Fallon and Cameron, Gospel of Thomas

AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG
DER ROMISCHEN WELT

(ANRW)
RISE AND DECLINE

OF THE ROMAN WORLD
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON I EDITED BY
WOLFGANG HAASE
UND I AND
HILDEGARD TEMPORINI
TElL II: PRINCIPAT

BAND 25.6
PART II: PRINCIPATE

VOLUME 25.6
WALTER DE GRUYTER · BERLIN · NEW YORK 1988
---··---- .. -
..,6edruckt auf siiurefreiem Papier
\,./alterungsbestiindig - pH 7, neutral)
Printed on acid-free paper

(ageing resistant - pH 7, neutral)
1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

- Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt:
Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren
Forschung.
English, French, German, Italian and Spanish.
Later volumes have English parallel title: Rise and decline of
the Roman world.
The volumes of Teil II have separate titles: Politische Ge-
schichte, Kiinste, Recht, Religion, Sprache und Literatur, Philoso-
phic, Wissenschaften, Technik.
Teilii edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase.
,Joseph Vogt zum 23. 6. 1970" (28 p.) in pocket of vol. I, 1.
Includes bibliographies.
Contents: T. I. Von den Anfangen Roms bis zum Ausgang
der Republik (5 v.) - T. II. Principat
1. Rome- Civilization- Collected works. I. Vogt, Joseph,
1895- 1986. II. Temporini, Hildegard. Ill. Haase, Wolfgang. IV.
Title: Rise and decline of the Roman world.
DG209.T36 937 72-83058
ISBN 3-11-001885-3 (I, 1)
CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek
Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt:

Geschichte u. Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung I
hrsg. von Hildegard Temporini u. Wolfgang Haase. - Berlin,
New York : de Gruyter.
NE: Temporini, Hildegard [Hrsg.)
2. Principat.
Bd. 25. Religion I hrsg. von Wolfgang Haase.
6. Teilbd: 1. Auf!. - 1988.
ISBN 3-11-011894-7
NE: Haase, Wolfgang [Hrsg.)
0001 t
© 1988 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin 30
Aile Rechte, insbesondere das der Obersetzung in fremde Sprachen, vorbehalten. Ohne ausdriick-
liche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es auch nicht gestattet, dieses Buch oder Teile daraus auf
photomechanischem Wege (Photokopie, Mikrokopie) zu vervielfaltigen.
Printed in Germany
Satz und Druck: Arthur Collignon GmbH, Berlin 30
Einbandgestaltung und Schutzumschlag: Rudolf Hiibler
Buchbinder: Liideritz & Bauer, Berlin 61
-----~~-~-
Inhalt
Vorbemerkung v
RELIGION
(VORKONSTANTINISCHES CHRISTENTUM:
LEBEN UND UMWELT JESU; NEUES TESTAMENT
[KANONISCHE SCHRIFTEN UND APOKRYPHEN], SCHLUSS)
Band II. 25.6:
FALLON, F. T. (Medway, Mass.) - CAMERON, R. (Middletown,

Conn.)
The Gospel of Thomas: A Forschungsbericht and Analysis 4195-4251
CoTHENET, E. (Paris)
Le Protevangile de Jacques: origine, genre et signification
d'un premier midrash chretien sur Ia Nativite de Marie . . 4252-4269
LEVIN, S. (Binghamton, N.Y.)
The Early History of Christianity, in Light of the 'Secret
Gospel' of Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4270-4292
JuNoD, E. (Geneve) - KAEsTLI, J.-D. (Geneve)
Le dossier des 'Actes de Jean': etat de Ia question et perspecti-
ves nouvelles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4293-4362
POUPON, G. {Geneve)
Les 'Actes de Pierre' et leur remaniement . . . . . . . . . . . 4363-4383
PRIEUR, J.-M. (Saint-Benezet, France)
Les Acres apocryphes de l'apotre Andre: Presentation des
diverses traditions apocryphes et etat de Ia question 4384-4414
TISSOT, Y. (Neuchatel)
L'encratisme des Actes de Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4415-4430
BovoN, F. (Geneve)
Les Acres de Philippe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4431 - 4527
GRIFFITH, S. H. (Washington, D.C.)
The Syriac 'Doctrina Addai'
[Hinweis auf den Nachtrag am Schlu!S von Band II 26] . . . 4528
VIII INHALT
DEHANDSCHlJITER, B. (Leuven)
L'Epistula Jacobi apocrypha de Nag Hammadi (CG 1,2)
comme apocryphe neotestamentaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4529-4550
SFAMENI GASPARRO, G. (Messina)
L'Epistula Titi discipuli Pauli de dispositione sanctimonii e
la tradizione dell' enkrateia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4551 - 4664
YARBRO COLLINS, A. (Notre Dame, Indiana)
Early Christian Apocalyptic Literature . . . . . . . . 4665- 4711
BAUCKHAM, R. J. (Manchester)
The Apocalypse of Peter: An Account of Research 4712-4750
NoRELL!, E. (Bologna)
L''Ascensio Isaiae' come apocrifo cristiano
[Hinweis auf den Nachtrag am SchluB von Band II 26] . 4751
WELBURN, A. J. (London)
Iranian Prophetology and the Birth of the Messiah: the
Apocalypse of Adam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4752-4794
NACHTRAG ZU BAND II. 25.4:

N.N.
Paul's Letter to the ~omans: Trends in Interpretation
1960-1986
[Hinweis auf den Nachtrag am SchluB von Band II 26] . . . 4795
Band II. 25.1:
Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
STAUFFER, E. t (Erlangen)
Jesus, Geschichte und Verkiindigung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 130
WILCox, M. (Bangor, Wales)
Jesus in the Light of his Jewish Environment . . . . . . . . . 131-195
HoLLENBACH, P. W. (Ames, Ia.)
The Conversion of Jesus: From Jesus the Baptizer to Jesus
the Healer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196-219
LEIVESTAD, R. (Oslo)
Jesus - Messias - Menschensohn. Die jiidischen Heilands-
erwartungen zur Zeit der ersten romischen Kaiser und die
Frage nach dem messianischen SelbstbewuBtsein Jesu . . . . 220-264
INHALT IX
BIETENHARD, H. (Bern)
,Der Menschensohn" - 6 u{o<; 'tofi avepronou. Sprachliche,
religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchungen zu
einem Begriff der synoptischen Evangelien.
I. Sprachlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Teil . . . . . . . 265-350
PESCE, M. (Bologna)
Discepolato gesuano e discepolato rabbinico. Problemi e
prospettive della comparazione . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351-389
SANDERS, E. P. (Hamilton, Ontario)
Jesus, Paul and Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390-450
CHARLESWORTH, J. H. (Durham, N. C.)
The Historical Jesus in Light of Writings Contemporaneous
with Him . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451-476
DERRETT,]. D. M. (London)
Law and Society in Jesu's World ................ 477-564
BETz, 0. (Tiibingen)
Probleme des Prozesses Jesu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565-647
KuHN, H.-W. (Heidelberg)
Die Kreuzesstrafe wahrend der friihen Kaiserzeit. Ihre Wirk-
lichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums . . 648-793
BARTSCH, H. W. (Frankfurt a.M.)
Inhalt und Funktion des urchristlichen Osterglaubens, mit
einer Bibliographie zum Thema ·Auferstehung Jesu Christi'
1862- 1959 (in Auswahl) und 1960-1974 von H. RUMPEL-
TES (Frankfurt a.M.) sowie 1975-1980 von TH. POLA (Tii-
bingen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 794- 890
Band II. 25.2:
VOELZ, ]. W. (Fort Wayne, Ind.)

The Language of the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893-977
WILcox, M. (Bangor, Wales)
Semitismus in the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978- 1029
BERGER, K. (Heidelberg)
Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament
[Register unten, S. 1831-1885] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1031-1432
SEGERT, S. (Los Angeles, Cal.)
Semitic Poetic Structures in the New Testament . . . . . . . 1433-1462
X IN HALT
KosTER, H. (Cambridge, Mass.)

Oberlieferung und Geschichte der friihchristlichen Evange-
lienliteratur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1463 -1542
DORMEYER, D. (Munster) - FRANKEMOLLE, H. (Paderborn)
Evangelium als literarische Gattung und als theologischer
Begriff. Tendenzen und Aufgaben der Evangelienforschung
im 20. Jahrhundert, mit einer Untersuchung des Markus-
evangeliums in seinem Verhaltnis zur antiken Biographie . 1543 -1704
TIEDE, D. L. (St. Paul, Minn.)
Religious Propaganda and the Gospel Literature of the Early
Christian Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1705-1729
WHITE, J. L. (Chicago, Ill.)
New Testament Epistolary Literature in the Framework of
Ancient Epistolography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1730-1756
REICKE, B. (Basel)
Die Entstehungsverhaltnisse der synoptischen Evangelien 1758 -1791
TANNEHILL, R. C. (Delaware, Ohio)
Types and Functions of Apophthegms in the Synoptic Gos-
pels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1792-1829
BER-GER, K. (Heidelberg)
Register zu dem Beitrag oben, S. 1031-1432 . . . . . . . . . 1831-1885
Band II. 25.3:

STANTON, G. (London)
The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel: Matthean
Scholarship from 1945 to 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1889-1951
PAuL, A. (Paris)
Matthieu 1 comme ecriture apocalyptique. Le recit veritable
de Ia 'crucifixion' de l'l:p~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1952-1968
PoKORNY, P. (Prag)
Das Markus-Evangelium. Literarische und theologische Ein-
leitung mit Forschungsbericht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1969- 2035
RAu, G. (Lorch [WiirttembergJ)
Das Markus-Evangelium. Komposition und Intention der
ersten Darstellung christlicher Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2036- 2257
INHALT XI
RESE, M. (Munster [West£.])

Das Lukas-Evangelium. Ein Forschungsbericht 2258-2328
DAUBE, D. (Berkeley, Calif.)
Neglected Nuances of Exposition in Luke-Acts . . . 2329-2356
ENSLIN, M. S.t (Philadelphia, Penn.)
Luke and Matthew, Compilers or Authors? . . . . . . 2357-2388
KYSAR, R. (Reading, Pa.)
The Fourth Gospel. A Report on Recent Research 2389-2480
WHITELEY, D. E. H. (Oxford)
Was John Written by a Sadducee? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2481-2505
BEliTLER, J. (Frankfurt a.M.)
Literarische Gattungen im Johannesevangelium. Ein For-
schungsbericht 1919 -1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2506- 2568
BRUCE, F. F. (Manchester)
The Acts of the Apostles: Historical Record or Theological
Reconstruction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2569-2603
LoENING, K. (Munster i. West£.)
Das Evangelium und. die Kulturen. Heilsgeschichtliche und
kulturelle Aspekte kirchlicher Realitat in der Apostelge-
schichte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2604- 2646
Band II. 25.4:

HuBNER, H. (Gottingen)
Paulusforschung seit 1945. Ein kritischer Literaturbericht . 2649-2840
VIVIANO, B. T., 0. P. (Jerusalem)
Paul's Letter to the Romans: Trends in Interpretation
1960-1986
[Hinweis auf den Nachtrag am SchluB von Band II. 25,5] 2841
DUNN, J.D. G. (Durham)
Paul's Epistle to the Romans: An Analysis of Structure and
Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2842- 2890
RAISANEN, H. (Helsinki)
Romer 9-11: Analyse eines geistigen Ringens . . . . . . . . 2891-2939
SELLIN, G. (Oldenburg)
Hauptprobleme des Ersten Korintherbriefes . . . . . . . . . . 2940- 3044
XII INHALT
DAUTZENBERG, G. (GiefSen)
Der zweite Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung. Zur Frage der
literarischen Einheitlichkeit und des theologischen Gefiiges
von 2 Kor 1 - 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3045- 3066
SuHL, A. (Munster)
Der Galaterbrief - Situation und Argumentation . . . . . . 3067-3134
BOUWMAN, G. (Tilburg)
Die Hagar- und Sara-Perikope (Gal 4,21- 31). Exemplari-
sche Interpretation zum Schriftbeweis bei Paulus . . . . . 3135- 3155
MERKEL, H. (Osnabriick)
Der Epheserbrief in der neueren exegetischen Diskussion . 3156- 3246
BEST, E. (St. Andrews, Scotland)
Recipients and Title of the Letter to the Ephesians: Why and
When the Designation "Ephesians"? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3247-3279
ScHENK, W. (Eppstein, Ts.)
Der Philipperbrief in der neueren Forschung (1945 -1985) 3280-3313
Rrssr, M. (Richmond, Va.)
Der Christushymnus in Phil 2,6- 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3314- 3326
Der Kolosserbrief in der neueren Forschung (1945 -1985) 3327-3364
TRILLING, W. (Leipzig)
Die heiden Briefe des Apostels Paulus an die Thessalonicher.
Eine Forschungsiibersicht . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3365-3403
Die Briefe an Timotheus I und II und an Titus (Pastoral-
bride) in der neueren Forschung (1945 -1985) . . . . . . . . 3404-3438
Der Brief des Paulus an Philemon in der neueren Forschung
(1945 -1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3439-3495
BRUCE, F. F. (Manchester)
·To the Hebrews': A Document of Roman Christianity? .. 3496-3521
FELD, H. (Saarbriicken- Tiibingen)
Der Hebriierbrief: Literarische Form, religionsgeschichtlicher
Hintergrund, theologische Fragen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3522-3601
SPICQ, C., 0. P. (Fribourg, Suisse)
L'Epltre aux Hebreux et Philon: Un cas d'Insertion de la
litterature sacree dans Ia Culture profane du Jer siecle (Hebr.
V,ll- VI,20 et le ·De sacrificiis Abelis et Ca'ini' de Philon) 3602-3618
INHALT XIII
Band II. 25.5:
DAVIDS, P. H. (Vancouver, British Columbia)

The Epistle of James in Modern Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 3621-3645
BAASLAND, E. (Oslo)
Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung
des Jakobusbriefes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3646-3684
CoTHENET, E. (Paris)
La Premiere de Pierre: bilan de 35 ans de recherches . . . . 3685- 3712
2 Peter: An Account of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3713-3752
WENGST, K. (Bochum)
Probleme der Johannesbriefe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3753-3772
BEUTLER, J. (Frankfurt a.M.)
Die Johannesbriefe in der neuesten Literatur (1978 -1985) 3773-3790
The Letter of Jude: An Account of Research . . . . . . . . . 3791-3826
SOARDS, M. L. (Dayton, Ohio)
1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude as Evidence for a Petrine School
(with Addenda by V. OLIVER WARD [Dayton, Ohio]) 3827-3849
BacHER, 0. (Mainz)
Die Johannes-Apokalypse in der neueren Forschung 3850-3893
BacHER, 0. (Mainz)
Die Johannes-Apokalypse und die Texte von Qumran . . . 3894-3898
BERGMEIER, R. (Weingarten/Baden)
Die Erzhure und das Tier: Apk 1218-13 18 und 17 f. Eine
quellen- und redaktionskritische Analyse . . . . . . . . . . . 3899- 3916
CHARLESWORTH,]. H. (Princeton, N.J.)

Research on the New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepi-
grapha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3919- 3968
GERO, S. (Tiibingen)
Apocryphal Gospels: A Survey of Textual and Literary Pro-
blems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3969- 3996
KLIJN, A. F. J. (Groningen)
Das Hebraer- und das Nazoraerevangelium . . . . . . . . . . 3997-4033
XIV INHALT
HowARD, G. (Athens, Georgia)

The Gospel of the Ebionites 4034-4053
HELDERMAN, J. (Amsterdam)
Das Evangelium Veritatis in der neueren Forschung . . . . . 4054-4106
SFAMENI GASPARRO, G. (Messina)
II 'Vangelo secondo Filippo': rassegna degli studi e proposte
di interpretazione . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4107-4166
BucKLEY, J. J. (Cambridge, Mass.)
Conceptual Models and Polemical Issues in the Gospel of
Philip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4167-4194
The Gospel of Thomas:
A Forschungsbericht and Analysis
by FRANCIS T. FALLON, Medway, Massachusetts

and RoN CAMERON, Middletown, Connecticut
for GEORGE W. MAcRAE, in memory
Contents
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4196
II. Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. 4197
1. The Coptic Text: Plates, Editions, Translations, Commentaries, and Concor-
dances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4197
2. The Greek Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4201
3. Relationship of the Greek to the Coptic Text 4201
4. Testimonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4204
III. Literary Criticism and Form Criticism . . . . . . 4205
IV. Relationship to the Canonical Gospels . . . . . . 4213
V. Origin: Date, Place, and Language of Composition . 4224
VI. Theology . 4230
VII. Conclusion 4236
Bibliography . . . 4237
1. Bibliographies and Forschungsberichte 4237
2. Plates, Editions, Translations, Commentaries, and Concordances 4237
3. Monographs . 4240
4. Articles . . . . 4241
5. Dissertations . 4251
4196 FRANCIS T. FALLON - RON CAMERON
I. Introduction
Among the documents discovered at Nag Hammadil perhaps none has

attracted more attention than the Gospel of Thomas (Gos. Thorn.). 2 Since its
initial publication in 1956, the number of articles, monographs, textual edi-
tions, modern translations, and book reviews on the Gos. Thorn. alone has
come to more than 600 titles. This gospel has fascinated the student and
scholar alike, stirring student interest and absorbing the scholarly energy of
historians of the New Testament (NT), the early church, and the religions of
antiquity. At the same time, it has provoked considerable debate among these
same persons and left scholars sharply divided in their assessment of the text
and its place in the origins of Christianity.
Fortunately, anyone who is interested in studying the Gos. Thorn. has at
his or her disposal the bibliographies of ScHoL!R and the Forschungsberichte
of PRIGENT in 1959, HAENCHEN in 1961/62 (Literatur zum Thomasevange-
lium), QuECKE in 1962 (L'Evangile de Thomas), and RuDOLPH in 1969. Our
aims in this article will be to update these previous reviews of the literature,
to summarize the principal issues concerning the nature and significance of
the text, and to discuss critically the various positions which scholars have
taken on these issues. Since the Gos. Thorn. has become important for NT
scholarship, articles and monographs devoted to canonical Gospel pericopes
will often include a study of the relevant parallel passage(s) in the Gos. Thorn.
In order to be manageable, however, our study is restricted mainly to those
monographs and articles in scholarly journals and Festschriften that are
devoted to the Gos. Thorn.
1 In this article, works which have full references provided in the bibliography will be
cited in the text or the notes solely by the name of the author. When an author has
more than one entry, the citation of his or her name will be accompanied by a (usually
shortened) title of the book or article in parentheses. Correspondingly, for those items
not in the bibliography the notes will provide full references for the initial citation and
merely the author's name and a shortened title for any subsequent citation(s). Wherever
possible, references to books and articles written in foreign languages and translated
into English will be cited by their English language titles. Abbreviations used in this
article for periodicals, reference works, and serials are the same as those listed in
Harvard Theological Review 74 (1981) 419-27. Our investigation was supported by a
University of Kansas General Research Allocation # 3061-X0-0038 and a Wesleyan
University Supplementary Grant in Support of Scholarship.
2 For a discussion of the discovery of the documents by the person who first recognized
the importance of the find, see DORESSE, The Secret Books. For more recent discussions
of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the discovery and publication of the
codices, see J. M. ROBINSON, The Discovery of the Nag Hammadi Codices, BA 42 (1979)
206- 24; and IDEM, Getting the Nag Hammadi Library into English, BA 42 (1979)
239-48.
II. Text
1. The Coptic Text: Plates, Editions, Translations, Commentaries, and Con-

cordances
The scholar who wishes to examine the photographic plates is in a better

position today than previous_scholars. The older publication by LABIB has been
superseded by the splendid photography of the Facsimile edition published by
Brill. The editio princeps (Ed. pr.), which is still in print, was jointly prepared
by GmLLAUMONT, PUECH, QmsPEL, TILL, and •ABD AL MASII:I and published
in Dutch, German, French, and English language editions in 1959. (A Spanish
language edition was published in 1981.) From this first edition there derives
the standard division of the Gos. Thorn. into 114 sayings or logoi. 3
Prior to the appearance of the Ed. pr., and on the basis of LABIB's
photographs, GARITTE (Le premier volume de !'edition photographique) had
published a translation of the prologue and sayings 1-7, 26-33, 77, and
36-39. These are the sayings which correspond to the fragments in Oxy-
rhynchus Papyri 654, 1, and 655 (P. Oxy.). Shortly thereafter GARITTE pub-
lished with CERFAUX (Les paraboles du royaume) a translation and discus-
sion of the parables of the kingdom in the Gos. Thorn. The first complete
translation of the Gos. Thorn. was published by LEIPOLDT in 1958 (Ein neues
Evangelium?). This translation also depended on the photographs of LABIB.
LEIPOLDT subsequently had the opportunity to examine the codex in Cairo;
his transcription and revised translation of the text were published posthu-
mously in 1967 (Das Evangelium nach Thomas), together with an introduction
to and notes on each of the sayings. This publication signaled an improvement
not only upon his previous translation but also upon the reading of the Ed.
pr. at 85.7 and 99.8 (i.e., at 37.7 and 51.8, according to the page and line
numbers of the official Facsimile edition). It should be noted that LEIPOLDT
originally counted only 112 sayings in the text (Ein neues Evangelium?), and
argued in particular (Bemerkungen zur Obersetzung, 795) that the saying
(now) traditionally numbered 1 should be ascribed to Thomas rather than to
Jesus. Thus, his saying 1 corresponds to saying 2 of the Ed. pr.
In 1959 DORESSE published his research on the Nag Hammadi documents
in general and the Gos. Thorn. in particular (The Secret Books). His introduc-
tion to the Gos. Thorn. presents a helpful survey of the significance of the
apostle Thomas in the early church and his indices provide parallels to the
Gos. Thorn. in the NT. In his translation DoRESSE divides the text into 118
sayings - but whoever uses this translation should do so with caution.
J Traditionally these sayings have been called logia rather than logoi. However, it seems
clear that the more proper term for collections of sayings in antiquity was logoi. See J.
M. ROBINSON, LOGOI SOPHON: On the Gattung of Q, in: IDEM and H. KoESTER,
Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 74-85.
272•
~------ ------
In that same year the study of GIVERSEN (Thomas Evangeliet) also

