Gospel trajectories.

[Ben C. Smith]

I am creating a thread to continue my line of inquiry from the one I created recently because I was originally going to discuss only sayings and dialogue gospels in that thread, but I very quickly threw in some observations from other sets of notes, and those observations pertain to all gospel texts, including narrative gospels.

In my most recent post to date on that thread I hypothetically inserted Papias in between groups 1 and 2 on my table of gospel texts:

1. Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Philip (0). [1½. Papias.]
2. Sophia of Jesus Christ, Dialogue of the Savior, Gospel of Luke (1).
3. Gospel of John (2).
4. Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary, Epistle of the Apostles, Gospel of the Ebionites, Infancy Gospel of James, Gospel of Peter, Infancy Gospel of Thomas (3).
5. Apocryphon of James, Apocryphon of John, Traditions of Matthias, Gospel of the Savior, Book of Thomas the Contender, Gospel of Thomas (4).

This list derives from the following table, which includes mostly verifiable textual data but also a handful of educated guesses for the more fragmentary texts:

Gospel	Tradent(s) Named in Text	Allegedly Eyewitness Testimony in Text	Transmission of Secret Information	Authorial Claim of Writing
Gospel of Marcion	no	no	no	no
Gospel of Mark	no	no	no	no
Gospel of Matthew	no	no	no	no
Gospel of Philip	no	no	no	no
Sophia of Jesus Christ	no	no	yes	no
Dialogue of the Savior	no	no	yes	no
Gospel of Luke	no	no	no	yes
Gospel of John	no	yes	no	yes
Gospel of Judas	yes	yes	yes	no
Gospel of Mary	yes	yes	yes	no
Epistle of the Apostles	yes	yes	no	yes
Gospel of the Ebionites	yes	yes	no	yes
Infancy Gospel of James	yes	yes	no	yes
Gospel of Peter	yes	yes	no	yes
Infancy Gospel of Thomas	yes	yes	no	yes
Apocryphon of James	yes	yes	yes	yes
Apocryphon of John	yes	yes	yes	yes
Traditions of Matthias	yes	yes	yes	yes
Gospel of the Savior	yes	yes	yes	yes
Book of Thomas the Contender	yes	yes	yes	yes
Gospel of Thomas	yes	yes	yes	yes

On this present thread I intend to test certain possible gospel trajectories which some scholars have suggested, just to see how well or how poorly those suggested trajectories line up with my rough groupings.

I may also take a closer look at some of the texts which belong to the same group to see whether priority or posteriority can be established; for example, I have suggested:

First, I think that something like our Mark predated something like our Matthew. Matthew, therefore, is very unlikely to be eyewitness testimony. It is also very unlikely to have been originally written in Hebrew; rather, it is based on Mark, in Greek.

Second, the gospel of Matthew is basically a gentle fraud; the coincidence of its title being "the gospel according to Matthew" and Levi having been replaced by Matthew in Matthew 9.9 (Matthew) = Mark 2.13-14 (Levi) = Luke 5.27-28 (Levi) is probably not truly a coincidence; this text was passed off as having come from Matthew. I have argued before, in basic agreement with Klijn, that both this maneuver and the replacement of Judas by Matthias in Acts 1.21-26 are attempts to make the author Matthew/Matthias an eyewitness and an apostle.

If I am correct, then, whereas the gospel of Mark is named after, at best, a nonwitness and, at worst, a random guy with one of the most common Roman names available, that of Matthew is both named after a putative apostle and characterized by a change in the story of Levi designed to describe this same putative apostle's call by Jesus. By the logic with which my table was assembled in the first place, this makes Mark (probably) prior to Matthew; it is just that the table as drawn up cannot adequately reflect these data, since they are the result, not of a simple reading of the texts, but rather of an argument being made on the basis of a more critical reading. The table is also, obviously, not at all for the task of evaluating arguments from miracle patterns and the like! So these kinds of more detailed issues are what I may be exploring in this thread, as well.

I also want to point out that the distinction between some of the gospels in group 4 and all of the gospels in group 5 on my table may be meaningless:

Gospel	Tradent(s) Named in Text	Allegedly Eyewitness Testimony in Text	Transmission of Secret Information	Authorial Claim of Writing
Epistle of the Apostles	yes	yes	no	yes
Gospel of the Ebionites	yes	yes	no	yes
Infancy Gospel of James	yes	yes	no	yes
Gospel of Peter	yes	yes	no	yes
Infancy Gospel of Thomas	yes	yes	no	yes
Apocryphon of James	yes	yes	yes	yes
Apocryphon of John	yes	yes	yes	yes
Traditions of Matthias	yes	yes	yes	yes
Gospel of the Savior	yes	yes	yes	yes
Book of Thomas the Contender	yes	yes	yes	yes
Gospel of Thomas	yes	yes	yes	yes

I say this because it may well be the case that some authors were, not only uninterested in passing on secret knowledge, but indeed dead set against it. I mentioned that the Epistle of the Apostles comes off (not just to me, but to rather many others, as well) as both acknowledging and rejecting the trend of passing along "secret information" in dialogue gospels. Even if this impression is incorrect about the Epistle of the Apostles specifically, I do think that it is generally more probable that the idea of secret knowledge (gnosis) should cause offense than it is that the idea of an apostle penning a gospel should cause offense. In other words, while it remains true, IMHO, that the absence of any of the criteria listed on the table (named tradent, allegedly eyewitness testimony, secret information transmitted, authorial claim) means far less than their presence in the first place, it also seems likely (to me, anyway) that the criterion of secret information being transmitted is especially meaningless in the negative, as compared to the positive, since there may have been good reasons to actively avoid it. Thus, there probably ought not to be any distinction between the first five texts on this part of the table and the last six texts; nevertheless, I feel that the criterion of secret information should remain in place, since its presence is still, ex hypothesi, probably meaningful, even if its absence might be absolutely expected in some quarters.

