Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T21:31:34.855Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Thomas” and the Growth of the Gospels*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

R. McL. Wilson
R. McL. Wilson
Affiliation:
St. Mary's College, St. Andrews, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The title of this paper quite evidently promises more than can be fulfilled in the space of a single lecture. On any reckoning, the Gospel of Thomas contains over 100 logia, and even if some may for present purposes be set aside the discussion and evaluation of the rest would still be enough to fill a quite substantial book. All that is offered here is a preliminary survey, an attempt to indicate some of the possible lines of approach, some of the conclusions which may be drawn, to present a few examples, chosen among many, which may serve to show the similarities and the variations between Thomas and our Gospels, and thereby to illustrate the ways in which the new document may very well enrich our understanding of the development of the Gospel tradition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , October 1960 , pp. 231 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The official reckoning, followed by Puech (in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT Apokryphen, i (Tübingen, 1959), 199 ff.)Google Scholar and Till (BJRL, 41 (1959), 446 ff.)Google Scholar, counts one hundred and fourteen logia, Leipoldt (TLZ, 1958, 481 ff.) one hundred and twelve, Doresse (L'Évangile de Thomas, ou Les Paroles de Jésus (Paris, 1959), one hundred and eighteen. For convenience of reference, the passages quoted in this paper are cited by plate and line of the photographic edition (Labib, Coptic Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old Cairo (Cairo, 1956), vol. i).Google Scholar

2 Op. cit., 451.

3 The Sentences of Sextus (Cambridge, 1959), 159.Google Scholar

4 The identification was made in 1952 by Puech. Cf. Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 61 ff. (Schneemelcher and Jeremias), 212 ff. (Puech).

5 Schneemelcher, loc. cit.

6 Op. cit., 199 f.

7 Cf. Puech, op. cit., 214 ff.

8 Cf. Schneemelcher, loc. cit.

9 On this point see the discussion by Vielhauer, in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 75 ff.

10 Op. cit., 494.

11 Leipoldt, TLZ, 1958, 494 f., Puech, CR Acad. Inscrr. et Belles-Lettres, 1957, 146 ff. and in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 221 f., Quispel, Vig. Chr. xi (1957), 189 ff., NTS, 5 (1959), 277.Google ScholarPubMed

12 Op. cit., 221: “Höchstens wird man geneigt sein, die letzte Redaktion unseres Evangeliums um 140 oder vielleicht sogar ein wenig später anzusetzen.” But “wir haben in der Tat den Beweis, dass es verschiedene Bearbeitungen unseres Werkes gegeben hat, und dürfen die, welche wir dank des Papyrus von Nag Hamâdi jetzt besitzen, weder für die erste noch für die endgültige halten.”

13 Labib, 98. 31–99. 3. German translation of the whole Gospel by Leipoldt, TLZ, 1958, French in Doresse. An English translation, for a copy of which I am indebted to Professor B. M. Metzger, has been prepared by the New Testament Seminar of Princeton Theological Seminary. Some portions are translated into German in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, or into English in Till. The following quotations are made from the Coptic, after consultation of the translations mentioned.

14 Cf. Matt. 5. 42, Luke 6. 34 f. Also Labib, 96. 35–97.1: “If you have money, do not lend it for interest. ….”

15 The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1941), 112.Google Scholar

16 Le Muséon, 70 (1957), 314 f.Google Scholar

17 Op. cit. 202.

18 Op. cit., 316 ff.

19 Labib, 94. 13–22. Cf. Cerfaux, op. cit., 312 f. I owe the phrase “shipment of goods” to the Princeton translation. The Coptic has the Greek word φορτίον, and Cerfaux thinks of a pedlar with his pack. The Greek word could mean either. Jeremias (The Parables of Jesus (ET, London, 1954), 139)Google Scholar thinks in the Synoptic parable of a merchant in a large way of business.

20 Cerfaux (op. cit., 313) finds links also with Matt. 6. 33 and John 6. 27. Matthew's βρῶσις, which seems to be the catchword here, is replaced in Thomas by “worm,” which occurs in the NT only in Mark 9.48. Quispel (Vig. Chr., XIII (1959), 93)Google Scholar notes here a parallel to Tatian's Diatessaron.

