|
[80]
4
Authority and Autonomy
1. 'Who will be our leader?'
A feature that has often invited comments in Thomasine scholarship is the juxtaposition of sayings on James' leadership
in Gos. Thom. 12 and on Thomas' 'wordless confession' in Gos. Thom. 13.
The disciples said to Jesus, 'We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?' [1] Jesus said to them.
'No matter where: you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.' (Gos.
Thom. 12.)
1 Jesus said to his disciples. 'Compare me to something and say what I am like.'
2 Simon Peter said to him, 'You are like a righteous messenger.'
3 Matthew said to him, 'You are like a wise philosopher.'
4 Thomas said to him, 'Master, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like.'
5 Jesus said, 'I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring
that I have tended.'
6 And he took him, and withdrew, and told him three things. "'When Thomas came back to his friends, they asked him.
'What did Jesus say to you?' Thomas said to them: 'If I tell you one of the things he said to me, you will pick up rocks
and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you.' (Gos. Thom. 13.) [6]
The appearance of the two figures is indeed striking. James and Thomas are highlighted in two sayings which follow
each other, but the question of how exactly the authority of these figures should be related does not receive any
explanation and is left for the reader to decide. According to one influential interpretation. Thomas' special position in
Gos. Thom. 13 serves as something of a corrective to the claim about James'
_________
1 Transl. modified from Miller 1994.
[81]
leadership in the previous saying. [2] This, however, opens up a number of further questions. Why is James' authority
retained in the first place if Thomas' position as the recipient of the special revelation and the guarantor of the gospel
tradition (cf. Prologue) supersedes that of James? [3] Is Gos. Thom. 12 a fossilized remnant of an earlier phase
of the tradition which still appealed to the authority of James? [4] Or is the cluster of sayings 12 and 13 an example of a
subtle irony used by the author of the gospel to undermine the 'ecclesiastical' authority represented by James? [5] Or
should James' and Thomas' positions be regarded as parallel or complementary rather than competing ones? [6]
2. Apostles as Symbols
A common presupposition behind many interpretations of Gos. Thom. 12-13 is that they take the figures of James
and Thomas in the text as representatives of specific groups or traditions in early Christianity. [7] Whatever is known of
James and Thomas as historical persons, they later became symbols which some early Christian groups could appeal to
as the ideal leaders of the heroic beginnings and guarantors of the truth of their traditions. Although many authors used
the concept of apostles (e.g., Ephesians; Ignatius; 1 Clement) or the idea of the 'twelve apostles' (Luke) generally, it has
been observed that certain communities claimed a link with a particular apostolic figure ('Johannine Christianity' probably
being the clearest example). [8] Moreover, scholars have not infrequently seen controversies between
__________
2 Koester has argued in several publications that James' authority is 'surpassed' or superseded by that of
Thomas in Gos. Thom. 13. see Koester 1971, 136 and 1989, 40, In another instance, however, Koester formulated
this somewhat differently. The contrast between James and Thomas seeks to strengthen the tradition of Thomas against
the authority of James, 'without denying the latter's claim to leadership in ecclesiastical matters'; see Koester 1982, 152-
2. See also Marjanen 1996, 40-2; 1998a, 119.
3 Patterson 1993a, 116n. 13.
4 Quispel (1967, 97-8) attributed Gos. Thom. 12 to a 'Jewish-Christian' source and saying 13 to an 'encratite'
source. Patterson has suggested that sayings 12 and 13 represent subsequent layer in the compositional history of the
gospel. See Patterson 1993a, 118-20. Patterson's idea has been followed by Crossan (1991, 427-8. 1998, 247-56). For a
discussion of different theories about Thomas stratification, see below, pp. 118- 26.
5 Valantasis 1997, 73.
6 Patterson 1993a, 116 n. 13; see also Koester 1982, 152-3 (above n. 2).
7 These alternatives are not, of course, exclusive, since group-identity must have been heavily dependent on the idea of
a common tradition.
8 Koester 1982, 6-8.
[82]
groups which venerated the heritage of different apostles and figures of authority in critical stories or remarks of
one apostle in some text which is interpreted as an attempt to restrict or decrease me the influence of the corresponding
group. [9] Such controversies may be traced back to the conflicts between the actual historical persons (for example,
between me historical Paul and Peter or James), but for later Christian generations, the apostolic figures became
weapons for both strengthening one's own claim and opposing that of others.
There is no doubt that. for early Christians, figures like James and Thomas were powerful symbols that played an
important role in the legitimation of the traditions of various early Christian groups. Both names can be associated with a
particular geographical area; James with Jerusalem and 'Judas Thomas' with eastern Syria. [10] In the prologue to the
gospel, Thomas is described as a figure of authentication, [11] who wrote down the 'secret words' of the 'living Jesus'
and who thus has a special position among the disciples as a recipient of Jesus' teaching. In some other early Christian
writings, James has a role similar to Thomas in the zzz Gospel of Thomas. [12] The high status of James in
Gos. Thom. 12 may be contrasted with the silence or suppression of James in many early Christian writings (see
below). This seems to give at least some indirect evidence for the claim that controversies continued to be projected
onto the apostolic figures during subsequent Christian generations.
However, reading early Christian history through the images of apostles is not without problems. We do know that
different groups and authors -- both geographically and theologically -- could appeal to the authority of the
same apostle, Paul came to be venerated both in 'gnostic' [13] and 'ecclesiastical' circles (cf. Pastorals). Peter
was honoured
_________
9 This approach is, of course, as old as the so-called 'Tubingen school' established by Ferdinand Christian Baur. He
interpreted the first two Christian centuries in the light of a bitter conflict between the followers of Peter and those of
Paul. A more recent example is Smith 1985, which looks for 'anti-Peter' and 'pro-Peter' traditions in early Christian
writings. Smith does not, however, trace a single Petrine group as Baur did, but rather a number of different groups
stemming from widely divergent backgrounds (ibid., 211).
10 For the east Syrian origin of the name 'Judas Thomas', see pp. 10-15 in this book. For recent studies on James see
below, note 23.
11 See especially Dunderberg 1998b, 65-88.
12 Cf. the Apocryphon of James, which mentions the 'secret books' revealed to James and Peter (or to James
alone) and written down by James.
13 For the second-century gnostic interpretation of Paul, see Pagels 1975.
[83]
as a foundational figure in the congregations of Rome and Antioch. [14] Moreover, using stories of the apostolic figures
as keys to the conflicts between early Christian groups can be very tricky. A good example is the presentation of Peter in
the Gospel of Matthew. It is difficult to decide whether Matthew is promoting Peter's authority as one who has been given
the power of the keys (Matt. 16:19), or undermining his authority as 'a man of little faith' (14:31) who utters satanic words
(l6:33) and finally denies his master (26:69-75). In his characterization of Peter, Matthew is surely doing more than simply
giving a transparent presentation of a contemporary 'Petrine group' [15] We should be cautious not to make textual
characters into kinds of mirror images [16] which directly reject their historical counterparts, whether one thinks of factual
historical persons or groups that later identified themselves as the true cultivators of these persons' heritage. Instead, I
think, we should take seriously the symbolic nature of these images and realize that their use may be motivated by
several concerns, some of which may deal with the narrative logic, others with ideological or 'church-political' realities.
[17] This may, as seems to be the case in Gos. Thom. 12-13, result in a rather complicated network of meanings
which is not easily deciphered into a clear historical interpretation.