At any rate, I asked the following question on the other thread:

Ignore the dates for one gospel text vis-à-vis the other texts in the same group, and focus only on the dating of each group relative to the others (in other words, compare Mark to Luke, not to Marcion). How shocking would it be if it were to turn out that the above is the order of the layers in which our extant gospel tradition was penned over time? Which gospel texts would be the most surprising and stand out as not belonging at all to their proposed chronological group?

(This is all heuristic and experimental. Also, it does not in any way account for older materials being contained in newer gospels; only the current editorial form of the gospel is taken into account.)

I am still interested in reasoned answers to this question, and I already have at least one candidate in mind as a text which may be dated incorrectly. This candidate is the gospel of Philip; it looks too early to me on the list. On the one hand, since the absence of criteria means little if anything, there is no theoretical difficulty with moving any of the texts from the first group up a bit. On the other, however, I feel like my reasons for wanting to date Philip later may be influenced unduly both by convention (it rarely gets dated earlier than late century II) and by the nature of its contents (quite apart from its authorial representation or nonrepresentation). I am going to have to look far more closely into this text to see what I can make of it.

I feel certain that there are many who might think that the gospel of Thomas is dated far too late; I sympathize, but often (not always), as I work with one of its sayings, comparing it to parallels from other gospel texts, I am struck by how late Thomas seems in comparison. At the same time, however, I am quite open to there being more than one layer in the gospel of Thomas:

...I note that the gospel of Thomas probably has (at least) two layers. For one thing, one of the Greek Oxyrhynchus fragments (papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1) inserts saying 77b of the Coptic version in between sayings 30 and 31. For another, the following pair of sayings is rather intriguing:

Thomas 12-13:

12 The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that You will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?” Jesus said to them, “Wherever you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”

13 Jesus said to His disciples, “Compare me to someone and tell Me whom I am like.” Simon Peter said to Him, “You are like a righteous angel.” Matthew said to Him, “You are like a wise philosopher.” Thomas said to Him, “Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom You are like.” Jesus said, “I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated by the bubbling spring which I have measured out.” And He took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, “What did Jesus say to you?” Thomas said to them, “If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up.”

Why does James the Just receive such unequaled praise in saying 12 but Thomas receive such unequaled praise in saying 13? One hypothesis is that a collection of sayings originally circulated under the authority of James later came to be circulated under the authority of Thomas instead.

Also, there is this interesting correspondence between two nonadjacent sayings:

Thomas 6, 14:

6 His disciples questioned Him and said to Him, "Do you want us to fast? How shall we pray? Shall we give alms? What diet shall we observe?" Jesus said, "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered."

....

14 Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will give rise to sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do harm to your spirits. When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what they will set before you, and heal the sick among them. For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile you."

It looks quite plausible that the disciples' question in verse 6 was originally answered by Jesus' statement in verse 14, and that other material has come to intervene.

So maybe the evidence is mixed: the final redaction of Thomas is late, but at least some of its contents are considerably earlier. The gospel of Peter may well fall into the same category, and there may well be others.

Finally, I am not sure how much comes of the following exercise, but here is my list again, followed by the list of the same texts as found at Early Christian Writings, accompanied by the respected range of dates for each:

1. Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Philip (0). [1½. Papias.]
2. Sophia of Jesus Christ, Dialogue of the Savior, Gospel of Luke (1).
3. Gospel of John (2).
4. Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary, Epistle of the Apostles, Gospel of the Ebionites, Infancy Gospel of James, Gospel of Peter, Infancy Gospel of Thomas (3).
5. Apocryphon of James, Apocryphon of John, Traditions of Matthias, Gospel of the Savior, Book of Thomas the Contender, Gospel of Thomas (4).

50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-160 Gospel of Peter
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-130 Gospel of Luke
90-120 Gospel of John
100-150 Secret Book of James (= Apocryphon of James)
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
110-140 Papias
110-160 Traditions of Matthias
120-180 Apocryphon of John
120-180 Gospel of Mary
120-180 Dialogue of the Savior
120-180 Gospel of the Savior
130-140 Marcion
130-170 Gospel of Judas
140-150 Epistula Apostolorum (= Epistle of the Apostles)
140-170 Infancy Gospel of James
140-170 Infancy Gospel of Thomas
150-225 Book of Thomas the Contender
180-250 Gospel of Philip

Once one accounts for the very wide range of dates available for some of these texts (for example, Peter Kirby lists the Sophia very, very early in his list, but the range of dates for the Sophia is 50-200!), and once one recalls that there ought to be no real distinction between most of the texts from my group 4 and all of the texts from my group 5, only three texts stand out as truly problematic. Two of these I have already identified: Thomas and Philip (and I had identified them before even consulting Early Christian Writings; but, to be fair, I am pretty familiar with the customary ranges of dates for most of these writings anyway, so I would not claim independent verification of anything here). The third is Marcion, which is known only through patristic treatments of it and possibly one papyrus fragment, and I myself would distinguish between Marcion, the man himself, and the Marcionite gospel, a text which he allegedly published or republished; his claim, according to patristic sources, was that, far from creating a new gospel, he was either preserving or recovering an old gospel, one from before "the Judaizers" had tampered with things. So it far from impossible that the Marcionite gospel might be a true relic, while Marcion himself comes at a later date. (It should go without saying here that I am concerned at this stage, not with any absolute dating, but only with the relative dating of one text with another.)