appeared. It is the product of his own analysis of the codex and contains a
Danish translation, commentary, and references to the Gos. Thom.'s parallels
in the NT and other ancient literature.
PuECH, one of the editors of the Ed. pr., also published a translation and
discussion of 52 of the Gos. Thom.'s sayings independently in 1959 (The
Gospel of Thomas). The strength of this study is the attention it gives to the
testimonia to the Gos. Thorn. In addition,_PuECH sought to order the sayings
according to their forms and to point out their parallels in the literature of
antiquity. The English language edition of this essay is accompanied by the
appended translation of WILSON (The Gospel of Thomas, in: New Testament
Apocrypha).
In 1960 GRANT and FREEDMAN published their analysis of the Gos. Thorn.
(The Secret Sayings), based on the translation of ScHOEDEL. Their work is
noted for its introduction, in which the Gos. Thorn. is considered a Gnostic
document and its theology is expounded within a Gnostic milieu. Indeed,
GRANT himself regards the Gos. Thorn. as belonging to the Gnostic sect of
the Naassenes, who knew and used the text and among whom, he writes, "it
first emerges as a sacred writing" (p. 116). When their book was translated
into German, the translation of ScHOEDEL was replaced by that of QuECKE
(Evangelium nach Thomas).
The Dutch translation of SCHIPPERS (Het Evangelie van Thomas) also
came out in 1960. It is accompanied by a commentary and indices.
In the following year the monograph of HAENCHEN (Die Botschaft des
Thomas-Evangeliums) appeared. This volume is devoted particularly to the
theology of the Gos. Thorn., which is characterized as Gnostic, but it includes
a translation of the text as well. HAENCHEN's translation (Das Thomas-
Evangelium iibersetzt) is also printed in the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum,
along with METZGER's translation into English.
That same year also marked the publication of KASSER's monograph.
Along with a translation KAssER offers a Greek retroversion, which, as he is
aware, can be of only limited value because of its hypothetical nature. In his
introduction KASSER voices again his theory that the Gos. Thorn. is based on
a Gnostic hymn (cf. our section on literary criticism below). Note that, in
enumerating the Gos. Thorn., KASSER devises his own system of dividing the
text into 250 verses, a procedure that has not been followed by scholars. But
the index at the end of his book is helpful, in which the various numbering
systems used by the Ed. pr., DoRESSE, and LEIPOLDT are compared.
Since that initial outburst of editions, translations, and commentaries,
the pace has slowed down somewhat in recent years, though a number of
such studies have still appeared. The translation of the American coptologist
HouGHTON came out in 1963. In 1966 the translation and commentary of
SCHMIDT was published; it is devoted to the mystical value of the Gos. Thorn.
and appears to be designed for a popular, religious audience rather than a
scholarly one. Two years later the translation and study of SuMMERS appeared.
SuMMERS regards the theology of the Gos. Thorn. as a mild form of Gnosticism
THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS 4199
and considers that the Gos. Thorn. did not use the Synoptic Gospels as we
now have them. Moreover, he is particularly interested in the question of the
authenticity of previously unknown sayings of Jesus and suggests, in an order
of probability from least to greatest, sayings 102, 47a, 97, 43, and 82 as
possibly and even probably authentic (pp. 71-75). This volume is also
designed for the general reader rather than the specialist.
CARTLIDGE first published his translation of the Gos. Thorn. in 1971, as
part of a sourcebook of texts which he and DUNGAN have compiled for the
comparative study of the Gospels. His translation has been reprinted several
times in subsequent editions of their anthology; it has also been reissued in
an appendix to the recent monograph of DAVIES (The Gospel of Thomas and
Christian Wisdom).
In 1973 WAUTIER (L'Evangile selon Thomas) published a translation,
based on those already made and accompanied by notes. Then in 1974 the
idiosyncratic study of SUAREZ came out. SuAREZ accepts the thesis that the
Gos. Thorn. represents a tradition independent of the Synoptic Gospels. But
he draws on the theory of GARITTE (Les 'Logoi' d'Oxyrhynque sont traduits
du copte; cf. our sections on the relationship of the Greek to the Coptic text
and on the language of composition below) that the Greek Oxyrhynchus
fragments are translations made from a Coptic version of the Gos. Thorn.,
and then he expands on this theory so that our present Greek Synoptic Gospels
are also said to derive from a Coptic version {p. xxii)!
In the following year the scholarly study of MENARD appeared (L'Evangile
selon Thomas). In addition to an introduction and translation, MENARD has
supplied an extensive commentary that has the double advantage of access to
many other, just-published Nag Hammadi codices and to the scholarly debates
that had then been flourishing for more than 15 years. MENARD is persuaded
that the Gos. Thorn. is a Gnostic document of Syrian origin which is dependent
on the Synoptic Gospels in the main for its composition.
In the one-volume English language edition of the entire set of Nag
Hammadi documents, which was published in 1977, there is a one-page
introduction to the Gos. Thorn. by KOESTER and a fresh translation of the
text by the linguist LAMBDIN (The Gospel of Thomas). This translation is
reprinted in the anthology of noncanonical gospel texts edited by CAMERON. A
slightly revised version of LAMBDIN's translation will appear in the forthcoming
critical edition of the text which LAYTON has edited for publication by Brill.
This volume, currently in press, includes LAYTON's edition of the Coptic text,
ATTRIDGE's collation of the Greek fragments, an introduction to the Gos.
Thorn. by KoESTER, and an index verborum and catalogue of attested gram-
matical forms by EMMEL. In establishing a critical edition of the text, LAYTON .
has provided an extensive analysis of the dialect and orthography of the
manuscript, a reconstructed Coptic text, and a critical apparatus. The appara-
tus contains paleographical commentary, notations of scholarly reconstruc-
tions and conjectures which are either certain or possible, notes on anomalous
Coptic forms, and a listing of the parallel readings of the Greek papyrus
fragments. KoESTER's introduction discusses such questions as the Gos.
Thom.'s authorship, genre, date and place of composition, arrangement of

sayings, forms of sayings, relationship to the Gospels of the NT, theology,
and place within the development of early Christian literature. A list of
parallels to the Synoptics is also provided. Clearly, this is the volume that will
become the standard, critical edition of the Gos. Thorn. for years to come.
The most recent translation of the text was published in 1984 by MEYER.
This translation is designed for the general reader, is presented in a lively
style, and is distinguished by its inclusive, nonsexist language. Note, however,
that MEYER has departed from the standard enumeration of the sayings on
two occasions: he combines into one saying (his 73) what is usually numbered
as three (sayings 73 -75), and he divides into two (his 109 -110) what is
usually cited as one (saying 111). Thus, MEYER presents a text with 113
sayings.
Lastly, we want to mention that the computer-generated concordance to
the Gos. Thorn. which DEGGE has produced is also a helpful tool. The entries
are given in transliteration and include both native Coptic words and Greek
loan words. The dissertation of ARTHUR also contains an index verborum. 4
Earlier statements as to the date of the manuscript and the dialect of the
text of the Coptic Gos. Thorn. have been made more precise in recent years.
DoRESSE (The Secret Books, 139-45, and 333) had originally suggested the
second half of the fourth century as the date of the copying of (what is now
numbered) Codex II, the manuscript volume in which the Gos. Thorn. is
contained. TILL (p. 451) proposed the year 400 as a likely date; LEIPOLDT (Ein
neues Evangelium?, 481), ca. 500. Recent examination of the Nag Hammadi
codices confirms that one may safely date the collection to the mid- to late
fourth century, 5 and LAYTON's assessment of the handwriting of this particular
codex would indicate that its date should be assigned to the first half of the
fourth century. 6 The Ed. pr. (p. vi) considered the Coptic dialect of the Gos.
Thorn. to be Sahidic. But HAARDT (Zum subachmimischen Einflug) gave
. evidence of an admixture of forms by pointing to the presence of both the
Sahidic (S) I and II future tense marker (na) and the Subachmimic (A 2 ) I and
II future tense marker (a) in the text. In his dissertation ARTHUR has argued
that this mixture of dialects in one text reflects the history of the language.
The critical edition of LAYTON establishes from an analysis of the Coptic
syntax and the membership of paradigms "that the underlying dialect is A2
in character, with the ·spelling' or selection of vocalized forms most often
approaching S." Thus, "it is reasonable to assume that the Coptic of Codex
II is the kind that might have been written by a speaker of N attempting,
4 For additional translations of the text into English, Esperanto, French, German, Greek,
Italian, Korean, Latin, Polish, Spanish, Swedish, and Yugoslavian, see the bibliographies
of SCHOLER.
5 See G. MAcRAE, Nag Hammadi, IDBSup 613; and J. M. ROBINSON, Introduction, BA
42 (1979) 202.
6 See B. LAYTON, The Hypostasis of the Archons, HTR 67 (1974) 358-59.
artificially, to conform to S.... In other words the language of Codex II is a

literary language," which LAYTON classifies as "Crypto-subachmimic. " 7
2. The Greek Text
In 1897 the British scholars GRENFELL and HUNT discovered a papyrus

containing sayings of Jesus at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, which they published as
P. Oxy. 1. 8 In 1904 these same scholars published two more fragments of
sayings of Jesus, numbered P. Oxy. 654 and 655. 9 According to their analysis,
and on paleographical grounds, the first fragment was probably written not
much later than the year 200 C.E., and the other two fragments were written
prior to the year 300. It is important to observe that these are fragments of
three different _greek manuscripts. The fact that P. Oxy. 1 comes from a
papyrus codex and P. Oxy. 655 from a papyrus roll demonstrates that these
fragments are derived from literary works, not just from some person's
jottings. 10 Indeed, the existence of three different copies of the Greek text of
the Gos. Thorn. gives evidence of rather frequent copying of this gospel in
the third century (see also FITZMYER, p. 362).
After the publication of these fragments a lengthy scholarly discussion
ensued, as various scholars assessed them and attempted to restore their
lacunae. The best critical edition of the text of the Greek fragments is that of
ATTRIDGE (The Greek Fragments), appended in the forthcoming critical edition
of the Gos. Thorn. by LAYTON. ATTRIDGE provides a fresh collation, recon-
struction, and translation of the text, along with a complete index verborum.
His introduction to these fragments includes a technical discussion of the
relationships among the Greek and Coptic witnesses to the text as well as
quotations and a discussion of the testimonia to the Gos. Thorn.
3. Relationship of the Greek to the Coptic Text
With the discovery of the Coptic text of the Gos. Thorn., proper identifica-
tion of the Greek fragments became possible. As early as 1952 PUECH (The
7 Quoted from LAYTON's own 'Introduction: S4 Dialect and Orthography' to his forthcom-
ing critical edition. See now the description of "Crypto•subachmimic" in: IDEM, Editorial
Notes on the 'Expository Treatise Concerning the Soul' (Tractate II 6 from Nag Ham-
madi), BASP 14 (1977) 66 n. 2. For a recent discussion of the history of the language,
see IDEM, Coptic Language, IDBSup 174-79.
s B. P. GRENFELL and A. S. HUNT, AOriA IHCOY: Sayings of Our Lord (London:
Frowde, 1897).
~ B. P. GRENFELL and A. S. HUNT, New Sayings of Jesus and Fragment of a Lost Gospel
from Oxyrhynchus (London: Frowde, 1904); and IDEM, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri: Part
IV (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1904) 22-28.
to P. Oxy. 654, for its part, consists of 42 lines copied on the verso of a survey list of
various parcels of land.
Gospel of Thomas, 283) realized that the Oxyrhynchus papyri were fragments
of the Greek text of the Gos. Thorn. P. Oxy. 654 corresponds to the prologue
and sayings 1 - 7 of the Gos. Thorn.; P. Oxy. 1 corresponds to Gos. Thorn.
26-33 and 77b; and P. Oxy. 655 corresponds to Gos. Thorn. 24 and 36-39. 11
It is important to note, however, that the Greek and Coptic texts are not
identical. In some cases, in fact, there are major differences between the texts.
For example, P. Oxy. 1, lines 23-30, contains as one saying what is found in
separate contexts as two sayings (30 and 77b) in the Coptic. It is clear, then,
that there were at least two versions of the Gos. Thorn. in antiquity (see also
the analysis of MuELLER). However, even though the three Greek papyri do
not come from a single manuscript, the edition of ATTRIDGE (The Greek
Fragments) will show that the fragmentary state of these papyri does not
permit one to determine whether any of the manuscripts was copied from
another, whether they all derive independently from a single archetype, or
whether they represent distinct recensions.
Publication of the Coptic Gos. Thorn. made it possible for scholars to
examine the Oxyrhynchus papyri again and to offer more cogent restorations
of their lacunae. Independently of one another FITZMYER, HOFrus, and KRAIT
attempted this task. FITZMYER proposed restorations for each saying in all
three of the fragments. His restorations are preferable to those of HoFrus
because they are closer to the Coptic text (e.g., P. Oxy. 654 and its parallel
in the prologue to the Gos. Thorn.). In addition FITZMYER has provided a
comprehensive bibliography of previous work on the fragments to the end of
1969. KRAFT restricted his restorations to P. Oxy. 655. Although FITZMYER
and KRAFT agree in many respects, there is at least one restoration of KRAFT's
which is preferable: the restoration in P. Oxy. 655, col. 1, lines 9-10, of [o]u
xa[i]nei (i.e., "the [lilies] which [neither] 'card' nor [spin]"; see also GLAssoN,
Carding and Spinning). 12 More recently, MARCOVICH (Textual Criticism) has
studied the fragments again and has offered many plausible restorations of
and useful observations on the Greek text of the Gos. Thorn. His investigation
of the history-of-religions trajectory of these sayings is especially helpful.
However, his suggestion that the Greek fragments attest to a single form of
the text and his attempts to construct a textual stemma are rightly rejected
by ATTRIDGE (The Greek Fragments). Finally, one should note that the
fragmentary Greek text of Gos. Thorn. 30 should be read as restored by
ATTRIDGE (The Original Text of Gos. Thorn., Saying 30); the alternative
reconstructions of ENGLEZAKIS, RoBERTS, and others are to be rejected.
In addition to the restoration of the Greek fragments, scholars have also
been concerned with the relationship of these fragments to the Coptic Gos.
tt See also ScHNEEMELCHER and jEREMIAS, Sayings-Collections on Papyrus, 97-113.

12 This particular reconstruction was first suggested by V. BARTLET, The Oxyrhynchus
'Sayings of Jesus,' Contemporary Review 87 (1905) 116-25; and has been accepted by
ATTRIDGE, The Greek Fragments. See also R. MERKELBACH, Logion 36 des Thomas-
Evangeliums (die Lilien auf dem Felde), Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie und Epigraphik 54
(1984) 64.
Thorn. GARITIE (Les ·Logoi' d'Oxyrhynque et l'apocryphe copte dit ·:Evangile

de Thomas'; and Les ·Logoi' d'Oxyrhynque sont traduits du copte) observed
a number of peculiarities in the Greek of the fragments, which he takes to be
Greek mistranslations of the Coptic. He considers the Coptic compound verb
er-therapeue in Gos. Thorn. 31, for example, was misunderstood by the
translator, giving rise to the curious poiein therapeias in P. Oxy. 1. GuiLLAU-
MONT (Les Logia d'Oxyrhynchos) rejected this unusual hypothesis and offered
as an alternative interpretation the suggestion that the Greek was acceptable
as Koine rather than classical Greek. With respect to saying 31 in P. Oxy. 1,
GuiLLAUMONT even furnished an example of the expression poiein therapeias
in Plato (p. 329).
Substantial differences do exist between the Greek fragments and the
Coptic text, differences which ATIRIDGE has itemized in his new critical
edition (The Greek Fragments), from which the following examples have been
selected:
a) The Greek combines elements distinct in the Coptic

1) Coptic sayings 30 and 77b are combined in P. Oxy. 1, lines 23-30.
b) The Greek witnesses have alonger text
2) Saying 3, Coptic 32.26 does not have "[whoever] knows [himself]
will discover this" (P. Oxy. 654, lines 16 -17).
c) The Greek witnesses have a shorter text
3) Saying 2, P. Oxy. 654, lines 7-8 do not have "he will be astonished,
and" (Coptic 32.17 -18).
4) Saying 3, P. Oxy. 654, line 18 does not have "then you will become
known" (Coptic 32.27- 33.1).
d) The Greek and Coptic differ
5) Saying 2, P. Oxy. 654, lines 8-9 read "[once he has ruled], he will
[attain rest]"; Coptic 32.19 reads "over the all."
6) Saying 6, P. Oxy. 654, line 38 reads "[in the sight] of truth"; Coptic
33.20-21 reads "in the sight of heaven."
As ATIRIDGE remarks, these differences result from a variety of causes. Some,

he says, may be mere examples of loose translating (numbers 3 and 4); another,
due to a corruption already present in the Greek archetype of the Coptic
(number 5). One may be due to an accidental omission (number 2); yet
another, due to deliberate editorial alteration (number 1). At least one is
probably due to an inner-Coptic error (number 6).
It is clear, then, that the Gos. Thorn. was subject to redaction as it was
transmitted (see also KuHN). Comparative analysis of the Greek and Coptic
texts substantiates this conclusion; careful examination of the Coptic text
itself does as well. Some of the differences between the Greek and Coptic
readings in saying 3, for instance, were listed above as indicating, possibly, a
loose translation or an accidental omission. According to HAENCHEN (Literatur
zum Thomasevangelium, 160- 61; see also GIVERSEN, Thomas Evangeliet,
31), the awkward separation of the noun ("the birds") from its modifier ("of
the sky") in the Coptic text of this same saying is the product of an inner-
Coptic scribal error; thus, it would also be a sign that our present Gos. Thorn.
is not the first translation made from the Greek.
4. Testimonia
The one indubitable testimonium to the Gos. Thorn. is found in the

·Refutat!Q: (5.7.20) of Hippolytus. Writing between the years 222-235 C.E.,
Hippolytus quotes a saying which shows some similarities to - and many
discrepancies with - saying 4 of our present edition of the text. 13 The precise
relationship between this quotation and our text is debated; nevertheless,
Hippolytus explicitly reports that this saying is taken from a copy of the text
of the Gos. Thorn. that was used by the Naassenes. As such, this is the earliest
extant reference to the Gos. Thorn. by name.
There seem to be several other external attestations to the Gos. Thorn.
as well. The most notable are found in the Acts of Thomas, whose authorship
is attributed to Judas Thomas Didymus (chapter 1), the same figure named
as the ostensible author of the Gos. Thorn. The Acts of Thomas also shows
acquaintance with sayings 2, 22, and 52 (in chapters 136, 147, and 170,
respectively; see MENARD, L'Evangile selon Thomas, 2-3). Noncanonical
parallels to sayings in the Gos. Thorn. abound in early Christian literature.
Clement of Alexandria twice quotes a saying similar to that preserved in
Gos. Thorn. 2. In the first instance (Stromateis 2.9.45.5) Clement ascribes
the saying to the Gospel of the Hebrews, 14 but in the second {Stromateis
5.14.96.3) he does not indicate his source. 15 Moreover, variants of the
saying found in Gos. Thorn. 22 (cf. sayings 21a and 37) are given in 2
Clement 12.2, 6 16 and again in Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis 3.13.92.2),
where it is attributed to the Gospel of the Egyptians 17 (see BAARDA, 2
Clement 12 and the Sayings of Jesus). PUECH (The Gospel of Thomas,
278 ff.) points to additional quotations of or allusions to the Gos. Thorn.
in Gnostic and Manichaean writings.
13 "The one who seeks me will find me in children from the seventh year on; for there,
hiding in the fourteenth aeon, I am revealed" (&11& 6 ~T}trov eupi)cret tv xmotou; am) &trov
&xta· h:ei yap &v tii> tecrcrapemcatoe1Ccltcp alrovt Kpu~611Evoc; ~pavepoii11at [WENDLAND,
GCS 26, p. 83]).
14 KaV tql Ka9• ·E~paiouc; Euayye/..icp 6 9aujla<:ra<; ~a<:rtAEU<JEt yeypa7ttal Kai 6 ~UcrtAEU<:rU<;
avaxai)crEtat (STAHLIN and FRUCHTEL, GCS 15, p. 137).
IS OU 1tUOOEtat 6 ~T}tiDV ~~ av EfiplJ EUpOOV 0t 9ajl~T}9TJ<:rEtat• 9ajl~T}9Eic; OE ~UcrtAEOOEt
~acrtA.rucrac; 0& txavaxai)cretat (STAHLIN and FROCHTEL, GCS 15, p. 389).
16 5tav fcrtat tel ouo fv, Kai to f~ro <he; to fcrro, Kai to lipcrev !lEta tfjc; 9rtA.Eiac;, outE lipcrev
olhE 9i'jA.u (FUNK, BIHLMEYER, and SCHNEEMELCHER, SAQ 211/1, p. 76).
17 5-rav y&VT}tat ta ouo &v Kai to lippEV 11Eta ti'jc; 9T}A.etac; outE lippev oute 9i'jA.u (STAHLIN
and FRuCHTEL, GCS 15, p. 238).
III. Literary Criticism and Form Criticism
The important questions of the Gos. Thom.'s genre, compositional ar-

rangement, and forms of sayings have received considerable attention in the
literature. In terms of genre, the colophon of the Gos. Thorn. presents the
text as a gospel. Unlike the Gospels of the NT, however, the Gos. Thorn. has
no narrative structure and no presentation of the death and resurrection of
Jesus. KASSER's (pp. 19, and 155- 57) suggestion that the basis of the Gos.
Thorn. is a Gnostic hymn which has been expanded by successive additions
of sayings material has not been accepted by scholars. Rather, it seems clear
that the Gos. Thorn. is a pure representative of the genre sayings collection.
One should therefore refer to the Gos. Thorn. as a sayings or discourse
gospel. 18 RoBINSON has shown that the Gos. Thom.'s incipit, which designates
the genre as a collection of logoi, is more original than the title "gospel"
contained in the colophon. 19 Using this insight as a heuristic device, he was
able to trace the history of the genre "words of the wise" (logoi sophon) on
a trajectory extending from such Near Eastern wisdom books as Ahikar and
Proverbs, on the one hand, to the Synoptic Sayings Source Q and the Gos.
Thorn., on the other.
The recent dissertation on the literary genre of Q by KLOPPENBORG 10
has substantially augmented ROBINSON's analysis by providing, in part, a
comparative analysis of Q (and the Gos. Thorn.) within the context of ancient
sayings collections. KLOPPENBORG examined the three major types of antique
sentence collections (the Near Eastern Instruction, the Hellenistic Gnomolo-
gium, and the Chriae-Collection) in terms of their morphologies, settings,
hermeneutics, and internal dynamics. His investigation provides rich documen-
tation of the generic heritage of the Gos. Thorn. In addition, KLOPPENBORG
has demonstrated the genre's own potential for an esoteric hermeneutic when
the speaker of wisdom is associated with divine authority and a hermeneutic
of "penetration" is employed in describing the intended response of the hearer
to the proclamation of such wisdom (p. 423; cf. sayings 1-3).
The Gos. Thorn. is thus to be distinguished from the so-called Gnostic
gospels or apocalypses 11 that allegedly present secret revelations of the risen
ta See J. D. CROSSAN, Four Other Gospels (Minneapolis/Chicago/New York: Winston,