One explicit concern in Gos. Thom. 12 is the issue of leadership. The disciples ask who will hold the leading
position among them after Jesus' departure, to which Jesus clearly answers that the position belongs to James the Just.
The dialogue in Gos. Thom. 13 begins as a discussion about the right Christological confession, but the saying
deals with the issue of leadership as well. Thomas' answer, 'Master, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like,'
is qualified by Jesus with the words 'I am not your master.' [18] On the basis of this saying some scholars have
suggested that the Gospel of Thomas champions a
_________
14 Rome revered the memory or both Paul and Peter. whereas Peter also came to be revered as a foundational figure in
Antioch. For the references, sec Bauer 1971. 111-18.
15 Syreeni's recent narrative-critical analysis of Peter in Matthew from the perspective of his 'three-world model' (1999)
demonstrates well the multidimensional nature of Peter's character. According to Syreeni, Matthew's Peter is a 'highly
ambivalent ecclesiastical symbol' (ibid., 132).
16 I owe this metaphor to Syreeni 1999, 109.
17 Cf. Syreeni's (ibid., 116-20) distinction between character (textual phenomenon), person (historical and social reality)
and symbol (ideological dimension).
18 The Coptic word {----}, a derivative from verb {----} ('write'), can be translated either as 'master' or 'teacher.'
[84]
'masterless' ideal of discipleship and opposes hierarchic understanding of community life." This suggestion leads us to
intriguing questions. How is Thomas' 'masterless' ideal related to the development of leadership roles in other early
Christian groups? Is Thomas against any kind of ecclesiastical authority? How should one interpret James' leadership
from this perspective?
The Gospel of Thomas gives only a few and partially contradictory hints of how organizational roles are
envisioned in the gospel. We may, however, shed some more light by comparing Thomas' few statements with
more extensive discussions on leadership in other early Christian documents. In this chapter my primary point of
comparison is the Gospel of Matthew. I have several reasons for such a choice. Matthew is among those early Christian
documents which foster a highly egalitarian model of community life similar to that in Thomas. At the same time, Matthew
highlights the ecclesiastical authority of Peter the Rock in Matt 16: 18-19, which provides an analogy to the authority of
James the Just in Gos. Thom. 12. [20] Finally, the whole pericope of Matt. 16:13-23 has its closest parallel in
Gos. Thom. 13, which makes it difficult to escape the question of the relationship between the Matthean and
Thomasine traditions. [21]
3. James' Leadership
The disciples' question in Gos. Thom. 12 (literally 'Who will be great over us?') bears some resemblance to me
synoptic stories in which the disciples discuss the issue of who is the 'greatest' among them (cf. Mark 9:33-7 and
parallels; see also Mark 10:35-45 and parallels). In these stories Jesus does not designate any of the disciples as having
a special position, but rather gives a general lesson on humble leadership by referring to slaves and children. It is hardly
possible that Gos. Thom. 12 would have been modeled on the pattern of these synoptic stories. [22]
_________
19 Marjanen 1996, 40-2; 1998a. 120; Valantasis 1997, 73.
20 Hengel 1985, 79.
21 A comparison between Thomas and Matthew has seldom been made. Koester (199Oa, 103-7) typically
compares Thomas with Matthew only in connection with parables. Thomas' relation to Q, Mark. and John
receives the major attention.
22 Grant and Freedman (1960, 124-5) argue that the saying is based on John 14:5 as well as on Mark 9:34; 10:43 and the
parallels. Yet me parallelism between the Johannine passage and the disciples' question in Gos. Thom. 12:1 is
remote. As to the synoptic parallels, even Schrage (1964, 51), who generally strongly argues for Thomas'
dependence on the canonical gospels, concludes that the question must be left open in this case.
[85]
It is most likely that the saying represents a tradition which belongs to the same category as Jesus' words on Peter's
leadership and commission (Matt. 16:17-18; cf. also John 21:15-19).
In the canonical gospels James is mentioned only in passing in a few instances among Jesus' siblings (Mark 6:3; Matt.
13:55). Although in Acts he is depicted as the leader of me Jerusalem church. his role is largely eclipsed by those of
Peter and Paul. Recent scholarship on James has become increasingly aware that James played a much more prominent
role in the earliest decades of me Jesus movement than one is able to conclude on the basis of the New Testament. [23]
The letters of Paul, and Acts, to be sure, contain some important clues supporting the suggestion of James' leading
position in the Christian movement from the very beginning, [24] Non-canonical sources and Josephus confirm this
conclusion and suggest that during the first and second centuries James was venerated among many groups as the
most prominent authority next to Jesus. [25] Some of the sources, most notably the Gospel of Hebrews, [26]
describe James as being appointed to his position and legitimated by Jesus himself, Just like Peter in the canonical
texts. With its explicit statement about the position of James as a successor of Jesus, Gos. Thom. 12 can be
seen as being part of such traditions.
There are further indications that Gos. Thom. 12 derives from a group that took James' 'primacy' seriously. The
saying uses the epithet 'Just' or 'Righteous' {----}, which does not appear in the New Testament but is instead found in
many of the sources that seem to preserve traces of James' priority. [27] It has sometimes been argued that
_________
23 See Hengel 1985; Pratscher 1987: Ward 1992; the articles published in Chilton and Evans 1999; and especially Painter
1999.
24 See Gal. 1:17-19; 2:1-14; 1 Cor. 15:7; Acts 1:14; 12:17; 15; 21:17-26.
25 Crossan (1998, 463) makes this point succinctly: 'If you read a non-Christian source such as Josephus... you would
know only two individuals in earliest Christianity: one is Jesus himself and the other is his brother James.'
26 The Gospel of Hebrews reported James' participation in the last supper and Jesus' appearance to him after the
resurrection; see Jerome, Vir. ill. 2 (= Gos. Hebr. 7). Also some traditions preserved by Eusebius seem to
presuppose the direct appointment of James by Jesus, and James' leading position in Jerusalem right after the
resurrection; see the quotation from Outlines Book VIII of Clement of Alexandria in Hist. eccl. 2.1 and 7.
19.1 (but compare with the quotation from Book VII of Clement's work and Hist. eccl. 2.23.1 ); for an analysis, see
Painter 1999, 105-58. esp. 114.
27 Gos. Hebr. 7; 1 Apoc. Jas. 32.2-3; 2 Apoc. Jas. 44.14; 59.22; 60.12; 61.14; Eusebius, Hist.
eccl. 2.23.7.
[86]
the epithet was given to him because of his martyrdom, [28] but it is possible that the name was already used during
James' lifetime because of his exemplary and pious lifestyle. [29] The peculiar characterization of James as the one 'for
whose sake heaven and earth came into being' is often noted as a typical Jewish expression which is used of such
exemplary righteous persons as Abraham, Moses, David, Hanina ben Dosa Of me Messiah. [30] These features strongly
support the view that Gos. Thom. 12 goes back ultimately to the circles who venerated James as the most
important leader of the Christian movement after Jesus. [31] It is natural to think that these circles were in some way
connected with, or rooted in, the Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem.
