In a message dated 09/30/2002 19:12:53PM, FMMCCOY@...
<< John, do you have any evidence I have overlooked which supports the
hypothesis that GTh 14.5 and Matt 15:11 are both based on a passage from a
postulated Loggia of Matthew document?
AS I recall Steven Davies Makes an Argument for MArkan Dependance.( From
Thomas)Although I admit it has been a couple of Months since I read that.( I
believe It was/is On line) at his site.
Not all of Mark certainly but a certain Markan Dependencies. Therefore If
there are any Markan dependence on Thomas (Or the Common source of the
Thomasine sayings) This then would satisfy the order you suggest.( Generally
if not specifically)
In the case where a Dependence of Mark (Or sections thereof) Might be shown,
it would indicate to me that a section/s of Thomas Precede Mark, followed by
This of course would not rule out the fact that they were based upon a Pre
Gospel/Sayings list Like Unto the Ta Loggia, or even Q source, or yet
unidentified source..nor rule out the fact that the dependant sections were a
Pre Mark (Later assembled into the Gospel itself)
Certainly I have never seen a discrepancy in thinking that "Parts" of
Thomas precede both Mark and Matthew, and was most probably from a Common
source. or sayings list. The Absence of Narrative, the more primitive form,
lack of the Passion and Cross narratives. Either earlier or assembled Later.
The Theme of the Two into One I believe was explored on either this
list or the other (Gospel of Thomas) as being the Words of
Levi(Matthew/Mathias) as reported by Papias and the other source likely being
Kefa.( This argument finding its way from JAck Kilmon) with specific
reasoning. That Some of Thomas then precedes Mark.
Certainly we can argue which sections are early and therefore might appear
in either Mark and Matthew due to being early (In sourcing) Versus the Late.
However, I have noticed that even in the supposed: Late sayings that
if you extract the Meaning of the sayings (Or remove the Apparent Gnostification) It may have had a More primitive form that was then expanded on in Thomas (and most certainly in the Coptic)
One would surmise that for a Saying to be expanded (Perhaps to make
a particular point for the Coptic Compiler) That the saying began in a more
Saying 114 could be a Pauline Statement referring to the
Admonition that there is No male nor Female in Jesus Christ/Redacted and
conflated into a dialog between Jesus, Peter, and Mary.
But then there is the unsettling possibility that it is the other
way around? Paul read the saying and clarified its meaning in his Letters?
The proof has not been shown to my satisfaction (And perhaps
others) That Thomas is Dependent on Matthew or Mark.
It would seem all that has been shown is that it is Either
dependent on Matthew/Mark or, That Matthew and Mark contains elements of
Thomas (And or Its Common source).
Just as it might be either dependent on Paul, or Paul contains
elements of Thomas. There is not enough evidence to prove the absolute
There is, as I see it no persuading evidence to prove beyond a
shadow of a doubt the premise of dependency?( on either Gospel)
It remains rather a possibility.
Frankly this salvage theory would seem to have considerable merit
There exists a report by Papias of One Non extant document. There are Likely
to be others which the compilers would struggle to assemble (resulting in
only a lose order with some catchwords, As the sayings of Jesus. a Vox Iesu)
Important enough in its time(Perhaps even treasured) which not only would be
assembled, but important enough to the Keepers of the Document to preserve in
the face of the imminent loss (Or perceived coming loss of its contents)
Regards JOHN MOON