1985) 26- 27; H. KoESTER, Dialog und Spruchiiberlieferung in den gnostischen Texten
von Nag Hammadi, EvTh 39 (1979) 532-56; IDEM, Oberlieferung und Geschichte der
friihchristlichen Evangelienliteratur, ANRW Il.25.2 (Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1984)
1512- 24; and IDEM, One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels, 186.
~ROBINSON, LOGO! SOPHON, 76-80.
20 See J. S. KLOPPENBORG, The Literary Genre of the Synoptic Sayings Source, Ph. D. diss.,
University of St. Michael's College, 1984. This dissertation will be published by Fortress
Press, in conjunction with the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at Claremont
Graduate School, in their new Studies in Antiquity and Christianity monograph series.
u See F. T. FALLON, The Gnostic Apocalypses, Semeia 14 (1979) 123-58.
Jesus on the origin and structure of the universe and on the origin and destiny
of the Gnostic. Contrary to GARTNER (pp. 112- 13), who interpreted the
phrase "the living Jesus" as a reference to "the risen Jesus" and therefore
considered the Gos. Thorn. a Gnostic, post-resurrection revelation, VAN UNNIK,
HAENCHEN (Literatur zum Thomasevangelium, 317), and KoESTER (One Jesus
and Four Primitive Gospels, 167) have pointed out that there is no indication
in the Gos. Thorn. of a post-resurrection setting. In fact, such a setting would
be inappropriate for a collection of sayings that is designed to present a
perpetual revelation synchronous with the reception of the message of divine
Wisdom.
The question of the compositional arrangement of the Gos. Thorn. has
also been vigorously debated by scholars, though it has not yet received
resolution. The nature of the Gos. Thorn. as a collection of sayings makes it
difficult to discern any clear organizing principle throughout the work as a
whole (see WILSON, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, 8- 9). Several scholars
(e.g., GARTNER, pp. 28- 29; GRANT, The Secret Sayings, 104; HAENCHEN, Die
Botschaft des Thomas-Evangeliums, 12- 13; and RuDOLPH, pp. 185- 87) have
observed that many sayings are connected by catchwords or verbal associ-
ation - a typical stylistic device in collections of sayings material. 22 Thus,
sayings 2 and 3 are connected by cognate words: the verb errro ( = basileuein)
in saying 2 provides the link to the adjoining noun tmentero ( = basileia) in
saying 3. In addition, as GARTNER (pp. 29- 30) and KoESTER (One Jesus and
Four Primitive Gospels, 166- 87) have indicated, similarity of form has served
as a principle of association. Thus, sayings 63, 64, and 65 are all parables,
most likely taken over from a smaller collected sequence of sayings by the
compiler of the Gos. Thorn.
A few scholars have attempted to trace themes throughout the text.
SCHIPPERS (Het Evangelie van Thomas, 133) identifies the following units:
1) Sayings 1-5: "seeking and finding the kingdom";
2) Sayings 28-37: "christology with a sketch of the ideal of unity";
3) Sayings 38-47: "a clearly anti-Jewish, ·Marcionite' passage";
4) Sayings 48-56: "the elect single one";
5) Sayings 58- 61a: "life and death";
6) Sayings 72-76: "the prize of undividedness";
7) Sayings 81-85: "concerning the true bearing of an image";
8) Sayings 96-98: "the kingdom of the Father"; and
9) Sayings 107-111: "knowledge is the true treasure."
However, not only does SCHIPPERS fail to identify themes for all of the sayings
in the text, but it is also not clear that the sayings he does identify are in fact
well-defined units bound by the themes he suggests (see HAENCHEN, Literatur
zum Thomasevangelium, 315 -16). Similarly, JANSSENS (L'E.vangile selon
Thomas, 301 - 2) seeks to identify the text's controlling themes but is able to
u See M. DIBELIUS, James (Hermeneia; rev. H. GREEVEN; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976)

6-11.
suggest themes only for the first half of the Gos. Thorn. Her division is as
follows:
1) Sayings 1-9 "tend to define gnosis";
2) Sayings 12-17 "are centered on the person of the revealer";
3) Sayings 18-38 "concern the disciples and Jesus' directives to them";
and
4) Sayings 39-53 "are a series of sayings of polemical character which are
against the Jews and the non-Gnostics."
The remaining sayings, she says, are added "pele-mele" without being included
in the author's major themes. One must wonder, though, whether the lack of
unity characteristic of the second half of the Gos. Thorn. is also not true of
the first half. Certainly sayings 12 and 13 seem less concerned with the person
of the revealer than with guaranteeing the authority and securing the identity
of the tradition of those communities which appealed to Thomas as their
founder (cf. our section on the date and place of composition below).
Using the questions of "the disciples" (at sayings 6, 12, 18, 20, 24, 37,
43, 51152/53, 99, and 113) as representing discrete chapter-headings, TRIPP
suggests that the Gos. Thorn. may be divided into ten chapters, each of which
is said to stress in one way or another the polemical themes of "distinctness,
conflict and confrontation with the Jews" (pp. 42-43):
1) Introduction (sayings 1-5): "The secret of the kingdom (a matter of
inner life, but also a disputed issue)";
2) Chapter 1 (sayings 6 -11): "The elect do not need external religion";
3) Chapter 2 (sayings 12 -17): "Issues to be faced, after the departure of the
Christ";
4) Chapter 3 (sayings 18 -19): "The final lot of the elect (and the delay of
the Parousia?)";
5) Chapter 4 (sayings 20- 23): "The secret of the kingdom in the inner life";
6) Chapter 5 (sayings 24-36): "The nature of the kingdom and of inward
life revealed by Jesus";
7) Chapter 6 (sayings 37 -42): "Jesus reveals himself to those who renounce";
8) Chapter 7 (sayings 43 -50): "The questioned authority of Jesus";
9) Chapter 8 (sayings 51152/53-98): "Jesus, final revelation of life, and the
need for mortification in readiness for it";
10) Chapter 9 (sayings 99 -112): "Conflict of loyalties"; and
11) Chapter 10 (sayings 113 -114): "When will the kingdom come?"
The fact that there is a series of questions placed back-to-back near the middle
oi the text (sayings 51152/53) is taken by TRIPP to indicate that, at the
~ing of the longest section of the Gos. Thorn., the "core of the argument"
is marked out (p. 42). Most recently, DAVIES (The Gospel of Thomas and
Christian Wisdom, 149- 55) has outlined his proposal for identifying the
strUcture of the text. He suggests that the Gos. Thorn. may have originally
been divided into four separable but related chapters or sections, each of
which begins with a saying related to the theme of "seeking and finding":
----.--- ---~- --
par.), the Weeds (Matt 13:36-43), and the Great Supper (Matt 22:11-14)
are not found in the Gos. Thorn. (sayings 9, 57, and 64, respectively). But
precisely what conclusion is to be drawn from this fact is debated in the
literature. To some it suggests that the parables in the Gos. Thorn. derive
from a stage of the tradition which is earlier than that attested to in the
Gospels of the NT.
In their dissertations BRISCOE and SHEPPARD have discussed in detail all
the parables common to the Synoptic Gospels and the Gos. Thorn. In a shorter
study ScHOEDEL (Parables in the Gospel of Thomas) has also treated some of
these parables and argued, as SHEPPARD did, that the Gos. Thorn. is dependent
on the Synoptics. Both ScHOEDEL and SHEPPARD attribute the absence of
allegorical features to their deliberate omission by the author of the Gos.
Thorn. In their view, the author has reworked the parables to suit either their 1
context in the Gos. Thorn. or a Gnostic theology, or both. Hence, it is argued,
the Gos. Thorn. does not preserve early forms or reflect early stages in
the development of the parabolic tradition. ScHOEDEL also suggests that
methodologically the parables in the Gos. Thorn. should be studied in light
of Gnostic exegesis of the gospels in the second century, as witnessed, for
example, by Irenaeus. In his analysis MoNTEFIORE used some of the categories
which JEREMIAS employed when the latter discussed the tendencies at work
in the development of the Synoptic tradition: the categories of embellishment,
the change of audience, the hortatory use of parables by the church, the
influence of the church's situation, allegorization, collection and conflation of
parables, and the setting. 27 On the basis of these "laws of transformation"
MoNTEFIORE concluded that the Gos. Thorn. is independent of the Synoptics.
joNES and MENESTRINA (Le parabole nell'.Evangelo di Tommaso' e nei sinot-
tici) have also reached the same conclusion.
LINDEMANN's examination of thirteen of the parables in the Gos. Thorn.
has led him to the conclusions that each represents a secondary stage in the
development of the tradition and that, in the eleven cases in which there are
canonical parallels, all are dependent on the Synoptic Gospels. Primarily,
however, LINDEMANN has directed his attention to the task of providing a
systematic categorization of and interpretive guide to the Gos. Thom.'s para-
bles. His aim is to bring more clearly to the fore certain structural features
of the Gnostic mode of interpretation of the parables in the Gos. Thorn.
LINDEMANN carries out this objective by distinguishing five groups of parables
in the text (p. 216):
1) "Parables which depict the greatness and uniqueness of gnosis" (sayings 8,

76, and 98);
2) "Parables which urge the hearer on to a certain attitude as a consequence
of gnosis, and therefore which contain an ethical or parenetic emphasis"
(sayings 9, 20, and 96);
27 JEREMIAS, The Parables of Jesus, 113-14.

3) "Parables which characterize the nature of gnosis or the attitude of the

Gnostic via negationis, in that they strongly reject the specific attitude that
is portrayed" in the parables (sayings 63, 64, 97, and 109);
4) "Parables which speak of the relation of the revealer to the world" (sayings
65 and 107); and
5) "A parable with a clear eschatological tendency" (saying 57).
But even with these distinctly recognizable emphases, LINDEMANN maintains,
each parable in the Gos. Thorn. is concerned with the nature of gnosis and the
existence of the Gnostic. All are said to go back to "a downright systematically
employed, unified Gnostic redaction" - though whether that redaction is the
work of a Gnostic community, an individual redactor, or even the author of
the Gos. Thorn. himself, cannot be determined (p. 243).
It is against such interpretations as LINDEMANN's that KoESTER (Three
Thomas Parables) has responded with a discussion of the Sower, the Great
Supper, and the Evil Tenants. He argues methodologically that there are two
fundamental ways in which parables were used in the early Christian period:
"parables are [either] told, sometimes with suggestive alterations; or else
parables are copied and allegorized .... In the first instance, the conscious use
of written sources and their redaction is highly unlikely; in the latter case,
written materials are probably always utilized and deliberately edited" (p. 195).
KoESTER insists that scholars have simply assumed and then asserted that the
Gas. Thorn. is literarily dependent on one or more written sources. But since
the Gos. Thorn. gives no indication of either a deliberate dependence on or
conscious avoidance of specific NT redactional elements, there is no reason
to think that the parables in the Gos. Thorn. belong to the written stage of
editing the Synoptic tradition. Moreover, KoESTER contends that the repeated
affirmations of (the meaning of) a Gnostic interpretation of the Gos. Thom.'s
parables have not been established on internal grounds. Neither the necessity
of a Gnostic interpretation nor a convincing disclosure of its meaning is
assured. Without the presence of allegorical features within or appended to
the narratives, "we simply cannot know what such parables [may have]
suggested to a possibly Gnostic author" (p. 201). In fact, the very absence of
these features should be taken to indicate that the author of the Gos. Thorn.
is "a collector rather than a (Gnostic) interpreter" (p. 198). In all instances,
KoESTER concludes, the parables of the Gas. Thorn. retain their narrative
character, and thus, are "not artificially constructed revisions of written
documents" (p. 201). The Gos. Thom.'s activity of story-telling belongs rather
to the oral stage of artful transmission of the tradition. 28
In addition to these more general treatments of the parables, there have
also been studies limited to just a few specific parables. On the basis of the
28 The very different processes of narrating and allegorizing the parabolic tradition can be
elucidated by a comparative analysis of the parables in the Gos. Thorn. and those in
the Apocryphon of James (NHC I, 2): the Date-Palm Shoot (7.22-35), the Grain of
Wheat (8.10-27), and the Ear of Grain (12.20-31). SeeR. CAMERON, Sayings Traditions
in the Apocryphon of James (HTS 34; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 8-30.
273 ANRW 1125.6
4212 FRANCIS T. FALr.ON - RON CAMERON
translation of GARITIE, CERFAUX (Les paraboles du royaume) analyzed the

parables of the kingdom in the Gos. Thorn. and argued for their dependence
on the Synoptic Gospels. SCHNIDER has studied the parable of the Lost Sheep,
focusing on the redactional use of the parable by Matthew, Luke, the Gos.
Thorn., and the Gospel of Truth (NHC I, 3). He interprets the parable in the
Gos. Thorn. from the perspective of Gnostic theology and understands its use
there to refer to the search of the Gnostic redeemer (the shepherd) for the
Gnostic (the sheep). Note, however, that ScHNIDER simply assumes that the
source from which the Gos. Thorn. derived its version of the parable is the
Synoptics. He does not argue this point in detail, but only gestures to a
consensus of scholarship. PETERSEN both objects to ScHNIDER's assumptions
and rejects his conclusions, arguing that precisely the opposite conclusions are
the case: the version of the Lost Sheep in the Gos. Thorn. is not Gnostic, is
not dependent on the NT, and in fact is a "more primitive" version of the
parable than its Synoptic parallels (p. 147).
In three separate articles DEHANDSCHUTTER has examined the parables of
the Evil Tenants (La parabole des vignerons homicides), the Pearl (La parabole
de Ia perle), and the Treasure (Les paraboles de l'Evangile selon Thomas) and
argued that certain details in the Gos. Thorn. indicate that its versions of
these parables are derived from the Synoptics. For example, only in Luke's
version of the Evil Tenants does one find the term isos (Luke 20:13). Since
this motif is also present in Gos. Thorn. 65 (mesak), DEHANDSCHUITER
maintains that the Gos. Thorn. is dependent at this point on the NT. However,
one may well object that such a term is not distinctive enough to identify it
as specifically Lucan, and therefore, necessarily derived from Luke. One might
rather suggest that both Luke and the Gos. Thorn. bear witness to a variant
in the parable that was current in the early church (cf. our section on the
relationship to the canonical Gospels below). In a short note SNODGRASS has
also discussed the parable of the Evil Tenants. Traits in the Gos. Thorn.
considered by many indicative of the early form of this parable (e.g., there is
no sending of a third servant in Gos. Thorn. 65; cf. Mark 12:5 I I Luke 20:12)
are attributed by him to harmonizing tendencies (there are only two sendings
of servants in Matt 21:34- 36) in the textual tradition, as witnessed by early
Syriac manuscripts.
ADINOLFI devotes a study to the parables of the Fisherman and the Leaven
but reserves judgment on the issue of source-critical dependence. HORMAN
maintains that the Synoptics were not the source of the Gos. Thom.'s version
of the parable of the Sower. McCAUGHEY's short article examines the parables
of the Evil Tenants and the Great Supper; the absence of allegory in the Gos.
Thom.'s versions of these parables convinces him of their derivation from
a tradition independent of the Synoptic Gospels. HUNZINGER (Unbekannte
Gleichnisse Jesu) comes to the same conclusion in his article on the parables
of the Assassin and the Fisherman, both of which he attributes to Jesus.
NAGEL (Die Parabel vom klugen Fischer) also treats the parable of the
Fisherman. The main point of his article is to argue for an emendation of the
text, so that the parable becomes a parable oflthe kingdom and its introduction
reads "the kingdom is like ... " rather than "the man is like .... " However,
other parables of Jesus are introduced with has anthropos without reference
to the kingdom, 29 and recent analyses of the parables have shown that,
in at least some cases, introductory references to the kingdom are editorial
°
additions. 3 For those inclined to see speculative theological - and perhaps
Gnostic - emphases in the Gos. Thorn., pursuit of the motif of "the
(primal) man" in Gnostic literature may prove, for this parable, a fruitful
avenue of inquiry (but see CAMERON, Parable and Interpretation in the
Gospel of Thomas).
IV. Relationship to the Canonical Gospels
In discussing the parables, we have of necessity already broached the