There are, on the other hand, signs that in the present context the meaning of me saying is modified with several
intratextual references. There is a catchword connection with the statement in the previous saying that 'this heaven (---) will
pass away, and the one above it will pass away' (11:1). The statement may be seen as relativizing James' authority as
something which is temporary and will pass away. A variant of this saying is found in Gos. Thom. 111 ('The
heavens and me earth will be rolled up in your presence'), which is glossed with an editor's comment ' Does not Jesus
say, "Those who have found themselves, of them the world is not worthy"?' [32] The latter part of this comment repeats
the phrase which is also found in Gos. Thom. 56 and 80, two closely parallel sayings on the world as a 'body' or
'corpse.' As I have argued, these sayings may be seen as characterizing the world and the human body as something
external to a person's true domain. [33]
_________
28 Ward 1992, 801, with references to Wisd. of Sol. 2:17f. Matt. 23:29,35; James 5:6 and Isa. 3:10 (Hegesippus quoted
the last one in his description of James' death; see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.23.15); see also Painter 1999, 157.
29 Hengel 1985, 80. This does not mean, however, that Hegesippus' description of James (Hist. eccl. 2.23) as a
Nazirite and extreme ascetic is historically accurate.
30 Scholars usually refer to Ginzberg 1925. Menard (1975, 97) states that the expression makes Gos. Thom. 12
'juif d'apparence, mais antijuif dans son interpretation,' since it elevates James to the same position as the Torah,
Abraham, Moses, and the Messiah. It is much more probable, however, that the characterization of James merely
underscores his exemplary piety without any 'anti-Jewish' overtones.
31 Similar language is used of James in the Second Apocalypse of James 55.24-5 ('You are whom the heavens
bless') and 56.2-5 ('For your sake they will be told these things), and will come to rest, for your sake they will reign [and
will] become kings...'). Transl. C. W. Hedrick in Parron 1979.
32 Transl. from Miller 1994. Schenke (1994, 19-20) sees here a trace of a commentary from which Thomas' sayings
have been extracted (see below, pp. 127-9).
33 See pp. 69-70 in this book.
[87]
A careful reader of Jesus' sayings in the gospel is thus able to gather that James' leadership, praised in saying 12,
belongs ultimately to the sphere of the temporary and the external. Those who understand and 'have found themselves'
are superior to the world ('the world is not worthy of them') [34] and are therefore also superior to their leaders, while the
latter are seen as part of the transient structures of this world. Moreover, it should be noted that, already at the beginning
of the gospel, Thomas' audience had been encouraged to take a critical attitude toward religious leaders who naively
teach that the kingdom is in heaven or in the underworld (Gos. Thom. 3). It is somewhat unclear whether the saying
refers to the teachers or leaders who were recognized as such by Thomas' audience, [35] but in the light of what is
said about their teaching, it seems obvious enough that they were Christian leaders.
Another trait of saying 12, which is modified by its context within the collection as a whole, is the localization of James'
authority. It is possible that originally the somewhat surprising exhortation 'wherever you are, you are to go to James'
could be explained by me fact that, in the tradition, James' leadership was firmly placed in the 'mother church' of
Jerusalem. [36] However, in the Thomasine perspective, such localization of authority may be contrasted with the
rejection of any attempt to localize the kingdom or Jesus' presence (e.g., Gos. Thom. 3; 24; 77:2; 91; 97; 113).
When the disciples ask Jesus to show 'the place' where he is, Jesus turns their attention to the 'light within a person of
light' (24). [37] James, in contrast, does have a place where he is, and the disciples are asked to go to him. This creates
a tension between the basic thrust of Gos. Thom. 12 and some central theological emphases of Thomas found
elsewhere in the gospel. These considerations lead us to a closer examination of Gos. Thom. 13 since this saying
is commonly
_________
34 Cf. also Heb. 11:38. The expression is also found in rabbinic literature (e.g. Mek. 5a; Sanh. 11:1).
35 The Coptic version uses the expression {----}, which is best translated as 'those who lead you,' the verb {----} being an
equivalent of the Greek {----}; see Crum 1939, 327. The Greek form {----}; 'those who attract' or 'draw you on') may also be
understood as referring to outside leaders or propagators; see Uro 1990, 15 n. 38, 18 (cf. the synoptic parallels in Mark
13:21-3; Matt. 24:23-6; Luke 17:20-3).
36 Cf. Patterson (1993a, 151), who sees here an indication that Thomasine Christians are dispersed and itinerant.
37 The 'the place of life' in Gos. Thom. 4, though seemingly local, is in essence a 'non-place', a primordial place
beyond time and space (cf. also 50:1).
[88]
seen as functioning as a redefinition or modification of James' leadership in the preceding saying.
4. Thomas and Peter
The form of Gos. Thom. 3 is closely related to the synoptic accounts of Peter's confession in Mark 8:27-33 and
parallels (cf. also John 6:66-71). Each of the synoptic versions has Jesus asking the disciples about their opinions of
him, with a number of different characterizations of Jesus' identity given, culminating in the final confession of one of the
disciples and Jesus' response. Except in Luke, a private discussion follows the scene of the confession in each gospel,
although in Mark (8:32) and Matthew (16:22) it is Peter who takes Jesus aside to rebuke him, whereas in Thomas, Jesus
tells Thomas 'three things' or 'words' {----} in private (Gos. Thom. 13:6-8). Only in Matthew and Thomas does
Jesus' response contain a reference to the divine source of the confession (cf. the blessing in Matt. 16:17 and Thomas'
intoxication in Gos. Thom. 13:5) which is affirmed with the unique role that Jesus assigns to the disciple who has
given the appropriate answer. Mark has only the command to keep Jesus' identity a secret (cf. also Matt. 16:20; Luke
9:21). The closeness between the Matthean and Thomasine versions is reinforced by the fact that the previous saying on
James' leadership (Gos. Thom. 12) can be seen, as argued above, as an analogy to the 'investiture' of Peter in
Matt. 16:17-19.
In spite of these affinities between Matt. 16:13-20 and Gos. Thom. 13, it is not likely that Thomas is directly
dependent on the Gospel of Matthew (or Matthew on Thomas, for that matter). [38] The similarities between the
Matthean and Thomasine accounts lie more in the general structure of the account than in details that would indicate
scribal reworking. [39] To be sure, one could argue that this structure has resulted from Matthew's redactional
composition, because he added the blessing and the appointment of Peter to Mark's Story, where they are absent. In
that case one could consider the possibility of 'secondary orality,' that is, the influence of Matthew's literary redaction on
the oral tradition
_________
38 Pace Smith (1985, 115), who argues that logion 13 is 'a Gnostic version of the Matthean Caesarea
Philippi event' (Smith's italics). Cf. Gartner (1960, 114), who add that Gos. Thom. 13 is 'evidently an edited and
expanded form of Mark 8:29'; see also Wilson 1960, 112.
39 For scribal and oral cultures, see below. pp. 109-15.
[89]
drawn upon by Thomas. [40] On the other hand, it is not at all clear that the abrupt silencing command in Mark 8:30 was
the only way in which the story was traditionally told until Matthew's pen reformulated it. Most scholars are unwilling to
regard all of Matt. 16: 17-19 as Matthew's creation. One solution to the problem is to place these verses in some other
pre-Matthean setting, for example, in a post-resurrection appearance story [41] or in the context of the Last Supper (cf.
