From: Stevan Davies Subject: Mark and GTh 22 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 16:04:43 Another element of my Mark-Used-Thomas theory is that in Mark's central section of "private teachings" (8:22 - 10:52) some Thomas sayings are revised radically to the point of being almost unrecognizable. Mark does NOT do this in the "public teachings" sections (1:1-8:21) (11:1-13:1). One example of this is the 8:27ff//13 connection. Another might be Mark's use of Thomas 22 I think Mark consistently takes sayings that contain technical terms, and sayings that make power-claims, and contextualizes and transforms them into sayings that are rather literal. A good case in point is Mark's transformation of a saying found in both Q and John to the effect that "anyone who receives a messenger of mine receives me, whoever receives me receives the one who sent me". That's a power claim and anyone who considered himself a "messenger of Jesus" might make it. But in his central section Mark is adamant that Christian leaders should not make power claims. So he changes the saying by creating a context for it and eliminating its power claim status. 9:36 And he took a child, and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me." Evidently "being children" has a technical meaning in Thomas (and in Q, for that matter, for the secrets are revealed to "babes") but for Mark children means children. =========================== THOMAS 22A Jesus saw children being suckled. He said to his disciples, These children who are being suckled are like those who enter the Kingdom. They said to him, We are children, shall we enter the Kingdom? MARK 10:13 And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." 16 And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them. Here Mark may have literalized "children" to mean "children" and not some special technical category disciples could claim for themselves. Here, if anything, the disciples are against the children (typical Markan anti-disciple redaction). ============================ THOMAS 22B Jesus said to them, When you make the two one, and when you make the inner as the outer and the outer as the inner and the upper as the lower, so that you will make the male and the female into a single one, so that the male will not be male and the female (not) be female.... MARK 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." Here Mark may be taking Thomas' "Make the two into one" motif and literalizing it. Those who "make the two into one" are not a special category of people who can claim a special place but are all married people. If Thomas' theme harkens back to Genesis 1:27, the male/female Image of God, Mark's theme shifts that to Genesis 2:24 the mythical initiation of marriage. Thomas seems to use "bridalchamber" as a technical term for making the two one (although there's no reason to think a ritual was involved as it was in later gnosticism) so so that when a person is in the "bridalchamber" state he is "one" but outside he is "two." (GTh 104) while for Mark the "bridalchamber" is a metaphorical wedding celebration (2:19-20). Since the Mark version is universally thought to relate to the time after Jesus has died and gone to heaven it is secondary to some other version. I note also that in Mk 3:2-20 Mark first has Jesus give a public saying found in Thomas and then take the disciples aside and give a long Markan discourse on what that saying means. In Mk 7:15-23 exactly the same thing occurs, Jesus gives a public saying found in Thomas and then a long Markan exegesis of the saying to the disciples in private (possibly incorporating a motif from GTh 45b). Finally, here in Mk. 10:2-12 Mark may focus on the Thomas' "make the two one theme" publicly (esp. verse 8) and then privately he takes the disciples aside to discuss it. Here, however, by using what is probably another traditional saying (cf. 1 Cor 7:10-11). =============================== THOMAS 22C when you make eyes in the place of an eye, and hand in place of a hand, and a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image, then you shall enter the Kingdom. MARK 9:43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 46 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. Here we have an enigmatic saying in Thomas (having to do, I think, with restoring the nature of the Image of God in Chapter 1 of Genesis) possibly transformed into a moralizing statement. In both cases people are commanded to get rid of an eye, a hand, a foot. =================================== I'm quite well aware that the foregoing is not likely to convince anyone that Mark used Thomas. It's more of a second-order line of thought. If folks accept the thesis that Mark probably used Thomas based on other more obvious factors, the door is thrown open to the possiblity that Mark used Thomas in less obvious ways. Steve