Niall Armstrong

I find both Davies, in explaining that GMark (Gospel of Mark) was based on GThomas (Gospel of Thomas), and Doherty, in explaining how the concept of Christ in the Epistles is without any earthly substance, highly convincing.

But Doherty argues that AMark (author of Mark’s Gospel) joined the two traditions of the Epistles and the Q-community together, while the GThomas was constructed later, by adding “Jesus said…” on to Q-like material. With all due respect, this argument leaves me cold. Many of the quotes in GThomas do not make sense coming from anyone of less than (ascribed) divine status. The many “I am” quotes come to mind, as does nr 61, where Jesus talks to Salome, and the question about who will succeed him, in nr 12.

The linchpin of the discussion is, though, GThomas 13, where Jesus asks the disciples how they view him. Now this situation is difficult to construe as a vision, or without attribution to the speaker. It makes most sense as an earthly encounter and discussion, and the answer from Matthew makes little sense in the context of a vision, as well. This passage is also Davies’ best argument for GThomas’ inspiring GMark (As the similar discussion in the latter bears signs of derivation from the former). So we have a situation where the very fragment that shows that GThomas precedes GMark is also one that does not make sense without an earthly Jesus.

So how do other MJ’ers relate to this? Are you either with Davies or with Doherty?

Niall Armstrong

I try solving this by postulating AThomas as the “inventor” of an earthly Jesus. GThomas not being a narrative gospel makes this invention easier, not needing much elaboration, yet also less significant. It also “relieves” AMark from some of the burdens of invention. We have already in GThomas both the disciples and the theme concerning their stupidity.

But this argument runs into all kinds of other difficulties. Does AThomas see Christ as having died on the cross? If not, why did this supposed member of the Q-community make use of precisely this descending redeemer? Why does AMark and AJohn concern themselves with GThomas, but not AMatt and ALuke, those otherwise most concerned with Q?

Niall Armstrong

Am I the only MJ’er on the IIDB that is concerned about the relation between GThomas and GMark?

Or was my OP incomprehensible?

Maybe I made mistakes regarding Doherty’s or Davies’ opinions and arguments?

Surprised no HJ’er has climbed aboard, waiving a cutlass about, claiming victory….

If anybody is in doubt about what I’m talking about:

Stevan Davies’ “Mark’s Use of the Gospel of Thomas” (part 1): http://www.misericordia.edu/users/da...as/tomark1.htm

(part 2) : http://www.misericordia.edu/users/da...as/tomark2.htm

Doherty on GThomas (from http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/crossbr.htm):

Malachi151

The Doherty view makes more sense. I'm currently reading "The Messiah Before Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk)", not really a good book, but it goes over a lot of the Qumran material from the DSS.

Take this hymn for example:

I can easily see how stuff like this could turn into GThomas.

Niall Armstrong

As regards the big picture, I do agree. But when it comes to the details of GThomas, it's hard to argue against Davies. GT 13 is both necessarily bound up with the figure of Jesus (Who else could be greater than prophets and philosophers, yet present to impart the Holy Spirit), and necessarily prior to GMark (8:27-33, which reads as a parody of GT). Elsewhere in GT we also get ambiguous presentations of Jesus, like nr 61, where Salome asks

"Who art thou; O man? And whose son? Thou hast mounted my bed, and eaten from my table"

Some materiality is described here, in eating, but the questioning tone makes me uneasy. It's a question difficult to imagine being put to Jesus, but perhaps even more difficult being put to any mortal man.
And is it enough to put down Davies that easily? Should we not come up with the arguments? Do you not recognize GT as related to Q, and therefore plausibly earlier than GMark?
I think I see your point. The self-proclamation of an identity higher than mortal is not uncommon. But there's still a quantum leap to a deity discussing with his disciples whether the deity is divine or not. I believe that this leap was done by AThomas, not AMark.

Malachi151

Parts of GT are also very close to Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach BTW.

I think that GT was written after the Gospels personally, at least in it's current form. Perhaps there was a pre-Gospel version of wisdom says, which was updated after the Gospels with some new lines and tacking "Jesus said" on to the beginnings of the existing ones.

S.C.Carlson

Which parts? I'd love a list.

Malachi151

I forget exactly, but I remember looking at it when I was looking at Didache, and there was a triangulation of about 6 sayings that were similar in Didache, GThomas and Wisdom of Sirach, but I can't remember what they were off hand and I don't have it written down anywhere.

mountainman

Your question resolves to an issue of chronology. The above two authors
defer to the mainstream chronology shared by all HJ'ers and the majority
of all MJ'ers, which was first outlined by Eusebius, c.312-324 CE, and to
whom "chronology was something between an exact science and an
instrument of propaganda."

The total and inevitable vagaries of the chronology obviously support
the possibility of the existence of both theories of D and D. The
arguably total lack of scientific and/or archeological evidence external
to the "grand literature tradition" is mute in its arbitration between D
and D, and in fact quite notably, also between A and Z.

Niall Armstrong

...which is keeping close to Doherty's interpretation.
But what does this entail? GThomas 13, which doesn't make sense as a normal rabbi - disciple situation (nor divine - adorant either), and includes references to (supposed) disciples, must then be a post-gospel add-on.

From GThomas:
From GMark:
While these are obviously related, they are also vastly different. Davies' argumentation is based on the elements of Markan redaction to be found in the latter, such as passion prediction and anti-Petrine ending. This redaction implies an original model: GT13.

This also fits with the general trajectory of influence between these gospels, where GT has the more primitive, early form ("No home-wins for prophets" being perhaps the clearest example).

How does one argue for this being a Thomasine interpretation of GMark? (I've always wondered what AThomas had against "The Son of Man".... )