Luke 22:31-4), [42] but these assumptions can rightly be contested. [43] While many scholars have sought to trace a
separate pre-Matthean tradition [44] or individual sayings behind Matt. 16:17-19, [45] some have argued that there is no
better setting for Matt. 16:17-19 in the gospel history than the confession at Caesarea Philippi. [46] The former view
leaves us with an isolated tradition or traditions (the 'rock saying' v. 18, [47] and 'binding and loosing' v. 19bc [48]), but it
must be admitted that the latter argument has some force. It is natural to think that the appointment of Peter as the
foundational 'rock' in v. 18 was preceded by some kind of positive initiative on Peter's part. The 'confession' is the best
context we can imagine. This argument could be used to support the view that all
_________
40 Uro 1993. Cf. also Saunders 1963, 59.
41 E.g., Bultmann 1968, 259. Some scholars limit the post-resurrection addition to verses 16:18-19, while 16:17 is taken
basically as Matthew's composition or creation; set Vogtle 1973; Brown et al. 1973, 86-91.
42 Cullmann 1967, 205-7.
43 Cullmann's suggestion has not gained much following (Brown et al. 1973, 85). Much more common is the claim
that Matt. 16:17-19 (or part of it) was originally a post-resurrection tradition. Bultmann (1968, 259) referred to 'a clear
parallel' in the post-resurrection episode in John 21:15-19 (cf. also 20:22-3) and argued that this tradition derived
ultimately from the first appearance of the risen Christ to Peter (cf. 1 Cor. 15:5). Yet the parallalism with John 21:15-19 is
not as 'clear' as Bultmann suggests; for criticism, see Robinson 1984, 87-8; Davies and Allison 1991, 608-9. Moreover, in
whatever context Peter's confession was originally told, the confession, the blessing and the investiture make a good
story. The suggestion that a lost account of the first appearance to Peter was later replaced with stories like Matt. 16:13-
20 and John 21:15-19 is strained.
44 E.g. Kunzel 1978, 180-93.
45 E.g., Robinson 1984; Luz 1990, 453-9.
46 Davies and Allison 1991, 606- 7, They also argue that 'many of the arguments against a dominial origin are not as
persuasive as often thought, and there are weighty points to be made on the other side' (ibid., 615). See also the
arguments for the authenticity of Matt. 16:17-19 in Meyer 1979, 185-97. In my opinion, however, a much more natural
setting for the origin of the tradition is a later time when the issues of legitimization and leadership had become acute.
47 Cf. John 1:42; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14.
48 Cf. Matt. 18:18 and John 20:23.
[90]
of Matt. 16:17-19 is more or less Matthew's creation. Yet one cannot exclude the possibility that Matthew used an
existing story in which not only an abrupt command to silence but also an affirmation and Peter's appointment followed
the confession. Perhaps the most weighty point in support of the latter conclusion is Matthew's ambivalent attitude
toward Peter's ecclesiastical authority. Would Matthew have created the sayings on Peter's investiture just to be able to
formulate an ironic contrast between Peter as a 'rock' and as a 'stumbling block' (Matt. 16:23)? [49]
Should one then regard Gos. Thom. 13 as a polemical response to the tradition behind (or born of) Matt. 16:13-20,
elevating Thomas' authority and undermining that of Peter? [50] In Thomas it is Peter who, together with Matthew, gives
an inadequate answer, whereas in the synoptic accounts the inadequate answers are presented as popular opinions and
not as opinions of particular disciples. Thomas' formulation can thus be seen as accentuating Peter's (and Matthew's)
inadequacy. [51] It has been also noted that in Gos. Thom. 114 Peter similarly gives an opinion that Jesus
corrects.
On the other hand one should not overemphasize Peter's lack of understanding in the Gospel of Thomas. The
incomprehension of the disciples is a well-known theme in the gospel tradition, the most striking example being the
Gospel of Mark, [52] but this theme is in no way restricted to Mark. For example, just before Peter's confession, Matthew
can depict the disciples as complete fools who are not able to understand a simple figure of speech, i.e., the 'leaven' of
Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 16:5-12; cf. Mark 8:14-21). Thomas elaborates the traditional theme of
incomprehension in several sayings in which the disciples' (or the audience's) failure has an important rhetorical function
in contrasting the human situation to Jesus' divine revelation. [53] Thus, if Thomas were to be described as 'anti-
Petrine' it should also be
_________
49 Cf. Mark 8:33, in which the 'stumbling block' is lacking. Some scholars have emphasized the irony in Matthew's
presentation; see, e.g., Stock 1987. The ambivalence of Matthew has made the pericope an easy target of a
deconstructionist analysis; see Bubar 1995.
50 Smith (1985, 116) sees an 'anti-Peter stance' in sayings 12 and 13. Note also that scholars have often interpreted Matt
16:17-19 as being polemical; e.g., Manson 1957, 203-4 (against Paul) and Davies 1964, 338-9 (against James).
51 It has sometimes been suggested that Matthew and Peter stand as representative figures for the apostolic tradition
contained in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, the latter gospel being guaranteed by the authority of Peter; see Walls
1960-1, 267; Smith 1985, 115.
52 Raisanen 1990, 195-222.
53 Typically Gos. Thom. 43; see also Gos. Thom. 22; 24; 51; 52; 53; 91; 92; 99; 104; 113; 114.
[91]
characterized as showing antipathy toward the (male) [54] disciples in general (except for Thomas, of course). More
consistently than in Mark, which is the most striking example of the synoptics in this respect, the disciples in
Thomas never explicitly say that they understand Jesus' teaching. [55] Thomas' description of Peter must
therefore be put into a broader context than that of specifically anti-Petrine polemics. Peter is a rank-and-file disciple just
like Matthew, but there is no strong case for the view that Gos. Thom. 13 should be read as a deliberate attack
against Peter's leadership or against a group that venerated Peter's authority. [56] A far more probable explanation is that
the saying uses the motif of the disciples' incomprehension as a foil to elevate one particular disciple, that is Thomas, as
a recipient of special revelation. The inability of the other disciples to deal with such deeper enlightenment becomes
evident at the end of the saying, where it is said that, had the other disciples been told one of the things revealed to
Thomas, they would 'pick up stones and throw them' at Thomas. [57]
Even though it may be difficult to describe the precise relationship between Gos. Thom. 13 and its synoptic
parallels in terms of tradition history, some differences and similarities can be observed in the gospels' use of the
secrecy motif. In Mark 8:27-30. Peter utters the messianic confession as the spokesman of the disciples: Jesus
addresses and responds to all of them. There is no indication that Peter has reached understanding or received a
revelation beyond those of the other disciples. In Matthew's version, Peter dearly occupies a unique position, even
though in the context of the whole gospel his confession
_________
54 It seems that the female disciples are not depicted as ones who completely lack understanding; see Marjanen 1996,41
(1998c, 92).
55 The incomprehension of the disciples as one of the main themes of Thomas was pointed out by Sellew 1997b,
339-46. Can the Thomasine Jesus, then, be seen as speaking over the head of the disciples to the elect and solitary? Cf.
sayings 19 and 21. which seem to make a distinction between the audience and the 'true disciples.'
56 Cf. Berger 1981. Berger points out that the role of Peter in Gos. Thom. 13 is not merely connected with Peter's
person. 'Was nach der Mehrzahl der Texte von Petrus gilt, kann in anderen Texten auch von Johannes, Jacobus, Thomas
oder anderen gesagt werden' (ibid., 282).
57 Many speculations have been presented about the 'three secret words' told to Thomas by Jesus. There is no way of
knowing whether there ever was a fixed tradition about the content of these words, but the reader of the gospel could
hardly have missed the connection between the 'secret words' written down by Thomas (prologue) and the 'three words'
uttered to Thomas in Gos. Thos. 13:6. For the issue and further references, see Dunderberg 1998b, 72-3.