important subject of the relationship of the Gos. Thorn. to the canonical
Gospels, and specifically, the Synoptics (for an investigation of the relationship
of the Gos. Thorn. to John, see BRoWN). On this issue scholars remain sharply
divided and have not yet reached a conclusion that would solve the problem
to everyone's satisfaction. In the discussion that follows we shall first treat
those who regard the Gos. Thorn. as dependent on the Synoptic Gospels and
then those who consider it independent of them.
The list of those scholars who regard the Gos. Thorn. as dependent on the
NT includes the names of GARTNER, GRANT, HAENCHEN, KASSER, LEIPOLDT
(in his monograph), LINDEMANN, McARTHUR, MENARD, MUNCK, ScHIPPERS,
SCHOEDEL, ScHRAGE, and ScHtiRMANN. In his monograph with FREEDMAN,
GRANT (The Secret Sayings) argued that the Gos. Thorn. used the Synoptic
Gospels and maintained that the additions, deletions, transpositions, and
conflations to be found in the Gos. Thorn. were typical of the ways in which
the Naassenes treated the canonical Gospels in the second century. Thus,
GRANT noted the differences between the sayings in the Gos. Thorn. and their
parallels in the NT and sought to provide a rationale for those differences by
explaining how the Gos. Thorn. could have changed the tradition. GRANT
discounted the importance of finding, say, a parable in the Gos. Thorn. that
would seem on the basis of form criticism to be more original than its parallel
in the canonical Gospels. In his view, form criticism is an appropriate method
for analyzing the oral tradition but it is not applicable when dealing with the
use of a written tradition. MUNCK came to agree with GRANT's conclusions
regarding the Gos. Thom.'s dependence on the NT but noted that such free
usage of the canonical Gospels was not limited to the Naassenes: the apostolic
fathers and Justin were equally free in the way they used the Gospels (p. 141).
29 Mark 13:34; Matt 25:14; cf. also Mark 4:26; and see BULTMANN, The History of the
Synoptic Tradition, 173.
lO See J. BREECH, The Silence of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 66- 85.
The basic approach of those scholars who regard the Gos. Thorn. as
literarily dependent on the NT can be summarized well with the words of
McARTHUR's resume of his own findings (The Dependence of the Gospel of
Thomas, 286):
"It is the thesis of this paper that the Gospel of Thomas is demonstrably
dependent on the Synoptics. The argument developed has three presuppo-
sitions. I assume,
(a) that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source,
(b) that since this is the case Matthean and Lucan versions of
Marean material reflect editorial revisions and do not indicate independ-
ent traditions paralleling Mark, ·
(c) that if the Gospel of Thomas reflects Lucan or Matthean versions
of Marean material it is necessary to assume that the new Gospel used
Luke or Matthew rather than some tradition independent of the later
Synoptics."
McARTHUR also attempts to dispose of three major, possible objections to
these arguments. The first objection is that, were some "Matthean or Lucan
variations from Marean material ... not editorial revisions but reflections of
other traditions in competition with Mark" (p. 287), then the presence of
those variations in the Gos. Thorn. would not have to mean they were
borrowed from the Synoptics - for the Gos. Thorn. could have drawn
them independently from a noncanonical source. McARTHUR discounts this
objection and would allow an appeal to a separate source only if a block of
material were included, and not if mere words or phrases were omitted or
changed.
This understanding of the tradition is fundamentally a monolithic one.
The oral tradition is regarded as uniform, and no consideration is given to
the likelihood that the tradition did not develop on a strictly linear trajectory.
But it must be remembered that, in the first and second centuries, the sayings-
of-Jesus tradition was not restricted exclusively to the Gospels now in the
NT. On the contrary, the memory of Jesus was alive in the traditions of
worshiping communities which produced and preserved sayings in Jesus'
name. KoESTER 31 has demonstrated that, even with the composition and
circulation of the Synoptic Gospels, this oral or "free" living tradition persisted,
concurrent with but not limited to the Synoptics. Moreover, KoESTER's analysis
has established that no fundamental difference can be distinguished between
the history of canonical and noncanonical gospel traditions. The writings of
the apostolic fathers, for example, utilized the same oral and written sources
as those that underlie the NT. And so, simply appraising certain sayings in
later writings as form-critically secondary to their NT parallels does not
indicate their source-critical or redaction-critical dependence on the NT. In
31 H. KoESTER, Synoptische Oberlieferung bei den apostolischen Vatern (TU 65; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1957).
many cases, in fact, these later traditions are directly dependent on the earliest
stages of the collection(s) of Jesus' sayings.
The second objection put forth by McARTHUR is that the translator of
the Gos. Thorn. from Greek into Coptic may have intentionally introduced
changes in the text in the process of translating, in order to make his translation
coincide with the Coptic version of the NT. Indeed, such a possibility is
envisioned by WILSON (Studies in the Gospel of Thomas), who believes there
was an early, Greek stage of the Gos. Thorn. parallel to but independent of
the canonical Gospels. To this second objection McARTHUR responds that not
only the Coptic Gos. Thorn. but also the extant Greek fragments show
evidence of dependence on the Synoptics. But again, one can reply that the
Greek, no less than the Coptic, bears witness to an alternative tradition and
point out that the Greek Gos. Thorn. actually appears to be further from the
NT than the Coptic Gos. Thorn.
Finally, McARTHUR mentions a third objection, that some sayings in the
Gos. Thorn. might be dependent on and others independent of the NT - a
possibility which WILSON has also suggested and accepted (Studies in the
Gospel of Thomas, 148). To this objection McARTHUR responds that, once
some sayings have been shown to be dependent, the burden of proof rests on
those who would claim independence. McARTHUR thinks this response is
particularly compelling since he places the composition of the Gos. Thorn. in
Egypt in the mid-second century. However, if on form-critical and redaction-
critical grounds one argues that certain sayings in the Gos. Thorn. are
independent of the canonical Gospels, then one might demur and propose
that the author of the Gos. Thorn. has used oral and even written sources
which date from an earlier period, and thus, that the Gos. Thorn. is more
plausibly independent of than dependent on the NT for these particular
traditions. Furthermore, one who argues for the dependence of the Gos.
Thorn. on the Synoptic Gospels must still explain the author's choice of genre
(a collection of sayings), give a reason for the absence of narrative material
in the text, and say why the Gos. Thorn. presents its sayings in an order so
totally different from that of any of the Synoptics, especially when there is
no discernible compositional sequence in the Gos. Thorn. demanding such a
rearrangement.
In his review of the literature on the Gos. Thorn. HAENCHEN (Literatur
zum Thomasevangelium) sided with those who regard the Gos. Thorn. as
dependent on the Gospels of the NT, but he endeavored to refine their thesis
by proposing that the author of the Gos. Thorn. did not sit down at a desk
with various copies of the NT in front of him and randomly select sayings
first from one Gospel and then from another. Rather, the author of the Gos.
Thorn. is envisioned as one who drew upon the oral memory, utilization, and
interpretation of the Synoptic Gospels within Gnostic circles. In this way
HAENCHEN sought especially to explain the Gos. Thom.'s apparent conflation
of canonical Gospel passages and use of catchwords or verbal association as
a principle of composition. In his monograph HAENCHEN (Die Botschaft des
Thomas-Evangeliums, 11) tried to give a reason for the absence of narrative
-----... -------
material in the Gos. Thorn. He suggests that the author eliminated the Gospel
stories of Jesus' miracles and passion because Gnosticism was concerned only
with the redeeming message contained in the word of revelation. However,
as RoBINSON has pointed out, "other Nag Hammadi tractates indicate that
Gnosticism tended not to carry elimination through consistently but rather to
proceed by means of interpretation of given traditions." 32 The retention and
reinterpretation of the passion narratives in such Gnostic works as the Second
Treatise of the Great Seth (NHC VII, 2) and the Apocalypse of Peter (NHC
VII, 3) provide concrete proof of this. 33
ScHRAGE (Das Verhaltnis) has attempted to demonstrate the secondary
character of the sayings in the Gos. Thorn. and their dependence on the
Synoptic tradition by comparing the Coptic Gos. Thorn. text-critically with
the Sahidic translations of the NT. SCHRAGE's presuppositions are basically the
same as those expressed so succinctly by McARTHUR. But methodologically, his
argument is based on an analogy: ScHRAGE takes the ostensible evidence of
the Coptic Gos. Thom.'s dependence on the Sahidic NT to be an argument
for the analogous dependence of the original Greek text of the Gos. Thorn.
on the Greek NT. 34 This use of evidence from the Sahidic NT is anachronistic
and suspect, however, because an argument from analogy is not probative
and because a correspondence between the Coptic translations of the NT and
of the Gos. Thorn. would prove some sort of relationship only at the stage
of their translations, not at the level of their Greek texts. Moreover, it is not
yet clear that the Sahidic translations of the NT are chronologically earlier
than the Coptic translation of the Gos. Thorn. In fact, since papyrus fragments
of the Gos. Thorn. in Greek are known to have existed prior to the year 200
C.E., one might suggest alternatively that the Sahidic translations of the NT
were influenced by the (Greek and/or Coptic) text of the Gos. Thorn.
On the other side of the issue, the list of those scholars who are convinced
that the Gos. Thorn. is independent of the Synoptic Gospels is equally impres-
sive, and includes the names of CROSSAN, 35 CULLMANN, DAVIES, HUNZINGER,
KoESTER, MAcRAE, MONTEFIORE, QmsPEL, and SIEBER. These scholars hold
a variety of views about the compositional history of the Gos. Thorn., though,
disagreeing on whether the Gos. Thom.'s sources are noncanonical gospels or
one or more (lost) collections of sayings of Jesus.
The most distinctive hypothesis concerning the Gos. Thom.'s use of
noncanonical gospels as sources has been consistently advanced by QmSPEL
in his numerous writings. Starting from the observation that Clement of
Alexandria attributed variants of Gos. Thorn. 2 to the Gospel of the Hebrews
and of Gos. Thorn. 22 to the Gospel of the Egyptians, QUISPEL proposed that
the Gos. Thorn. is a collection of sayings taken from these two sources. In
32 RoBINSON, LOGO! SOPHON, 102 n. 69.

33 Cf. also the Apocryphon of James 5.31- 6.11; and see CAMERON, Sayings Traditions in
the Apocryphon of James, 82- 90.
34 See RoBINSON, LOGO! SOPHON, 102 n. 69.
35 CROSSAN, In Fragments, x; and IDEM, Four Other Gospels, 35-37.
support of this hypothesis he points to the numerous doublets in the text,

stating that, where there are doublets, one member of the pair frequently
exhibits a more Jewish-Christian theology and the other, a more encratite
theology. Thus, QUISPEL divides the doublets into two separate, parallel
sources as follows (Makarius, 93):
Jewish-Christian Encratite
1} 48 106
2) 55 101
3) 113 51
4) 38 92
5) 103 21b
6} 68 69
7) 75 74
8) 39 102
The Jewish-Christian source is identified as the Gospel of the Hebrews/

Nazoreans 36 and the encrat~te source as the Gospel of the Egyptians. Appar-
ently both were known and used by the author of the Gos. Thorn. as Greek
documents, though the former is thought to have been composed in Hebrew
or Aramaic and then translated into Greek. This Gospel of the Hebrews/
Nazoreans is said to have affinities with the extant fragments of the Jewish-
Christian gospels, the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, the
Diatessaron of Tatian, and the Western text of the NT (The Gospel of Thomas
Revisited, 219).
In his most recent article QUISPEL has proposed another source of the
Gos. Thorn. For those sayings that have neither a Jewish-Christian nor an
encratite theology, a third source is provided: a Hermetic gnomologium,
comprising Hellenizing sayings which speak about the knowledge of the self.
The sources of the Gos. Thorn. may thus be tabulated as follows, according
to the tentative attributions catalogued by QUISPEL (The Gospel of Thomas
Revisited, 265):
36 Specifying the exact name of this Jewish-Christian gospel has proved problematic.
Sometimes QUISPEL identifies it as the Gospel of the Hebrews; other times, the Gospel
of the Nazoreans. Although QurSPEL has wondered if the Gospel of the Hebrews is an
amplified, Greek translation of the (Hebrew or Aramaic) Gospel of the Nazoreans
(Makarius, 81), he has, more recently, been hesitant about actually specifying the name
of this Jewish-Christian source as the Gospel of the Hebrews: since the Gospel of the
Hebrews "seems to have been written in Greek and to have circulated in Egypt," whereas
the Gospel of the N azoreans "was written in Hebrew and still was in use among the
Jewish Christians of Beroea (Aleppo) in the fourth century," it is the latter which "could
easily have circulated in neighbouring Edessa in the second century" (The Gospel of
Thomas Revisited, 227). In any case, QUISPEL insists that one of the Gos. Thom.'s
sources is a Jewish-Christian gospel. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to this
hypothetical source as the Gospel of the Hebrews/Nazoreans.
1) The Gospel of the Hebrews/Nazoreans or another Jewish-Christian gospel:

2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,
36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 54, 55, 57, 58, 61a, 62, 63, 64, 65,
66, 68, 69b, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77b, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 93, 94,
95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 107, 109, 113
2) The Gospel of the Egyptians or another encratite source:
4, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22, 37, 61b, 69a, 70, 74, 77a, 83, 91, 92, 101, 102, 106,
114
3) The Hermetic anthology:
3, 7, 50, 56, 67, 80, 87, 111b, 112
4) The author of the Gos. Thorn.:
1, 14, 15, 18, 24, 29, 43, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 60, 75, 85, 105, 108, 110, 111a.
In his extensive writings QUISPEL has also discussed the relationship of
the Gos. Thorn. to the Western textual tradition (especially Codex D), the
Syrian textual tradition, the Pseudo-Clementine literature, the writings of
Macarius, and the Liber Graduum. He has argued that Tatian was aware of
and used the Gos. Thorn. in the Diatessaron (see QUISPEL's Tatian and the
Gospel of Thomas), and he has even tried to trace the influence of the
Gos. Thorn. through the Diatessaron to the medieval poem Der Heliand.
Throughout all these discussions, QUISPEL has insisted that the author of the
Gos. Thorn. was not a Gnostic but an encratite, who "did not intend his
document to be esoteric, but an exoteric, accessible writing containing divine
Sayings whose saving sense could be grasped by spiritual men" (The Gospel
of Thomas Revisited, 234).
Because so little is known about either the Gospel of the Hebrews/
Nazoreans 37 or the Gospel of the Egyptians, QUISPEL's source-critical hypoth-
esis has not found general acceptance among scholars, 38 though TILL and VAN
UNNIK have supported his position. The existence of the same or a similar
saying in the Gos. Thorn. and in any one of these noncanonical gospels could
be explained just as easily by the wide currency of the saying in the church. His
protestations notwithstanding, QUISPEL seems to mistake phenomenological
observation for source-critical analysis, equating, the presence of Ish-
Christian or encratite sayings traditions in the text with the necessity of their
stemming, respectively, from a single written source. The fact that QUISPEL
identifies the encratite sayings, for example, as deriving from the spel of
the Egyptians "or another Encratite source" (The Gospel of homa
Revisited, 265) indicates that what he really isolates are certain encratite
traditions, not a coherent written text. One also wonders why QUISPEL
includes sayings 51 and 75 among those now attributed to the author of the
37 See especially P. VIELHAUER, Jewish-Christian Gospels, in: E. HENNECKE, ed.; W.

ScHNEEMELCHER, rev.; and R. MeL. WILSON, trans. ed., New Testament Apocrypha (2
vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963-65) 1. 117-65. Cf. A. F.]. KUJN, Das Hebriier-
und das Nawriierevangelium, ANRW 11.25.5, 3997-4033 (above in this same volume).
38 See the critique by HAENCHEN, Literatur zum Thomasevangelium, 162-69; followed by
VIELHAUER, Das Thomasevangelium, 627.
Gos. Thorn., when he originally maintained that they were (non-paired)

members of encratite (saying 51) and Jewish-Christian (saying 75) doublets.
Finally, QuiSPEL has yet to account for the absence of narrative material in
the Gos. Thorn., which, according to his reconstruction, must have been
eliminated at least when the author of the Gos. Thorn. extracted his sayings
from their source in the Gospel of the Hebrews/Nazoreans. This is not an
incidental objection for, as KLOPPENBORG 39 and others have shown, the
morphology of the sayings tradition exhibits precisely the opposite generic
tendencies.
On the other hand, QUISPEL does have the right intuition when he states
that some of the sayings in the Gos. Thorn. must have "come from a different
and independent Aramaic tradition" (The Gospel of Thomas and the New
Testament, 207). Translation variants in the text of the Gos. Thorn. do seem
to indicate that certain sayings derive from a Semitic milieu (e.g., the Aramaic
pigra is translated as soma in Gos. Thorn. 80 and ptoma in Gos. Thorn. 56).
Moreover, QmsPEL's studies of the relationship of the Gos. Thorn. to the
diverse early Christian textual traditions are important and have been more
widely received, with the exception of his treatment of the medieval poem
Der Heliand. The Germanic scholar KROGMANN has argued in two separate
articles that the apparent agreements between Der Heliand and the Gos.
Thorn. are merely the result of the poet's license or literary needs, and do not
stem from an actual literary dependence.
Other scholars prefer to regard one or more independent collections of
sayings of Jesus, rather than noncanonical gospels, as the source(s) of the
Gos. Thorn. Because of the central role attributed to James in Gos. Thorn.
12 and in Jewish Christianity, CULLMANN (The Gospel of Thomas and the
Problem of the Age of the Tradition) postulated the use of a Jewish-Christian
sayings collection. He called for an investigation into the relationship between
the Gos. Thorn. and the Pseudo-Clementines, which, in his judgment, emanate
from Jewish-Christian circles. FREND and GRaBEL also posit a Jewish-Chris-
tian collection of sayings as a source. In his study of Gos. Thorn. 86 STROBEL
has sought to support this conjecture by showing that the Coptic text exhibits
variants which are witnessed in ·the Syriac textual tradition and cannot be
explained as deliberate revisions of Synoptic parallels. BARTSCH is willing, to
some extent, to support such a thesis, for he accepts os.., Thorn. 8 as an
example of a saying derived from an independent tra tion (pp. 259- 61). In
the main, however, BARTSCH argues that the Gos. hom. is based on the
Synoptic tradition and reflects a secondary selection d development of the
Synoptics to serve a parenetic function.
DORESSE (The Secret Books) had surmised that the om., though
partially dependent on the NT, may well contain authentic "remnants of a
lost collection of words of Jesus" (p. 347). In his view, a succession of authors
composed the text by juxtaposing various layers of canonical and noncanonical
39 KLOPPENBORG, The Literary Genre of the Synoptic Sayings Source.

sayings traditions. He also pointed to the repeated references to the Gos.

Thorn. by name in church writings of the third and fourth centuries as
indicative of the fact that this gospel was widely read in the early church.
PuECH (The Gospel of Thomas, 305- 6) endeavored to distinguish between
two recensions or versions of the Gos. Thorn., one that was acceptable to the
emerging 'orthodox' church and another that was acceptable in more 'heter-
odox' circles. He based this distinction largely on a conclusion drawn from
the difference between P. Oxy. 654, lines 27-31, and its parallel in Gos.
Thorn. 5. PuECH observed that the Greek text includes a clause not paralleled
in the Coptic, which he and others have reconstructed as follows: there is
"nothing buried that [will not be raised (ouk egerthesetai)]." The occurrence
of this same clause in a fifth or sixth century Christian burial shroud from
Behnesa (ancient Oxyrhynchus) is taken to be evidence corroborating the
existence of an 'orthodox' recension of the text (Un logion de Jesus sur
bandelette funeraire). Consequently, PuECH suggests that a 'heterodox' recen-
sion of the Gos. Thorn., attested to here in the Coptic, omitted this clause
because of a Gnostic rejection of the resurrection. This argument is not
convincing, however, since the Treatise on Resurrection (NHC I, 4) amply
illustrates the ability of Gnostics to reinterpret the tradition and spiritualize
their understanding of the resurrection.
WILSON has maintained in his numerous writings that the Gos. Thorn.
contains in its core an independent gospel tradition; he does allow, though,
for Synoptic influence on some of the sayings at a later stage of development
of the text (see his Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, 148). His principal
argument is that, for a theory of dependence to be made plausible, one must
show that variations in the order and content of the sayings in the Gos. Thorn.
are intentional modifications of their Synoptic parallels, designed to serve a
particular purpose. To date no cogent reason for the variations in order or
persuasive explanation of the differences in content has been forthcoming.
Some of the most forceful arguments for the independence of the Gos. Thorn.
have been put forth by KOESTER. He has emphasized the rigorous employment
of form-critical criteria as a necessary means of determining literary depend-
ence (rNOMAI lliAci>OPOI, 129-32). The work of ScHRAGE is singled out and
criticized for its failure to use these criteria properly. SIEBER has complemented
KoESTER's approach by insisting, additionally, on the use of redaction-critical
criteria in attempting to solve the problem of sources. He finds fault with
ScHRAGE for misunderstanding the nature of the editorial process. A r ing "
to SIEBER, "in order to call a reading a redactional trace, one must e able to
attribute that reading to a particular evangelist's theological int t" {p. 17).
Consequently, he refuses to accept SCHRAGE's contention that the os. Thorn.
is necessarily dependent on the Synoptic Gospels when it exhibits a condary
development of a particular saying beyond the Synoptic version.
Two examples may be selected to illustrate the important methodological
points at issue here: the sayings on discipleship in Gos. Thorn. 55 par. and
the parable of the Evil Tenants in Gos. Thorn. 65 par. Gos. Thorn. 55 is an
aphoristic compound 40 comprising parallel sayings on hating one's family

(Gos. Thorn. 55ab II Matt 10:37 II Luke 14:26; cf. Gos. Thorn. lOla) and on
carrying one's cross (Gos. Thorn. 55b II Mark 8:34b par. II Matt 10:38 II
Luke 14:27; cf. John 12:26). Matthew preserves the aphorism on the family
as a double-stich saying (10:37) and the aphorism on the cross as a single-
stich saying (10:38), concluding all three stichs with the clause "is not worthy
of me." Luke presents each aphorism as a single-stich saying (14:26, 27),
concluding both stichs with the clause "cannot be my disciple" (cf. vs 33).
The Gos. Thorn. assembles the aphoristic compound as a pair of single-
stich sayings. Here, the saying on the cross seems to be conflated with
the saying on the family, for the subordinate clause about not "taking up
one's cross" appears as an intrusive fragment intercalated into the middle
of the second stich. Moreover, whereas Matthew and Luke consistently
repeat their respective conclusions to each of the stichs, the Gos. Thorn.
does not: the first stich ends with "cannot become my disciple" (Gos.
Thorn. 55a), the second with "will not be worthy of me" (Gos. Thorn.
55b). ScHRAGE (Das Verhaltnis, 121) observes that both of the concluding
clauses in Matthew and Luke are found once each in Gos. Thorn. 55, and
so argues that the Gos. Thorn. has composed its version of the aphoristic
compound from these two Synoptic sources.
In response, SIEBER states (pp. 121- 22) that ScHRAGE's argument would
be probative only if either one or both of these concluding clauses were the
product of the Synoptic Evangelists' editorial activity. Since that is not clear,
ScHRAGE's source-critical judgment is not decisive. Instead, SIEBER suggests
that "Thomas' text may represent a very late stage in the oral tradition, a
stage in which several versions of the saying had been blended together into
an oral conflation" (p. 122). Alternatively, and more probably, one might
suggest that Gos. Thorn. 55 represents more accurately, at least in terms of
its concluding clauses, the Q version of the aphoristic compound, which would
have had a different conclusion for each of the paired sayings. Matthew and
Luke would then be the ones who chose, respectively, just one of those
conclusions and used it repetitively.
The second example to be considered is the much-debated parable of the
Evil Tenants, found in Gos. Thorn. 6511 Matt 21:33-4611 Mark 12:1-1211
Luke 20:9-19. Critical scholarship has been divided in the past over whether
this pericope was originally a parable or has always been an allegory, but all
are agreed that in the Synoptic Gospels it functions allegorically. 41 For the
Evangelists it portrays the failure of Israel to accept the prophets and now,
to receive Jesus. From a form-critical perspective, the quotation of Isa 5:1-2
..o See also CROSSAN, InFra ents, 131-37, whose own assessment, however, is somewhat
different.
41 See BuLTMANN, The Histor of the Synoptic Tradition, 177; JEREMIAS, The Parables of
Jesus, 70-77']. D. CRoss N, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New
York: Harper Row, 12 3) 86-96; IDEM, Four Other Gospels, 53-62; DoDD, The
Parables of the · , 96 -102; and KOESTER, Three Thomas Parables, 199-200.
in Mark 12:1 par. is secondary, introduced to provide a biblical precedent for

