Christian Teachers in Matthew and Thomas:The Possibility of Becoming a "Master"
During the latter half of the first century C.E. the communities of Matthew and Thomas began to consider the proper role of the Christian teacher within the community. As each community sought to develop its own model, it drew upon available sayings of Jesus. The author of Matthew had access to Q 6.40, which offered an incomplete model of what a Christian teacher should do. Matthew sought to expand this model using the figure of Peter as the ideal disciple for the community. The authors of Thomas found this model completely untenable and offered their own model in direct conversation with Matthew 16. The model of the Thomas community was that the teacher could supplant and become equal to the master teacher Jesus. In a final clarifying effort the author of Matthew 23 sought to establish the proper role of teachers using the context of Jewish sectarian controversies. The correction offered by Matthew 23 intended to clarify many ambiguities associated with Christian teachers, including the contradictory model offered by Thomas Christians.
The Gospel of Thomas (hereafter GTh) contains sayings that to a greater or lesser extent parallel the synoptic sayings source Q. The question that has nagged New Testament scholars is whether GTh has borrowed and adapted synoptic logia at the stage after the gospels were written or whether it has preserved earlier traditions that can be dated to the period roughly contemporary with Q.1 Since any direct borrowing between GTh [End Page 289] and the Synoptics, in either direction, was either quite limited or left nearly undetectable, one must approach the problem of GTh's synoptic relationships from a different angle. While GTh shows synoptic affinities, it does not reveal significant direct verbal borrowing. Another way through the maze of GTh's synoptic relationships would be the identification of tradition-historical contacts with the Synoptics. The layer with which GTh made contact with the Synoptics could then be used inversely to help provide relative comparisons to the synoptic tradition.
The authors of GTh, like many of their contemporaries, used the gospel genre to express the ideals and practices of their newly founded Christian communities.2 These expressions often took the shape of polemical exhortations and/or conversations regarding the correct form of Christian praxis. The detection of these conversations has become one of the primary means of locating and dating a text. Like other contemporary textual traditions, GTh engaged in conversations with other early Christian groups, especially those traditions that were eventually passed down through synoptic channels.3 One point of debate between GTh and the synoptic tradition was the proper role of Christian teachers. The contours of this discussion not only provide an interesting glimpse into the origins [End Page 290] of Thomas Christianity and Synoptic Christianity but also provide clues to help date GTh in the context of the synoptic tradition.
In GTh and Matthew there is a parallel development and discussion of the role of the teacher within the community and the teacher's continued relationship to Jesus/Christ. In both GTh and Matthew the proper role of the teacher is explicated to the community using the model of the idealized disciple within the textual framework of Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi. In both instances the idealized disciple becomes the foil for Jesus' instructions on the role of teachers. Matthew carries this discussion forward with continued directions for teachers in the context of Pharisaic opposition toward the Matthean community. GTh, however, entered this conversation during its initial stages and offered its own directive for proper teaching and can accurately be identified as the work of a later GTh redactive hand. The author(s) of Matthew ultimately clarified the discussion using a pronouncement of Jesus against false teachers that denounces the claims being made by contemporary Christian teachers, including those made by Thomas Christians.
This point of contact can be seen in the now distant parallels of GTh 13 and Matthew 16.13–19, 23.10. Matthew 16.13–19, a pericope adapted from its Markan source, is historically the earliest of the three pericopes; while GTh is a later conflation of Matthew 16, with Matthew 23 being the final kerygmatic response.
He asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
(Matt 16.13b–16; trans. NRSV here and throughout)
Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just angel." Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like." Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended." And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him.
(GTh 13)4
Nor are you to be called teachers, for you have one teacher, the Messiah.
(Matt 23.10) [End Page 291]
While the verbal similarities between these three pericopes are relatively insignificant, the parallel in content is noteworthy. The GTh saying reflects a later stage of redaction where an idealized member of the community is established as a model Christian teacher. The Matthean passage, which builds upon earlier Matthean traditions regarding Christian teachers, is evidence of a debate regarding the proper use and application of titles within the Matthean community. Titles, especially as a means of differentiating members of the community, are expressly forbidden because they redirect attention away from more important concerns. This paper will argue that Matthew 16.16–19 and 23.10 and GTh 13 expose the contours of an early Christian debate regarding the use of the title of teacher within two different Christian traditions. Both GTh and Matthew responded differently to a similar concern in their respective traditions, while the GTh saying shows signs of being the work of a later redactor.
The Idealized Peter in Matthew
Matthew 16.13–20, a focal point of Petrine tradition in Matthew, presents the ideal disciple in a question and answer session with Jesus. Jesus had previously set the stage by questioning the disciples on popular perceptions regarding his identity; the responses given function to highlight the correctness of Peter's assertion. Matthew's adaptation of his Markan source suggests more strongly to the audience that Jesus is guiding the outcome of the situation.5
In Mark (8.27) Jesus and the disciples travel to Caesarea Philippi together, whereas in Matthew Jesus comes separately while the disciples are apparently waiting.6 Unlike Mark, Matthew's question to the disciples [End Page 292] contains a direct point of comparison, setting up Peter's proclamation. Mark reads simply, "Who do men say that I am?" (8.27), whereas Matthew adds, ". . . that the Son of Man is?" (16.13). The change to an explicit point of comparison directs the audience toward a predetermined or desired outcome. Jesus' question in Matthew is not whether Jesus has been accepted or whether earlier misconceptions regarding Jesus' identity have been clarified, as could be assumed from the Markan context (Mark 6.14–16), but is rather whether the disciples, personified by Peter, have made the connection between Jesus as the Son of Man and Son of God.7 Peter acts as the representative voice of the Twelve.8
This image of Peter as the Matthean apostolic spokesman is underlined by the Matthean additions to the walking on water pericope. To his Markan source Matthew adds the detailed account of Peter's attempt to walk on water. Mark and John end their accounts prior to this event with the conclusion that the disciples were afraid (Mark 6.50; John 6.20), while Matthew included the story of Peter's failed attempt aimed at representing the growing faith of the disciples. In Matthew when Jesus and Peter get in the boat the disciples worship Jesus as the "Son of God" (14.33).9 This formulaic declaration is nearly identical to Peter's at Caesarea Philippi, the difference being that it is Peter alone in Matt 16.16 who summarizes what has been spoken by the Twelve previously. Peter reiterates in a more kerygmatic formulation what the disciples have already concluded.
