Remember that in the HSH, one of our guiding rubrics is the assumption that the apocryphal works precede the canonical gospels, and not the other way around. So, we're trying to find evidence that GTh precedes the gospels.
In order to figure out the place of GTh in this schema, we need to divide the logia into categories: those unique to one gospel or another, those shared by two particular gospels, those shared by three, etc. As my source for these decisions, I use The Complete Gospels, Robert J. Miller ed., though occasionally this stands in need of correction which I have supplied as needed, though I do not always note it. (In particular Miller et al sometimes neglect to label a Q parallel to a Thomasine logion, even though they note both a Matthean and Lukan parallel, and the Matthean/Lukan parallel appears in the Q chapter, so clearly they do realize it is a Q saying. And every once in a while there is a complicated parallel that they do not entirely flesh out in detail; I hope to deal with one or two of these in separate posts at the end.)
One easy first step to take is to notice that very few logia are found in GJn. They are, at most:
1 24 31 59(+38) 92
1 is not a direct parallel, though there is of course a thematic similarity (with Jn 8:51), and both speak of those who will “not taste death”, as does Mk 9:1, Mt 16:28, and Lk 9:27. The fact that the parallels are not exact suggests that any connection lies outside direct transmission between GTh and GJn. (Although since the HSH does relate GJn with Secret Mark, we leave open the possibility that Secret Mark contained a parallel with GTh 1.)
24 is such a loose parallel (with Jn 14:1-6) that is hardly an example of one at all. Likewise, direct transmission seems unlikely; any resemblance is more likely due to oral remembrance and general familiarity (though again we leave open the possibility that Secret Mark included something similar, especially since 24 contains the Markan phrase “Anyone here with two ears had better listen”.)
31 seems like a legitimate parallel (with Jn 4:44) but the use in GJn is closer to the one in GMk than the one in GTh, and is parenthetical, awkward, and famously problematic. It has the flavor of a remembered saying, rather than a transcription from GTh. Whatever the relationship between Jn 4:44 and Mk 6:3 (I would not be the first to suggest it is a scribal gloss; it's a shame that P66 and Washintonensis are lacunose here), the evidence is against a direct relationship between Jn 4:44 and logion 31 and (though once again a relationship between GJn and Secret Mark here seems possible).
59 is likewise a loose, thematic parallel (with Jn 7:33-36), the only similarity being the concept of being unable to find Jesus. Again, an oral tradition or a like-minded theology is the best explanation. Notice also that it is basically the same concept expressed in logion 38, and also resembles 24 (discussed above), so it may have just been a widely-known aphorism among the Christian community.
92 is likewise only a vague parallel (with Jn 16:4-5) and is also related to logion 38, and arguably 59 and 24, too. It also suggests a relationship based on oral tradition and memory, but not by direct influence. Indeed, this impression is reinforced by the vague similarities among 24, 38, 59, and 92.
So, we conclude that no meaningful relationship exists between GTh and GJn, in terms of textual source-criticism, and leave it out of our remaining analysis. This is not to say that there can’t be any relationship at all between GJn and the sayings of GTh, it’s just that if there is one, it is indirect, and at best mediated by another text (such as Secret Mark, for example). We will be returning later to just what that indirect relationship was and how it worked, but for now we leave it aside.
Why do you assume that the apocryphal works precede the canonical gospels? Aren't you just swapping a pro-canonical bias for an anti-canonical bias.
ReplyDeleteI did it because I found that doing so serves an explanatory function. Secret Mark explains the similarities between GMk and GJn; Marcion explains a lot of Lucan phenomena; the Gospel of Peter explains a lot of Matthean and Lucan crucifixion/resurrection details; and so on.
ReplyDeleteI haven't laid out a lot of these explanatory functions in detail, but I will begin to do so soon (particularly with GPet). I want to get the structure lined up first (and there is a little more to do after I finish with GTh). Then I can begin to show how one text led to another.
And as you can see, it's not really a simple matter of placing the apocryphals prior to the canonicals; they each have a place in a multilayered but tightly-connected web of relationships. Some apocryphals are prior to some canonicals, and some canonicals are prior to some apocryphals. It's true that ultimately, I think the earliest sources were GTh and the proto-Gospel/Secret Mark pair. But once you get those two in place, the canonicals begin to generate, beginning with GJn, followed by GMk, then by GMt (via GPet) and lastly GLk (via Mc and GNaz). And I am not the first to suggest that all four canonicals are second-century documents.
So I am in fact trying to proceed with as few assumptions as possible. I'm just asking, given the evidence, what can we actually say about a solution to the synoptic problem with any reasonable likelihood?
And the core of the HSH is not really so different from a typical two-source solution. GPet takes the place of Q; Secret Mark is just an earlier version of canonical Mark. DeConick puts GTh as early as 30-50CE, so I am in no way unique in placing it prior to nearly all other sources (though I myself have no idea when it was written, except to say that it was originally a first-century document). All I add to that here is its relationship to the Q-tradition and the Markan tradition.