the prophetic critique of those Jewish authorities who have rejected Jesus (cf.
vss 9 -12). The killing and casting of the son outside the vineyard in Mark
12:8 par. is also an allegorical feature, deriving from and portending Jesus'
passion. (The variation in the dependent Synoptic accounts in which Matthew
and Luke first have the son cast out and then killed is even more clearly
aligned with the passion narrative.) The reference to the son as "beloved" in
Mark and Luke is due to christological developments. And the inclusion of
the quotation of Ps 118:22-23 in Mark 12:10 par. is to be judged a later
addition as well. The absence of precisely these features in Gos. Thorn. 65
(even though the quotation of Ps 118:22 is found, separated but juxtaposed,
in Gos. Thorn. 66) suggests that the Gos. Thorn. may well reflect an original,
pre-allegorical stage of this parable.
The most detailed argument against this conclusion has been offered by
SCHRAGE (Das Verhaltnis, 137- 46; see also DEHANDSCHUTTER, La parabole
des vignerons homicides; McARTHUR, The Gospel According to Thomas,
60-61; and SHEPPARD, pp. 184-215). ScHRAGE first notes the redactional
features of Luke that are paralleled in the Gos. Thorn.:
1) In vs 9 Luke abbreviates the quotation of Isa 5:1-2, which the Gos. Thorn.
does not have;
2) In vs 10 the singular noun "fruit" is used;
3) In vs 10 the motivation of the vineyard owner's first sending of a servant
is that the tenants "might give him" (dosousin auto) the fruit;
4) In vs 11 the second servant is beaten;
5) In vs 13 the word "perhaps" (isos) is used in the owner's soliloquy; and
6) In Luke and the Gos. Thorn. the servants are not killed - only the son
IS.
He then points out the redactional features of Matthew that are paralleled in
the Gos. Thorn.:
1) In vs 34 the possessive pronoun "his" is used of the owner's servant(s);
2) In vs 35 it is the noun "servant(s)" that is the object of the verb "to take,"
rather than a pronoun;
3) In vs 35 "killing" is mentioned in connection with the first sending of (a)
servant(s), whom the Gos. Thorn. reports as being "almost killed";
4) Both Matthew and the Gos. Thorn. omit a third sending of (a) servant(s),
and instead count the sending of the son as the third mission; and
5) Both omit the clause "they sent him away empty-handed" (Mark 12:3 par.)
and the adjective "beloved" as a modifier of the owner's "son" (Mark 12:6
par.).
Based on these similarities between the Gos. Thorn. and the Synoptics,
ScHRAGE suggests that the author of the Gos. Thorn. sf~e-cted certain character-
istics from each of the Gospels in order to produce 1/a composite text, though
he admits that many of the particular details of th~ argument are supportive
rather than probative of his conclusion. There ar~owever, two pieces of
evidence which ScHRAGE regards as decisive proof that the Gos. Thorn. used
Luke as a source: dosousin auto (Luke 20:10) is considered a Lucan stylistic
improvement; and isos (Luke 20:13), a Lucan theological modification designed
to avoid giving the impression that God would deliberately make an error
(p. 140).
The most detailed attempt to refute SCHRAGE's argument is provided by
SIEBER (pp. 231- 36; see also MoNTEFIORE, pp. 236- 37; WILSON, Studies in
the Gospel of Thomas, 101- 2; and MENARD, L'Evangile selon Thomas,
166-68, who in this case accepts the thesis of an independent tradition in the
Gos. Thorn.). According to SIEBER the variations among the Synoptic versions
of the parable and the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark
(e.g., in the casting out of the son before the killing of him) indicate that the
parable was available to Matthew and Luke in versions other than that found
in Mark. Consequently, establishing the variations in Matthew or Luke as
deliberate redactions of their Marean source is more difficult than
ScHRAGE's reconstruction would intimate. Moreover, SIEBER can find no
reason for the Gos. Thom.'s author to have chosen first one detail from
Matthew and then another from Luke, particularly since these details in the
Gos. Thorn. do not appear to serve any allegorical function. Furthermore, the
two pieces of evidence regarded by ScHRAGE as being decisive are not granted
by SIEBER as at all probative. He argues that dosousin auto is not a Lucan
stylistic improvement because Luke does not regularly use hina with the future
indicative. In addition, SIEBER denies that isos reflects a Lucan theological
modification, objecting that such an assumption presupposes that the pericope
was always an allegory and never an original parable. Indeed, if the word
isos is meant to refer literally to God rather than metaphorically to the owner
of the vineyard, then, SIEBER says, "it does not free God from the blame for
sending his son. In fact, it increases the blame as he should have been certain
before proceeding on such a course of action" (p. 235 n. 21).
In the final analysis, ScHRAGE fails to understand the nature and language
of parabolic narration. For as CROSSAN has shown, it is precisely the two
speeches of the vineyard owner, introduced in both instances with the word
"perhaps" (Luke: isos; Gos. Thorn.: mesak), that are "extremely important in
establishing the possibility of the story's realistic continuance.'' These solilo-
quies indicate that "this parable is carefully plotted for plausibility.'' 42 There-
fore, SIEBER and others are surely correct in concluding that the Gos. Thorn.
has preserved the parable of the Evil Tenants independently of the Synoptic
Gospels. The version of the parable in the Gos. Thorn. presents a realistic
narrative that is form-critically more original than its allegorized Synoptic
paral~el~ d that, concomitantly, displays no trace of redactional dependence
on th Synoptics.
hese two xamples, then, the aphoristic compound on the family and
the ct ss (Go . Thorn. 55) and the parable of the Evil Tenants (Gos. Thorn.
42 CROSSAN, Four Other Gospels, 54.

65), illustrate the methodological points at issue in the discussion of the

relationship of the Gos. Thorn. to the canonical Gospels. For a consensus to
emerge from the discussion, there seems to be a need for a number of
specialized studies which will analyze the history of the transmission of the
tradition of individual sayings from the perspectives of text criticism, literary
criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and the use of the saying(s) in
'orthodox' and 'heretical' circles in the first three centuries.
V. Origin: Date, Place, and Language of Composition
A discussion of the origins of the Gos. Thorn. must treat the interrelated
questions of the date, place, and language of composition of the text. Determin-
ing a fourth-century date for the writing of Nag Hammadi Codex II, the
manuscript volume in which the Gos. Thorn. is contained, establishes only
the period in which the Coptic translation was copied, not the actual date of
composition of the original gospel text. However, once the Coptic Gos. Thorn.
was discovered, scholars were able to recognize it as a version of that
text previously known only in fragments from Oxyrhynchus; and once that
identification was secured, scholars could then establish a date of composition
prior to the year 200 C.E., the date of the copying of P. Oxy. 1, and thus, the
terminus ante quem of the composition of the Gos. Thorn.
In the editio princeps of P. Oxy. 1 that was published in 1897, GRENFELL
and HUNT suggested
1) that P. Oxy. 1 was a fragment of a collection of sayings of Jesus, not

excerpts taken from a narrative gospel;
2) that these sayings were not "heretical" or Gnostic;
3) that this collection was "put together not later than the end of the first or
the beginning of the second century"; and
4) that "it is quite possible that they embody a tradition independent of those
which have taken shape in our Canonical Gospels. " 43
In summarizing these conclusions the very next year, they wrote that this
collection of sayings was "earlier than 140 A.D., and might go back to the
first century. " 44 Although some of their suggestions became the subject of
considerable debate, it is striking that the conjectured date of composition did
not. In fact, the date of 140 became so widely accepted as the operative
consensus of scholarship that it is still repeatedly asserted in the literature
43 GRENFELL and HuNT, AOfiA IHCOY, 16-20; the quotationsla~~~ken from p. 18.
44 B. P. GRENFELL and A. S. HUNT, The Oxyrhynchus Papyr1: Part I (London: Egypt
Exploration Fund, 1898) 2. (
\ /
----- -~--- ~
today, without any evidence or argumentation. 45 It should be noted, however,

that GRENFELL and HuNT thought the year 140 was the latest likely date of
composition. They actually preferred an earlier date, not later than the end
of the first or the beginning of the second century, for the collection and
composition of the text. Their reasons for such a dating include the following:
"Since the papyrus itself was written not much later than the beginning
of the third century, this collection of sayings must go back at least to
the end of the second century. But the internal evidence points to an
earlier date. The primitive cast and setting of the sayings, the absence of
any consistent tendency in favour of any particular sect, the wide diver-
gences in the familiar sayings from the text of the Gospels, the striking
character of those which are new, combine to separate the fragment from
the 'apocryphal' literature of the middle and latter half of the second
century, and to refer it back to the period when the Canonical Gospels
had not yet reached their pre-eminent position. Taking 140 A.D., then,
as the terminus ad quem .... "46
As this quotation intimates, the difficult task of determining with any
sort of precision a plausible date of composition depends, in part, on one's
understanding of the history of the transmission of the tradition about and
from Jesus and of the process of the formation of written gospel texts.
Moreover, for any historical reconstruction of the date and place of composi-
tion of the Gos. Thorn. to be credible, one must take into consideration the
social, political, and theological setting in which this particular sayings gospel
could have been composed. On the basis of certain theological and literary
connections between the Gos. Thorn. and early Syrian Christianity, DRIJVERS
locates the composition of the Gos. Thorn. in Edessa ca. 200 C.E. He argues
in particular that "all characteristics of [the Gos. Thom.'s] theology," such as
its pronounced encratism and its notion of a syzygy between human "soul"
and divine "spirit," are splendidly represented in the period and person of
Tatian. In suggesting that the Gos. Thorn. used Tatian's Diatessaron as a
source, furthermore, DRIJVERS seeks to explain the "problem of the common
variants of the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron." 47 One should note
that this suggested date of composition virtually makes P. Oxy. 1 an autograph
of the Gos. Thorn. in Greek, though DRIJVERS thinks the Gos. Thorn. was
originally written in Syriac. 48
On the other side of the spectrum, DAVIES (The Gospel of Thomas and
Christian Wisdom, 3, and 145 -47) asserts that the Gos. Thorn. should be
45 E.g., PuECH, The Gospel of Thomas, 305; QUISPEL, Makarius, 18 -19; IDEM, Gnosis
apd-the New Sayings of Jesus, 262, and 278; IDEM, The Gospel of Thomas Revisited,
,222-23; EHLERS, p. 285; and KLIJN, Christianity in Edessa and the Gospel of Thomas,
75-76.
411 G~ENFELL nd HUNT, AOriA IHCOY, 16.
47 tf. ]. W. IJVERS, Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity, The Second
ce 2 (1982) 112-73.
48 Ibid., 170.
dated ca. 50-70 C.E., contemporaneous with the Synoptic Sayings Source Q.
He bases this proposal on what he takes to be evidence of the mutual
independence of the Gos. Thorn. and the NT, the permeation of Jewish
wisdom speculation throughout the text, and the absence of any Gnostic ideas,
influence, or mythology in the text. The encratism that DRIJVERS, for example,
would regard as representative of late-second century Syrian Christianity,
DAVIES takes to be reflective of very early Christian baptismal instruction and
practice.
In his introduction to the Gos. Thorn. in the forthcoming critical edition
of LAYTON, KoESTER argues that the Gos. Thorn. is not a random collection of
sayings but "a writing claiming formal authorship and manifesting theological
tendencies which govern the selection and interpretation of traditional mate-
rials." Accordingly, "developments in the ecclesiastical structure, theology,
and cultural experience of Christianity must be expected to have left traces
in such a writing. " 49 If it could be shown that the Gos. Thorn. is dependent
on the NT, KoESTER reasons, then one could probably situate the text in the
mid-second century, when independent sayings collections deriving from the
oral tradition were being either replaced by, or pressed into the service of, the
written Gospels of the NT. For it is precisely at this time that harmonizing
collections of sayings of Jesus, based on the Synoptic Gospels, were being
composed and used by Justin and the author of 2 Clement. 50 Simultaneous
with these harmonizing collections of sayings of Jesus, narrative gospel har-
monies were also being produced. Irenaeus attests to the existence of the
Gospel of the Ebionites, a harmony, composed in Greek, of the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke (and, probably, the Gospel of Mark as well). But since
the Gos. Thorn. displays no vestige of the narrative gospel tradition, nor any
sign of its kerygma of the cross and resurrection, nor any trace of dependence
on one or more Synoptic versions of the sayings tradition, KOESTER maintains,
then the Gos. Thorn. must have been composed well before the time of
Justin - probably sometime in the first century. 51
Attribution of authorship to Didymos Judas Thomas, moreover, situates
the text at a time in which appeals of authority were made to individual
disciples or apostles by name, in order to secure the identity and guarantee
the reliability of the tradition of those communities which looked to such
individuals as their founder. The fact that the Gos. Thorn. respects the
authority of James (saying 12), but replaces it with the superior authority of
Thomas (saying 13), suggests to KoESTER that the Gos. Thorn. reflects those
concrete circumstances in early church history when the name of Thomas was
invoked to legitimate the transmission and safeguard the interpretation of the
/
49 Quoted from section 7 of KoEsTJR's 'The Gospel According to Thomas: Introduction'
to the forthcoming critical edition\of LAYTON.
so See KoESTER, Synoptische Oberliefe ng bei en apostolischen Vatern, 79-94.
51 For this particular date, see H. KoESTE ntroduction to the New Testament, vol. 2:
History and Literature of Early Christianity (2 vols.; Foundations and Facets; Philadel-
phia: Fortress, 1982; Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1983) 152.
tradition of those communities which appealed to Thomas. The fact that

Thomas's authority is contrasted with that of Peter and Matthew (saying 13)
may indicate further that the Gos. Thorn. dates from a time in which collec-
tions of written traditions about Jesus were connected with the competitive
claims of authority under the names of individual disciples of Jesus (see also
WALLS, The References to Apostles in the Gospel of Thomas).
Although there have been some dissenting voices, a consensus seems to
have emerged among scholars that Syria is the place of composition of the
text. The list of those scholars who consider the Gos. Thorn. was composed
in Syria includes the names of GARTNER, GuiLLAUMONT, KLIJN, KoESTER,
MENARD, and WILSON. McARTHUR (The Dependence of the Gospel of
Thomas) and GROBEL had suggested Egypt, perhaps because the copies of the
Greek and Coptic texts were discovered in the sands of the Egyptian desert.
PuECH, who first identified the Oxyrhynchus papyri as fragments of the Gos.
Thorn. in Greek, was also the first to argue forcefully for Syria as the place
of composition (The Gospel of Thomas, 286 - 87). He notes that Thomas is
the apostolic figure particularly revered in Syriac-speaking churches, and that
the name Judas Thomas or the peculiar, redundant name Didymos Judas
Thomas (i.e., Judas the Twin) is attested only in the East. Indeed, the shadowy
disciple named Thomas (Mark 3:18 par.; John 14:5) or Thomas Didymos
(John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2) is identified with Judas in the Syriac NT, where he
is called Judas Thomas (John 14:22). This combination of (Didymos) Judas
Thomas, then, is "a phenomenon characteristic of and restricted to early
Syriac literature," 52 being found, for example, in the Acts of Thomas, the
Teaching of Addai, and the Abgar legend preserved in the Historia ecclesiastica
(1.13.11) of Eusebius.
The prologue of the Gos. Thorn. attributes authorship of the (Coptic)
text to Didymos Judas Thomas (P. Oxy. 654 reads: "[Judas, who is] also
Thomas"). The occurrence of variants of this distinctive name in the Acts of
Thomas (e.g., chapter 1: "Judas Thomas, who is also Didymus"; and chapter
11: "Judas, who is also Thomas") is particularly striking, since there are clear
affinities between the Gos. Thorn. and the Acts of Thomas and since it is
widely held that the Acts of Thomas was composed in Syriac in the early
third century. 53 The articles of QmSPEL document additional points of contact
between the Gos. Thorn. and other Syrian literature, such as the Diatessaron
of Tatian, the Liber Graduum, the writings of Macari us, the Odes of Solomon,
and certain Manichaean texts. GuEY has even offered an interesting argument
for a Syrian'Rrovenance by appealing to numismatic evidence to help explain
thJ«gold coirl" in Gos. Thorn. 100.
: The most serious objections to the identification of an East Syrian, and
pa arly Edessene, provenance of the Gos. Thorn. have been put forth by
EH .- She argues
52 DRIJVERS, Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity, 158.

53 See G. BoRNKAMM, The Acts of Thomas, in: New Testament Apocrypha, 2. 425-41.
274 ANRW II 25.6
1) that the names Judas and Thomas had wide currency in Gnostic circles;
2) that Syriac was spoken almost exclusively in Edessa, whereas a bilingual
culture would be required for the composition of a gospel written in Greek
and showing traces of Semitisms; and
3) that there is no evidence of Jewish-Christian influence early or of (non-
Bardesanite) Gnostic conceptualization late in the second century in Edessa.
In response, KLIJN (Christianity in Edessa and the Gospel of Thomas) has
marshaled the evidence from inscriptions and texts to show convincingly that
Edessene Christianity was extremely diverse, with Jewish Christians and
Gnostics included among its membership, and that Edessa itself was a bilingual
environment, with (West-) Aramaic, Syriac (i.e., East-Aramaic), and Greek
attested in speech and in writing. In a separate article KLIJN has also shown
that the name Judas Thomas was distinctive in the Syriac church and "must
have been handed down by an Aramaic-speaking community. " 54
It is generally assumed that all of the documents from the Nag Hammadi
library are Coptic translations of originally Greek texts. The existence of the
Oxyrhynchus fragments of the Gos. Thorn. in Greek would surely seem to
confirm that such an assumption is correct in this case (cf. our section on the
text above). However, not all scholars have been satisfied with this conclusion.
GUILLAUMONT (Semitismes dans les logia de Jesus) has proposed that the Gos.
Thorn. was originally written in Syriac and then translated into Greek and
Coptic. His principal argument for this hypothesis is based on Gos. Thorn.
14, in which he states that the clause "you will do evil to your spirits (pneuma)"
is a mistranslation of the reflexive "you will do evil to yourselves," a reflexive
expressed in Syriac with the term "spirit." GUILLAUMONT suggests that the
Semitisms in the text may point to a prior Aramaic stage of the Gos.
Thorn., one which possibly originated in Palestine (p. 120). In a second article
GuiLLAUMONT (NT]crte6etv tov x:6crJ.Lov) extended his analysis by examining the
phrase "to fast to the world" in P. Oxy. 1, lines 5-6, and Gos. Thorn. 27
(see also BAKER, ·Fasting to the World'). He suggests, again, that behind this
phrase lay an Aramaic original which was wrongly translated into Greek.
According to GUILLAUMONT, the Greek translator mistook the Aramaic prepo-
sition l for the direct object marker of a transitive verb. Accordingly, the
object of the preposition was rendered in Greek as an accusative of respect:
"to fast to (or: as regards) the world (ton kosmon)." The underlying Aramaic,
however, is sa· ave used the verb with its prepositional phrase figuratively
to mean "to bstain (o ·withdraw) from the world." To express this meaning
properly, t e object of t e preposition should have been rendered in Greek as
a genitive f separation ~tou kosmou).
QuEcKE ('Sein Haus seines Konigreiches') accepted the thesis of GUILLAU-
MONT and has attempted to buttress it by an analysis of the phrase "into his
54 A. F. J. KLIJN, John XIV 22 and the Name Judas Thomas, in: Studies in John: Presented
to Professor Dr. J. N. Sevenster on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (NovTSup
24; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 90.
house of his kingdom" in Gos. Thorn. 21, which he also understands as a

mistranslation of the Syriac. Likewise, STROBEL argues for a Syriac original
behind Gos. Thorn. 86. RUDOLPH (p. 194) has been persuaded by their argu-
ments and is willing to grant either that a Syriac or Aramaic Urschrift lies
behind the Greek version or that an oral tradition of Aramaic origin under-
scores the entire Greek Vorlage (see also GUILLAUMONT, Les semitismes dans
l'Evangile selon Thomas).
QUISPEL, on the other hand, apparently believes that the Gos. Thorn.
was composed in Greek, though a Greek which shows evidence of Aramaic
influence in numerous individual sayings. In Gos. Thorn. 9, for example,
QUISPEL notes that the Coptic reads that the sower's seed fell "upon" (eln)
the road, whereas the Synoptics literally read "beside" (para) the road (Mark
4:4 par.). He explains these variations as independent translational versions
of the ambiguous Aramaic 'al 'url}a (The Gospel of Thomas and the New
Testament, 201). Similarly, GROBEL argues that alternative translations made
from the Aramaic are reflected in the differences between the Gos. Thom.'s
admonition "love your brother like your soul" (saying 25) and the Synoptics'
"love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31 par.), and between the Gos.
Thom.'s statement "two will rest in a bed" (saying 61) and the Synoptic's
"there will be two on one bed" (Luke 17:34).
However, KuHN has offered a word of caution in assessing Semitisms in
the Gos. Thorn. He points out that what appear to be Semitisms may in fact
be appropriate Coptic idioms or biblicisms, i.e., idioms customary in the
Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. For example, the use of psyche
rather than the reflexive pronoun in Gos. Thorn .. 25 conforms to a practice
attested in the Septuagint (see also MENARD, L'Evangile selon Thomas, 117).
Moreover, since words and phrases in the Greek NT carry more than one
meaning, explaining all variations in translation with reference to an underly-
ing Semitic original seems unwarranted. One need not reconstruct the Aramaic
·at 'url}a in order to clarify the choice of prepositions adopted in the Greek
(para) and Coptic (eln) versions of the parable of the Sower, because para
with the accusative (cf. Mark 4:4 par.) can mean both "beside" and "upon"
in Kaine Greek (see HAENCHEN, Literatur zum Thomasevangelium, 167). And
since the Coptic preposition hi occurs in the Sahidic NT at Luke 17:34 as well
as in Gos. Thorn. 61, the Vorlage of this saying in the Gos. Thorn. may simply
have had the same Greek word (epi) as Luke. KUHN also suggests that the
Gos. Thorn. was not only copied but has also been subject to redaction as it
was transmitted; comparative analysis of the Greek and Coptic texts substanti-
ates this conclusion. In this respect, the Gos. Thorn. is no different from the
Gospels now in the NT. Accordingly, certain variations between individual
sayings in the Gos. Thorn. and their parallels in the NT could reflect theologi-
cally motivated changes, and not simply translational peculiarities. So, for
example, one might take exception to GUILLAUMONT's interpretation of Gos.
Thorn. 14 and suggest that the phrase "to do evil to your spirits" reflects not
the recognition of a spiritualized understanding of traditional religious prac-
274•
tices but rather the theological notion that participation in external religious
practices is harmful to the person seeking knowledge.
It is not surprising that there are Semitisms in the Gos. Thorn., for
scholars have generally been persuaded that a Semitic influence underlies some
of the earliest strata of the sayings-of-Jesus tradition. But the presence of
Semitisms does not prove that the Gos. Thorn. was originally composed in
Aramaic or Syriac. The only extant evidence of the text of the Gos. Thorn.
is preserved in Greek and in a Coptic translation made from the Greek.
Assuming that an Aramaic or Syriac tradition lies behind the entire text of
the Gos. Thorn., in either a written or an oral form, seems tenuous and
unnecessary. It is likely that the original text was composed in Greek (see also
HAENCHEN, Literatur zum Thomasevangelium, 157, and 161; and ScHRAGE,
Evangelienzitate in den Oxyrhynchus-Logien, 252- 53), almost certainly in
Edessa.
VI. Theology
The most-discussed theological issue in the literature on the Gos. Thorn.