Matthew's omission of the double healing pericope may also reveal a Matthean interest to substantiate apostolic understanding by the Twelve as a composite entity and individually by Peter. The pericope, as it stands in Mark, is one of the few instances of Markan special material and presents several christological concerns (8.22–26). Matthew, on the other hand, may have omitted this pericope for reasons other than its doctrinal incompatibility.10 In this passage Jesus teaches a man how to "see" properly, [End Page 293] a point that is emphasized in the pericope by the fact that Jesus must heal him twice. The emphasis focuses squarely on whether seeing men "as trees" is an adequate expression of seeing "clearly." Only as the blind man follows the particular instructions of Jesus is he able to see not only the contours of life but also clearly. Matthew does not need to incorporate this pericope, since by Matt 14.33 the disciples have already seen Jesus clearly.
Elsewhere in Matthew Peter functions as the prototypical disciple. He asks questions on behalf of the Twelve (Matt 15.15; 18.21) and is also questioned by outsiders as an acceptable representative of the quorum (17.24). On three occasions Peter raises important questions of practice and faith only to be corrected and taught (16.22–23; 19.27–30; 26.33– 34). In each instance Peter represents concerns that have arisen either among the Twelve or as a result of something that Jesus has taught. In each instance it is Peter who asks, not the Twelve collectively or individually.11
The image of Peter in Matthew functions as an ideal representative for the community. Peter, along with the Twelve, is also depicted as a model of proper teaching. In Matthew 15.1–20 Jesus calls a group together and instructs them on what defiles, especially calling attention to how what comes out of the mouth defiles. The Pharisees and scribes (15.1) are the launch point for the discussion and are the negative example of those who are defiled by what they teach. In the Matthean version Peter asks for further clarification on what Jesus meant.12 In the proceeding explanation Jesus does not rebuke Peter for his misunderstanding but instead presents Peter and the Twelve as those who will not lead the community astray by their teachings. What comes out of the mouths of the Twelve will not be like the teachings of the Pharisees and scribes but instead will be from the heart.13 Matthew adds Peter to his Markan source to emphasize his individual role in the teaching of the community. In the earliest layers of the Gospel of Matthew's instruction on teaching there is an overt concern to express proper attitudes and models of teaching against a Jewish sectarian background. The status of the teacher at this early stage was based on [End Page 294] the model of the master/pupil relationship, and there does not appear to be any outward polemic directed at other Christians regarding their viewpoints on teachers. GTh, however, entered this early stage of the discussion with radically different viewpoints that ultimately helped elicit a response from the Matthean community that would further clarify the role of the teacher.
Idealized Disciples in the Gospel of Thomas
Unfortunately, the extent of GTh does not provide a significant amount of comparative material for the individual disciple Thomas. Unlike Peter in Matthew, Thomas appears just two times in GTh, and therefore it will be helpful to understand not only Thomas but also the role of the other named disciples as well.14 In GTh one encounters several of Jesus' synoptic disciples individually—namely, Thomas, Matthew, and Simon Peter—as well as the disciples collectively.15 Mary (GTh 21, 114), Salome (GTh 61), James (GTh 12), Adam (GTh 46), and John the Baptist (GTh 46) are also mentioned.16 The paucity of evidence leads one to conclude that GTh places very little emphasis on the role and function of individual disciples. The named individuals of GTh are wholly literary figures and can easily be removed from the logia in which they appear, thus suggesting that there is an intentional downplaying of apostolic authority and an elevation of the importance of personal insight. Rather than being embroiled in indirect polemic against named disciples, in GTh the disciples are generally slow and are therefore more reflective of attitudes and behaviors.17
The case of Peter is rather simple to decide since he is cast in a negative light in both cases where he appears. James, Mary, and Salome, however, are treated quite favorably; and therefore one would assume that they are [End Page 295] at least near equals to Thomas, who always appears in a favorable light in GTh. It would be premature to dismiss the possibility that certain disciples, namely Peter, Matthew, and James, represent competing forms of Christianity against which GTh would like to direct its polemic. This does not, however, explain the role of Mary and Salome. It does seem more natural to view the disciples as stock characters through whom Thomas Christians were supposed to gain personal insight or understanding.
If the disciples in GTh are indeed stock characters, then one can appreciate why Peter is continually upbraided for his premature assumptions and Matthew likewise is castigated for the shallowness of his understanding.18 Both of these attitudes may be levels of understanding that were encountered within the community that used GTh, or attitudes from competing forms of Christianity that were looked down upon. The combination of Peter and Matthew also suggests the background of the apostle Peter in the Gospel of Matthew. Although this suggestion might at first appear rather facile, it seems to be within the range of the type of connection a general readership audience might make. Thomas is elevated against the background of Matthew's and Peter's misunderstanding. This supposition also explains how seemingly contradictory sayings can exist side by side in GTh. For example, the position of James in logion 12 and the position of Thomas in logion 13 are otherwise difficult to explain.19 Both Thomas and James seem to enjoy an exalted position in these logia, and it is difficult to understand the apparent preeminence of James over Thomas in a gospel dedicated to recording the secret sayings of Jesus given to Thomas. James is placed in a position greater than Thomas. Yet logion 13 turns to the theme of Thomas' faith in comparison to the lack of understanding demonstrated by two other disciples.
If the disciples of GTh are simply stock figures, then one also can see in them certain attitudes that are worthy of praise.20 In logion 21 Mary asks [End Page 296] Jesus what his disciples are like. Jesus responds with a rather positive portrayal of the disciples who willingly give over the field, reminiscent of the mortal body, which belongs to the guardians of this world.21 The anti-worldly sentiment expressed in logion 21 underlies the presupposition in GTh that the kingdom is within and is not apprehended by sense perception.22 The generic term disciple is the foil for this teaching.23 The disciples of GTh could easily be removed and one would be left with largely the same composition.24 The disciples do not direct the narrative—there are no call narratives, conversion accounts, attempted miracles and so forth—but instead they represent idealized behaviors and attitudes.