[92]
or the power given to him are not as unique as one would expect on the basis of the episode in Matt. 16:13-20 (cf. 14:33;
18:18). [58] Compared with other gospels, Thomas is most consistent in its emphasis on the incomprehension of
the other disciples and in its description of Thomas' unique position as the recipient of a special revelation. In
Thomas only one chosen disciple fully understands that Jesus' identity is unutterable. Yet there is an interesting
similarity between the Markan secrecy motif and the Gospel of Thomas: both gospels emphasize the esoteric
nature of Jesus' teaching (cf. the mysterion of the kingdom in Mark 4:11 and, for example, in Gos. Thom.
62) and, at the same time, both gospels suggest that even the closest circle of Jesus' followers did not comprehend
much or any of his teaching. [59]
In Thomas there is not, of course, any 'Messianic Secret' in the proper sense, since Jesus' identity is not understood in
terms of messiahship or of any other Christological title. As a matter of fact, Gos. Thom. 13 can be seen as
opposing such Christological categorizations as Peter's confession in the synoptic accounts represents. It should be
noted, however, that the inadequate characterizations of Jesus ('a righteous messenger'; cf. Gos. Thom. 88; 'wise
philosopher') are not polemically formulated against messianic interpretations or any other synoptic type of
Christologies, but rather change the culturally particular and historical figures (John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah) into
more general categorizations. In this respect, Gos. Thom. 13 may be described as a cultural translation [60] of a
story like the one in Matt. 16:13-20, with Thomas taking the role of the perceptive disciple and providing a model for an
alternative interpretation of Jesus' teaching.
_________
58 It is a much-debated question whether Peter in Matt. 16:13-20 is exalted to a place above the other disciples or
whether he continues to act as the spokesman of other disciples. However one interprets Matthew's overall view of Peter,
it seems obvious that in this particular passage Peter is clearly singled out from the other disciples and given a unique
position. For the issue, see Schweizer 1974, 138-70 (an English translation of this chapter is Schweizer 1983); Brown
et al. 1973, 87; Kingsbury 1979; Wilkins 1988; Overman 1990, 136-40.
59 Would it be possible to see the social situations of Mark and Thomas having anything in common, as they
both combine the esoteric mystery and incomprehension? It is interesting that scholars have often sensed an inner-
Christian conflict behind Mark's messianic secret; see: for example. Raisanen (1990, 242-58), who suggests that Mark
was engaged in a debate with 'Q-type' Christians. Some features in Thomas seem likewise to reflect an inner-
Christian conflict (see below).
60 Cf. Walls 1960-1, 267. Walls speaks of 'transmutation.'
[93]
5. Thomas and James
Even though Gos. Thom. 13 was probably not formulated specifically against Peter's authority, one cannot
avoid the impression that in the present context the model of Thomas seems in some way to modify James'
leadership in the previous saying. As noted above, there is a striking contrast between the 'masterless' ideal connected
with Thomas in Gos. Thom. 13:5 and James' leadership position that is entrusted to him by Jesus in Gos.
Thom. 12. Scholars have often referred to saying 108 as an indication that the model of Thomas in saying 13 is
paradigmatic [61] and that the 'masterless' ideal can be achieved by anyone who drinks from the mouth of Jesus and
becomes one with him. Becoming one and the same person with Jesus logically means that there can no longer exist any
master-disciple relationship. The idea has no full New Testament equivalent, even though an 'ideological parallel' has
sometimes been seen in John 15:15, in which Jesus no longer calls his disciples 'servants' but 'friends.' [62] This
intimacy does not, however. blur the hierarchy between Jesus and his followers in the same radical manner as is the case
in Gos. Thom. 108 (cf. John 15:1-6). [63] In the Thomasine saying the relationship is expressed in strongly
symmetrical terms; not only does the one who drinks from the mouth of Jesus become like Jesus {----}, but Jesus
himself 'becomes that person' {----}. In view of Gos. Thom. 2, this state could be described as the most advanced
level of seeking, when, after having found, been disturbed, and marveled, one finally rules over all (cf. also Gos.
Thom. 19). The hierarchical model of James' leadership does not seem to apply to those who have reached this level
of spiritual perfection.
Is this then a sign of religious elitism? Do the disciples in logion 12 represent those Christians who are less advanced in
their seeking and therefore in need of the ecclesiastical authority symbolized by James? In the same vein, the motif of
the incomprehension of the disciples (cf. above) could be understood as directed against Christians whose
_________
61 Patterson 1993a, 206; Marjanen 1996, 42-3; Dunderberg 1995b, 77-8.
62 Brown 1962-3, 162. Cf. also Q 6:40.
63 This also holds true for the other NT passages in which Jesus identifies himself with his disciples; cf. Matt. 10:40-2;
25:31-46; 1 Cor. 8:12; Acts 9:4-5; 22:8; 26:15. Perhaps closest to Thomas' idea comes Paul's Statements about
his union with Christ (e.g., Gal. 2:20). For parallels in the Syrian Christian tradition, see above, p. 29, in this book.
[94]
perception is defective. Even so, the idea of elitism is not emphatic. Nowhere in the gospel is there evidence for the view
that Thomas makes a clear-cut distinction between levels of spiritual maturity [64] (let alone the 'Valentinian'
distinction between three classes of the human race; i.e., the 'fleshly,' 'pneumatic' and 'psychic' [65]). Time after time the
reader is encouraged constantly to watch, seek and find. The language is provisional and contingent, and there is no
reason to think that Thomas suggests fixed stages in spiritual growth or any kind of class system.' [66] For most
of the gospel a dualistic model between inside ('the elect') and the outsiders prevails, characteristic of most other early
Christian writings. [67]
Thus it seems that the best explanation for the appearance of James and Thomas in Gos. Thom. 12-13 is not the
suggestion that Thomas divides the believers into two distinct and irreconcilable categories, between those in need of
ecclesiastical authority and those who 'rule over all' and are under no authority. Thomas places much emphasis on the
idea of spiritual growth, which necessarily presupposes some sort of religious elitism. but this elitism does not mean that
the gospel elaborates a theory of fixed stages or levels symbolized by the figures of James and Thomas. Other reasons
must be sought for the juxtaposition of the two sayings.
A clue may be found in the fact that, in the Syrian tradition 'Judas Thomas' was believed to be the twin brother of Jesus,
and Thomas may thus be understood as a counterpart to James, the brother to Jesus. [68] The Gospel of Thomas
does not spell out the belief that Judas Thomas is the twin brother of Jesus and does not give an explanation for Judas'
nickname 'Twin.' [69] The belief has, however, often been presupposed by
_________
64 Pace Lincoln (1977), who argues that, in the Thomasine community, there existed three levels of initiation
identified in Gos. Thom. 2 as 'those who seek' (the first level), 'those who find and are troubled' (the second
level), and those who have [been] initiated into deeper mysteries (cf. Gos. Thom. 62) and 'marvel and reign over
the all' (the ultimate level).
65 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.7.5. For a recent discussion on determinism and the three-class division of the human
race among the Gnostics, see Williams 1996, 189-212. Williams demonstrates how the caricature presented by Irenaeus
does not march the picture inferred from the sources that were produced by Gnostics themselves.
66 Note also that, contrary to the common interpretation, the 'eschatological reservation' has not disappeared in
Thomas; Uro 1997, 223-4.