is whether or not this gospel is Gnostic, and if it is, what that might mean.
QmsPEL has consistently maintained that the Gos. Thorn. is not Gnostic. In
his view, the Gos. Thorn. is composed of Jewish-Christian, encratite, and
hermetic sources and reflects the theology of those sources rather than that
of Gnosticism. Although it is possible, QmsPEL admits, that some Gnostic
sayings were interpolated into the text during the course of its transmission,
he insists that such a possibility remains unproven. At most, a few glosses
may have been inserted into the text (e.g., in sayings 2, 4, and 8) by a later
Gnostic redactor (Makarius, 111-13). The main arguments adduced by
QmsPEL against a Gnostic origin of the text are
1) that the Gos. Thorn. does not exhibit the developed mythology so character-
istic of Gnostic speculative systems;
2) that the saying attributed to Jesus in Gos. Thorn. 28 ("I took my place in
the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh [sarx] ... ") is anti-
Gnostic; and
3) that there is no evidence of a Gnostic presence in Edessa, the place of
origin of the text (Makarius, 65 -74).
QmsPEL's contention that the Gos. Thorn. is not Gnostic has not gathered
a large following among scholars, though DAVIES (The Gospel of Thomas
and Christian Wisdom, 18- 35), FREND, GROBEL, HIGGINS, and KIM have
supported this position. DAVIES in particular has argued that TuRNER (p. 83),
WILSON (Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, 12 -13), and others have simply
assumed that the Gos. Thorn. is Gnostic. In DAVIEs's view, the Gos. Thorn.
is a collection of sayings used to instruct newly baptized Christians that was
composed independently of the Gospels of the NT and without any influence
from Gnosticism. His thesis that the social setting of the Gos. Thorn. is
postbaptismal instruction is interesting, though we doubt whether a baptismal
Sitz im Leben can be identified for the majority of the sayings in the text. But
his oft-repeated statement that the Gos. Thorn. is not Gnostic in any "meaning-
ful sense" of the word (The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom, 3, 15,
33, and 147) is simply asserted, not demonstrated by means of a sustained
argument. DAVIES's insistence that the Gos. Thom.'s alleged Gnostic proclivi-
ties are more often presumed by scholars than proven is well taken. Neverthe-
less, DAVIES has neither explained what he means by "meaningful" Gnosticism
nor nuanced an understanding that takes into account the clearly recognizable
first century C.E. Gnosticizing traditions both within and without the NT. In
general, he seems to agree with QUISPEL that the absence of a well-defined
mythological system in the Gas. Thorn. is an argument for the non-Gnostic
character of the work. However, the (interpretation of the) evidence QUISPEL
cites in support of his arguments has been called into question by scholars.
MEES suggests that, for formal reasons, the presence of such Gnostic
myths as the fall of Sophia would not be expected in the Gas. Thorn. Since
the Gas. Thorn. is a collection of 'sentences,' in a tradition of antique sentence
collections, the narration of an expansive myth would be both formally
incongruous with originally discrete sayings and generically incompatible with
the morphology of the tradition. Likewise, RICHARDSON has argued that
"richness of myth is not a decisive test of Gnosticism"; the question of
"whether the world is regarded as essentially evil" is "far more important"
(p. 72). And in stating that "Gnosticism does not universally embrace doce-
tism" (p. 73), RICHARDSON has indicated that other interpretations of Gas.
Thorn. 28 are possible. A study of the various christologies in the Nag
Hammadi documents may be necessary to help resolve this issue. But one
can declare unequivocally that the Nag Hammadi library provides explicit
references to the Gnostic revealer's suffering in the "flesh" (e.g., the Apocalypse
of Adam [NHC V, 5] 77.12 -18) and to the appearance of the revealer in the
"flesh" (e.g., the Treatise on Resurrection [NHC I, 4]44.11-17; cf. 47.1-13).
One might add that, though a Gnostic mythology is not narrated in the Gas.
Thorn., certain sayings in the text seem to reflect, at least implicitly, Gnostic
speculative tendencies (cf. especially sayings 50, and 83- 85). But whether or
not those sayings have been interpolated into the text during the course of its
transmission is still an open question. Finally, one should note that KLIJN's
analysis (Christianity in Edessa and the Gospel of Thomas) of Edessene
Christianity indicates that QmsPEL is mistaken when he. states categorically
that Gnostics were not active in the churches of that region (cf. our section
on the place of composition above).
On the other side of the issue, the list of those scholars who regard the
Gos. Thorn. as Gnostic is extensive and includes the names of BAUER, GART-
NER, GRANT, HAENCHEN, MAcRAE, 55 MENARD, RoQUES, ScHRAGE, TuRNER,
55 G. W. MAcRAE, Nag Hammadi and the New Testament, in: B. ALAND, ed., Gnosis:
Festschrift fiir Hans Jonas (Gi:ittingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 152.
VIELHAUER, and WILSON. These scholars have expressed some disagreement,

though, about the best way(s) to undertake an examination of the (Gnostic)
theology of the Gos. Thorn. Perhaps the most common method of analysis is
to examine each of the sayings individually in light of its Synoptic parallel(s);
to describe the (Gnosticizing) tendencies at work in the Gos. Thom.'s altera-
tions of the sense and wording of the saying(s); and to conclude with an
attempt to determine the nature of the Gnostic message encountered in
the text by tabulating the results drawn from each individual investigation.
HAENCHEN (Die Botschaft des Thomas-Evangeliums, 37- 38) has rejected this
mode of analysis and suggested instead that the proper method of evaluating
the theology of the Gos. Thorn. is to proceed from those sayings that clearly
portray a Gnostic point of view. From the results of that analysis certain
characteristics can be detected which should serve as clues in the interpretation
of other, Synoptic-like sayings whose Gnostic features are not so visible. Only
in this way, he maintains, can one take seriously the hermeneutical mandate
outlined in the prologue and saying 1 of the text: all of the sayings, whether
easy or difficult to understand, are logoi apokryphoi, whose real meaning
does not rest on the surface.
A different sort of problem arises when an attempt is made to identify a
specific Gnostic affiliation of the Gos. Thorn. CoRNELIS, GRANT (The Secret
Sayings), ScHOEDEL (Naassene Themes in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas), and
SMYTH regarded the Naassenes as the sect from which the Gos. Thorn. emerged.
CERFAUX (Les paraboles du royaume) and GARTNER, conversely, considered
the Valentinians the Gnostic group to whom the Gos. Thorn. belonged. But
as HAENCHEN (Literatur zum Thomasevangelium, 318) has noted, the Gos.
Thorn. lacks the distinctive mythology of the Naassenes - and, we would
add, the distinctive theology of the Valentinians. The absence of precisely
those features that might establish the identity of the Gos. Thorn. with any
particular sect or school means that these attempts to make such an identifica-
tion are very precarious indeed.
In addition to the succinct treatments of the theology of the Gos. Thorn. in
GRANT (The Secret Sayings, 102 -16) and RoQUES (L''Evangile selon Thomas,'
29- 37), GARTNER and HAENCHEN (Die Botschaft des Thomas-Evangeliums)
have devoted monographs to this subject. GARTNER draws upon a wealth of
Gnostic and Manichaean ideas in order to illuminate the theology of the Gos.
Thorn., which he treats under the headings of the nature of Jesus, the world
and man in the world, the nature of man, the kingdom, the negative attitude
to the world, and seeking and resting. HAENCHEN, on the other hand, argues
that the starting point of the theology of the Gos. Thorn. is not christology
but rather the fundamental perspective the text shares with all forms of
Gnosticism: that particles of heavenly light, cast down into the material world
as a result of a breach in the divine realm, are present within human beings.
Accordingly, HAENCHEN treats the theological issues of the Gos. Thorn. in an
order which is the reverse of GARTNER's, under the themes of the Gnostic
starting point, the kingdom as the divine self, the world, and the 'Father' and
Jesus.
These more general studies have been supplemented by a number of

articles on specific topics pertaining to the theology of the Gos. Thorn. MILLER
has dealt with the theme of the kingdom and drawn upon the writings of
Philo and the Herrnetica in order to illuminate the thought-world of the Gos.
Thorn. She maintains that, compared to the biblical tradition, the distinctive
feature of the kingdom in the Gos. Thorn. is that it is not located in space or
time but is regarded as realized in the experience of knowledge. According to
MILLER, Jesus, the Father, Light, and Life are all used to refer to the kingdom,
which is the beginning and the end (p. 55). Similarly, ALBANESE has studied
the theme of inwardness and shown that the motifs of time, self, and subjectiv-
ity have been internalized in the Gos. Thorn. in the individual's experience of
knowing (pp. 69-88). VIELHAUER (ANAllAYCIC) has investigated the theme
of rest in terms of its Gnostic background. He gleaned from a perusal of the
literature of antiquity the cardinal motifs of the Gnostic theme of rest;
these motifs are then presented in summary fashion and contrasted with the
distinctive thematic features in the Gos. Thorn. Unlike other Gnostic docu-
ments, VIELHAUER says, the Gos. Thorn. has no extensive mythological specula-
tion, futuristic eschatology, or mystical-ecstatic prolepsis. However, the Gos.
Thorn. does share with some Gnostic texts an emphasis on present eschatology,
i.e., on the return of the self to its divine origin, a "rest" achieved through
knowledge (p. 299).
The theme of the "solitary one" (monachos) in the Gos. Thorn. has been
discussed by a number of authors. LEIPOLDT originally thought that monachos
in Gos. Thorn. 16 referred to monks or hermits (Ein neues Evangeliurn?, 493).
But HARL has shown in a more detailed study that, in the Gos. Thorn., this
term had not yet acquired the technical meaning of "monk." Noting that
monachos is found in the Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures made
by Aquila, Syrnrnachus, and Theodotion, HARL traced its usage in the Gos.
Thorn. to a biblical tradition and a Jewish-Christian milieu, which emphasized
simplicity of heart and, perhaps, also isolation (p. 470). KLIJN (The ·single
One' in the Gospel of Thomas) treated the theme of the "solitary one" together
with that of the "single one," arguing that three different words were used as
synonyms to render the "single one" (pp. 271- 72): monachos (sayings 16, 49,
and 75), oua (sayings 11, 22, and 106), and oua <en>ouot (sayings 4, 22, and
23; cf. also saying 30 according toP. Oxy. 1). He traced the conception of the
"single one" in the Gos. Thorn. to Hellenized Jewish notions (e.g., in Philo)
about the original, androgynous unity of Adam and the subsequent loss of
that unity through the Fall. In such a context salvation was thought to be the
return to one's primordial unity. KEE has drawn upon the study of KLIJN and
pointed out the similarity between "becoming a single one" and "becoming a
child"; both are said to refer to one's return to the primordial state of
innocence (pp. 308- 9). In her detailed study of the monachos theme, MoRARD
(Monachos, Moine) traced the history of this term from the classical to the
Hellenistic, Roman, and Christian periods, noting its usage in literary and
nonliterary traditions as well as in the Greek translation(s) of the Hebrew
scriptures. When she turns to an analysis of its usage in the Gos. Thorn.
(pp. 362- 77), MoRARD makes a distinction between the "single one" (oua
<en>ouot) and the "solitary one" (monachos). The former is said to refer to a
unity of heart; the latter, to a separation from family and from marriage
(pp. 366, and 377). MoRARD relates the Gos. Thom.'s use of this theme to
biblical traditions, to a Jewish-Christian milieu, and even to Syrian ascetic
circles. Less convincing, however, is her suggestion that the Gos. Thorn. was
written originally in Syriac, and thus, that monachos is a translation of the
Syriac ibidaya (p. 377).
In an important history-of-religions analysis of Gos. Thorn. 37, SMITH
has shown that the origin of this saying is to be discovered "within archaic
Christian baptismal practices and attendant interpretation of Genesis 1 - 3"
(p. 2). "Only within baptismal rituals and homilies" {p. 22), he argues, are the
four principal motifs within the saying found joined together:
1) the disrobing of the disciples;
2) their being naked and without shame;
3) their treading upon their garments; and
4) their being like little children.
MEEKs 56 has supplemented this analysis with his own investigation of the
social functions of the myth of the reunification of the androgyne in Gnostic
and non-Gnostic circles. The dissertation of MAcDoNALo 57 has substantially
augmented these analyses, demonstrating that the tradition of sayings of Jesus
which spoke of entering the kingdom through baptism, by treading on the
"garment of shame" (e.g., Gos. Thorn. 37) and/or making the "two (male and
female) one" (e.g., Gos. Thorn. 22), was a baptismal tradition. The underlying
anthropology of the tradition was shaped by speculative, Platonic interpreta-
tions of the Genesis accounts of the Creation and the Fall, according to which
the unity of the first man was disrupted by the creation of woman and sexual
division. Salvation was thus thought to be the recapitulation of Adam and
Eve's primordial state, the removal of the body and the reunion of the sexes.
This return to the primordial state was said to be accomplished - or at least
symbolized - by baptism (cf. Gal3:26-28 // 1 Cor 12:13).
The tradition behind the very difficult saying about "the lion becoming
human" in Gos. Thorn. 7 is the subject of the recently published dissertation
of jACKSON. He has traced the development of the lion symbolism from
Platonic beginnings through various Hellenistic religions to its use in the
mythology and anthropology of Gnosticism. A less-technical study of the
anthropology of the Gos. Thorn. has been contributed by HAENCHEN (Die
Anthropologie des Thomas-Evangeliums). The focus of HAENCHEN's article,
56 W. A. MEEKS, The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest

Christianiry, HR 13 (1973 -74) 165-208.
57 D. R. MACDONALD, There is No Male and Female: Galatians 3:26-28 and Gnostic
Baptismal Tradition, Ph. D. diss., Harvard Universiry, 1978. This dissertation will be
published by Fortress Press, in conjunction with Harvard Divinity School, in the Harvard
Dissertations in Religion series.
---- ----------
as of his monograph, is on the "Gnostic starting point," i.e., the recognition

that the evil world in which particles of divine light have been immersed is
also the place in which the Gnostic comes to hear the call to knowledge
(pp. 207 -11). The task before the Gnostic is not only to come to a knowledge
of one's situation but also to confirm that knowledge continually by the
decision of faith and the asceticism of one's life (pp. 212- 20). LrEBAERT has
discussed the conditions for access to the kingdom in the Gos. Thorn. as a
question of ethics, arguing that the Gos. Thorn. represents an alteration of
biblical teachings on morality on account of a Gnostic tendency toward
mysticism and toward a spiritualization of religious practices.
Relatively little attention has been devoted by scholars to the way(s) the
Gos. Thorn. was intended to function within an early Christian community
of faith. GRANT (Notes on the Gospel of Thomas, 173) suggested that the
Gos. Thorn. may have been intended for initiates and prospective initiates
alike, analogous to Ptolemy's Letter to Flora. LINCOLN offered a similar
hypothesis and even divided the initiates into three separate groups: the
novices, the seniors with knowledge, and the perfect (pp. 69 -70). He then
attempted to isolate and identify the sayings in the text which are said to be
addressed to each specific group. DAVIES (The Gospel of Thomas and Christian
Wisdom) proposed that the Gos. Thorn. is a collection of sayings used to
instruct newly baptized Christians. BEARE has conjectured that the Gos. Thorn.
is a manual for Gnostics (pp. 102- 5); BARTSCH has made reference to the
parenetic function of the sayings in the text.
Studies of the theology of the Gos. Thorn. need to investigate more
thoroughly the basic religious orientation(s) of antique sayings collections
composed in the form of wisdom books. The hermeneutical motif of secrecy
presupposed in the collection, composition, and interpretation of such collec-
tions must also be more fully assessed. The designation of the Gos. Thorn. as
"the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke," whose interpretation will
enable one not to "taste death," indicates that the discernment of the meaning
of these sayings of Jesus was believed to bring secret wisdom. These sayings
were understood as those of the voice of divine Wisdom revealing herself.
Fundamentally, therefore, the Gos. Thorn. is an esoteric book which, according
to the catechetical instruction imparted in saying 50, reveals one's origin ("the
light"), identity ("elect," "children"), and destiny ("rest").
The Gos. Thorn. "proclaims the presence of divine wisdom as the true
destiny of human existence." 58 Those who can hear and understand are able
to respond in faith to the proclamation of the words of revelation of the living
Jesus. Accordingly, two of the dominant motifs of early Christian teaching
are preserved and promoted in the Gos. Thorn.: a radicalized eschatology of
the kingdom of God and, concomitantly, the implication that the reality of
this kingdom is present in and available through a response to Jesus' words.
The preservation of such teaching in a sayings or discourse gospel entails, for
the Gos. Thorn., the specific christological belief that Jesus is not only
ss KoESTER, History and Literature of Early Christianity, 153.
----------------
Wisdom's envoy but also Wisdom herself; his message continues the theological
tradition advanced most clearly in the Wisdom of Solomon, "which presents
the concept of wisdom in a theologically radicalized form ... as a fundamental
human path," a new ''possibility of existence." 59
The Gos. Thorn. demonstrates the orientation of its particular community
toward traditions of sayings of Jesus rather than toward the more speculative,
systematic writings of other Gnostic groups. To affirm that this is a Gnostic
gospel indicates that Gnosticism was not incompatible with Jesus' own teach-
ing (see also SXvE-SODERBERGH). Gnostics could rightfully claim Jesus with
as much authority as any other group of Christians. Indeed, as early as the
writing of 1 Corinthians there is evidence that certain (groups of) persons
claimed to possess special wisdom in the name, and under the authority, of
individual disciples or apostles of Jesus. It seems clear that the wisdom
embraced by these people was supported in part by appeals to one or more
(now lost) collections of sayings which the Corinthian church "knew and used
in the context of their [Gnosticizing] wisdom theology. " 60 The Gos. Thorn.
must be seen as a direct continuation of such developments, advancing a
christology in which the proclamation of the cross and resurrection was not
deemed necessary. The eschatological proclamation of Jesus is continued in
the Gos. Thorn.; its wisdom and prophetic sayings announce that the kingdom
is present in the person of Jesus and the self of the believer. The Gnosticizing
tendencies latent within the tradition have become manifest in this text,
providing the elixir of life to those for whom the secret of the kingdom is
disclosed in the interpretation of Jesus' words.
VII. Conclusion
Rarely does a document stir as much interest or spark as much debate

as the recently discovered text of the Gos. Thorn. from Nag Hammadi. Despite
the extraordinary attention devoted to this gospel since it was first published
in 1956, the scholarly community remains sharply divided in its assessment of
the text and its place in the origins of Christianity. The debate has focused
not just on the Gos. Thorn. and its relationship to the NT; it has also
59 KoESTER, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 1: History, Culture, and Religion of
the Hellenistic Age, 272-73. See also D. GEORGI, Weisheit Salomos (Jiidische Schriften
aus hellenistisch-romischer Zeit 3/4; Giitersloh: Mohn, 1980); and IDEM, Das Wesen der
Weisheit nach der 'Weisheit Salomos; in: J. TAUBES, ed., Religionstheorie und politische
Theologie, vol. 2: Gnosis und Politik (Munich: Fink; Paderborn: Schoningh, 1984)
66-81.
60 H. KoESTER, Gnostic Writings as Witnesses for the Development of the Sayings Tradition,
in: B. LAYTON, ed., The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March 28-31, 1978 (2
vols.; Numen Supplements 41; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 1. 249.
------ -~-----
involved a reevaluation of the rise of Gnosticism, that widespread syncretistic

movement in antiquity which regarded religious insight as the means of
attaining spiritual liberation, the recognition of one's own identity with the
divine. Because the majority of the sayings in the Gos. Thorn. have parallels
in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, most discussions of the text
have been preoccupied with the construction of one or more comprehensive
theories about the relationship of the Gos. Thorn. to the writings of the NT.
These studies have helped clarify many aspects of the text and its traditions;
but what has been generally overlooked is a careful assessment of the entire
document in its own right, including a compositional analysis of the histories
of its individual sayings that is based on a knowledge of the Coptic text and
the Greek fragments.
Perhaps the challenge to future studies of the Gos. Thorn. is not to
construct additional hypotheses but to analyze in depth the originally discrete
sayings in the text. Such analyses must make use of the full range of philological
and historical tools of biblical criticism, including the methods of text criticism,
source criticism, form criticism, genre analysis, tradition history, and redaction
criticism. Anyone who is interested in studying the Gos. Thorn., whether
historian of the NT, the early church, or the religions of antiquity, needs to
work with the text in its original languages. As a noncanonical gospel that is
uniquely related to the sources of the NT, the early stages of Gnosticism, and
the history of the literature in which Jesus traditions have been transmitted, the
Gos. Thorn. may yet substantially alter our understandings of the beginnings of
Christianity.
Bibliography
1. Bibliographies and Forschungsberichte

HAENCHEN, E. Literatur zum Thomasevangelium, ThR 27 (1961/62) 147-78, and 306-38
PRIGENT, P. L'Evangile selon Thomas: Etat de Ia question, RHPhR 39 (1959) 39-45
QuECKE, H. L'Evangile de Thomas: Etat des recherches, in: E. MASSAUX, ed., La Venue du
Messie: Messianisme et Eschatologie (RechBib 6; Brussels: Descll:e de Brouwer, 1962)
217-41
RUDOLPH, K. Gnosis und Gnostizismus, ein Forschungsbericht, ThR 34 (1969) 121-75,
181-231, and 359-61 (esp. pp. 181- 94)
ScHOLER, D. M. Bibliographia Gnostica: Supplementum, NovT 13 (1971) 322-36; 14 (1972)
312-31; 15 (1973) 327-45; 16 (1974) 316-36; 17 (1975) 305-36; 19 (1977) 293-336;
20 (1978) 300-331; 21 (1979) 357- 82; 22 (1980) 352-84; 23 (1981) 361- 80; 24 (1982)
340-68; 25 (1983) 356-81; 26 (1984) 341-73; and 27 (1985) 349-78
SCHOLER, D. M. Nag Hammadi Bibliography 1948-1969 (NHS 1; Leiden: Brill, 1971)
2. Plates, Editions, Translations, Commentaries, and Concordances

