From: ERIC HOVEE
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 03:11:30 -0400
Subject: All Roads Lead to John


It's been an interesting couple of days for Crosstalk.  Most recently, Dennis Ingolfsland makes a strong case for pre 70 C.E. dating of Acts and Tom Simms changes course.

But I want to go back just a bit to Stevan Davies and then to Stephen
Carlson. First, from Stevan Davies on April 24, a bell-ringer:
 
> ...it follows that Mark probably knew and 
> revised Thomas 13 into Mark 8:27-33.

> If it is admitted that he did so, then it surely 
> follows that the many other Thomas sayings 
> in Mark were taken from GTh by Mark and so the 
> Gospel of Thomas was a principal source for Mark.

Backing up a bit more, Steve suggests that:

> Drinking from Jesus' mouth in Thomas 13 cannot
> mean receiving sayings of wisdom from a sage, 
> as the explanation of Jesus as a wise philosopher 
> is ruled out in Thomas 13 at the outset. Another 
> alternative can be found in John  7:37-39, that is,
> drinking from Jesus is receiving the spirit from Jesus.
> Mark 13:11 shows that he knows of and approves of
> spirit possession among Christians, although he 
> evidently does not approve of the idea that in spirit 
> possession one becomes the person whose spirit 
> one receives. [However, this is the commonest 
> understanding of possession.]

> Thus one may understand that, for some at least, 
> drinking is receiving spirit, and receving spirit is 
> becoming able to identify with Jesus. [See, for
> example,  Paul's letters (Rom. Gal.) where receiving
> the spirit of the Son enables one to claim the status of Son.]

But then, here's the counter from Stephen Carlson on April 25:

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

[snip..snip]

> 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.

Independent of whether Stevan or Stephen is right on the question of who
comes first, there may be a common trail that eventually leads through both to John. Of the four gospel writers John is the one that most clearly develops the dual themes of water and  spirit possession - almost incessantly. As Stevan notes, John 7 provides a clear statement: "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." (v. 37-38, NIV).

But this is not the first such reference of John. Starting with Chapter 1, "the word became flesh". John the Baptist testifies: "the man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit."  (also chapter 1, also referenced in the other three synoptics).

Chapter 2 of John provides the incident of water and spirit (i.e. wine).
Chapter 3 gives us Nicodemus who is exhorted to be "born of the water and the Spirit". In Chapter 4, Jesus asks the Samaritan woman "Will you give me a drink?" and then gives a variation of the Chapter 7 lesson previously noted by Stevan, i.e. "...whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst.  Indeed, the water I give him will become a spring of water, welling up to eternal life."

In Chapter 5, the invalid at Bethesda pool has "no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred" (by the spirit?) "While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me" (like Peter, Matthew, Thomas?)

In Chapter 6, Jesus crosses the lake, feeds 5,000, then walks on water. Blown by the wind, those in the boat see Jesus approach who says: "It is I, be not afraid." Note: next day, the crowd gets in their boats to try and find Jesus.Then the choice of drink shifts to: "...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Chapter 7 provides the statement regarding "streams of living water". Moving to Chapter 9, we find Jesus spitting on the ground to make mud with saliva, placing it over the eyes of a blind man, with the injunction to "Go, wash in the Pool of Siloam."

Now skipping to chapter 13, Jesus is telling Peter: "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me." After the meal: "A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy."

In Chapter 18, at his arrest Jesus commands Peter: Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?" Chapter 19 hung out to dry: "I am thirsty", then fed wine vinegar. Finally in Chapter 21, back to the lake for a fishing extravaganza and breakfast (served?) by Jesus.

This one theme of John is water and spirit -- experienced in drinking,
intoxication (maybe), childbirth/rebirth, healing, feeding, washing, baptism with the Holy Spirit, eternal life, joy.

So, if Stevan Davies is right and Thomas comes first and then Mark reacts, it takes a canonical book like John to reintroduce this fluid concept of spirit possession as a means for Paul to present and support his Christology. If John did not exist, its almost as if Paul or later patristics would have to invent him -- to have one gospel consistent with canon in the making.

If Stephen Carlson is right and Thomas is a later (gnostic) reaction against Matthew (or proto-Matthew and then Mark and Luke), we still need John to accomplish what Carlson describes as the "side effect of making Davies's spirit possession/reception model more workable here." Otherwise, without John, there would be no bridge from the life of Christ to post-Easter Pauline and canonical Christianity -- the life of the spirit.

Finally, a note for Maureen Smith, who comments:

> Obviously I don't want Thomas as a source for Mark.
> Obviously nobody cares in the slightest whether I want
> it or not.  Obviously whether I want it or not is 
> irrelevant to whether it's true.

My initial reaction is like yours. I have not quite thought through the
implications of this ordering that are specifically disconcerting, or whether
its just fear of the unknown. However, independent of your discomfort or
mine, I think we are better served by letting the exploration and the
dialogue continue.

Eric Hovee