Like a dog with a bone, I've been worrying over the early part of #13
was brought up recently. Why are Peter and Matthew made to say what they
do? And why is it PETER and MATTHEW who are made to say these things?
It now occurs to me thay maybe there is a little bit of history here
after all, and
that what P & M are made to say may be a reflection of the contents of
early gospels known to the Thomists, viz. the Gospel of Peter (not
him of course), and a sayings collection attributed to Matthew. This
to me the following sequence of events:
1. The earliest "gospels" were the Gospel of Peter - which concentrated
"Passion" - and various sayings collections, one of which was attributed
These are the "Peter" and "Matthew" in #13 - GP's presentation of Jesus
"righteous angel" versus logion-Matt's implication of a "man of wise
2. Mark combined these two forms into a narrative, making use of some of
sayings in the non-passion part of his story.
3. A new gospel attributed to Matthew was written along Markan lines.
Luke followed suit. (Or Luke before Matt, if you wish.)
Since most GThom sayings follow Lukan formulation, it seems to follow
either the Thomists knew Luke or Luke knew GThom. I'd vote for the
which would locate GThom sometime after 1 and earlier than 3. And, since
GThom seems unaware of any attempt to combine the two early
I'd say pre-Mark as well. So I agree with Steve and Bill on something.