This post has been a potpourri. There are so many different threads to tie or untie: so many different aspects to consider. Suggestions welcome. I will follow up with trajectories which have been proposed before to see how they compare to my table or to my list.

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

You're not going to want to hear this but Origen, the Acts of Timothy and the Martyrdom of Timothy among other sources (I think the position is knowable from Irenaeus) makes clear that 'John' wrote the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. I think that means that Irenaeus (= John) forged the three in the late second century. But that's not going to your take. Anyway, thought I would write some graffiti here. Carry on.

[Ben C. Smith]

You're not going to want to hear this but Origen, the Acts of Timothy and the Martyrdom of Timothy among other sources (I think the position is knowable from Irenaeus) makes clear that 'John' wrote the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. I think that means that Irenaeus (= John) forged the three in the late second century. But that's not going to your take. Anyway, thought I would write some graffiti here. Carry on.

This exercise is strictly about the internal data from the texts themselves; it deliberately eschews consideration of external testimonies. It even goes so far as to ignore the standardized titles given in the manuscripts ("gospel according to X"), for the most part.

I am very interested in the external testimonies, to be sure, but they have to be kept separate and independent; otherwise anything useful to be gained from the exercise will be null and void before it even gets a chance.

[Secret Alias]

You are the best.

[MrMacSon]

Finally, I am not sure how much comes of the following exercise, but here is my list again, followed by the list of the same texts as found at Early Christian Writings, accompanied by the respected range of dates for each:

1. Gospel of Marcion, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Philip (0). [1½. Papias.]
2. Sophia of Jesus Christ, Dialogue of the Savior, Gospel of Luke (1).
3. Gospel of John (2).
4. Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Mary, Epistle of the Apostles, Gospel of the Ebionites, Infancy Gospel of James, Gospel of Peter, Infancy Gospel of Thomas (3).
5. Apocryphon of James, Apocryphon of John, Traditions of Matthias, Gospel of the Savior, Book of Thomas the Contender, Gospel of Thomas (4).

50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-160 Gospel of Peter
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-130 Gospel of Luke
90-120 Gospel of John
100-150 Secret Book of James (= Apocryphon of James)
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
110-140 Papias
110-160 Traditions of Matthias
120-180 Apocryphon of John
120-180 Gospel of Mary
120-180 Dialogue of the Savior
120-180 Gospel of the Savior
130-140 Marcion
130-170 Gospel of Judas
140-150 Epistula Apostolorum (= Epistle of the Apostles)
140-170 Infancy Gospel of James
140-170 Infancy Gospel of Thomas
150-225 Book of Thomas the Contender
180-250 Gospel of Philip

Once one accounts for the very wide range of dates available for some of these texts (for example, Peter Kirby lists the Sophia very, very early in his list, but the range of dates for the Sophia is 50-200!), and once one recalls that there ought to be no real distinction between most of the texts from my group 4 and all of the texts from my group 5, only three texts stand out as truly problematic. Two of these I have already identified: Thomas and Philip (and I had identified them before even consulting Early Christian Writings; but, to be fair, I am pretty familiar with the customary ranges of dates for most of these writings anyway, so I would not claim independent verification of anything here).

Perhaps possible dates of some of these texts -the terminus ante quem - are worth expanding thus (and perhaps a couple of terminus a quos) (in red) -

50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-140 Gospel of Mark
70-160 Gospel of Peter
80-150 Gospel of Matthew
80-150 Gospel of Luke
90-150 Gospel of John
120-140 Marcion
100-150 Secret Book of James (= Apocryphon of James)
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
110-140 Papias
110-160 Traditions of Matthias
80-180 Apocryphon of John
120-180 Gospel of Mary
120-180 Dialogue of the Savior
120-180 Gospel of the Savior
130-170 Gospel of Judas
140-150 Epistula Apostolorum (= Epistle of the Apostles)
140-170 Infancy Gospel of James
140-170 Infancy Gospel of Thomas
150-225 Book of Thomas the Contender
180-250 Gospel of Philip

---

---

separately, This is worth bringing more into the light -

The third is Marcion, which is known only through patristic treatments of it and possibly one papyrus fragment, and I myself would distinguish between Marcion, the man himself, and the Marcionite gospel, a text which he allegedly published or republished; his claim, according to patristic sources, was that, far from creating a new gospel, he was either preserving or recovering an old gospel, one from before "the Judaizers" had tampered with things. So it far from impossible that the Marcionite gospel might be a true relic, while Marcion himself comes at a later date.

(It should go without saying here that I am concerned at this stage, not with any absolute dating, but only with the relative dating of one text with another.)

[Secret Alias]

Which gospel of Marcion? The one that begins with him coming down in Judea on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem or at Capernaum in Galilee? One of the reasons I enjoy this field so much is that it confirms my low estimation of people (not Ben of course but 'Marcionite scholarship'). There is no 'Gospel of Marcion.' There are two different beginnings. Two different 'sources' - Luke or Mark. To different 'ages' for Marcion - apostolic or Anicetus. Complete crap shoot and complete crap.

