In my most recent post to date on that thread I hypothetically inserted Papias in between groups 1 and 2 on my table of gospel texts:
- Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Philip (0). [1½. Papias.]
- Sophia of Jesus Christ, Dialogue of the Savior, Gospel of Luke (1).
- Gospel of John (2).
- Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary, Epistle of the Apostles, Gospel of the Ebionites, Infancy Gospel of James, Gospel of Peter, Infancy Gospel of Thomas (3).
- Apocryphon of James, Apocryphon of John, Traditions of Matthias, Gospel of the Savior, Book of Thomas the Contender, Gospel of Thomas (4).
Gospel | Tradent(s) Named in Text | Allegedly Eyewitness Testimony in Text | Transmission of Secret Information | Authorial Claim of Writing |
Gospel of Marcion | no | no | no | no |
Gospel of Mark | no | no | no | no |
Gospel of Matthew | no | no | no | no |
Gospel of Philip | no | no | no | no |
Sophia of Jesus Christ | no | no | yes | no |
Dialogue of the Savior | no | no | yes | no |
Gospel of Luke | no | no | no | yes |
Gospel of John | no | yes | no | yes |
Gospel of Judas | yes | yes | yes | no |
Gospel of Mary | yes | yes | yes | no |
Epistle of the Apostles | yes | yes | no | yes |
Gospel of the Ebionites | yes | yes | no | yes |
Infancy Gospel of James | yes | yes | no | yes |
Gospel of Peter | yes | yes | no | yes |
Infancy Gospel of Thomas | yes | yes | no | yes |
Apocryphon of James | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Apocryphon of John | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Traditions of Matthias | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Gospel of the Savior | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Book of Thomas the Contender | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Gospel of Thomas | yes | yes | yes | yes |
On this present thread I intend to test certain possible gospel trajectories which some scholars have suggested, just to see how well or how poorly those suggested trajectories line up with my rough groupings.
I may also take a closer look at some of the texts which belong to the same group to see whether priority or posteriority can be established; for example, I have suggested:
If I am correct, then, whereas the gospel of Mark is named after, at best, a nonwitness and, at worst, a random guy with one of the most common Roman names available, that of Matthew is both named after a putative apostle and characterized by a change in the story of Levi designed to describe this same putative apostle's call by Jesus. By the logic with which my table was assembled in the first place, this makes Mark (probably) prior to Matthew; it is just that the table as drawn up cannot adequately reflect these data, since they are the result, not of a simple reading of the texts, but rather of an argument being made on the basis of a more critical reading. The table is also, obviously, not at all for the task of evaluating arguments from miracle patterns and the like! So these kinds of more detailed issues are what I may be exploring in this thread, as well.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:53 pmFirst, I think that something like our Mark predated something like our Matthew. Matthew, therefore, is very unlikely to be eyewitness testimony. It is also very unlikely to have been originally written in Hebrew; rather, it is based on Mark, in Greek.
Second, the gospel of Matthew is basically a gentle fraud; the coincidence of its title being "the gospel according to Matthew" and Levi having been replaced by Matthew in Matthew 9.9 (Matthew) = Mark 2.13-14 (Levi) = Luke 5.27-28 (Levi) is probably not truly a coincidence; this text was passed off as having come from Matthew. I have argued before, in basic agreement with Klijn, that both this maneuver and the replacement of Judas by Matthias in Acts 1.21-26 are attempts to make the author Matthew/Matthias an eyewitness and an apostle.
I also want to point out that the distinction between some of the gospels in group 4 and all of the gospels in group 5 on my table may be meaningless:
Gospel | Tradent(s) Named in Text | Allegedly Eyewitness Testimony in Text | Transmission of Secret Information | Authorial Claim of Writing |
Epistle of the Apostles | yes | yes | no | yes |
Gospel of the Ebionites | yes | yes | no | yes |
Infancy Gospel of James | yes | yes | no | yes |
Gospel of Peter | yes | yes | no | yes |
Infancy Gospel of Thomas | yes | yes | no | yes |
Apocryphon of James | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Apocryphon of John | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Traditions of Matthias | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Gospel of the Savior | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Book of Thomas the Contender | yes | yes | yes | yes |
Gospel of Thomas | yes | yes | yes | yes |
I say this because it may well be the case that some authors were, not only uninterested in passing on secret knowledge, but indeed dead set against it. I mentioned that the Epistle of the Apostles comes off (not just to me, but to rather many others, as well) as both acknowledging and rejecting the trend of passing along "secret information" in dialogue gospels. Even if this impression is incorrect about the Epistle of the Apostles specifically, I do think that it is generally more probable that the idea of secret knowledge (gnosis) should cause offense than it is that the idea of an apostle penning a gospel should cause offense. In other words, while it remains true, IMHO, that the absence of any of the criteria listed on the table (named tradent, allegedly eyewitness testimony, secret information transmitted, authorial claim) means far less than their presence in the first place, it also seems likely (to me, anyway) that the criterion of secret information being transmitted is especially meaningless in the negative, as compared to the positive, since there may have been good reasons to actively avoid it. Thus, there probably ought not to be any distinction between the first five texts on this part of the table and the last six texts; nevertheless, I feel that the criterion of secret information should remain in place, since its presence is still, ex hypothesi, probably meaningful, even if its absence might be absolutely expected in some quarters.
