Subject: Re: Mark or Thomas
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 01:19:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Stephen C Carlson" <scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu>

Allow me to be a "devil's advocate" to Stevan Davies's quite intriguing
argument for Markan dependent on Thomas, at least as far as parallels
to GTh13 are concerned.

It seems to me that the present text of GTh13 is dependent, not on Mark,
but on (the canonical) Matthew:

1.  There is no corresponding section in the Markan parallel to GTh13:5,
    in which Jesus praises Thomas, but only Matthew contains the famous
    blessing of Simon bar Jonah (Mt16:17-18 19?).

2.  Davies is probably correct in identifying the three secret sayings
    of GTh13:6 with GTh14:1 (fasting), 2 (praying), 3 (giving).  This
    is in the reverse order of the following M material in the Sermon
    on the Mount: 6:2 (giving), 5 (praying), 16 (fasting).  The juxta-
    position of these concepts suggest a literary dependence.  No other
    gospel can be the source for this.

3.  Matthew, who does not appear elsewhere in GTh (according to my
    perusal of it), is made to give a wrong answer.  GTh13:3

4.  Peter in both GTh and Mt, but not in the Markan and Lukan parallels,
    is called "Simon Peter" by both.

I think the literary dependence on Matthew is pretty clear, so I would
place the final composition of GTh13 at a time when Thomas's marginal
group was competing against the early catholic church with its stress
on the public, apostolic teachings of Christ.  Matthew's explicit naming
suggests that the final form of GTh13 came about sometime after the
attribution of the First Gospel was well-known and after it became the
pre-eminent gospel.  Depending on the date of GMt, I'd place its final
composition in the early-to-mid second century based upon those factors.

Is it possible (or likely) that GTh13 is a (gnostic? second-century?)
redaction of a more primitive version?  It could well be.  GTh13:2-3
(Simon Peter and Matthew's questions) is the most probable area of
redaction (as well as the identification of Thomas as the favored
disciple, the replacement of the teaching of the Passion with the
three secret sayings).  If we take Mt16:14=Mk8:28=Lk9:19 as a guide for
what possibly stood at GTh13:2-3, then we could emend it to be about
John the Baptist and Elijah, etc.  This would have the side effect of
making Davies's spirit possession/reception model more workable here.

What does this mean for my proto-Matthew thesis?  One would have to
determine whether Mt16:17-19 stood in it and was omitted by Mark
and Luke, or whether it is a canonical Matthean interpolation.  Perhaps
some form of Mt16:17-19 was originally found there.  The bit about
Peter being a rock (Heb. even) and Jesus building (Heb. evneh) his
church is a Semitic pun, so I'd say some part of Mt16:17-18 (not 19)
was in proto-Matthew.  Even though I think GTh13 was redacted at a
later date, it may have still included some form of verse 5, but
not necessarily to Thomas.  Mark's omission of GTh13:5 // Mt16:17-18
can be due to the same reasons that Davies was suggesting.

Therefore, GTh13 shows clear signs of being a later redaction in
answer to Matthew, but there may be a more primitive form behind
it.  Whether Mark (or proto-Matthew) is dependent on that primitive
form is quite a bit more speculative than Davies's own proposal, but
it does not contradict the essentials.

Stephen Carlson