[Ben C. Smith]

E. Bruce Brooks discusses the baptism of Jesus as a possible gospel trajectory in what I take to be a conference handout of his (and one from which I got the term "gospel trajectory" in the first place):

E. Bruce Brooks, "Gospel Trajectories," page 2: In Mark, Jesus is simply baptized by John (Mk 1:9). In Matthew, John protests that Jesus should baptize him, and is persuaded to proceed only in order “to fulfil all righteousness” (Mt 3:15). In Luke, the baptism is mentioned but not described (Lk 3:21b). As in Mark and Matthew, Luke’s verb is the passive “was baptized,” but John is not specified as the agent of the verb. In John, the baptism is not even reported; only the detail of the Spirit as a dove resting on Jesus (Jn 1:32f). Jesus’ baptism may have been offensive as implying that John was Jesus’ spiritual superior, or that Jesus had sins to be forgiven. The gradual attenuation of the baptism in the Gospel accounts is compatible... with the theological idea that Jesus’ death had the power to atone for others’ sins because Jesus was himself without sin.

Obviously this idea involves the "criterion of embarrassment," which I have found to be both often misused and often misunderstood. The criterion itself is simple enough: if a person admits to something that they seem not to want to admit to, or that they feel compelled to explain or mitigate in some way, then they are probably not making up the something to which they are admitting. It has been misused to press the conclusion that this something which is being admitted must be historical, a conclusion which would be warranted only if the person admitting it is a firsthand eyewitness or otherwise in a good position to know for sure. This misuse, in early Christian studies, makes the mistake of assuming that the evangelists were in such a position, and I myself do not sign on to that assumption. If one of the evangelists appears reluctant to state without qualification that Jesus went to John to be baptized, then it is good evidence, to my eye, that the evangelist himself did not make up the baptism; it is not good evidence, however, without further argumentation, that the baptism actually happened.

The issue, of course, is that the gospel of Mark appears to evince no such reluctance about the baptism of Jesus:

Mark 1.4, 9-11: 4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. .... 9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; 11 and a voice came out of the heavens: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well pleased.”

John is baptizing for the forgiveness of sins, and Jesus comes to be baptized by John. A straightforward reading of this passage is that Jesus was being baptized for the forgiveness of sin, and Mark does not even blink at saying this. Other evangelists certainly do!

Matthew 3.5-6, 13-17: 5 Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; 6 and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins. .... 13 Then Jesus arrives from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. 14 But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” 15 But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he permits Him. 16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, 17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

Luke 3.3, 21-22: 3 And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. .... 21 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

John 1.29-34: 29 The next day he sees Jesus coming to him and says, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ 31 I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.” 32 John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. 33 I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”

Jerome, Against the Pelagians 3.2: 2 In the gospel according to the Hebrews, which indeed is written in Chaldean and Syrian speech, but with Hebraic letters, which the Nazarenes use until this day, according to the apostles, or as most term it according to Matthew, which is also held in the Caesarean library, it narrates the story: "Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brothers were saying to him: 'John the baptist is baptizing for the remission of sins. Let us also be baptized by him.' But he said to them: 'How have I sinned, that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless perchance this that I have just said is ignorance.'" / In evangelio iuxta Hebraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone sed Hebraicis litteris scriptum est, quod utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum apostolos, sive ut plerique autumant iuxta Matthaeum, quod et in Caesariensi habetur bibliotheca, narrat historia: «Ecce, mater domini et fratres eius dicebant ei: Ioannes baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum; eamus et baptizemur ab eo. dixit autem eis: Quid peccavi, ut vadam et baptizer ab eo? nisi forte hoc ipsum quod dixi ignorantia est».

Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.7-8: 7 And after saying a good deal it adds, 'When the people had been baptized Jesus came also and was baptized of John. And as he came up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him. And (there came) a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased, and again, This day have I begotten thee. And straightway a great light shone round about the place. Seeing this,' it says, 'John said unto him, Who art thou, Lord? And again (there came) a voice to him from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 8 And then,' it says, 'John fell down before him and said, I pray thee, Lord, do thou baptize me. But he forbade him saying, Let it alone, for thus it is meet that all be fulfilled.' / 7 καὶ μετὰ τὸ εἰπεῖν πολλὰ ἐπιφέρει ὅτι «τοῦ λαοῦ βαπτισθέντος ἦλθεν καὶ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰωάννου. καὶ ὡς ἀνῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος, ἠνοίγησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ καὶ εἶδεν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς, κατελθούσης καὶ εἰσελθούσης εἰς αὐτόν. καὶ φωνὴ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λέγουσα· σύ μου εἶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ ηὐδόκησα, καὶ πάλιν· ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε. καὶ εὐθὺς περιέλαμψε τὸν τόπον φῶς μέγα. ὃ ἰδών, φησίν, ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγει αὐτῷ· σὺ τίς εἶ, κύριε; καὶ πάλιν φωνὴ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐφ' ὃν ηὐδόκησα. 8 καὶ τότε, φησίν, ὁ Ἰωάννης προσπεσὼν αὐτῷ ἔλεγεν· δέομαί σου, κύριε, σύ με βάπτισον. ὁ δὲ ἐκώλυσεν αὐτὸν λέγων· ἄφες, ὅτι οὕτως ἐστὶ πρέπον πληρωθῆναι πάντα».

Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 88.4: 4 Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression. / 4 καὶ οὐχ ὡς ἐνδεᾶ αὐτὸν τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ἢ τοῦ ἐπελθόντος ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς πνεύματος οἴδαμεν αὐτὸν ἐληλυθέναι ἐπὶ τὸν ποταμόν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ γεννηθῆναι αὐτὸν καὶ σταυρωθῆναι ὡς ἐνδεὴς τούτων ὑπέμεινεν, ἀλλ' ὑπὲρ τοῦ γένους τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὃ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ ὑπὸ θάνατον καὶ πλάνην τὴν τοῦ ὄφεως ἐπεπτώκει, παρὰ τὴν ἰδίαν αἰτίαν ἑκάστου αὐτῶν πονηρευσαμένου.

Matthew and Luke both admit that the baptism happened, but Matthew has John recognizing in advance that Jesus requires no such ritual to be righteous, while Luke seems to separate Jesus from "all the people" and does not even actually state that John himself baptized Jesus. John, meanwhile, does not even state that Jesus was baptized; rather, John the Baptist is merely the eyewitness who is granted the sight of a heavenly dove marking Jesus as the Son of God. The Nazarene gospel cited by Jerome goes out of its way to have Jesus ask why he should need a baptism for the remission of sins. The Ebionite gospel cited by Epiphanius does basically the same thing as Matthew, except that it is only after the fact that John recognizes that Jesus really did not need baptism after all. And I threw Justin Martyr into the mix just to show that it is not just evangelists who felt compelled to explain why a purportedly sinless Jesus might have had to undergo a baptism intended to remit sins.

In a sense, John may actually stand outside of this stream of reaction to the baptism. Does his completely omitting the event mean that his account stands first in line, and then Mark added to it that John actually baptized Jesus (since that was John's favorite activity, as the gospel of John acknowledges), and then the other evangelists had to deal with Mark's addition? On this reading, there is no embarrassment to be had, because there is no baptism for Jesus' sins, and John's role as a baptizer is peripheral. Or does his completely omitting the event mean exactly that, to wit, that he kept the part of the story which glorified Jesus but deliberately omitted the part that would suggest that Jesus had been a sinner? My own money is definitely on the second option, but I admit that I cannot easily disprove the first.

There is one other text that I would like to present:

Jerome, On Isaiah 4, commentary on 11.2: But according to the gospel which the Nazaraeans read, written up in Hebrew speech: "The whole fount of the Holy Spirit shall descend over him." .... Further on in the gospel of which we made mention above we find these things written: "But it happened that, when the Lord ascended from the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended and rested over him, and said to him: 'My son, in all the prophets I was expecting you, that you should come, and I might rest in you. You indeed are my rest. You are my firstborn son, who reigns in eternity.'" / Sed iuxta evangelium quod Hebrao sermone conscriptum legunt Nazaraei: «Descendet super eum omnis fons spiritus sancti». .... porro in evangelio cuius supra fecimus mentionem haec scripta reperimus: «Factum est autem cum ascendisset dominus de aqua descendit fons omnis spiritus sancti, et requievit super eum, et dixit illi: Fili mi, in omnibus prophetis exspectabam te, ut venires et requiescerem in te. tu es enim requies mea. tu es filius meus primogenitus, qui regnas in sempiternum».

If this is a different gospel than the one that Jerome cites elsewhere and also different than the Ebionite gospel cited by Epiphanius, then I think it is impossible to tell to what extent, if any, this text mitigates the force of Jesus being baptized for the forgiveness of sins. It neither tells us the purpose of the baptism (if such it is) nor relates any explanation for it; and it is only a snippet from an obviously longer text, which may or may not have contained those elements.

The sayings and dialogue gospels are not susceptible to this analysis; we would not necessarily expect the baptism to be narrated in them, since they are not narrative gospels. Also, the Epistle of the Apostles, while briefly relating narrating some events in the life of Christ, is too brief in that narrative section to be of much use to us here; there are far more possible reasons than embarrassment for this text to have skipped over the baptism.

Finally, the Marcionite gospel seems to have omitted, not only the baptism, but indeed the entire gospel narrative up until Jesus enters Capernaum. Is this omission from embarrassment? Or is it the original story line to which the baptism was later added? Or is it from a completely unrelated compositional strategy being employed? I have thoughts on these questions, but they are incomplete, and the whole matter of the Marcionite gospel is too complex for a proper discussion of this point here and now, to be frank. (Stephan, this would also be my response to your most recent post in this thread, asking "which" Marcionite gospel. It is a great question, and it has to be addressed, but answering it here and now would derail the rest of what I am trying to do.)

My own take on the baptism and the embarrassment it entailed is as follows. E. Bruce Brooks, dealing only with the canonical gospels, tries to make a sequence of the reactions (and that sequence agrees pretty much exactly with my own chronological table of texts!), but I am not convinced that a sequence can be demonstrated. It is not clear to me, for example, that Luke evinces more embarrassment than Matthew. Is kind of separating Jesus from the (rest of) the people and then throwing the baptism itself into the passive voice more of a reaction than Matthew's gushing affirmation of Jesus' righteousness and of John's need to be baptized by him, instead? Not sure. But I do think that Mark simply relating the baptism with no apparent embarrassment whatsoever at its most logical implications is probably significant. If he were simply a late contrarian who thought, despite and against all the tradents before him, that Jesus really was a sinner, at least before he was baptized, then I think we ought to see some signs in the text of such contrariness, something to emphasize that Jesus was no innocent. But the text that we find instead seems blissfully unaware of such controversies, and that may well be because the story it relates predates those controversies.