Thomas as the Ideal Disciple
The emergence of Thomas as the idealized disciple of GTh has its origins in logia 12 and 13. In logion 12 James the Just is extolled by Jesus.25 In this saying it is stated that "heaven and earth came into being" for the sake of James. Although Jesus' recognition of James is more of an ontological than soteriological acclamation, his status is worthy of community veneration and recognition. The Coptic suggests that in the future, as indicated by the future auxiliary
, the faithful shall go to James. The author has left unstated why James is in this position or even [End Page 297] what one will do when he encounters James, but the sense that the image of James is being established as an ideal is evident.26
One is left to wonder, then, how such a positive recognition of Thomas' wisdom can follow on the heels of this logion concerning James. If James emerges from logion 12 as the archetypical community ideal, then the elevation of Thomas in the following pericope is used to surpass that model. In logion 12 James is a highly idealized figure who is closely allied with the creation of heaven and earth. Thomas then appears in logion 13 in a position where he is in the process of attaining insight or enlightenment here on earth. The discrepancy between the two sayings is made obvious in GTh 12.1 where Jesus asks, "Who is going to be our leader?" The logical answer to this is James, an answer which is suggested both by the immediacy of his name in logion 12.2 and by the obvious elevation of him above other mortals. Logion 13, however, offers Thomas as the logical answer. The apparent discrepancy created by logia 12 and 13 suggests that one of these two sayings was added to the collection at a later date. Logion 12, with its positive portrayal of James, and logion 13, with its positive portrayal of Thomas against Peter and Matthew, suggest that one of the two sayings was added as the community sought to develop a more earthly model for the community to replace the cosmological image of James.27
The cryptic saying known as logion 13 in GTh, as well as the prologue, presents a case for Thomas' unique and commendable attainment of knowledge.28 The elevation of the figure of Thomas in GTh reveals a concern to develop an idealized community model that can likewise be achieved by others equally. Like Peter in the Gospel of Matthew, Thomas is used in GTh to express what others can achieve. [End Page 298]
Personal Enlightenment or Wisdom as a Community Ideal
Once the figure of Thomas has been established as a community model, then one can appreciate how the quest for wisdom becomes the objective of that idealized figure. The quest for wisdom is expressed in the terminology of personal enlightenment. The attainment of hidden wisdom is not only reserved for Thomas but is then extended to all members of the community. This community orientation toward personal enlightenment would push the community to develop further its view of the teacher and subsequently adapt Matthew 16.13–19 for its own purposes.
Several sayings indicate that those who seek will find hidden wisdom (GTh 1). Saying 2 seems to describe the very process by which one obtains this hidden wisdom; the process is here described as seeking, finding, being disturbed, marveling, and eventually reigning over all.29 In GTh there are also several attitudes and conditions that Jesus recognizes as acceptable of a follower, for example, becoming a "single one" (GTh 22), becoming male (GTh 114), becoming a child or little one (GTh 3, 22, 37, 46), being intoxicated (GTh 13), being unified or unique (GTh 49).30 These sayings reveal a consistent logic of enlightenment and inward value.31 GTh presents several different metaphors of personal enlightenment, i.e., androgyny, becoming a child, or gaining knowledge of the self.32
Logion 114 makes the ideal of androgyny explicit in GTh and may form a logical summary to the collection of sayings. In this saying Peter's assessment of Mary, and of females in general, is corrected by Jesus. Jesus instructs Peter that he himself will guide Mary in becoming male so that [End Page 299] ultimately she will be able to enter the kingdom of heaven.33 At one level of interpretation the saying points to a transition from one state to another, a radical break from what was comfortable and apparently natural to that which is foreign and new. Logion 22 helps to interpret the ideal of androgyny further. In this saying Jesus answers the disciples' inquiry regarding whether or not babies will enter the kingdom by saying that only those who make the female male and the male female will enter the kingdom. Here we find the idea that it is not so much maleness that matters but the complete reversal of present circumstances.34 Jesus further expands this metaphor by including those who are able to replace their current conditions—as represented by feet, eyes, and hands replaced with new feet, eyes, and hands—as those who will be allowed to enter the kingdom.35 The elevation of physical androgyny is downplayed when one considers the parallel interpretations of this theme in GTh.36
It is likely that the ideal of androgyny is simply a metaphor for self-sufficiency and independence.37 Wayne Meeks's proposal that androgyny is a metaphor used to denote aspects of the self may be a refinement of this concept.38 If the realized self is to be understood as the explanation of androgyny in GTh, then the quest for the androgynous is really the quest for self-knowledge. Logion 77 points to the idea that all things come from the light; the only difference between the enlightened and the unenlightened [End Page 300] is that the former recognize where they have come from and where they are going.39
As the terminology of enlightenment was expanded in GTh to include the entire community, there was a subsequent need to establish acceptable channels for this enlightenment to be passed on. With Thomas clearly established as the ideal, it is easy to see how the later expansion of the sayings collection to include logion 13 would focus its attention on Thomas' role as community teacher. The role of Thomas as a teacher within the community would ultimately provide a foil for later teachers within the community. The conversation in which GTh has now become engaged stems back to Matthew 16 and the synoptic portrayal of Peter as an ideal. Clearly GTh has this ideal in the background, although its radical reformation of the Matthean pericope has left traces of borrowing nearly indiscernible.40
Logion 13 and the Theme of Thomas' Intoxication
Recent interest in logion 13 has revolved around the content of the three secret words spoken to Thomas by Jesus.41 There is very little hope that we will ever know the exact content of the three secret words spoken to Thomas by Jesus. One of the interesting prospects presented in this logion is the possible realization of the position attained by Thomas by ordinary members of the community. Here Jesus indicates that he is no longer Thomas' master or instructor, a statement that hints at the fact that one of [End Page 301] the disciples has attained the highest level of enlightenment possible in GTh, as indicated by his position as a near equal with Jesus.
Logion 13 presents several exegetical obstacles of interpretation. The question put forth by Jesus is first of all enigmatic. In the other 113 sayings Jesus and his teachings seem to defy categorization. Jesus himself resists compartmentalizing his message to the disciples but instead often resorts to opposites to teach the disciples.42 Often GTh questions commonly held assumptions. For example, one may know all things and yet at the same time be lacking within (GTh 67).43 In a gospel where so much emphasis is placed on knowing, it is surprising to find that even knowledge of all things has its pitfalls.