67 This seems to be the case in the Valentinian writings as well. See Desjardins 1990.
68 See also pp. 10-15 in this book.
69 Scholars have often imagined a real disciple of Jesus whose name was Judas and who was at some point nicknamed
'the Twin,' Gunther (1980, 124) offers three possibilities why
[95]
Thomasine scholars on the basis of the explicit references that are made in the Book of Thomas (138.1-21) and
especially in the Acts of Thomas. [70] It is, therefore, possible to argue that the twin motif is later than the
Gospel of Thomas, and sayings such as 13 and 108 contributed to the emergence of the tradition. [71] Yet, it is
also possible that the combination of sayings 12 and 13 reveals knowledge of the twin symbolism. According to such an
interpretation, Gos. Thom. 12-13 puts two brothers of Jesus side by side, James the Just and (Judas) the Twin,
since the name of the latter was, in some circles, understood to mean that he was a twin brother of Jesus. [72] To
develop this hypothesis further, one could argue that the Gospel of Thomas gives a glimpse of how this peculiar
tradition on 'Judas Thomas' came into being. It has been assumed that the occurrence of James in logion 12 is a strong
indication that the Thomasine trajectory emerged from and then confronted the Jewish Christianity which looked to the
authority of James. [73] If, as the evidence above suggests, there was a branch of early
_________
the proper name Judas was dropped in the canonical gospel tradition: 1) 'If his proper name were "Jesus (Joshua)," this
would have been suppressed, as was "Jesus (Barabbas)" in most mss. of Mt 27:16 (cf. Col. 4:11).' 2) 'Thomas was the
one who resembled him in appearance, as the Acts of Thomas relates.' 3) '[H]is name was dropped because there were
two others among the twelve so named.' De Conick (1997, 389) surmises that the 'name Judas fell out of favour because
it was so clearly linked to the man who betrayed Jesus.' See also Dart 1986, 188. The evidence for reconstructing the
historical 'Judas Thomas' is extremely meagre, however.
Acts Thom. II; 31 (Gr.); and 39 (Gr. and Syr.); see also 34; 57 (Syr.); and 151-3. Dunderberg 1998b. 78. Cf. also
Poirier 1997, 302. Poirier argues that the Acts of Thomas developed a fully fledged twin symbolism, which is
based on -- but not found in -- the Gospel of Thomas.
Several scholars have suggested that the figure 'Judas Thomas' was early identified with Judas/Jude, brother of James
and Jesus (Mark 6:3; Jude 1); see Koester 1971, 134; Drijvers 1984a, 15; Dart 1986, 188. There is no direct evidence for
this identification. It is quite uncertain that the apostle called {----} in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 would refer to 'Judas, the
brother of James (and Jesus),' and in any case 'Judas (Thomas)' is not identified in Acts Thom. 1 with this
apostle. For the latter, however, Klijn (1962, 158-9) has argued that the list in the beginning of the' Acts, being a quotation
from some written gospel, may go back to some gospel harmony and to Greek traditions and therefore does not
represent the Syrian Thomas tradition. Be that as it may, it seems that the 'Judas Thomas' tradition did not so much
emphasize the physical brotherhood as the spiritual one. Cf. also Thom. Cont. 138.8-13: 'Now since it has been
said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself and learn who you are, in what way you exist, and
how you will come to be. Since you are to be called my brother, it is not fitting that you be ignorant of yourself' (transl.
by Turner in Layton 1989; my emphasis).
Saying 12 is usually taken as a strong argument for the view that at least some part of the Thomasine sayings derive
from a Jewish-Christian tradition or trajectory; see, e.g., Gartner 1960, 47; Quispel 1967, 19. De Conick (1996b, 129)
argues that
[96]
Christianity that took its legitimacy from Jesus' family, [74] and the roots of Thomas are in that kind of
Christianity, the emergence of the religious symbolism exploiting kinship language, such as the idea of Thomas' being
the spiritual twin of the Lord, is easy to explain? [75] It may also be relevant to note at this point that Thomas
seems to be familiar with the idea of a heavenly double (cf. Gos. Thom. 84), which is readily associated with the
twin symbolism. [76]
It is worth noting that mere are traditions in which James' kinship to Jesus is similarly used to demonstrate the unique
relationship between Jesus and the apostle (James). The so-called First Apocalypse of James opens with the
Lord's words to James, whose brotherhood to Jesus is understood in spiritual rather than in physical terms.
See now the completion of my redemption. I have given you a sign of these things, James. my brother. For not without
reason have I called you my brother, although your are not my brother materially. And I am not ignorant concerning you;
so that when I give you a sign -- know and hear. Nothing existed except Him-who-is. He is unnameable and ineffable. I
myself also am unnameable, from He-who-is, just as I have been [given a] number of names -- two from Him-who-is.
(1 Apoc. Jas. 24.12-25). [77]
A little later in the text, James is told that he will finally reach Him-who-is in a mysterious union: 'You will no longer be
James; rather you are the One-who-is' (27.8-10). The identification here is similar to that expressed in Gos. Thom.
108, even though the latter does not refer to Thomas alone; James is a prototype of the Christian who ascends to the
_________
'logion 12 indicates that the Thomasites were tied closely to the law-abiding "Hebrews" of the primitive Jerusalem
organization of which James was the leader.' For an argument that Thomas engaged in a conflict with Jewish-
Christian groups, see Uro 2000, 319-20.
74 There is no need to push the argument to the claim that there existed an early Christian caliphate, a dynastic form of
successive leaders, who legitimated their position by their belonging ro the family of the Lord. Arguments against this
view were presented by von Campenhausen (1950-1). It seems, nonetheless, clear enough that members of the Lord's
family were influential in Jerusalem and in Jewish-Christian circles after Jesus' death, probably also after James' death
(cf. the traditions on Simeon, who was said to be Jesus' cousin and the second bishop of Jerusalem; see Eusebius,
Hist. eccl. 3.32.1-6; 4.5.1-4; 4.22.4; for an analysis, see Painter 1999, 105-58). It should be noted that von
Campenhausen did not have the Nag Hammadi traditions on James at his disposal.
75 Note also that the idea of spiritual family is strongly emphasized in Thomas; see Uro 1997.
76 Layton 1987, 359-60.
77 Transl. by Schoedel in Parrott 1979.
[97]
heavenly realm (cf. 1 Apoc. Jas. 28.20-7). [78] These passages on James demonstrate that the notion of the ideal
brother of Jesus who resembles him or becomes one with him in the divine mystery was used for both James and
Thomas in early Christianity. This gives a reason to suggest that the juxtaposition of James and Thomas in Gos.
Thom. 12-13 was motivated by their belonging to the Lord's family. In this respect it is also interesting that the
Johannine 'Beloved Disciple,' who functionally resembles Thomas and James, [79] is also connected with Jesus' family
by his guardianship of Jesus' mother (John 19:25-7). By this 'adoption,' the Beloved Disciple replaces the other brothers
and in effect becomes a brother of Jesus. [80]
The hypothesis suggested above is at best conjectural. However, given the popularity of the traditions in which various
'hereditary' claims were made, it is not implausible that the redactor responsible for the combination of sayings 12-13,
and probably for the prologue as well, associated traditions about the figures of James and Thomas. The reason for this
link was the redactor's belief that Thomas was the twin brother of Jesus and thus had more intimate knowledge of Jesus'
identity than any other human being, including James the Just. Even though this hypothesis may shed some light on the
origin of the mysterious figure of 'Judas the Twin,' it does not yet provide a fully satisfactory answer to the question of
how James' leadership and the model of Thomas should be compared in Gos. Thom. 12-13. To be able to
provide an answer we have to locate these sayings in the wider context of organizational debates in early Christian
communities which transmitted Jesus' teachings.