As for sorting the other texts into a sequence, I am not sure that it can truly be done. This matter may be more of a toggle switch than a slider; either (A) the author deals with the logical implications of the baptism or (B) the author does not seem either to notice or to care about them. By this standard, then we can suggest that Mark is early, and we can suggest that the rest of the texts are later, but we cannot easily or necessarily determine which of this latter group is earlier or later than the rest in the group. This result (Mark early, the rest late) is consonant with my table, but hardly a huge independent confirmation of it. At most, it confirms that Mark is right at home in the first grouping; the rest may fit in any of the groupings, from first to last, for all I am able to tell from this single consideration.

Or so it seems to me.

[Ben C. Smith]

A few comments on the gospel of Philip. I have already opined that, despite its location in group 1, I believe it to be quite a bit later than that grouping would suggest. Of course, group 1 consists merely of those texts which lack signs of lateness, so it is theoretically no problem to move any one or more of them to a later position, but I also like being able to explain clearly why I might like to do so.

First, I probably should have put it in group 2 anyway, not in group 1, because it does inject an authorial voice in the form of the first person singular, if the translation is to be believed:

Philip 25, 53, 68, 71, 100:

25 "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (= 1 Corinthians 15.50). What is this which will not inherit? This which is on us. But what is this, too, which will inherit? It is that which belongs to Jesus and his blood. Because of this he said, "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (= John 6.53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit. He who has received these has food and he has drink and clothing. I find fault with the others who say that it will not rise. Then both of them are at fault. You say that the flesh will not rise. But tell me what will rise, that we may honor you. You say the Spirit in the flesh, and it is also this light in the flesh. (But) this too is a matter which is in the flesh, for whatever you shall say, you say nothing outside the flesh. It is necessary to rise in this flesh, since everything exists in it.

53 If you say, "I am a Jew," no one will be moved. If you say, "I am a Roman," no one will be disturbed. If you say, "I am a Greek, a barbarian, a slave, a free man," no one will be troubled. If you say, "I am a Christian," the [...] will tremble. Would that I might [...] like that — the person whose name [...] will not be able to endure hearing.

68 And so he dwells either in this world or in the resurrection or in the middle place. God forbid that I be found in there! In this world, there is good and evil. Its good things are not good, and its evil things not evil. But there is evil after this world which is truly evil — what is called "the middle." It is death. While we are in this world, it is fitting for us to acquire the resurrection, so that when we strip off the flesh, we may be found in rest and not walk in the middle. For many go astray on the way. For it is good to come forth from the world before one has sinned.

71 It is from water and fire that the soul and the spirit came into being. It is from water and fire and light that the son of the bridal chamber (came into being). The fire is the chrism, the light is the fire. I am not referring to that fire which has no form, but to the other fire whose form is white, which is bright and beautiful, and which gives beauty.

100 God [...] garden. Man [...] garden. There are [...] and [...] of God. [...] The things which are in [...] I wish. This garden is the place where they will say to me, "[...] eat this or do not eat that, just as you wish." In the place where I will eat all things is the Tree of Knowledge. That one killed Adam, but here the Tree of Knowledge made men alive. The law was the tree. It has power to give the knowledge of good and evil. It neither removed him from evil, nor did it set him in the good, but it created death for those who ate of it. For when he said, "Eat this, do not eat that", it became the beginning of death.

This authorial voice is not as strong as what we find in the preface to the gospel of Luke, but it is there, nonetheless.

Second, and more importantly, I am not sure I would classify the gospel of Philip as a "gospel text" in the first place, despite its given title. The other texts I have been discussing are either narratives about Jesus, sayings by Jesus, or dialogues with Jesus. Philip is not any of these things, though at times it does contain sayings by or about Jesus, and at exactly one point it offers a saying by an apostle:

Philip 98: 98 Philip the apostle said, "Joseph the carpenter planted a garden because he needed wood for his trade. It was he who made the cross from the trees which he planted. His own offspring hung on that which he planted. His offspring was Jesus, and the planting was the cross." But the Tree of Life is in the middle of the Garden. However, it is from the olive tree that we got the chrism, and from the chrism, the resurrection.

This single saying by an apostle — by Philip — may well be what led to the title in the manuscript, "gospel according to Philip." For it seems pretty certain that the text itself was never designed to be any such thing:

Philip 39, 51, 101:

39 The apostles said to the disciples, "May our entire offering obtain salt." They called Sophia "salt." Without it, no offering is acceptable.

51 The apostles who were before us had these names for him: "Jesus, the Nazorean, Messiah," that is, "Jesus, the Nazorean, the Christ." The last name is "Christ," the first is "Jesus," that in the middle is "the Nazarene." "Messiah" has two meanings, both "the Christ" and "the measured." "Jesus" in Hebrew is "the redemption." "Nazara" is "the Truth." "The Nazarene," then, is "the Truth." "Christ" [...] has been measured. "The Nazarene" and "Jesus" are they who have been measured.

101 The chrism is superior to baptism, for it is from the word "Chrism" that we have been called "Christians," certainly not because of the word "baptism". And it is because of the chrism that "the Christ" has his name. For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. He who has been anointed possesses everything. He possesses the resurrection, the light, the cross, the Holy Spirit. The Father gave him this in the bridal chamber; he merely accepted (the gift).

These passages, besides two of them offering more examples of the first person (plural in this case, but evidently including the author), do not sound like they were ever supposed to be thought of as having been uttered by Philip, himself an apostle.