At any rate, I asked the following question on the other thread:
I am still interested in reasoned answers to this question, and I already have at least one candidate in mind as a text which may be dated incorrectly. This candidate is the gospel of Philip; it looks too early to me on the list. On the one hand, since the absence of criteria means little if anything, there is no theoretical difficulty with moving any of the texts from the first group up a bit. On the other, however, I feel like my reasons for wanting to date Philip later may be influenced unduly both by convention (it rarely gets dated earlier than late century II) and by the nature of its contents (quite apart from its authorial representation or nonrepresentation). I am going to have to look far more closely into this text to see what I can make of it.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:54 pmIgnore the dates for one gospel text vis-à-vis the other texts in the same group, and focus only on the dating of each group relative to the others (in other words, compare Mark to Luke, not to Marcion). How shocking would it be if it were to turn out that the above is the order of the layers in which our extant gospel tradition was penned over time? Which gospel texts would be the most surprising and stand out as not belonging at all to their proposed chronological group?
(This is all heuristic and experimental. Also, it does not in any way account for older materials being contained in newer gospels; only the current editorial form of the gospel is taken into account.)
I feel certain that there are many who might think that the gospel of Thomas is dated far too late; I sympathize, but often (not always), as I work with one of its sayings, comparing it to parallels from other gospel texts, I am struck by how late Thomas seems in comparison. At the same time, however, I am quite open to there being more than one layer in the gospel of Thomas:
Also, there is this interesting correspondence between two nonadjacent sayings:Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:25 pm...I note that the gospel of Thomas probably has (at least) two layers. For one thing, one of the Greek Oxyrhynchus fragments (papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1) inserts saying 77b of the Coptic version in between sayings 30 and 31. For another, the following pair of sayings is rather intriguing:
Thomas 12-13:
12 The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that You will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?” Jesus said to them, “Wherever you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”
13 Jesus said to His disciples, “Compare me to someone and tell Me whom I am like.” Simon Peter said to Him, “You are like a righteous angel.” Matthew said to Him, “You are like a wise philosopher.” Thomas said to Him, “Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom You are like.” Jesus said, “I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated by the bubbling spring which I have measured out.” And He took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, “What did Jesus say to you?” Thomas said to them, “If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up.”
Why does James the Just receive such unequaled praise in saying 12 but Thomas receive such unequaled praise in saying 13? One hypothesis is that a collection of sayings originally circulated under the authority of James later came to be circulated under the authority of Thomas instead.
6 His disciples questioned Him and said to Him, "Do you want us to fast? How shall we pray? Shall we give alms? What diet shall we observe?" Jesus said, "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered."
....
14 Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will give rise to sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do harm to your spirits. When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what they will set before you, and heal the sick among them. For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile you."
It looks quite plausible that the disciples' question in verse 6 was originally answered by Jesus' statement in verse 14, and that other material has come to intervene.
So maybe the evidence is mixed: the final redaction of Thomas is late, but at least some of its contents are considerably earlier. The gospel of Peter may well fall into the same category, and there may well be others.
Finally, I am not sure how much comes of the following exercise, but here is my list again, followed by the list of the same texts as found at Early Christian Writings, accompanied by the respected range of dates for each:
- Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Philip (0). [1½. Papias.]
- Sophia of Jesus Christ, Dialogue of the Savior, Gospel of Luke (1).
- Gospel of John (2).
- Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary, Epistle of the Apostles, Gospel of the Ebionites, Infancy Gospel of James, Gospel of Peter, Infancy Gospel of Thomas (3).
- Apocryphon of James, Apocryphon of John, Traditions of Matthias, Gospel of the Savior, Book of Thomas the Contender, Gospel of Thomas (4).
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-160 Gospel of Peter
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-130 Gospel of Luke
90-120 Gospel of John
100-150 Secret Book of James (= Apocryphon of James)
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
110-140 Papias
110-160 Traditions of Matthias
120-180 Apocryphon of John
120-180 Gospel of Mary
120-180 Dialogue of the Savior
120-180 Gospel of the Savior
130-140 Marcion
130-170 Gospel of Judas
140-150 Epistula Apostolorum (= Epistle of the Apostles)
140-170 Infancy Gospel of James
140-170 Infancy Gospel of Thomas
150-225 Book of Thomas the Contender
180-250 Gospel of Philip
Once one accounts for the very wide range of dates available for some of these texts (for example, Peter Kirby lists the Sophia very, very early in his list, but the range of dates for the Sophia is 50-200!), and once one recalls that there ought to be no real distinction between most of the texts from my group 4 and all of the texts from my group 5, only three texts stand out as truly problematic. Two of these I have already identified: Thomas and Philip (and I had identified them before even consulting Early Christian Writings; but, to be fair, I am pretty familiar with the customary ranges of dates for most of these writings anyway, so I would not claim independent verification of anything here). The third is Marcion, which is known only through patristic treatments of it and possibly one papyrus fragment, and I myself would distinguish between Marcion, the man himself, and the Marcionite gospel, a text which he allegedly published or republished; his claim, according to patristic sources, was that, far from creating a new gospel, he was either preserving or recovering an old gospel, one from before "the Judaizers" had tampered with things. So it far from impossible that the Marcionite gospel might be a true relic, while Marcion himself comes at a later date. (It should go without saying here that I am concerned at this stage, not with any absolute dating, but only with the relative dating of one text with another.)
This post has been a potpourri. There are so many different threads to tie or untie: so many different aspects to consider. Suggestions welcome. I will follow up with trajectories which have been proposed before to see how they compare to my table or to my list.
Ben.