6. Thomas and Matthew on leadership
Matthew has often been described as the most 'ecclesiastical' of the New Testament gospels, since the gospel alone
uses the term ekklesia
_________
78 A striking parallel of applying me 'twin' motif to James can be found in the pseudepigraphic Letter of Ignatius to
John, in which James is said resemble Christ 'in life and manner of conversation, as if he were his twin brother from
the same womb; whom they say, he is like seeing Jesus himself in respect to all the contours of his body.' See Gunther
1980, 146 (transl. from Harris 1927, 57-8). This letter is, however, relatively late (see Funk-Bihlmeyer 1970, xxxiii).
79 Dunderberg 1998b; 2002.
80 Schmitt 1986, 119; see also Dunderberg 2002, 253.
[98]
(16:18; 18:17), and it often deals with issues of Matthew's contemporary community very transparently, the most
conspicuous example being the 'church order' of Matt. 18. [81] Yet by no means is it obvious how Matthew sees the
various leadership roles and how far the institutional structures had been developed in his community. [82] The much-
discussed question of Matthew's 'church' is closely intertwined with other issues of Matthean scholarship, such as
Matthew's view of discipleship, his relation to contemporary Jewish leaders and formative Judaism. Obviously all these
cannot be discussed in detail in this chapter. There are, however, a number of features in Matthew's 'ecclesiastical'
concern that are relevant to our discussion on Thomas' view of leadership.
Matthew's ideal is an egalitarian community in which 'all are brothers' or 'children' (Matt. 23:8-12; 18:1-6; 19:13-15). [83]
Honorary titles, such as 'father,' 'rabbi' and 'instructor,' are specifically condemned (23:8-10). It is also worth noting that
the disciplinary regulations concerning the erring brother in 18:15-20 mention no council of elders or other leaders. [84] In
18:17-18, the power of 'binding and loosing' is entrusted to all members of the ekklesia. This ideal egalitarianism
notwithstanding, Matthew does show some signs of institutionalization and the emergence of various leadership roles.
[85]
_________
81 Post-World War II studies on Matthew's church until 1980 are summarized by Stanton 1985, 1925-9. For more recent
studies relevant to the issue, see White 1986; Krentz 1987; Overman 1990; Balch 1991; Maisch 1991; Stanton 1992a;
Carter 1994; Saldarini 1994; Luomanen 1998.
82 For discussion on leadership roles in Matthew, see von Campenhausen 1969, 124-48; Kunzel 1978, 167-79; Viviano
1990; Overman 1990, 113-24; Bartlett 1993, 58-88; Saldarini 1994, 102-7; Duling 1995; Stanton 1996.
83 For Matthew's use of 'children' as a metaphor of discipleship, see Carter 1994, 90-114. Cf. a;so the much-discussed
expressions 'little ones' (Matt. 10:42; 18:10,14) and 'one of the least of these' (25:40, 45); see Gray 1989.
84 It may be wise not to use this silence as a positive argument for the view that the system of elders did not exist in
Matthew's environment; von Campenhausen 1969, 128; Davies and Allison 1991, 786. Cf. Schweizer (1983, 140), who
argues that the Matthean community 'seems to know neither elders nor bishops nor deacons.'
85 Overman 1990, 113-24: see also Bartlett 1993, 76-82 and Duling 1995. Some have also laid stress on the charismatic
and prophetic authority in Matthew's church. Schweizer, for example, believes that one can trace a trajectory from the
Matthean community of 'little ones' to an anti-hierarchical 'ascetic Judeo-Christian group,' which produced the
Apocalypse of Peter (NHC VII, 3); Schweizer 1983; cf. also Stanton 1992b. White (1986,75) suggests that Matt. 18
'reflects a pattern of organization that places minimal reliance on formally distinguished roles,' but also admits that it
would be 'theologically naive' to 'conclude that the community's self-definition fundamentally agrees with its actual
composition, character, and circumstances' (ibid., 85).
[99]
(pg 99 text not yet proofread)
... that teachers were important figures in the Matthean group. [86] Matthew's strong emphasis on humility and his
denial of honorary titles may be taken as indirect evidence for the view that the gospel resists some expressions of
an emerging hierarchy in his community or environment. Many scholars have seen in the denial of the "synagogue tides"
in Matt 23:8-11 a sign that some Christian leaders inside or outside Matthew's group were in fact using these tides
[87] or at least showing off in the manner that aroused Matthew's criticism. [88] One could also argue that Matthew's
ambivalent presentation of Peter as a figure who is both the "rock," on which the church is built, and
the "stumbling block" (16: 13-23) similarly reflects Matthew's reserved attitude toward emerging Christian leadership
and legitimation of power in his environment. By democraticizing Peter's authority (cf. 18:18) and holding only to
"archaizing" and undifferentiated types of leadership roles ("prophets," "scribes" or "sages"), [89] Matthew tries
to maintain the ideal of a small house-church assembly, [90] in which every member has a special charisma and all
the important decisions, such as the excommunication of a sinning member (18: 15-20; cf. 1 Cor 5; 6:1-11), are
made collectively. Perhaps this "conservative" attitude of Matthew explains why he grants the supreme religious and
judicial power to the non-Christian Jewish leaders (Matt 23:2-3; 5:21-26) rather than to some specific authority
or body of authorities in his own group.
The Gospel of Thomas shares Matthew's egalitarianism in that it problematizes Christian leadership and the
master-pupil relationship
_________
86 Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, 105.
87 Schweizer, "Matthew's Church", 139; D.E. Carland, The Intetion of Matthew 23 (NovTSup 52; Leiden: Brill)
57-63; Duling, "The Mattheall Brotherhood," 166.
88 Viviano, "Social World," 16.
89 Viviano ("Social World", 14) characterizes Matthew's list of "offices" as being "conservative or archaizing."
90 Cf. Stanton (A Gosptl for New People, 50-51), who estimates that "it would have been difficult to many
more than 50 or so people to crowd into even quite a substantial house;" see also idem, "Communities of Matthew,"
388, and Luomanen, Entering the Kingdom of Heaven, 272. Stanton concludes from this that Matthew must
have written to a larger audience than to one small house-church. Such a social location would indeed explain some
of Matthew's peculiarities, for example his teaching concerning itinerant teachers (false and good) and
contradictions with respect to Jewish heritage. Matthew's "imprecision" with respect to his audience could be
explained by the fact that the assemblies Matthew is writing for are diverse. This kind of situation also creates
a need for more centralized leadership (cf. Luomanen, ibid.), a development which Matthew can be seen as resisting.