21 Labib, 81. 28–82.2; cf. Quispel (NTS, 5 (1959), 289 f.).Google ScholarPubMed

22 Assuming that the Nestlé text is right in omitting άκούειν in Matt. 11.15, 13.9 and 43.

23 Labib, 98. 22–27. Cf. Cerfaux, op. cit., 314, 322 ff.

24 Cerfaux refers for Gnostic use of the parable to Irenaeus and to the Gospel of Truth. In an earlier work he claims that the motif of the Lost Sheep in the system of Simon Magus is drawn not from the Gospel but from paganism (Recueil Cerfaux (Gembloux, 1954) i. 240 ff.). For the complaint of Irenaeus see Adv. Haer. i. 1.14H. et al. Other interpretations than that suggested in the text are of course not excluded. It was part of the menace of Gnosticism that it could appear “harmless as a dove,” and the simple Christian read without misgiving a parable which for the Gnostic conveyed an esoteric meaning.

25 Labib, 82. 2–3. This follows the parable of the fisherman, so that (if this parable is based on the Drag-net) we should here have Matt. 13. 47–50, 13.9 (or 43) and 13. 1–9, in that order.

26 Labib, 85. 16–19. Doresse treats this as a separate saying, and refers to Matt. 13. 37–43) 3.12 and par., John 4. 36–38, but none of these appears so close as the Marcan text.

27 Cf. Doresse 162 f.

28 Labib, 92. 2–10. Creed on Luke 12. 17–19 compares 16.3 and 20.13 “where a similar ejaculation … is introduced by Lk. into the Marcan version.” Is the deliberative question, missing from Thomas, a mark of Lucan style?

29 HU al. The formula is added also in some Mss. at Mark 7.16 and Luke 21.4. Of the six occurrences in Thomas the first two add άκούειν, the rest omit.

30 Labib, 97. 2–6.

31 Tares: Labib, 90. 32–91.7; Mustard Seed, ib. 84. 26–33.

32 Labib, 93. 1–16. Mark's final question is missing, also the point that the husbandmen cast the dead son out of the vineyard. The version in Thomas would seem to confirm the suggestion (cf. Dodd, op. cit., 129 and see also Jeremias, op. cit., 55 ff.) that the form of the Synoptic story has been influenced by allegorical interpretation in which the “servants” stand for the prophets. In this case Thomas has preserved the parable more faithfully. The above translation adopts Quispel's emendation for “Perhaps he did not know them” as necessary to the sense.

33 Labib, 93. 16–19.

34 Labib, 89. 12–23. Quispel (NTS, 5 (1959), 281)Google ScholarPubMed suggests that this saying offers an independent translation of the Aramaic underlying Matthew and Luke and may go back to Jewish-Christian tradition distinct from our Gospels.

35 Cf. Puech, op. cit., 212: Die noch unveröffentlichten Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung, die G. Quispel hierzu unternommen hat, begünstigen die Auffassung, dass der Text unserer Logien zu der unpassenderweise “westlich” genannten Tradition gehören. For the present, reference may be made to Quispel's articles in Vig. Chr., xi (1957), 189 ff., xii (1958), 181 ff., xiii (1959), 89 ff.

36 Labib, 87. 18–20, 90. 23–24, 94. 6–9, 96. 1–4. Cf. Matt. 15.14, Luke 6.20 (Matt. 5.3), Matt. 9. 37 f. and par., Matt. 8.20 and par. The closing words of the last saying are not Synoptic, but Quispel (Vig. Chr., xiii (1959), 94) finds parallels in some forms of the Diatessaron.

37 Labib, 84. 26–33.

38 Labib, 86. 12–17.

39 Labib, 87. 24–27. Cf. Schneemelcher, op. cit., 71.

40 Op. cit, 169.

41 Puech, op. cit., 221 f. and previously in CR Acad. Inscr., 1957; Doresse, op. cit., 69. Thus Puech notes (op. cit., 222) that in one case the Coptic omits a reference to the resurrection of the body which occurs in the parallel Oxyrhynchus fragment, because it conflicted with Gnostic doctrine.

42 Labib, 88. 16–18.

43 Labib, 88. 26–31.

44 Labib, 97. 21–26.

45 Labib, 88. 31–89.6. It may be added that the association of grapes with thorns and figs with thistles corresponds to Matthew rather than to Luke. Jeremias (op. cit., 73) sees in the Synoptics a case of the fusion of parables.