The question that Jesus poses to the disciples in logion 13 is contrary to the overall nature of the collection. In reality there is no indication that Jesus actually cares about the specifics of their answers since there is no correction of their assumptions.44 GTh 13 has borrowed the framework of Matt 16.15 where Jesus says, "But who do you say that I am." In the Matthean example Peter is likewise ordered not to reveal his insight to the general public; his insight is recognized, but it should be guarded and kept secret at present. While it is obvious that GTh 13 does not borrow textually from Matt 16.13–19, the literary structures are very similar, including the presence of Peter. In the setting of GTh the literary structure [End Page 302] implies an intentionally contrived situation that works toward an ideal, in this case the ideal of Thomas' personal enlightenment.
A related question that may be asked is why Jesus continues to instruct Thomas even after Jesus' statement that he is no longer Thomas' master.45 From the current form of the logion it would appear that the greatest thing that Thomas receives comes only after he is told that Jesus is not his master. Once again, there is evidence of a textual seam here. The redactor is unconcerned to rectify the details of the story and is willing to permit incongruity so that he can move toward a desired goal. It would be natural to assume from the word "master" that Thomas is no longer in need of instruction from Jesus and that somehow he has obtained independence.46 The ending of Eugnostos details a similar theological outlook, "I said in the way you might accept, until the one who need not be taught appears" (90.5 emphasis added).
In logion 13 the relationship of master/pupil is maintained even though it presents a case where the story line will suggest otherwise.47 Jesus measures out the bubbling spring and controls the direction of the conversation even though he has already told Thomas that he is his own master.48 The wording indicates that Jesus has predetermined the length, breadth, and depth of Thomas' quest for enlightenment.
The question of Thomas' independence in logion 13 and his state of intoxication are related. Logion 13 presents Thomas' independence as a direct result of his drinking from the bubbling spring. In typical gnostic terminology the idea of drunkenness is reserved for those individuals who have become intoxicated by the allurements of this world and have lost [End Page 303] their direction here on earth.49 This typically negative term is used of Thomas to describe the extent to which he has immersed himself in the positive bubbling spring. What is true in a negative sense can also be true in a positive one. Thomas is now something other; he is someone who is wholly consumed, overcome, inebriated, and immersed.50
Logion 13 obviously represents some type of transformation for Thomas. Thomas' condition before drinking from the bubbling spring is unstated, while his enlightened position is already implied in the prologue of this gospel, thus linking the insertion of GTh 13 to the period when the incipit was added to the core collection of sayings.51 April De Conick has argued that logion 13 details the transformation of Thomas, a transformation she calls a "fire transformation," wherein he not only becomes enlightened but also is brought to a level of being similar to deity.52 Thomas is clearly superior to Peter and Matthew in this logion, but at the same time this logion is expanded to include a warning against the improper dissemination of gnosis.
For Thomas Christians GTh 13 may represent a correction of the synoptic ideal that Peter is the one chosen by Jesus after successfully responding to the inquiry, "But who do you say that I am?" (Matt 16.15). The verbal similarities are very weak and these two pericopes can only be classed as "cousins," but there does appear to be an overt correction of content. GTh's concern is to promote the disciple Thomas against the background of Matthew and Peter, a telling combination that looks suspiciously like a reformulation of the figure of Peter in Matthew.53 Thomas [End Page 304] becomes transformed and elevated against the other disciples, raising the possibility that Thomas represents the prototypical Thomas Christian.54 The power of transformation is associated with a bubbling spring that Jesus has measured.55 This metaphor of drinking from a spring measured by Jesus is extended in logion 108 to include the entire community. According to logion 108, the promise is that all may become like Jesus, a status parallel to that obtained by Thomas in logion 13.56
The model of GTh's Jesus fits well into this framework. In GTh Jesus appears not as the savior of humankind but as the revealer of esoteric wisdom. The familiar synoptic titles such as Savior, Son of Man, Lord, and Son of God are absent from this gospel. The most common title used for the Revealer is simply "Jesus" without any further elaboration.57 It would appear from the existing evidence that Thomas Christianity did not think of Jesus as a savior at all but more as a historically authoritative teacher. A similar idea is expressed in logion 13 where we see that the emphasis on apostolic insight supercedes apostolic authority.58 Since the words of Jesus lend credence and authority to the ideals of the GTh community, Jesus can then be used to establish the continuing authority of Thomas in GTh. [End Page 305]
The emphasis on enlightenment and personal wisdom in GTh directs our interpretation of the apostle Thomas toward a more metaphorical understanding. There may indeed be some intentional connection being made between the apostle Thomas and Syrian Thomas traditions. There is, however, ample evidence to suggest that Thomas in GTh is a purely literary figure who passes beyond the ordinary ranks of the community and obtains the much-sought-after wisdom. He becomes, in the terminology of GTh, a master, an independent repository of wisdom and insight. The position obtained by Thomas becomes an ideal for Thomas Christians in general, and the invitation to do likewise is openly offered to all those who will seek it. Thomas in GTh breaks the master/pupil mold created by the synoptic accounts.
Teachers Within the Matthean Community
The conclusions drawn by Thomas Christians, and possibly others, regarding the elevation of status for teachers within the community appear to have elicited a clarifying response by the authors/redactors of Matthew. In the Matthean tradition the role of teacher and its attendant ideal figure had been painstakingly developed. The apostle Peter had been put forward not only as the ideal teacher but also as an ideal representative of correct understanding. Thomas Christians, however, put forward their own ideal and model teacher, one that conflicted with and opposed that established by the Gospel of Matthew. The final response in this debate came in the form of Matt 23.10 where it is stated explicitly that teachers must always remain students of the master. The author(s) of Matthew sought to build upon the clear framework and precedent already established in Matt 6.1–6; 16.13–19. In this manner competing and appealing claims of other Christian communities would be undermined and marginalized.
The connection between Matt 16 and 23 is established with two significant verbal links. In the first place the subject of the proper role of teachers and how they should disseminate the truth of the Master is established. Matthew 16 presents the correct understanding of who Jesus is, while Matthew 23 instructs the community on how this understanding should be disseminated. Regardless of title, position, or status within the community, all teachers are to remain as messengers of the word and not to supplant the position of Jesus in the community. The figure of Peter in this discussion would be the best representative example of high office and how those holding such high office must be diligent against abuses.
The second narrative link is the image of keys, which are given to Peter [End Page 306] in Matt 16.19, that enable him to "bind and loose" and the keys of the scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites, which are used to shut the doors of heaven (23.13). In the background there is an argument being made in Matthew that Jesus has the authority to grant these keys, whereas the Jewish leadership has had these keys in the past. Peter emerges as the sole possessor of those keys, the Peter who has come to know Jesus correctly and who will never surpass the Master but will always remain as his servant .