ATTRIDGE, H. W. The Greek Fragments (P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655), in: B. LAYTON, ed., Nag
Hammadi Codex 11,2-7 together with XIII,2", Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1), and P. Oxy. 1,
654, 655 (cf. below)
CARTLIDGE, D. R. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, in: IDEM and D. L. DuNGAN, eds.,
Sourcebook of Texts for the Comparative Study of the Gospels: Literature of the
Hellenistic and Roman Period Illuminating the Milieu and Character of the Gospels
(Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1971) 90-110. Reprinted in: IDEM, (SBLSBS 1;
2d ed.; 1972) 112-31; IDEM, (SBLSBS 1; 3d ed.; 1973) 177-94; IDEM, (SBLSBS 1; 4th
ed.; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974) 177- 94; IDEM, Documents for the Study of the
Gospels (Cleveland: Collins; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 25 -35; and in: S. L. DAVIES,
The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom (New York: Seabury, 1983) 157-71
DEGGE, E. H. A Computer-Generated Concordance of the Coptic Text of the Gospel
According to Thomas (Houston: Degge, 1970)
DORESSE, J. Les livres secrets des gnostiques d'Egypte, vol. 1: Introduction aux ecrits
gnostiques coptes decouverts a Khenoboskion (Paris: Librairie Pion, 1958); vol. 2:
L'Evangile de Thomas ou les paroles secretes de Jesus (Paris: Librairie Pion, 1959).
Translated in: IDEM, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics: An Introduction to
the Gnostic Coptic Manuscripts discovered at Chenoboskion, with an English Transla-
tion and Critical Evaluation of the Gospel according to Thomas (New York: Viking;
London: Hollis and Carter, 1960); and: IDEM, II Vangelo secondo Tommaso: Versione
dal copto e commento (La Cultura 16; Milan: II Saggiatore, 1960)
The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices: Codex II (Leiden: Brill, 1974)
GARITIE, G. Evangelium secundum Thomam Iarine, in: K. ALAND, ed., Synopsis Quattuor
Evangeliorum: Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis
(Stuttgart: Wlirttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1964) 517-30
GARITIE, G. Le premier volume de !'edition photographique des manuscrits gnostiques
coptes et l''Evangile de Thomas,' Museon 70 (1957) 59-73
GARITIE, G., and CERFAUX, L. Les paraboles du royaume dans l''Evangile de Thomas,'
Museon 70 (1957) 307-27. Reprinted in: IDEM, Recueil Lucien Cerfaux: Etudes
d'Exegese et d'histoire religieuse de Monseigneur Cerfaux Professeur a l'Universite de
Louvain reunies a !'occasion de son soixante-dixieme anniversaire, vol. 3: Supplement
(BETL 18; Gembloux: Duculot, 1962) 61- 80
GIVERSEN, S. Thomas Evangeliet: Indledning, oversaettelse og kommentarer (Copenhagen:
Gads, 1959)
GRANT, R. M., and FREEDMAN, D. N. The Secret Sayings of Jesus, with an English
Translation of the Gospel of Thomas by W. R. SCHOEDEL (Garden City: Doubleday;
London: Collins, 1960). Translated in: IDEM, Geheime Worte Jesu: Das Thomas-
Evangelium. Mit einem Beitrag: Das Thomas-Evangelium in der neuesten Forschung
von J. B. BAUER. Obersetzung des Evangelium nach Thomas von H. QuECKE (Frankfurt
am Main: Scheffler, 1960); and: IDEM, Het Thomasevangelie: Vertaling en toelichting
(Aula-boeker 87; Utrecht: Spectrum, 1962)
GUILLAUMONT, A.; PuECH, H.-CH.; QuiSPEL, G.; TILL, W.C.; and 'AsD AL MASII;i, Y. Her
Evangelie naar de beschrijving van Thomas: Koptische tekst vastgesteld en vertaald
(Leiden: Brill, 1959). German edition: Evangelium nach Thomas: Koptischer Text
herausgegeben und ubersetzt (Leiden: Brill, 1959). French edition: L'Evangile selon
Thomas: Texte copte etabli et traduit (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1959).
English edition: The Gospel According to Thomas: Coptic Text Established and
Translated (Leiden: Brill; London: Collins; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959).
Spanish edition: El Evangelo segun Tomas; Ap6crifo-gn6stico; Version bilinglie copto-
castellano: Texto copto establecido y traducido (Biblioteca esoterica; Barcelona: Siete
y Media, 1981}
HAARDT, R. Die Gnosis: Wesen und Zeugnisse (Salzburg: Miiller, 1967) 189-202. Translated
in: IDEM, Gnosis: Character and Testimony (Leiden: Brill, 1971) 247-78
HAENCHEN, E. Das Thomas-Evangelium iibersetzt, in: K. ALAND, ed., Synopsis Quattuor

Evangeliorum, 517-30 (cf. above)
HouGHTON, H. P. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, Aegyptus 43 (1963) 107-40
KASSER, R. L'tvangile selon Thomas: Presentation et commentaire theologique (Bibliotheque
theologique; Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestle, 1961)
KOESTER, H., and LAMBDIN, T. 0. The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2), in:]. M. RoBINSON, ed.,
The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper & Row; Leiden: Brill,
1977) 117-30. Reprinted in: R. CAMERON, ed., The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical
Gospel Texts (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982) 23- 37; W. BARNSTONE, ed., The Other
Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984) 299-307; and R. W. FUNK, ed., New
Gospel Parallels, vol. 2: John and the Other Gospels (2 vols.; Foundations and Facets;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 93 -187
LABIB, P. Coptic Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old Cairo, vol. 1 (Cairo:
Government Press, 1956)
LAYTON, B. Nag Hammadi Codex 11,2-7 together with XIII,2", Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1), and
P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655. With ·The Gospel According to Thomas: Introduction' by H.
KoESTER, an ·English Translation' by T. 0. LAMBDIN, an Edition of ·The Greek
Fragments (P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655)' by H. W. ATTRIDGE, and ·Indexes and Tables of
Grammatical Forms' by S. EMMEL (NHS; Leiden: Brill, in press)
LEIPOLDT, J. Das Evangelium nach Thomas: Koptisch und Deutsch (TU 101; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1967)
LEIPOLDT, ]. Ein neues Evangelium? Das koptische Thomasevangelium iibersetzt und be-
sprochen, ThLZ 83 (1958) 481-96
MtNARD, J.-t. L'tvangile selon Thomas, Laval theologique et philosophique 30 (1974)
29-45, and 133-71
MtNARD, J.-E. L'tvangile selon Thomas (NHS 5; Leiden: Brill, 1975)
METZGER, B. M. The Gospel of Thomas translated, in: K. ALAND, ed., Synopsis Quattuor
Evangeliorum, 517-30 (cf. above)
MEYER, M. W. The Gospel of Thomas or The Secret Sayings of Jesus, in: IDEM, The Secret
Teachings of Jesus: Four Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1984) 17-38,
and 97-108
PUECH, H.-CH. Das Thomasevangelium, in: E. HENNECKE, ed., and W. SCHNEEMELCHER,
rev., Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, vol. 1: Evangelien (3d ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr-
Siebeck, 1959) 199-223. Translated in: IDEM, The Gospel of Thomas, in: E. HENNECKE,
ed.; W. SCHNEEMELCHER, rev.; and R. MeL. WILSON, trans. ed., New Testament
Apocrypha, vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings (Philadelphia: Westminster; London:
Lutterworth, 1963) 278 - 307
QUECKE, H. Das Evangelium nach Thomas iibersetzt, Theologisches Jahrbuch (1961)
224-36. Reprinted in: R. M. Grant and D. N. FREEDMAN, Geheime Worte Jesu,
206-22 (cf. above)
QutRt, F. L'evangile de Thomas ou les paroles secretes de Jesus le vivant, in: Evangiles
apocryphes: Reunis et presentes (Collection Points, Serie Sagesses Sa 34; Paris: Editions
du Seuil, 1983) 163- 83
ScHIPPERS, R. Het Evangelic van Thomas; Apocriefe woorden van Jezus: Vertaling, inleiding
en kommentar (Kampen: Kok, 1960)
ScHMIDT, K. 0. Die geheimen Herren-Worte des Thomas-Evangeliums: Wegweisungen
Christi zur Selbstvollendung (Pfullingen/Wiirttemberg: Baum-Verlag, 1966)
SCHOEDEL, W. R. The Gospel of Thomas: Translation, in: R. M. GRANT and D. N.
FREEDMAN, The Secret Sayings of Jesus, 115-91 (cf. above)
SUAREZ, P. DE. L'tvangile selon Thomas: Traduction, Presentation et Commentaires (Mar-
sanne: tditions Metanola, 1974)
SuMMERS, R. The Secret Sayings of the Living Jesus: Studies in the Coptic Gospel According
to Thomas (Waco: Word, 1968)
WAUTIER, A. L'Evangile selon Thomas: Introduction, version fran~aise et notes, Cahiers du
Cercle Ernest-Renan 21 (1973) 1-24
WILSON, R. MeL. The Gospel of Thomas, in: E. HENNECKE, ed.; W. ScHNEEMELCHER, rev.;
and R. MeL. WILSON, trans. ed., New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, 511-22 (cf.
above)
3. Monographs
BAARDA, T. Early Transmission of Words of Jesus: Thomas, Tatian and the Text of the
New Testament (ed. J. HELDERMAN and S.]. NooRDA; Amsterdam: VU Boekhandel/
Uitgeverij, 1983)
DAVIES, S. L. The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom (New York: Seabury, 1983)
DE LAMOITE, R. C. The Alien Christ (Washington: University Press of America, 1980)
GXRTNER, B. E. Ett nytt evangelium? Thomas-evangeliets hemliga Jesusord (Stockholm:
Diakonistyrelsens Bokforlag, 1960). Translated in: IDEM, The Theology of the Gospel
of Thomas (London: Collins, 1961); and: IDEM, The Theology of the Gospel According
to Thomas (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961)
HAENCHEN, E. Die Botschaft des Thomas-Evangeliums (Theologische Bibliothek Ti:ipelmann
6; Berlin: Ti:ipelmann, 1961)
jACKSON, H. M. The Lion Becomes Man: The Gnostic Leontomorphic Creator and the
Platonic Tradition (SBLDS 81; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985)
MEERBURG, P. P. De structuur van het koptische Evangelie naar Thomas (Maastricht:
Boosten & Stols, 1964)
PUECH, H.-CH. En quete de Ia Gnose, vol. 2: Sur l'Evangile selon Thomas: Esquisse d'une
interpretation systematique (Bibliotheque des Sciences Humaines; Paris: Gallimard,
1978)
QUISPEL, G. Het Evangelie van Thomas en de Nederlanden (Amsterdam/Brussels: Elsevier,
1971)
QUISPEL, G. Gnostic Studies II (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch
Instituut te Istanbul 34/2; Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te
Istanbul, 1975)
QursPEL, G. Makarius, das Thomasevangelium und das Lied von der Perle (NovTSup 15;
Leiden: Brill, 1967)
QmsPEL, G. Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas: Studies in the History of the Western
Diatessaron (Leiden: Brill, 1975)
ScHRAGE, W. Das Verhiiltnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und
zu den koptischen Evangelieniibersetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen
Synoptikerdeutung (BZNW 29; Berlin: Topelmann, 1964)
TuRNER, H. E. W., and MONTEFIORE, H. Thomas and the Evangelists (SBT 35; London:
SCM; Naperville: Allenson, 1962)
UNNIK, W. C. VAN. Openbaringen uit Egyptisch Zand: De vondsten bij Nag-Hammadi
(Exegetica; Oud- en Nieuw-Testamentische Studien; Tweede Reeks, Vijfde Dee!; The
Hague: Uitgeverij van Keulen, 1958). Translated in: IDEM, Evangelien aus dem Nilsand.
Mit einem Beitrag 'Echte Jesusworte?' von J. B. BAUER und mit einem Nachwort 'Die
Edition der Koptisch-gnostischen Schriften von Nag' Hammadi' von W. C. TILL
(Frankfurt am Main: Scheffler, 1960); IDEM, Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings: A
Preliminary Survey of the Nag-Hammadi Find (SBT 30; London: SCM; Naperville:
Allenson, 1960); and: IDEM, Skriftfynden i Nilsanden: De hemliga gnostika skriftema
fran Egypten: Med ett bidrag Akta Jesu ord? av J. B. BAUER och med an efterskrift
Utgivningen av de koptisk-gnostika skrifterna av W. C. TILL. Evangelium Veritatis och
Thomasevangeliet oversatt av T. SXVE-SODERBERGH (Stockholm: Natur och Kultur,
1962)
WILSON, R. MeL. Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (London: Mowbray, 1960)
4. Articles
ADINOLFI, M. Le parabole della rete e del lievito nel Vangelo di Tommaso, Studii Biblici
Franciscani Liber Annuus 13 (1962/63) 33-52
ALBANESE, C. L. Inwardness: A Study of Some Gnostic Themes and Their Relation to Early
Christianity with Specific Reference to the Gospel According to Thomas, Recherches
de theologie ancienne et medievale 43 (1976) 64-88
AITRIDGE, H. W. The Original Text of Gos. Thorn., Saying 30, BASP 16 (1979) 153-57
BAARDA, T. 2 Clement 12 and the Sayings of Jesus, in: J. DELOBEL, ed., Logia: Les paroles
de Jesus - The Sayings of Jesus: Memorial Joseph Coppens (BETL 59; Louvain:
Peeters/Louvain University Press, 1982) 529-56. Reprinted in: IDEM, Early Transmis-
sion of Words of Jesus, 261- 88 (cf. above)
BAARDA, T. Jezus zeide: ·weest Passanten': Over betekenis en oorsprong van logion 42 in
het Evangelie van Thomas, in: Ad Interim: Opstellen over Eschatologie, Apocalyptiek
en Ethiek aangeboden aan Prof. dr. R. Schippers (Kampen: Kok, 1975) 113-40.
Translated in: IDEM, Jesus Said: Be Passers-By: On the Meaning and Origin of Logion
42 of the Gospel of Thomas, in: IDEM, Early Transmission of Words of Jesus, 179-205
(cf. above)
BAARDA, T. Thomas en Tatianus, in: R. SCHIPPERS, Het Evangelie van Thomas, 135-55
(cf. above). Translated in: IDEM, Thomas and Tatian, in: IDEM, Early Transmission of
Words of Jesus, 37-49 (cf. above)
BAKER, A. Early Syriac Asceticism, Downside Review 88 (1970) 393-409
BAKER, A. ·Fasting to the World,' JBL 84 (1965) 291-94
BAKER, A. The Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron, JTS 16 (1965) 449-54
BAKER, A. The ·Gospel of Thomas' and the Syriac ·uber Graduum,' NTS 12 (1965/66)
49-55
BAKER, A. Pseudo-Macarius and the Gospel of Thomas, VC 18 (1964) 215-25
BAMMEL, E. Rest and Rule, VC 23 (1969) 88-90
BARTSCH, H.-W. Das Thomas-Evangelium und die synoptischen Evangelien: Zu G. Quispels
Bemerkungen zum Thomas-Evangelium, NTS 6 (1959/60) 249-61
BAUER, ]. B. Arbeitsaufgaben am koptischen Thomasevangelium, VC 15 (1961) 1-7
BAUER, ]. B. De agraphis genuinis evangelii secundum Thomam coptici, VD 37 (1959)
129-46
BAUER, J. B. Echte Jesusworte, Theologisches Jahrbuch (1961) 191-223. Also printed in:
W. C. VAN UNNIK, Evangelien aus dem Nilsand, 108-50 (cf. above)
BAUER, J. B. Das Jesuswort ·wer mir nahe ist,' ThZ 15 (1959) 446-50. Reprinted in: IDEM,
Scholia Biblica et Patristica (Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1972)
117-22
BAUER, J. B. The Synoptic Tradition in the Gospel of Thomas, StEv 3 (TU 88; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1964) 314-17
BAUER, ]. B. Das Thomas-Evangelium in der neuesten Forschung, in: R. M. GRANT and D.
N. FREEDMAN, Geheime Worte Jesu, 182-205 (cf. above)
BAUER, J. B. Zum koptischen Thomasevangelium, BZ 6 (1962) 283-88. Reprinted in: IDEM,
Scholia Biblica et Patristica, 123-30 (cf. above)
BEARDSLEE, W. A. Proverbs in the Gospel of Thomas, in: D. E. AUNE, ed., Studies in the
New Testament and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honor of Allen P. Wikgren
(NovTSup 33; Leiden: 1972) 92-103
BEARE, F. W. The Gospel According to Thomas: A Gnostic Manual, CJT 6 (1960)
102-12
BEATRICE, P. F. II significato di Ev. Thorn. 64 per Ia critica letteraria della parabola del
banchetto (Mt. 22, 1-14/Lc. 14, 15- 24), in: J. DuPONT, ed., La parabola degli invitati
a! banchetto: Dagli evangelisti a Gesu (Testi e ricerche di Scienze religiose 14; Brescia:
Paideia Editrice, 1978) 237-77
BELLET, P. El Logion 50 del Evangelio de Tomas, SPap 8 (1969) 119-24
BEST, E. The Gospel of Thomas, Biblical Theology 10 (1960) 1 -10
BIRDSALL, J. N. Luke XII. 16ff. and the Gospel of Thomas, JTS 13 (1962) 332-36
BLOMBERG, C. L. Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas, in: D.
WENHAM, ed., Gospel Perspectives, vol. 5: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1985) 117-205
BROWN, R. E. The Gospel of Thomas and St John's Gospel, NTS 9 (1962/63) 155-77
BRUCE, F. F. The Gospel of Thomas, Faith and Thought 92 (1961/62) 3- 23
BRUCE, F. F. The Gospel of Thomas, in: IDEM, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New
Testament (Knowing Christianity; London: Hodder and Stoughton; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974) 110-58
BUCKLEY, J. J. An Interpretation of Logion 114 in the Gospel of Thomas, NovT 27 (1985)
245-72
BuLL, R. J. Some Hints of an Independent Jewish-Christian Tradition in the Gospel of
Thomas, Drew Gateway 30 (1960) 168 -73
CAMERON, R. Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of Thomas, Foundations and Facets
Forum 2/2 (1986) 3-39
CELADA, B. El evangelio de Tomas con 'Palabras de Jesus' que pretenden ser anteriores e
independientes de los Evangelios, CB 14 (1957) 408-9
CELADA, B. Mas acerca del supuesto quinto Evangelio, CB 16 (1959) 48-50
CELADA, B. (Se ha encontrado un quinto Evangelio?, CB 15 (1958) 366-75
CHILTON, B. The Gospel According to Thomas as a Source of Jesus' Teaching, in: D.
WENHAM, ed., Gospel Perspectives, vol. 5: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels,
155-75 (cf. above)
CoRNELJS, E. M. J. M. Quelques elements pour une comparaison entre l'Evangile de
Thomas et Ia notice d'Hippolyte sur les Naassenes, VC 15 (1961) 83 -104
CuLLMANN, 0. Das Thomasevangelium und die Frage nach dem Alter der in ihm enthaltenen
Tradition, ThLZ 85 (1960) 321-34. Reprinted in: IDEM, Vortrage und Aufsatze
1925-1962 (ed. K. FROHLICH; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck; Zurich: Zwingli, 1966)
566- 88. Translated in: IDEM, The Gospel of Thomas and the Problem of the Age of
the Tradition Contained Therein: A Survey, lnt 16 (1962) 418- 38
CuLLMANN, 0. Das Thomasevangelium und seine Bedeutung fur die Erforschung der kano-
nischen Evangelien, Kirchenblatt fur die reformierte Schweiz 116 (1960) 306-10.
Reprinted in: IDEM, idem, Universitas 15 (1960) 865-74. Translated in: IDEM, The
Gospel According to St. Thomas and Its Significance for Research into the Canonical
Gospels, HibJ 60 (1962) 116-24
DANIELou, J. Un recueil inedit de paroles de Jesus?, Etudes 302 (1959) 38-49

DART, J. The Two Shall Become One, TToday 35 (1978) 321-25
DAVIES, S. A Cycle of Jesus's Parables, BA 46 (1983) 15-17
DAVIES, S. Thomas: The Fourth Synoptic Gospel, BA 46 (1983) 6-9, and 12-14
DEHANDSCHUTTER, B. L'Evangile de Thomas comme collection de paroles de Jesus, in: J.
DELOBEL, ed., Logia, 507 -15 (cf. above)
DEHANDSCHUTfER, B. L'Evangile selon Thomas: temoin d'une tradition prelucanienne?, in:

