πωσα
ετ.α.
ενα ου
..ωντσ
.τηδοιεη
.οιτουτου.
.σαιεισαιε
λουενσν.
πατ.ρ
ωισ
με οτι
υτσ
θρστσ....
εα.ε...
ενετε.
The [ἀπέθ]ανε ending that comes first would easily be explained, as the authors do, as Thomas Logion 63. Which is, of course, very similar to a summarized version of Luke 12:16-21.
So what do we have? This is a summary and syncretization of Matthew and Luke's stories, with a relevant interpolation by whoever did the summary and syncretization. Later on, Gospel of Thomas evidently uses it as a source.
It can't have gone the other direction, from Thomas to this syncretization. That is, from separate Logion 27 and 63 into this text. If it had, it would be hard to explain why it follows the ordering of Luke 12. The author would have had to recognize the Logion 63 and Luke 12:16-21 parallel and recreate the order.
Another piece of evidence that this is older than Logion 27, is Logion 27's unique use of "βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ", missing elsewhere in Thomas, as it is dropped here. I expect that this syncretic text is the original "τοῦ θεοῦ" dropper, and we've had it accidently added back in Thomas.
Far from being a sayings collection that proves Q, this discovery seems to buttress Goodacre's "Case Against Q" that Thomas is really a Synoptic-derivative document.
Statistics: Posted by jeidsath — Wed Sep 06, 2023 8:00 pm