The content and structure of Matt 23 reveal a concern within the Gospel of Matthew to correct improper attitudes toward accepting honorific titles, especially that of teacher. Matthew 21–23 does not follow Lukan order but relies heavily on the sequence of Mark 12. It is at Matt 23.1 that Matthew diverges from the Markan order and inserts some Q materials, although sparingly.59 Matthew 23.1–36 then begins a new section of uniquely Matthean combinations with somewhat random insertions from Q 11. Matthew does not obligate himself to the Q 11 order, neither does he continue to follow his pattern of adopting the order of Mark 12. It is here in this added section of Matt 23 that the Matthean focus comes into the foreground. Matthew's additions, or the Matthean special material, in this passage reveal a concern regarding the role of Christian teachers within the community.
The significant parallel between Matt 6.1–6, 16–18 and Matt 23.1–12 suggests a common background and the possibility that Matt 23 is a later clarification of concerns arising from the Matt 6 discourse. Davies and Allison cite several structural similarities between Matt 23.1–12 and Matt 6.1–6, 16–18. The primary areas of overlap are the identification of proper Christian behavior against the background of improper Jewish religious behavior. Secondly, both passages warn against hypocrisy and outward religious piety within the Christian community. And finally, both define the new community in light of its former Jewish heritage.60 The Matthean passage also introduces a new audience to the Mark/Luke framework. Whereas Mark has crowds (12.37b) and Luke has disciples (20.15), Matthew has crowds, disciples, Pharisees, and scribes as an audience (23.1). The introduction of Pharisees and scribes here is consistent with the suggestion that Matthew is clarifying concerns that have [End Page 307] arisen from the Matt 6 discourse, since a similar audience is suggested in Matt 6.61 Matthew 6 had been used in Matthew as part of the original discussion on proper attitudes and appearances and is closely linked to the suggestion of Matt 15.1–20 that Peter and the Twelve will not mislead or misdirect the community.
Schweizer has suggested a triadic structure to Matt 23, each segment having a corresponding audience. He identifies the first audience as the "crowds" (vv. 2–7), the second as the "disciples" (vv. 8–12), and the third as the "Pharisees" (vv. 13–33).62 The focal audience for the instruction on Christian teachers/teaching would therefore be the disciples, the representatives of the future of the community. The shift in audience from v. 7 to v. 8 is signified by the use of ; that is to say, "but as for you," you should observe the following regulations.
This originally Jewish background audience may be seen in Matthew's use of the terms "rabbi, Moses' seat, fringes , phylacteries," and "best seats in the synagogue." These terms indicate that the conflict originated between those who placed greater emphasis on Jewish heritage than on Christian beginnings, a conflict that extends back to Matt 6.63
The corrections of improper religious teachers in Matt 23 reveal the concerns of a Christian community attempting to avoid the growing distinctions being made between teachers and students. For each negative example of a religious teacher there is a corresponding Christian ideal. The triadic formulation is rabbi/brother, father-on-earth/father-in-heaven, and master/Christ. The rabbi/brother parallel immediately draws the attention of the exegete, since the natural corollary to rabbi would be student. The term looks more like a term of Christian brotherhood, and hence a reflection of the Matthean community, than an early correction of the role of "rabbis" within the community. Also, the master/ Christ relationship alludes to the fact that Christ is to remain the master/ instructor of the community and that no one within is to take on this role.64 This worldview is a stark contrast to the acceptance of such a role [End Page 308] in GTh. The passive construction of Matt 23.8, 10 also suggests that these are community appellations, since it makes no sense whatsoever to have outsiders identifying Christians with this terminology.
The overall concern of the Matt 23 pericope is to retain the role of prominence held by Jesus in the community and to recognize that all teaching should continue to come through him. Of necessity, teachers must remain as students to the master teacher; otherwise the community will flounder, while at the same time the elevation of the role of teacher is to be avoided.65
Matt 23.10 is strengthened by an earlier saying, Matt 10.25 (Q 6.40), which opens the way for the student to become like his or her master teacher. In this saying Jesus says, "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master; it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master" (Q 6.40/Matt 10.24–25). Is Matt 23.8–10 also meant to clarify any misinterpretations that may have arisen from this earlier saying of the Q tradition, much like the correction that Matt 23 makes to the Matt 6 material? If yes, it is also possible that the author of GTh had access to this tradition in its Q or pre-Q form. Matthew's clarifying tendency is already indicated in its additions to Q 6.40. Matthew adds, "it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master" (my trans.). In the Matthean additions to Q 6 there is an attempt to show that the master/teacher relationship remains fixed and that emulation of the teacher is the ideal. It is not until this slightly open door is fully opened by Thomas Christians that the community must offer an unequivocal statement on the teacher/master relationship.
Summary
The organization of the Christian community left behind by Jesus is often felt to be the product not of the historical Jesus of Nazareth but of subsequent Christian converts and leaders. As the emerging Christian church sought to establish itself in line with its origins and in the environment of the larger Roman world, it had to make critical decisions regarding structure and organization. From the New Testament texts left to us, there is not sufficient evidence to argue that there was a firmly established [End Page 309] model of Christian teacher. Nearly every New Testament text can be used to demonstrate that competing claims were being made by those who considered themselves to be Christians and teachers of the word. It is no wonder then that the contours of the debate concerning the role of Christian teachers in earliest Christianity might be exposed in the records they have passed on.
One such debate can be seen in the conversation that took place between the authors of Matthew and GTh. The controversy began early in the Gospel of Matthew with the incorporation of the ambiguous text of Q 6.40, which sought to establish the relationship between teacher and master. In this saying, however, the door is opened to allow for the understanding that disciples and servants can be "like" their teacher. The difficulties of this saying were worked out in the Gospel of Matthew by establishing Peter as the ideal for the community. With Peter in place as the idealized disciple, subsequent references to him could be used to establish his role as a teacher.
