chapter five
Father.” Notably, theGospel of the Ebionites, which in this passage mostly
follows Matthew, has shortened the Matthean “my Father in heaven”
and refers only to “my Father.” () OnlyThomasand theGospel of the
Ebioniteshave the sequence “brothers and mother” (followed by sisters
in theGospel of the Ebionites) in the final clause. In the synoptic gospels,
the order is “brothers, sisters, mother” (Mark and Matthew)^75 or “mother
and brothers” (Luke).
These similarities show that theGospel of Thomasand theGospel
of the Ebionitesare drawing on a non-canonical tradition. As regards
the character of this tradition, two hypotheses have been presented: ()
TheGospel of Thomasand theGospel of the Ebionitesboth draw on an
independent sayings tradition.^76 () TheGospel of Thomasand theGospel
of the Ebionitesdepend on a gospel harmony or harmonizing gospel
tradition.^77
Patterson, who has argued for the first option, ascribes to the inde-
pendent, “less embellished,” tradition the phrasesπατρ!ς μυandNτ
ε/σιν, which are common toClem. ., theGospel of the Ebionitesand
Thomas, as well as the absence of Jesus’ rhetorical question and gesture
(Mark :–/Matt :–), omitted byThomasand Luke. In prac-
tice, Patterson’s hypothesis means that the independent tradition would
have had a multiple impact on the formation of the passage in theGospel
of the Ebionites. In the first stage, it would have been available to the edi-
tor of Luke’s gospel (omission of the question and the gesture,Nτ ε/-
σιν) and to the editor of Matthew’s gospel (πατρ!ς μυ). In addition, the
same independent tradition should have been still available to the edi-
tor of theGospel of the Ebionites, who at least used canonical Matthew
for this passage but took from the independent tradition the form of the
(^75) However, the majority of Greek manuscripts read in Mark : “brothers and
mother” (Nestle–Aland: (A al), f^13 ,M,sy(s).h). In addition, the Old Latin manuscript
bhas the same reading in Luke :. Notably, Mark : forms the beginning of the
present synoptic passage but it is not explicitly quoted in theGospel of the Ebionitesor
in theGospel of Thomas. Therefore, if one wishes to see the influence of Mark’s variant
in theGospel of the EbionitesandThomas, one must also assume that their passages were
originally part of a larger narrative. Even so, the dependance ofThomasand theGospel of
the Ebioniteson the common harmonizing tradition is indicated by the combination of
this secondary Markan reading with the elements paralleled in Luke and Matthew, which
characterizesonlyGos. Thom.andthe“Gospel of the Ebionites,” (with the exception of Old
Latinbthat is also probably influenced by Mark’s secondary reading).
(^76) Patterson , . Sieber , .
(^77) Schrage , ; Fieger , .