46 Cf. Vig. Chr., xiii (1959), 89 ff., NTS, 5 (1959), 282 ff.Google ScholarPubMed

47 According to Quispel (op. cit., 97 f.), although the possibility is not excluded, there is nothing to indicate that Tatian knew Thomas, and there are reasons which make it extremely improbable. Quispel suggests (e.g., p. 117) that the logia which have links with Tatian's work were derived from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Cf. also NTS 5 (1959), 286Google ScholarPubMed: “the Gospel according to the Hebrews or more generally … the tradition which this apocryphal writing represents.”

48 Labib, 87. 5–7.

49 Mark 2.17 and parr.

50 Op. cit., 494. Leipoldt remarks that our suspicions of these parallelisms are confirmed by the cases in which the first member is simply reversed, sometimes producing a quite unintelligible result.

51 Labib, 89. 24–27. On developments of this saying within Thomas itself, see Quispel NTS, 5 (1959), 288.Google ScholarPubMed

52 CR Acad. Inscr., 1957, 159, and in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 218 (references only).

53 Labib, 87. 7–10.

54 Loc. cit. On Semitisms in Thomas, cf. Guillaumont, Journal Asiatique, ccxlvi (1958), 113 ff.Google Scholar

55 Le Problème synoptique (Paris, 1954), 339 ff.Google Scholar (reference in Puech, 159, note). See also Quispel, Vig. Chr., xiii, 108 f.

56 Quispel (op. cit., 112 f.) suggests that behind the version of this saying in the Diatessaron there lies a version identical with, or similar to, that of Thomas. Cf. NTS, 5 (1959), 285.Google ScholarPubMed

57 Labib, 88. 7–13.

58 Labib, 83. 31–84. 5. For “fire” cf. Luke 12. 49 and Thomas (Labib, 82. 14–16): “I have cast a fire upon the world, and behold, I watch over it until it burn.”

59 Labib, 90. 18–23. Doresse (op. cit., 176 f.) refers to I Cor. 7.10 (a misprint for 7.19), Gal. 5.6., 6.15 and Col. 3.11. To these may be added Rom. 2.25 ff. and Col. 2. 11.

60 Labib, 86. 34–87.2 Cf. 2 Cor. 4.7; but if Paul's words lie behind this, they have been adapted to a Gnostic purpose. See Till, op. cit., 453.

61 On logion 59 of his translation (Labib, 91. 7–9), Leipoldt refers to James 1.12 and I Peter 3.14, and suggests that Thomas may here preserve the more original form: “Blessed is the man who suffered; he found life.” Doresse (op. cit., 179) finds “une citation approximative” in Gregory of Nazianzus. Reference should perhaps be made, however, to Matt. 5.10 f. (cf. Labib, 93. 21–27), and to the agraphon quoted by Tertullian, De baptismo 20.2 (one of eleven sayings listed by Jeremias in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 54 f., of which at least two others have parallels in Thomas).

62 Labib, 84. 5–9. Cf. Puech, CR Acad. Inscr., 1957, 165, and Doresse, op. cit., 145 ff

63 Mark 1.8, Acts 1.5, 11.16. Cf. also the references given by Jeremias (in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, 67 f.) on POx. 1 = Labib, 86. 20–31, and his comment (… der Art, wie Jesus christologische Formulierungen der Gemeinde in den Mund gelegt werden …)

64 Luke 14. 16–24, cf. Matt. 22. 2–10. Commentators differ as to whether the variations between Matthew and Luke indicate use of different sources or independent editing of the same Q material. The version in Thomas is closer to that of Luke, usually considered nearer to the original.

65 Op. cit., 450 f., cf. Doresse, op. cit., 104, 184.

66 For the view that the Apostolic Fathers are dependent on oral tradition even after the composition of our Gospels, cf. Köster, , Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern (TU, 65, Berlin, 1957).Google ScholarBorgen, P. (NTS, 5 (1959), 246 ff.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar suggests that synoptic elements, already fused together in the tradition, have been assimilated in John into a Passion narrative derived from a separate tradition. A similar explanation may account for some of the features observed in Thomas.

67 Some sayings appear in two forms in Thomas, and may show development actually in process. Cf. Quispel, NTS, 5 (1959), 287 ff.Google ScholarPubMed

68 Another factor to be taken into consideration here is the Semitic element, on which cf. Guillaumont in Journal Asiatique, ccxlvi (1958), 113 ffGoogle Scholar, Quispel in Vig. Chr., xiii (1959), 115. For other literature on Thomas see the references given in New Testament Studies, v (1959), 273 ff.Google Scholar, and Prigent, Rev. Hist, et Phil. Rel., xxxix (1959), 39 ff.Google Scholar