In order to underline its position the Gospel of Matthew established a representative model of what Christians should know and how that knowledge relates to Jesus. For the Gospel of Matthew Peter is the primary representative of this viewpoint. This viewpoint, however, leaves several unanswered questions regarding the continued relationship between the teacher and master. Sometime after the writing of Matthew 16, GTh sought to establish its foothold in early Christianity by offering its own model of Christian teacher. In the context of GTh this saying is clearly redactional and was added to the collection at about the same time that the incipit was added. Like the Gospel of Matthew, GTh offered its own idealized disciple modeled on the figure of Peter in Matthew and possibly also that of the beloved disciple in the Gospel of John. In direct conversation with Matthew 16 the author of GTh adopted Matthew's famous Petrine pericope and altered it to fit the needs of the Thomas community. Like Peter in Matthew, Thomas in GTh converses directly with Jesus. The correction offered by GTh is that teachers can become equal to the master, to the point where they no longer need personalized instruction from the master. Logion 13, which establishes this model, also offers criticism of Matthew and Peter. Given the clear indicators that GTh 13 is a corrective of Matthew 16, one can then conclude that a redaction of GTh took place sometime after the redaction of Q by Matthew.
The final piece of the puzzle is the Matthean condemnation of contemporary teachers in Matt 23. While it may not have been directed solely at the author(s) of GTh, there is clearly an intentional correction of the [End Page 310] model established by GTh. In this final piece of evidence Matthew established the fact that teachers are to remain forever as servants to the master teacher and are not to supplant him in the community. The teacher will always remain a servant. [End Page 311]
Thomas A. Wayment is Assistant Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University
Footnotes
1. Gilles Quispel was among the earliest to argue that the Thomas tradition contained sayings that were independent of the synoptic gospels. His numerous publications in Vigiliae Christianae represent a continued refinement of this thesis. See "The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament," VC 11 (1957): 189–207, repr. in idem, Gnostic Studies (Netherlands: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1975), 2:3–16; "L'Evangile selon Thomas et le Diatessaron," VC 13 (1959): 87–117, repr. in Gnostic Studies, 2:31–55; "Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas," NTS (1958/59): 276–90; "L'Evangile selon Thomas et le 'Texte Occidental' du Nouveau Testament," VC 14 (1960): 204–15; and "The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews," NTS 12 (1966): 371–82. See also Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990), 84-124; Stephen Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1993); Birger A. Pearson, Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 124-35; Helmut Koester, "Gnomai Diaphorai: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity," in James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester, Trajectories Through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 114-57; James Robinson, "Logoi Sophon: On the Gattung of Q," in Robinson and Koester, Trajectories, 71-113; Ron Cameron, "The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins," in The Future of Early Christianity, ed. Birger A. Pearson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 381-92; and Bruce Chilton, "The Gospel According to Thomas as a Source of Jesus' Teaching," in Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels, ed. David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 161.
2. Cf. Jonathan Z. Smith, "The Garments of Shame," HR 5 (1965-66): 217-38; and Bruce Lincoln, "Thomas-Gospel and Thomas-Community: A New Approach to a Familiar Text," NT 19 (1977): 65-76.
3. The work of G. Riley is exemplary in detailing this phenomenon. See idem, "Thomas Tradition and the Acts of Thomas," in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1991, ed. Eugene Lovering (Atlanta: Scholars, 1991), 533-42; and idem, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).
4. GTh 13 (Nag Hammadi Codex II, ed. Bentley Layton [Leiden: Brill, 1989]; trans. John S. Kloppenborg, et al., Q Thomas Reader [Sonoma: Polebridge, 1990], 132).
5. The opinion that Matthew is here borrowing from Mark is hardly a consensus among New Testament scholars. Scholars are still sharply divided over whether there was an independent Q version of the pericope or whether Matthew borrowed and conflated Mark. Cf. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., The Gospel According to Matthew, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 2:602-43; Rudolf Bultmann, "Die Frage nach der Echtheit von Mt 16.17-19," Theologische Blatter 20 (1941): 265-79; Cristoph Kähler, "Zum Form- und Traditions-geschichte von Mt 16, 17-19," NTS 23 (1976/77): 36-58; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 353-79; and Bernard P. Robinson, "Peter and His Successors: Tradition and Redaction in Matthew 16:17-19," JSNT 21 (1984): 85-104.
6. Mark contains the plural subject "Jesus and the disciples" (8.27a), while Matthew has placed the disciples already at Caesarea Philippi waiting for Jesus to arrive alone (Matt 16.13a).
7. Here again Matthew's emphasis can be detected against its Markan background. Mark directs his readers toward the belief in Jesus as the Messiah (Mark 8.29b; Luke 9.20b), whereas Matthew adds "Son of the Living God" (Matt 16.16b).
8. Augustine and Jerome, both commenting on Matthew 16.15, interpret Peter as the representative spokesman for the Twelve. See Luz, Matthew 8-20, 361 n. 53; Augustine, Sermo 76.1; Jerome Comm. in Matt. 16.15 (CCSL 77:140).
9. Matthew strengthens their rejoinder with , which appears three times, two of which are used in the construction, "truly you are the Son of God" (Matt 14.33; 27.54) and the third being used to describe Peter's partnership with Jesus (Matt 26.73).
10. Luz, Matthew 8-20, 349.
11. "Peter" is omitted twice by Matthew where Mark records the name: Matt 9.22-23 (Mark 5.37) and Matt 28.7 (Mark 16.7). In each instance in Mark Peter does not function as a representative but instead is granted special individual recognition. Matthew, in an attempt to underline Peter as a representative voice, may have removed the more individualistic Peter from its Markan source.
12. Cf. Mark 7.1-23.
13. Pheme Perkins, Peter: Apostle for the Whole Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 66.
14. Cf. the incipit and logion 13. Ismo Dunderberg, "Thomas and the Beloved Disciple," in Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, ed. Risto Urro (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), 83-84.
15. Some of the same characteristics used to describe the disciples in GTh are also prevalent in the Synoptics. See Henry E. W. Turner and Hugh Montefiore, Thomas and the Evangelists (London: SCM Press, 1962), 89. In both GTh and the Synoptics the disciples are slow. The prologue of GTh may seek to correct this for the community by extending the offer to "discover" to a wider audience.
16. Douglas Parrot, "Gnostic and Orthodox Disciples in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries," in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, ed. Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson Jr. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986), 197, has noted that the appearance of Mary in gnostic tractates and her absence in orthodox ones suggests that she is a stock figure.