The few sayings assigned to specific speakers, however, are the exception in this text, not the rule. Most of the text reads like sayings from an anonymous author. Regardless of the exact contents of such a text, it will tend to land in groups 1 or 2, even if it had nothing to do with Christianity! I have not checked thoroughly to make sure, but I think that The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran would end up in group 1: it certainly lacks eyewitness attibution, a tradent named as being responsible for the contents of the text, and the transmission of secret information given by Jesus or one of his followers; if its first person statements are all in quotations, group 1; if not, group 2. In short, in order for the lack of these attributes to be meaningful, the text must be of the kind which might display such attributes. And I do not think that the gospel of Philip is that kind of text. Its presence on the list, therefore — in any of the groupings — is probably mostly meaningless; it is not a true gospel, or at least not enough of a gospel to be helpful in this present exercise.

Other indications in the gospel of Philip are probably far more indicative of a relatively late date. Besides those passages above looking back on the apostles as a group from the past, there are also a couple of meditations on the many names of Jesus:

Philip 20, 51, 108, 128:

20 "Jesus" is a hidden name, "Christ" is a revealed name. For this reason "Jesus" is not particular to any language; rather he is always called by the name "Jesus." While as for "Christ," in Syriac it is "Messiah," in Greek it is "Christ." Certainly all the others have it according to their own language. "The Nazarene" is he who reveals what is hidden. Christ has everything in himself, whether man, or angel, or mystery, and the Father.

51 The apostles who were before us had these names for him: "Jesus, the Nazorean, Messiah," that is, "Jesus, the Nazorean, the Christ." The last name is "Christ," the first is "Jesus," that in the middle is "the Nazarene." "Messiah" has two meanings, both "the Christ" and "the measured." "Jesus" in Hebrew is "the redemption." "Nazara" is "the Truth." "The Nazarene," then, is "the Truth." "Christ" [...] has been measured. "The Nazarene" and "Jesus" are they who have been measured.

108 A horse sires a horse, a man begets man, a god brings forth a god. Compare the bridegroom and the bride. They have come from the [...]. No Jew [...] has existed. And [...] from the Jews. [...] Christians [...] these [...] are referred to as "the chosen people of [...]," and "the true man" and "Son of Man" and "the seed of the Son of Man," this true race is renowned in the world [...] that the sons of the bridal chamber dwell.

128 There is the Son of Man and there is the son of the Son of Man. The Lord is the Son of Man, and the son of the Son of Man is he who creates through the Son of Man. The Son of Man received from God the capacity to create. He also has the ability to beget.

It is not that so many different names for Jesus are present; it is rather that this kind of reflection as to their meaning comes off to me as late commentary. YMMV, but this gospel also appears similarly to comment on other Christian texts, such as in saying 25, given above, which takes 1 Corinthians 15.50 and John 6.53 as prooftexts and remarks upon them.

All this to say, I think that it is justifiable to think of the gospel of Philip as rather late in the stream of transmission under examination here, and I also think that good reasons can be given both for why it winds up in group 1 or 2 on my table and for why it ought not to remain in either of those groups; it ought not, in fact, to remain on the table, since it is not the right kind of text for it.

[Ben C. Smith]

Another trajectory proposed by E. Bruce Brooks:

E. Bruce Brooks, "Gospel Trajectories," page 2: In Mark, Jesus visits many Galilean towns, and goes to Jerusalem only to be crucified. The disciples return to Galilee, and though the ending of Mark is missing in our text, it is predicted (Mk 14:28, 16:7) that Jesus will appear to them there. In Matthew, some of Jesus’ preaching is done on his journey to Jerusalem, and three Galilean towns, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, are cursed as unbelieving (Mt 11:21-24); the risen Jesus first appears in Jerusalem, to the Women at the Tomb (Mt 28:9-10), though there is also a later Galilean appearance, of the kind that was predicted if not displayed in Mark (Mt 28:16f). In Luke, the risen Jesus not only appears on the road from Jerusalem, but orders the disciples to remain in Jerusalem (Lk 24:15f); there is no Galilee appearance. John agrees with Luke in limiting the appearances of the risen Jesus to Jerusalem [save for the inconsistent, and clearly later appended, final chapter, Jn 21]; he has Jesus visit Jerusalem repeatedly, and often preach there. The Jerusalem shift in the Jesus story is thus furthest advanced in John.

These observations would give us the trajectory of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and then John. I myself have argued for a shift from Galilee to Jerusalem, accompanied by a shift from a conception of a Messiah ben Joseph to that of a Messiah ben David, in the gospel materials, so I am of course quite sympathetic to this trajectory. However, I am not certain how useful it really is overall as a tool by which to gauge the relative lateness or earliness of a gospel text. For one thing, what if the author happened to hail either from Galilee or from Judea, and therefore stressed that locale because of their own life story, and not because of their position in the stream of tradition? For another, on the one hand, sayings or dialogue gospels seem to me to be basically immune to such a trajectory while, on the other, our narrative gospels are often too fragmentary to make such the necessary determination. Brooks limits his discussion to the canonical four, as is his custom, but in this case this limitation is practically forced upon us by the nature of the case. The only gospel text which can really be added to the list is that of Marcion, and I am not going to go into that one here and now, because it is so complicated (in some ways especially when it comes to geography).

