The Dialogue of the Saviour as secondary gospel-in-progress

The Dialogue of the Saviour exists in a rather mutilated Coptic fragment at Nag Hammadi. As "of the Saviour" it is a composite, from other material that considers Jesus the "Lord" or the "Son". It reserves "Son of Man" for its apocalyptic discourses. Here's Emmel's translation.

The Dialogue's view of our Earth is as a hell, prison of "the archons". For all that the present text may represent a composite (like the Ascension...), it seems consistent on this much. Also consistent is that, of the Twelve Disciples, Jesus doesn't talk to the four Galileans from the Synoptics. The three interlocutors who matter are Mary, Judas [Thomas, one assumes] and Matthew.

Modern scholars deem Jesus' discourses here as primitive, pre-Johannine. I dispute that. The Dialogue recommends a form of "praise" which looks to me like a replacement for the Lord's Prayer in Luke, Matthew, and the Didache. When the disciples ask about the mustard seed, this looks like Matthew 17:20 or maybe the parable / similitude Mark 4:30–32. What is "born of truth", against born of woman, looks like 1 John 4 (John 18 too). The lamp of the body is the mind reflects Matthew 6:22–23, where the lamp is the eye.

The Dialogue's Mary cites Thus with respect to 'the wickedness of each day,' and 'the laborer is worthy of his food,' and 'the disciple resembles his teacher.'. The wickedness of each day looks like a nod to Matthew 6:34. The workman is worthy of his meat, is Matthew 10:10 against 1 Timothy 5:18 / Luke 10:7. A disciple is not above the teacher, and everyone fully trained will be like his teacher is Luke 6:40; a parallel is Matthew 10:24 A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. John 13 (then 15) develops that No servant is greater than his master. Note, in the latter, the total mutual ignorance between the Dialogue and the Johannine tradition.

As for such moral precepts as one finds in James and Aristides: the Dialogue doesn't care, unless they can be used for mysticism.

We could talk of "the Oral Tradition" or "Q" (I don't think John used Matthew), but we're here for the Dialogue. I suspect, for that author, some harmony of the canon Synoptic gospels. Matthew being most important.

The Dialogue looks like a sketch, based on Matthew, what John was to complete for its own sources. Except that John became a full gospel of its own.