[100]
(pg 100 text not yet proofread)
(Gos. Thom. 3 and 12-13; cf. also 88). Matthew's utopia seems to be based on such biblical promises as
Isa 54:13 and Jer 31:33, according to which at the end of the days, the children of God will be taught directly
without any human intermediary. [91] Thomas' vision is more radical and fundamental, since it plays down
the role of Jesus himself as the supreme teacher. Jesus' words to Thomas "I am not your master" are almost
antithetical to Matthew's "you have one instructor, Christ" (Matt 23:10). Whereas Matthew exphasizes equality
under the overarching symbol of Jesus as the final and absolute interpreter of God's law, in Thomas the
anti-authoritarian model is extended to the symbolic presentation of the equality between the ideal disciple,
Thomas, and Jesus himself. Regardless of all of his emphasis on brotherhood and service, Matthew's symbolic world
is ultimately a hierarchical one: the heavenly Father and the Son of Man rule at the top, next in order come the
twelve disciples (Matt 19:28). [92] The hierarchy is not destroyed, but strongly conditioned by the warning that,
as far as human beings are concerned, "many who are first will be last, and the last first" (19:30). The symbolic
world of Thomas is based on the idea that there is no essential difference between humanity and Divinity,
thus there is no heavenly court and hierarchy. [93] Every person is part of God and will eventually return to
God, at least if trained to realize his or her divine nature. In this respect, Thomas represents a totally
different conceptual world compated with Matthew and derives its basic ideological tenor from the ideology widely
accepted in the Hellenistic world. In a sense
_________
91 J.D.M. Derrett, "Mt 28,8-10 a Midrash on Is 54,13 and Jer 31,33-34." Bib 62 (1981) 372-86; Krentz,
"Community and Character," 566.
92 This ethos can aptly be compared to what Gerd Theissen has called "love-patriarchalism" encountered in Pauline
and especially in the deutero-Pauline and Pastoral Epistles. "This love-patriarchalism takes the social differences
for granted but ameliorates them through an obligation of respect and love, an obligation imposed upon those who
are socially stronger;" Theissen, "Social Stratification in the Corinthian Community," in idem, The Social Setting
of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (edited and translated by J.H. Schutz; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982)
on p. 107.
93 Gos. Thom. 15 may be understood as criticizing cultic adoration of anyone "born of woman" (cf. Gal 4:4;
Q 7:28; Gos. Thom. 46) rather than as fostering hierarchic symbolism. See Valantasis, Gospel of Thomas,
81-82.
[101]
the Thomasine Jesus resembles the Stoic teacher, who encourages his pupils to become their own teachers. [94]
It is, however, obvious that a radical symbolic egalitarianism does not automatically generate actions that would aim at
removing all social distinctions and patriarchal structures. Most Stoics, for example, did not understand their radically
antihierarchica1 theory as a direct recipe for social and political action. [95] It would be an oversimplification to draw the
conclusion mat the Matthean church was considerably more patriarchal than the Thomasine circles or that Thomas
envisioned a fundamentally more egalitarian model of a Christian community than Matthew. In spite of their ideological
differences, both gospels are suspicious of the Christian leadership structures that were developing in their environments
under me auspices of the symbols of Peter and James. Both understand Jesus' role ultimately as that of a teacher, and
it is therefore highly probable that the activity of teaching was of vital importance in both communities.
It is possible, though. that the role that the female disciples Mary Magdalene and Salome occasionally have in
Thomas (Gos. Thom. 21; 61; 114) signals a difference between the social worlds of these two gospels. [96]
One could argue that women were encouraged to have a more active role in the Thomasine community than in the
Matthean church, which may be seen as a community of brothers rather than that of siblings. [97]
_________
94 Cf. Epictetus, who ehorts his students to abandon other people's opinions: 'Will you not, then, let other men alone,
and become your own pupil and your own teacher?' (Diatr. 4.6.11; Oldfather, LCL). See also Nussbaum 1994, 345.
95 Engberg-Pedersem 1995, 267. This does not mean that the egalitarian and universalist ideal was simply an empty
theory without any practical consequences. Epictetus' teaching on the slave-master relationship illustrates well the Stoic
attitude: (I owe this example to Huttunen 2000). A gentle reaction to the disobedient behaviour of a slave at dinner is a
thing that is 'acceptable to the gods' since one has to remember that slaves are 'kinsmen, brothers by nature, that they
are the offspring of Zeus' (Oldfather LCL). Epictetus does not challenge the institution of slavery or the patriarchal rule in
general, but teaches his students to look beyond 'these wretched laws of ours' to 'the laws of gods' (Diatr. 1.13.5)
and to act gently and without anger. This comes close to what Theissen means by 'love-patriarchalism' (see above, note
92). As a matter of fact, it was a widespread ethical ideal in the Hellenistic world; cf. the ideology of 'benevolent
patriarchalism' described in Martin 1995, 39-47.
96 For the female disciples in Thomas, see Marjanen 1998c.
97 This is not to say that Matthew ignored the role of the female followers of Jesus (see, e.g., Matt. 27:55-6). They may
not be named among Jesus' 'disciples' (cf. Gos. Thom. 61:4), but it would be against the evidence to argue that
Matthew aims at diminishing the communal and prophetic activity of women. See D'Angelo 1999; Mattila 1999; 2002.
[102]
(pg 102 text not yet transcribed)
The role that the women disciples have in Thomas may reflect the same Hellenistic universalism described
above...
[103]
(pg 103 text not yet transcribed)
[104]
does not promote tightly organized assemblies, the internal logic of the gospel seems to presuppose some sort of
loosely structured school in which the sayings of Jesus were read and meditated upon. Moreover, one may raise the
question whether the emphasis on 'aloneness' in saying 30 should be set against Thomas' confrontation with a
clearly defined Christian church which celebrated Jesus' presence in its cult meetings and deemed the Thomasine
Christians more or less outsiders. If this assumption is on the right track, then we have one more important difference
between the Thomasine and the Matthean critiques of leadership. Whereas Matthew still largely defines the ideal
communal structure against non-Christian formative Judaism, Thomas is engaged in the criticism of Christian
leadership and hierarchical , formation within Christian communities. However, given Matthew's reserved attitude toward
the hierarchical structures that were emerging inside and outside his community, one may also see both gospels as
resisting the church hierarchy developing at the turn of the second century. Ironically, it was Matthew who left in Peter's
'investiture' one of the strongest weapons for the legitimation of episcopal power. Thomas' radical model of
teaching authority could hardly have been accepted by those who championed monepiscopacy in Christian communities
from the early second century onwards. [108]
The comparison between the Matthean and Thomasine views on leadership shows that. in spire of the different
ideological frameworks, both gospels share an antihierarchical stance which may be set against the background of
emerging church offices in their time. This can especially be seen in the ways in which both gospels deal with the major
figures of ecclesiastical power, Peter and James. Yet a fundamental difference exists between their criticisms of church
hierarchy. Whereas
__________
108 The criticism of church offices continued among the second and third century gnostic groups; see Pagels 1976;
Koschorke 1978, 67-71. At the end of the second century, however, school and episcopacy still constituted two distinct
institutions in Alexandria represented by Clement and Bishop Demetrius. Kyrtatas (1987, 141-2) stresses the social
integration and the economic basis of the latter institution: The school 'tended to become, in a manner of speaking,
secular. It divided Christianity into sects using intellectual criteria; it had no hierarchy in the strict sense and was in need
of no special funds: a member became a teacher because of his learning... The monarchical episcopate, by contrast, can
be termed more religious. It struggled to integrate all local communities into one church, it had a rigid hierarchy which
depended on fixed salaries and organized charity -- hence the prime importance of finance; its members were promoted
to successive grades through internal mechanisms inaccessible to outsiders.
[105]
Matthew ultimately accepts the power of the keys, although strongly conditioning it with demands for humility,
Thomas adds to James' leadership a different kind of model, one based on self-sufficiency and independence.
Thomas exemplifies this model and, through the prologue of the gospel, becomes the guarantor of the tradition which
promulgates this understanding of discipleship. Matthew's view became the Christian pattern whereas Thomas'
model was pushed to the margin of Christian life and culture until its resurgence in postmodern religious mentality.
|