17. Turner and Montefiore, Thomas and the Evangelists, 89.
18. R. Trevihano Etcheverria, "La Incomprensiòn de los Discípulos en el Evangelio de Tomás," SP 17 (1982): 244-45, argues that the disciples are a window through which one can discern the inner workings of the Thomas community. Logion 62 promises that the worthy will be given the mysteries of the kingdom. The "worthy" in this saying are most likely the faithful of the community.
19. Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of Early Christianity, trans. idem (New York and Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 2:152-53, holds that GTh 12 and 13 reveal a rift in the community between those who want to defend the authority of Thomas against that of James while at the same time maintaining a positive portrayal of James.
20. The figure of Thomas in GTh is unique. A strong case can be made that certain Thomas traditions, the incipit and logion 13, were added to the collection at a later date. They may indeed reflect a concern in the community to preserve the identity and authority of Thomas against what is being said of him in other Christian communities. Cf. Patterson, Thomas and Jesus, 116-17, who adds logion 114 to this later redaction. Pheme Perkins, "Pronouncement Stories in the Gospel of Thomas," Semeia 20 (1981): 124, takes the opposite approach to this question. She views the term "disciples" as a reference to uncomprehending Christians and posits that certain questions of Jesus may be inquiries meant to gauge understanding. The named disciples she understands as corrections of various apostolic traditions.
21. See Patterson, Thomas and Jesus, 127-28.
22. Cf. Johannes B. Bauer, "Das Jesuswort 'Wer mir nahe ist,'" Theologische Zeitschrift 15 (1959): 447, who argues that kingdom of heaven is a metaphor for eternal life in GTh.
23. The term "disciple(s)" appears numerous times in GTh 6, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 37, 43, 51, 52, 53, 55, 60, 61, 99, 101, and 113; it should also be supplied in several logia as the antecedent of "you" or "they/them." For GTh, the disciples are generally they who receive the teachings of Jesus in a positive manner.
24. Understanding GTh as the product of a distinct, individual community is the simplest way to make sense of the various and sometimes conflicting viewpoints of disciples. Scholars have increasingly argued that GTh is the work of a single Christian community. See Kloppenborg, et al., Q Thomas Reader, 77-121.
25. In the Second Apocalypse of James secret revelations are passed on to James, who is a guide to salvation, much as he appears to be in GTh 12.
26. G. Quispell, "The Gospel of Thomas Revisited," in Colloque International Nag Hammadi, ed. B. Barc (Québec: L'Université Laval, 1981), 242-43, has argued that the prevalence of James in logion 12 is evidence for a Jewish Christian background to some of the sayings in GTh. Cf. James M. Robinson, "On Bridging the Gulf from Q to the Gospel of Thomas (or vice versa)," in Hedrick and Hodoson, Nag Hammadi, 151.
27. Patterson, Thomas and Jesus, 116-17.
28. If Patterson, Thomas and Jesus, 116-17, is correct in placing the prologue as a later addition to the collection of sayings, then there is a strong indication that the author or redactor of the prologue intended the entire collection to be understood in light of this saying. Therefore, the prologue colors the whole collection with the promise of obtaining secret wisdom.
29. Lincoln, "Thomas-Gospel and Thomas-Community," 69-76. Although modern scholarship has not followed Lincoln in his schematic breakdown of the Thomas community, his study remains useful in its ability to perceive different levels of spirituality in GTh.
30. "Alone" or "solitary" are also viable translations of monacos. I opt for "unified" because it more accurately represents the theology of GTh.
31. Catherine Albanese, "Inwardness: A Study of Some Gnostic Themes and Their Relation to Early Christianity," Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale 43 (1976): 65-88.
32. Representative of these three viewpoints are Wayne Meeks, "The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity" HR 13 (1974): 193-95; Howard C. Kee, "'Becoming a Child' in the Gospel of Thomas," JBL 82 (1963): 307-14; and Burton Mack, "Lord of the Logia: Savior or Sage?" in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor of James M. Robinson (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1990), 3-18.
33. The phrase n;oupn;a; eFonH may be intended as a direct contrast to those who are alive but who have not been enlightened. The revealer of GTh is said, in the prologue, to be living, while those who are living are promised that they will not die (logion 11). Meeks, "Image of the Androgyne," 195 n. 133, has argued that this phrase may be an allusion to Gen 2.7 where Adam is described as a living spirit.
34. The ideal of androgyny may also be implied in logion 72.3 ("I am not a divider, am I?"). The attempt is made to disassociate Jesus from the force that divides humankind, and hence divides him into male and female.
35. For each of the pairs that are to be replaced the Coptic has a singular noun that is to be replaced by itself. The Coptic pairs are a for a
, a
for a
, and an
for an
. The only difference in the pairs is that the replaced item is intentionally located, while the existing item is there by virtue of its preexisting condition. This slight difference suggests that Thomas Christians are supposed to recognize the need to intentionally organize their surroundings, including their own perceptions and presuppositions.
36. Admittedly, one might expect here a reference to hearing and listening, but this idea is found only in logion 24.2 and is a synoptic saying.
37. Cyril C. Richardson, "The Gospel of Thomas: Gnostic or Encratite?" in The Heritage of Early Christianity (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1973), 70.
38. Meeks, "Image of the Androgyne," 193-95.
39. Stevan Davies, "The Christology and Protology of the Gospel of Thomas," JBL 111 (1992): 670; Mack, "Lord of the Logia," 11; and Etcheverria, "Incomprensi òn de los Discípulos," 243.
40. Patterson, Thomas and Jesus, 95, lists GTh 13 as a "cousin" to Matt 16.13-20.
41. See Bertil Gärtner, The Theology of the Gospel According to Thomas, trans. E. Sharpe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961), 121-25; Henri C. Puech, "Une collection de paroles de Jésus récemment retrouvée: L'Évangile selon Thomas," Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1957): 156; Robert M. Grant and David N. Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1960), 127; Hans M. Schenke, "The Function and Background of the Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of John," in Hedrick and Hodgson, Nag Hammadi, 124; Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered, 112-14; Stevan Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom (New York: Seabury Press, 1982); A. F. Walls, "The References to Apostles in the Gospel of Thomas," NTS 7 (1960-61): 266-70; Robert M. Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (London: Mowbray, 1960), 112; and Marco Frenschkowski, "The Enigma of the Three Words of Jesus in Gospel of Thomas Logion 13," The Journal of Higher Criticism 1 (1994): 73-84.