Dialogue gospels often select a single setting from the biography of Jesus. In the gospel of Judas, Jesus is speaking "with his disciples in Judea" shortly before his death. Is this an emphasis on Judea over Galilee? Or is it just a convenient setting for Jesus' secret conversation with Judas? The gospel of the Savior contains a vision on a mountain of unspecified location; the overall setting of the work right before Jesus' death might suggest a Judean locale, but the setting is not specified in the extant, very fragmented text, and nothing is made of it. The Traditions of Matthias are far too fragmentary to determine anything, and nothing geographical appears in the extant quotations or summaries. No geographical information seems to appear in the gospel of Mary, the Dialogue of the Savior, or the Book of Thomas the Contender, either. The Sophia of Jesus Christ is set on a mountaintop in Galilee after Jesus' resurrection; this text also appears to locate a previous dialogue with Jesus on a mountain called "of the Olives, in Galilee" (whereas the Mount of Olives would definitely belong to Judea)! The Epistle of the Apostles, a dialogue gospel with some of the dialogue being narrated summaries, mentions the wedding "in Cana of Galilee," but is otherwise devoid of geographical details. Toward the end of the Apocryphon of James the protagonist goes up to Jerusalem. Toward the beginning of the Apocryphon of John the protagonist is at the temple; Jesus is called a Nazarene, but this term is not defined. The gospel of Philip mentions Jerusalem thrice, but only in a discussion about where sacrifices occurred; the term "Nazarene" is said to mean "truth," apparently having nothing to do with a location in Galilee. In the gospel of Thomas there is a mention in saying 60 of a Samaritan carrying a lamb on his way to Judea. I doubt that any of these scattered geographical references can tell us a thing about the relative chronology of each text.

The proposed trajectory is naturally more at home in the narrative gospels, the main difficulty in this respect being, as I have mentioned, how fragmentary many of these gospels are. Our main extant fragment gospel of Peter, for example, deals only with the passion story, so it is not surprising that the scene is Jerusalem; Herod is present, but he is called king, not "tetrarch of Galilee" (Luke 3.1) or the like; and the fragment ends with what appears to be about to develop into the resurrection appearance recounted in John 21, which takes place in Galilee, but in the gospel of Peter it is said merely that it takes place at "the sea," with no further specification before the text breaks off. In the Dura fragment, Jesus' male and female followers had come "from Galilee," and Joseph was of Arimathea, "a city of Judea." One of the extant quotations of the gospel of the Ebionites mentions that people from Jerusalem (with no other locales mentioned) went out to be baptized by John; Herod is the king of Judea, not "tetrarch of Galilee" or something similar, and in another quotation Jesus comes at one point into Capernaum, which we know to be in Galilee, but which the gospel also does not specify as belonging to Galilee. One of the extant quotations of the gospel of the Hebrews mentions "Tabor, the great mountain," not specifying that it is a mountain in Galilee.

The infancy gospels are quite limited in scope (practically by definition). In the Infancy Gospel of James, despite numerous mentions of the twelve tribes of Israel, there is no mention of Nazareth or Galilee, but several of Judea and Bethlehem and Jerusalem. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Joseph's house location goes unspecified and there is no mention of Nazareth or Galilee, but Jesus goes with his parents to Jerusalem at age twelve; it is not specified from whence they traveled, however. These gospels are not fragmentary, so it would make sense both of the proposed trajectory and of my table to locate them after the other gospels up for consideration (that is, after the canonical four plus Marcion), by which I mean that the trajectory and my table are consonant on this point, but I am just not sure that this would be a valid move so far as really depending upon the evidence is concerned. Besides, given that John can be characterized as the "most Judean" of the canonical gospels, what is chapter 21, a thoroughly Galilean chapter, doing getting itself appended to it? Is there a late shift back to Galilee going on?

So I think that, while overall this trajectory makes a bit of sense and actually lines up fairly well with my table, it also (A) is very limited in application and (B) is probably not an assumption (Galilee to Judea/Jerusalem and not vice versa) that is the safest to make; I mean, it does make some common sense, Judea being far more influential than Galilee on the stage of the ancient world (thus making a shift from Galilee to Judea easier to imagine than the opposite shift, from this perspective), but too many factors personal to any given author or editor might interfere. It is enough for me to note that this proposed trajectory does not contradict my table; if anything, it supports it.

[Difflugia]

The issue, of course, is that the gospel of Mark appears to evince no such reluctance about the baptism of Jesus:

Mark 1.4, 9-11: 4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. .... 9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; 11 and a voice came out of the heavens: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well pleased.”

John is baptizing for the forgiveness of sins, and Jesus comes to be baptized by John. A straightforward reading of this passage is that Jesus was being baptized for the forgiveness of sin, and Mark does not even blink at saying this. Other evangelists certainly do!

I read Mark as not only OK with the baptism, but perhaps requiring it. Mark 1:10 can plausibly be read such that the Spirit descends into Jesus (modern critical and early texts read εἰς, into as opposed to the ἐπ᾽, upon of the other gospels and later, apparently harmonized texts of Mark). I think Mark's Jesus had to be ritually purified before engaging with and accepting the divine and then tested afterwards by Satan (as God's agent as he is in Job). Matthew and Luke both kept the accounts of the baptism and wilderness trial, but by their modifications show that they understand that the unmodified accounts don't reflect a Jesus that was already divine.

If I'm reading both Mark and Brooks correctly, this reading would reinforce Mark's early place in both the "Divinization" (Mark's Jesus must receive the Spirit of God in order to access divine power) and "Baptism" (as a necessary precursor to meeting and accepting divinity) trajectories of Brooks.

The Jesus of Matthew, Luke, and John was already indwelt by the Spirit, divine, and sinless, so the baptism had to be for show with the baptism (in Matthew and Luke) and Spirit "upon" Jesus (in all three) as signs to spectators. Similarly, Mark's Jesus was a man judged worthy of accessing the divine, who must be tested in the by the adversary on God's behalf. Matthew and Luke expanded the temptation such that Jesus became the advocate for God against an adversary of God Himself.