42. Cf. Richard Valentasis, The Gospel of Thomas (New York and London: Routledge, 1997), 74-75.
43. Perkins, "Pronouncement Stories," 123, has demonstrated that the "lack of fit" between questions and answers is a typical feature of gnostic dialogues. The use of opposites to illustrate a principle can be seen in the saying on Adam (85), on hating father and mother (105), on who will live and who will die (61.1), on circumcision (53), and on discovering the nature of the world (56). These sayings are representative of a topos that is inherent in the teachings of GTh.
44. There exists a weak parallel between GTh 13 and Matt 16.13-23; Mark 8.27-33; Luke 9.18-22. In its current form logion 13 is closer to Matthew and Mark, since the Lukan form does not account for a private discussion between Jesus and Peter. The only substantial parallels that exist between these two sayings are that in both Jesus asks the disciples to tell him either what he is like or what others have said about him and that the apostle Peter is present in both. Robert Kasser, L'Evangile selon Thomas (Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Editions Delachaux & Niestlé, 1961), 46-49, sees logion 13 as a reformulation of Matt 16 with the answers of the disciples being arranged in order of importance. Cf. Raymond E. Brown, "The Gospel of Thomas and St. John's Gospel," NTS 9 (1962/63): 155-77; and Patterson, Thomas and Jesus, 95. Pheme Perkins, "Peter in Gnostic Revelation," in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1974, ed. George MacRae (Altlanta: Scholars, 1974), 2, sees in this logion the possibility of regional veneration of the apostle Thomas and not the alteration of a synoptic-type saying.
45. Judith L. Kovacs, "Divine Pedagogy and the Gnostic Teacher According to Clement of Alexandria," JECS 9 (2001): 10-12, has demonstrated that in orthodox communities the accepted norm for education was the belief in the gradual attainment of knowledge using the pupil/teacher dichotomy. Both the pupil and teacher continued in their individual roles, with the pupil assuming a lesser status than that of the teacher.
46. An interesting parallel from Clement of Alexandria's Excerpta ex Theodoto 27.1-6 (ed. and trans. Robert P. Casey [London: Christophers, 1934]) relates that the teacher cannot impart knowledge of the Father. According to this passage, there are certain teachings that can only be received by the enlightened self, stripped of bodily concerns.
47. This suggestion was first made by F. W. Beare, "The Gospel According to Thomas: A Gnostic Manual," Canadian Journal of Theology 6 (1960): 105-6.
48. The Coptic ntaeivits carries with it the connotation of measuring and determining. The verb is preceded by the emphatic I , pointing out definitively that Jesus is responsible for measuring out the bubbling spring. Thomas' achievement is that he has successfully drunk from the spring, not that he has discovered the spring.
49. Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity (Boston: Beacon Press, 1963), 70-73. There are several times when drunkenness is used in a positive sense; see Corpus Hermeticum 7.1 (ed. and trans. Walter Scott [Oxford: Clarendon, 1925]); Odes of Solomon 11.6-9. In the Hymn of the Pearl, a section of the Acts of Thomas, the soul becomes intoxicated by outside sources and carries a negative connotation.
50. Jonas, Gnostic Religion, 196. It is significant that only those traditions associated with Thomas, James, and Mary contain the transmission of secrets to individual disciples; see Gos. Mary 10-17 in James M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English (HarperSanFrancisco, 1990), 525-26.
51. "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded." Translated in Kloppenborg, et al., Q Thomas Reader, 129.
52. April De Conick, Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 113-14. Cf. Ernst Haenchen, "Die Anthropologie des Thomas Evangeliums," in Neues Testament und Christiliche Existenz: Festschrift für Herbert Braun, ed. Hans D. Betz and L. Schottroff (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973), 207-27.
53. Cf. Perkins, "Pronouncement Stories," 129. The fact that the author of GTh did not adopt wholeheartedly the pericope of Peter's reception of the keys of the kingdom is telling. Even if the author of GTh 13 transposed Thomas for Peter, the theology of GTh could not tolerate a new individual as a mediator of salvation. Peter becomes a mediator in the synoptic tradition, while Thomas becomes an example in GTh.
54. This same thesis is advanced by Patterson, Thomas and Jesus, 206. Cf. Dunderberg, "Thomas and the Beloved Disciple," 76. Jorunn J. Buckley, "An Interpretation of Logion 114 in The Gospel of Thomas," in Female Fault and Fulfillment in Gnosticism (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 87-94, sees a similar process of transformation being expounded in GTh.
55. Yvonne Janssens, "L'Evangile selon Thomas et son charactère gnostique," Muséon 75 (1962): 308-9.
56. In logia 13 and 108 the idea of personal enlightenment is associated with drinking. In both there is a personal relationship established between what Jesus has either measured out or said and personal enlightenment. If there is indeed an intentional parallel between logia 13 and 108, then we may be able to infer that the blessing promised in 108 is implied in 13. In this case the revelation to Thomas in 13 would simply be, mi. This proposal was first made by Frenschowski, "Three Words of Jesus," 77.
57. The title Son of Man does appear in GTh but not with reference to Jesus; see logion 106. For a complete discussion of this title in GTh, see Maurice Carrez, "Quelques aspects christologiques de l'Évangile de Thomas," in The Four Gospels: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. Frans Van Segbroeckm, et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 2267-76.
58. Patterson, Thomas and Jesus, 116.
59. David E. Garland, The Intention of Matthew 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 14, postulates Mark/Q overlap here, and therefore downplays Matthew's reliance on Q traditions for the development of Matt 23. Cf. Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Zürich: Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1985-2002), 3:294-320.
60. Davies and Allison, Gospel According to Matthew, 3:266.
61. Against this is James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffman, and John S. Kloppenborg, The Critical Edition of Q (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 274-75.
62. Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, trans. D. E. Green (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 430.
63. Edgar Krentz, "Community and Character: Matthew's Vision of the Church," in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1987, ed. Kent H. Richards (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 569, has noted that the phrase "they love to be called rabbi" is a Matthean addition to Mark 12, from which Matthew was borrowing.
64. This suggestion is supported by Luke Timothy Johnson, "The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic," JBL 108 (1989): 433, who suggests further that the function of Matthew 23 is protreptic: to look around at other Christian teachers and recognize that Matthean Christian teachers should not accept such appellations.
65. Krentz, "Community and Character," 569.