F. NEIRYNCK, ed., L'Evangile de Luc: Problemes litteraires et theologiques; Memorial
Lucien Cerfaux (BETL 32; Gembloux: Duculot, 1973) 287-97
DEHANDSCHUTfER, B. The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics: The Status Quaestionis,
StEv 7 (TU 126; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982) 157-60
DEHANDSCHUTfER, B. Le lieu d'origine de l'Evangile selon Thomas, OLP 6/7 (1975/76)
125-31
DEHANDSCHUTfER, B. La parabole de Ia perle (Mt 13, 45 -46) et l'Evangile selon Thomas,
EThL 55 (1979) 243-65
DEHANDSCHUTfER, B. La parabole des vignerons homicides (Me. XII, 1-12) et l'evangile
selon Thomas, in: M. SABBE, ed., L'Evangile selon Marc: Tradition et redaction (BETL
34; Gembloux: Louvain University Press/Duculot, 1974) 203- 19
DEHANDSCHUTfER, B. Les paraboles de l'Evangile selon Thomas: La Parabole du Tresor
cache (log. 109), EThL 47 (1971) 199-219
DfEZ MACHO, A. El descubrimiento de 'nuevas palabras' de Jesucristo, Punta Europa 51
(1960) 47- 65
DORESSE, J. Le probleme des 'paroles secretes de Jesus' ('L'Evangile de Thomas'), La Table
Ronde 154 (1960) 120-28
EHLERS, B. Kann das Thomasevangelium aus Edessa stammen? Ein Beitrag zur Friihge-
schichte des Christentums in Edessa, NovT 12 (1970) 284-317
ENGLEZAKIS, B. Thomas, Logion 30, NTS 25 (1978/79) 262-72
FABRE-LUCE, A. L'Evangile selon Thomas, La Nouvelle Revue Fran\aise 8 (1960) 745-53
FEN SHAM, F. C. Die Evangelie van Thomas en sy Betekenis, Tydskrif vir Letterkunde 3 (1965)
31-39
FrrzMYER, J. A. The Oxyrhynchus Logoi of Jesus and the Coptic Gospel According to
Thomas, TS 20 (1959) 505-60. Reprinted in: IDEM, Essays on the Semitic Background
of the New Testament (London: Chapman, 1971) 355 -433; and: IDEM, Essays on the
Semitic Background of the New Testament (SBLSBS 5; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974)
355-433
FRENO, W. H. C. The Gospel of Thomas: Is Rehabilitation Possible?, JTS 18 (1967) 13-26
GARITIE, G. Les 'Logoi' d'Oxyrhynque et l'apocryphe copte dit 'Evangile de Thomas,'
Museon 73 (1960) 151 -72
GARrTIE, G. Les 'Logoi' d'Oxyrhynque sont traduits du copte, Museon 73 (1960) 335-49
GARrTIE, G. Le nouvel Evangile copte de Thomas, Academie royale de Belgique; Bulletin
de Ia Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques, 5eme Serie 50 (1964)
33-54
GAROFALO, S. Un evangelio que no es evangelio: El 'Evangelio segun Tomas' recientemente
descubierto, Orbis Catholicus 4 (1961) 424-38
GAROFALO, S. Das Thomasevangelium ist kein Evangelium: Der Chenoboskionfund als
Quelle zur Erforschung der Gnosis, Wort und Wahrheit 15 (1960) 364- 71
GIVERSEN, S. Questions and Answers in the Gospel according to Thomas: The Composition
of pl. 81, 14-18 and pl. 83, 14-27, AcOr 25 (1960) 332-38
GLASSON, T. F. Carding and Spinning: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus No. 655, JTS 13 (1962) 331-32
GLASSON, T. F. The Gospel of Thomas, Saying 3, and Deuteronomy xxx. 11-14, ExpTim
78 (1966/67) 151-52
GRANT, R. M. Notes on the Gospel of Thomas, VC 13 (1959) 170-80
GRANT, R. M. Two Gnostic Gospels, JBL 79 (1960) 1-11
GROBEL, K. How Gnostic is the Gospel of Thomas?, NTS 8 (1961/62) 367-73
GuEY, J. Comment le 'denier de Cesar' de l'Evangile a-t-il pu devenir une piece d'or, Bulletin
de Ia Societe fran\aise de Numismatique 15 (1960) 478-79
GUILLAUMONT, A. Les Logia d'Oxyrhynchos sont-ils traduits du copte?, Museon 73 (1960)
325-33
'1:75 ANRW II 25.6
GUJLLAUMONT, A. N11crtEUElV tOV K6G~ov (P. Oxy. I, verso, I. 5-6), BIFAO 61 (1962) 15-23
GUJLLAUMONT, A. Les semitismes dans I'Evangile selon Thomas: Essai de classement, in: R.
VAN DEN BROEK and M. J. VERMASEREN, eds., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic
Religions presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Etudes
preliminaires aux religions orientales dans !'Empire romain 91; Leiden: Brill, 1981)
190-204
GUJLLAUMONT, A. Semitismes dans les logia de Jesus retrouves aNag-Hamadi, JA 246 (1958)
113-23
HAARDT, R. Das koptische Thomasevangelium und die auiSerbiblischen Herrenworte, in:

K. SCHUBERT, ed., Der historische Jesus und der Christus unseres Glaubens: Eine
katholische Auseinandersetzung mit den Folgen der Entmythologisierungstheorie
(Vienna: Herder, 1962) 257- 87
HAARDT, R. Zum subachmimischen Einflui5 im Thomasevangelium, WZKM 57 (1961)
98-99
HAENCHEN, E. Die Anthropologie des Thomas-Evangeliums, in: H. D. BETZ and L. ScHOTT-
ROFF, eds., Neues Testament und christliche Existenz: Festschrift fiir Herbert Braun
zum 70. Geburtstag am 4. Mai 1973 (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1973) 207- 27
HAENCHEN, E. Spruch 68 des Thomasevangeliums, Museon 75 (1962) 19-29
HAMMERSCHMIDT, E. Das Thomasevangelium und die Manichaer, OrChr 46 (1962) 120-23
HARL, M. A propos des Logia de Jesus: Les sens du mot 1.10vax6~, Revue des Etudes
Grecques 73 (1960) 464-74
HEDRICK, C. W. The Treasure Parable in Matthew and Thomas, Foundations and Facets
Forum 2/2 (1986) 41-56
HIGGINS, A. J. B. Non-Gnostic Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, NovT 4 (1960) 292-306.
Reprinted as: The Gospel of Thomas, in: IDEM, The Tradition about Jesus: Three
Studies (SJT Occasional Papers 15; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1969) 30-47
HoBERMAN, B. How Did the Gospel of Thomas Get its Name?, BA 46 (1983) 10-11
HoFIUS, 0. F. Das koptische Thomasevangelium und die Oxyrhynchus-Papyri Nr. 1. 654
und 655, EvTh 20 (1960) 21-42, and 182-92
HORMAN, J. The Source of the Version of the Parable of the Sower in the Gospel of Thomas,
NovT 21 (1979) 326-43
HuNZINGER, C.-H. Au&rsynoptisches Traditionsgut im Thomas-Evangelium, ThLZ 85
(1960) 843-46
HUNZINGER, C.-H. Unbekannte Gleichnisse Jesu aus dem Thomas-Evangelium, in: W.
ELTESTER, ed., Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift fiir Joachim Jeremias
(BZNW 26; Berlin: Topelmann, 1960) 209- 20
JANSSENS, Y. Deux ·evangiles' gnostiques, Byzantion 35 (1965) 449-54

JANSSENS, Y. L'Evangile selon Thomas et son caractere gnostique, Museon 75 (1962) 301-25
jONES, G. V. The Parables of the Gospel of Thomas, in: IDEM, The Art and Truth of the
Parables: A Study in their Literary Form and Modern Interpretation (London: SPCK,
1964) 230-40
KAESTLI, J.-D. L'evangile de Thomas: Son importance pour l'erude des paroles de Jesus et
du gnosticisme chretien, EThR 54 (1979) 375-96
KEE, H. C. 'Becoming a Child' in the Gospel of Thomas, JBL 82 (1963) 307-14
KIM, Y. 0. The Gospel of Thomas and the Historical Jesus, The Northeast Asia Journal
of Theology 2 (1969) 17- 30
KLIJN, A. F. J. Christianity in Edessa and the Gospel of Thomas: On Barbara Ehlers, Kann
das Thomasevangelium aus Edessa stammen?, NovT 14 (1972) 70-77
KuJN, A. F. J. Het Evangelie van Thomas, in: IDEM, Edessa: De Stad van de Apostel Thomas:
Het oudste Christendom in Syrie (Bibliotheek van Boeken bij de Bijbel 28; Baarn:
Bosch & Keuning, 1962) 63- 82. Translated in: IDEM, Das Thomasevangelium, in:
IDEM, Edessa: Die Stadt des Apostels Thomas: Das iilteste Christentum in Syrien
(Neukirchener Studienbiicher 4; Neukirchen- Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965)
64-83
KLIJN, A. F. ]. The 'Single One' in the Gospel of Thomas, JBL 81 (1962) 271 -78
KLIJN, A. F. J. Das Thomasevangelium und das altsyrische Christentum, VC 15 (1961)
146-59
KOESTER, H. rNnMAI AIACI>OPOI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History
of Early Christianity, HTR58 (1965) 297-318. Reprinted in: IDEM andJ. M. ROBINSON,
Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 114-57. Trans-
lated in: IDEM, rN!lMAI AIACI>OPOI: Ursprung und Wesen der Mannigfaltigkeit in
der Geschichte des friihen Christentums, ZThK 65 (1968) 160-203. Reprinted in:
IDEM and J. M. ROBINSON, Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des friihen Christentums
(Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1971) 107-46
KoESTER, H. One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels, HTR 61 (1968) 203-47. Reprinted in:
IDEM and J. M. RoBINSON, Trajectories through Early Christianity, 158-204 (cf.
above). Translated in: IDEM, Ein Jesus und vier urspriingliche Evangeliengattungen, in:
IDEM and J. M. RoBINSON, Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des friihen Christentums,
147-90 (cf. above)
KoESTER, H. Three Thomas Parables, in: A. H. B. LoGAN and A. J. M. WEDDERBURN, eds.,
The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honour of Robert MeL. Wilson (Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1983) 195- 203
KoSNEITER, J. Das Thomasevangelium und die Synoptiker, in: ]. KISSER et al., eds.,
Wissenschaft im Dienste des Glaubens: Festschrift fur Abt Dr. Hermann Peichl (Studien
der Wiener Katholischen Akademie 4; Vienna: Selbstverlag der Wiener Katholischen
Akademie, 1965) 29- 49
KRAFT, R. A. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 655 Reconsidered, HTR 54 (1961) 253-62
KROGMANN, W. Heliand, Tatian, und Thomasevangelium, ZNW 51 (1960) 255-68
KROGMANN, W. Heliand und Thomasevangelium, VC 18 (1964) 65 -73
KUHN, K. H. Some Observations on the Coptic Gospel According to Thomas, Museon 73
(1960) 317-23
LAURENTIN, R. L'Evangile selon saint Thomas: Situation et mystifications, Etudes 343 (1975)
733-51
LEIPOLDT, J. Bemerkungen zur Obersetzung des Thomasevangeliums, ThLZ 85 (1960)
795-98
LEIPOLDT, J. Zur ldeologie der friihen koptischen Kirche, Bulletin de Ia Societe d'Archeologie
copte 17 (1963/64) 101-10
LIEBAERT, J. Les 'Odes de Salomon· et l''Evangile selon Thomas,' in: IDEM, Les enseignements
moraux des peres apostoliques (Recherches et Syntheses, Section de Morale 4; Gem-
bloux: Duculot, 1970) 227- 53
LINCOLN, B. Thomas-Gospel and Thomas-Community: A New Approach to a Familiar
Text, NovT 19 (1977) 65-76
LiNDEMANN, A. Zur Gleichnisinterpretation im Thomas-Evangelium, ZNW 71 (1980) 214-43
McARTHUR, H. K. The Dependence of the Gospel of Thomas on the Synoptics, ExpTim
71 (1959/60) 286- 87
McARTHUR, H. K. The Gospel According to Thomas, in: IDEM, New Testament Sidelights:
Essays in Honor of Alexander Converse Purdy, Hosner Professor of New Testament,
Dean of the Hartford Theological Seminary, the Hartford Seminary Foundation
(Hartford: Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1960) 43- 77
McCAUGHEY, J. D. Two Synoptic Parables in the Gospel of Thomas, AusBR 8 (1960) 24-28
MAcRAE, G. W. The Gospel of Thomas - Logia lesou?, CBQ 22 (1960) 56-71
MARCOVICH, M. Bedeutung der Motive des Volksglaubens fiir die Textinterpretation, Qua-
derni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 8 (1969) 22-36
vs•
-----------
MARCOVICH, M. Textual Criticism on the Gospel of Thomas, JTS 20 (1969) 53-74

MASING, U., and RXTSEP, K. Barlaam and Joasaphat: Some Problems Connected with the
Story of Barlaam and Joasaphat, the Acts of Thomas, the Psalms of Thomas, and the
Gospel of Thomas, Communio Viatorum 4 (1961) 29-36
MEES, M. Einige Oberlegungen zum Thomasevangelium, Vetera Christianorum 2 (1965)
151-63
MENARD, J.-E. Beziehungen des Philippus- und des Thomas-Evangeliums zur syrischen
Welt, in: K.-W. TROGER, ed., Altes Testament - Friihjudentum - Gnosis: Neue
Studien zu 'Gnosis und Bibel' (Giitersloh: Mohn; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
1980) 317-25
MENARD, J.-E. Connaissance de Dieu et quete du salut dans le logion 3 de l'Evangile selon
Thomas, in: ]. RIEs and J.-M. SEVRIN, eds., Gnosticisme et monde hellenistique: Les
objectifs du Colloque de Louvain-la-Neuve (11-14 mars 1980) (Louvain-la-Neuve:
Institut Orientaliste, 1980) 131 - 32
MENARD, J.-E. L'Evangile selon Thomas, BTS 176 (1975) 12-14
MENARD, J.-E. L'Evangile selon Thomas et le Nouveau Testament, Studia montis regii 9
(1966) 147-53
MENARD, J.-E. Le milieu syriaque de l'Evangile selon Thomas et de l'Evangile selon Philippe,
RevScRel 42 (1968) 261 - 66
MENARD, J.-E. Les problemes de I'Evangile selon Thomas, in: M. KRAUSE, ed., Essays on
the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Alexander B<ihlig (NHS 3; Leiden: Brill, 1972)
59-73
MENARD, J.-E. Les problemes de I'Evangile selon Thomas, StPatr 14 (TU 117; Berlin:
MENARD, J.-E. La Sagesse et le logion 3 de l'Evangile selon Thomas, StPatr 10 (TU 107;
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970) 137-40
MENARD, J.-E. Syrische Einfliisse auf die Evangelien nach Thomas und Philippus, in: W.
VOIGT, ed., XVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 21. bis 27. Juli 1968 in Wiirzburg,
Vortriige, Teil 2 (ZDMG Supplements 2; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1969) 385-91
MENARD, J.-E. Der syrische Synkretismus und das Thomasevangelium, in: A. DIETRICH,
ed., Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen Kulturgebiet: Bericht iiber ein Symposion in
Rheinhausen bei Gottingen in der Zeit vom 4. bis 8. Oktober 1971 (Abhandlungen
der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Dritte
Folge 96; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 65-79
MENARD, J.-E. La tradition synoptique et l'Evangile selon Thomas, in: F. PASCHKE, ed.,
Oberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (TU 125; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1981)
411 - 26. Reprinted in: IDEM, Ecritures et traditions dans Ia litterature copte: Journee
d'erudes coptes, Strasbourg, 28 mai 1982 (Cahiers de Ia bibliotheque copte 1; Louvain:
Peeters, 1983) 86- 106
MENESTRINA, G. Matteo 5-7 e Luca 6,20-49 nell'Evangelo di Tommaso, BeO 18 (1976)
65-67
MENESTRINA, G. Le parabole neli''Evangelo di Tommaso' e nei sinottici, BeO 17 (1975)
79-92
MEYER, M. W. Making Mary Male: The Categories 'Male' and 'Female' in the Gospel of
Thomas, NTS 31 (1985) 554-70
MICHAELIS, W. Das Thomas-Evangelium (Calwer Hefte 34; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960)
MILLER, B. F. A Study of the Theme of 'Kingdom': The Gospel According to Thomas:
Logion 18, NovT 9 (1967) 52-60
MONTEFIORE, H. A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel According to Thomas and
of the Synoptic Gospels, NTS 7 (1960/61) 220-48. Reprinted in: IDEM and H. E. W.
TURNER, Thomas and the Evangelists, 40-78 (cf. above)
MoRARD, F.-E. Encore quelques reflexions sur monachos, vc 34 (1980) 395-401
MoRARD, F.-E. Monachos: une importation semitique en Egypte? Quelques apeq;us nou-
veaux, StPatr 12 (TU 115; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1975) 242-46
MoRARD, F.-E. Monachos, Moine: Histoire du terme grec jusqu'au 4• sie:cle; Influences
bibliques et gnostiques, Freiburger Zeitschrift fiir Philosophie und Theologie 20 (1973)
332-411 (esp. pp. 362-77)
MoRAVCSJK, G. 'Hund in der Krippe': Zur Geschichte eines griechischen Sprichwortes, Acta
Antiqua 12 (1964) 77-86
MORRICE, W. G. The Parable of the Dragnet and the Gospel of Thomas, ExpTim 95 (1983/
84) 269-73
MuELLER, D. Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God?, VC 27 (1973) 266-76
MUNCK, J. Bemerkungen zum koptischen Thomasevangelium, StTh 14 (1960) 130-47
M\JNoz IGLESIAS, S. El Evangelic de Tomas y algunos aspectos de Ia cuesti6n sin6ptica,
Estudios eclesiasticos 34 (1960) 883- 94
NAGEL, P. Erwagungen zum Thomas-Evangelium, in: F. ALTHEIM and R. STIEHL, eds., Die
Araber in der a! ten Welt, 5/2 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969) 368-92
NAGEL, P. Die Parabel vom klugen Fischer im Thomasevangelium von Nag Hammadi, in:
R. STIEHL and H. E. STIER, eds., Beitrage zur Alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben:
Festschrift fiir Franz Altheim zum 6. 10. 1968, vol. 1 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969) 518-24
NAVARRO ARIAS, R. El Evangelic Segun Tomas: Palabras Secretas de Jesus Viviente, Christus
27 (1962) 869-75
O'FLYNN, J. A. The Gospel According to Thomas, ITQ 27 (1960) 65-69

PERETIO, E. Loghia del Signore e Vangelo di Tommaso, RivB 24 (1976) 13- 56
PERKINS, P. Pronouncement Stories in the Gospel of Thomas, Semeia 20 (1981) 121-32
PETERSEN, W. L. The Parable of the Lost Sheep in the Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics,
NovT 23 (1981) 128-47
PIPER, 0. A. The Gospel of Thomas, Princeton Seminary Bulletin 53 (1959) 18- 24
PRIEST, J. F. The Dog in the Manger: In Quest of a Fable, The Classical Journal 81 (1985)
49-58
PUECH, H.-CH. Une collection des paroles de Jesus recemment decouverte en Egypte:
l'"l?.vangile selon Thomas,' RHR 153 (1958) 129-33 (coincides with Bulletin de Ia
Societe Ernest Renan 6 [1957] 11 - 15)
PuECH, H.-CH. Une collection des paroles de Jesus recemment retrouvee: L'Evangile selon
Thomas, Academie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres, Comptes rendus des Seances de
l'Annee 1957 (1958) 146-66. Reprinted in: IDEM, En quete de Ia Gnose, vol. 2: Sur
I'E vangile selon Thomas, 33 -57 (cf. above)
PuECH, H.-CH. Doctrines esoteriques et themes gnostiques dans l''Evangile selon Thomas,'
Annuaire du College de France 62 (1962) 195- 203; 63 (1963) 199- 213; 64 (1964)
209-17; 65 (1965) 247-56; 66 (1966) 259-62; 67 (1967) 253-60; 68 (1968) 285-97;
69 (1969) 269- 83; 70 (1970) 273- 88; 71 (1971) 251- 68; and 72 (1972) 287-322.
Reprinted in: IDEM, En quete de Ia Gnose, vol. 2: Sur l'Evangile selon Thomas, 93-284
(cf. above)
PuECH, H.-CH. L'Evangile selon Thomas, in: IDEM, En quete de Ia Gnose, vol. 2: Sur
l'Evangile selon Thomas, 9-32 (cf. above)
PuECH, H.-CH. Explication de l'Evangile selon Thomas et recherches sur les paroles de
Jesus qui y sont reunies, Annuaire du College de France 58 (1958) 233- 39; 59 (1959)
255- 64; 60 (1960) 181; and 61 (1961) 175-81. Reprinted in: IDEM, En quete de Ia
Gnose, vol. 2: Sur l'Evangile selon Thomas, 65-91 (cf. above)
PuECH, H.-CH. Un logion de Jesus sur bandelette funeraire, RHR 147 (1955) 126-29
(coincides with Bulletin de Ia Societe Ernest Renan 3 [1954]6-9). Reprinted in: IDEM,
En quete de Ia Gnose, vol. 2: Sur l'Evangile selon Thomas, 59- 63 (cf. above)
QuECKE, H. Het Evangelie volgens Thomas, Streven 13 (1959/60) 401-24

QuECKE, H. 'Sein Haus seines Konigreiches': Zum Thomasevangelium 85.9f., Museon 76
(1963) 47-53
QmsPEL, G. The Diatessaron and the Historical Jesus, SMSR 38 (1967) 463 -72
QmsPEL, G. L'Evangile selon Thomas et les Clementines, VC 12 (1958) 181-96. Reprinted
in: IDEM, Gnostic Studies II, 17-29 (cf. above)
QUISPEL, G. L'Evangile selon Thomas et le Diatessaron, VC 13 (1959) 87-117. Reprinted
QmsPEL, G. L'Evangile selon Thomas et les origines de l'asd:se chretienne, in: Aspects du
judeo-christianisme: Colloque de Strasbourg 23-25 avril 1964 (Bibliotheque des Cen-
tres d'Etudes superieures specialises; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965)
35-51. Reprinted in: IDEM, Gnostic Studies II, 98 -112 (cf. above)
QuiSPEL, G. L'Evangile selon Thomas et le 'texte occidental' du Nouveau Testament, VC
14 (1960) 204-15
QUISPEL, G. Gnosis and the New Sayings of Jesus, ErJb 38 (1969; published in 1972)
261-96. Reprinted in: IDEM, Gnostic Studies II, 180-209 (cf. above)
QmsPEL, G. 'The Gospel of Thomas' ana the 'Gospd of the Hebrews,' NTS 12 (1965/66)
371-82
QUISPEL, G. The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament, VC 11 (1957) 189-207.
Reprinted in: IDEM, Gnostic Studies II, 3-16 (cf. above)
QUJSPEL, G. The Gospel of Thomas and the Western Text: A Reappraisal, in: IDEM, Gnostic
Studies II, 56-69 (cf. above)
QUISPEL, G. The Gospel of Thomas Revisited, in: B. BARe, ed., Colloque international sur
les textes de Nag Hammadi (Quebec, 22-25 aout 1978) (Bibliotheque copte de Nag
Hammadi, Section «Etudes» 1; Quebec: Laval University Press; Louvain: Peeters, 1981)
218-66
QUISPEL, G. Der Heliand und das Thomasevangelium, VC 16 (1962) 121-51. Reprinted
QUJSPEL, G. Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, in: M. H. SHEPHERD, JR. and E. C. HoBBS,
eds., Gospel Studies in Honor of Sherman Elbridge Johnson (ATR Supplementary
Series 3 [1974]) 112-16
QmsPEL, G. Jewish Influences on the 'Heliand,' in: J. NEUSNER, ed., Religions in Antiquity:
Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Numen Supplements 14; Leiden:
Brill, 1968) 244-50
QmsPEL, G. The Latin Tatian or the Gospel of Thomas in Limburg, JBL 88 (1969) 321-30.
Reprinted in: IDEM, Gnostic Studies II, 157-68 (cf. above)
QuiSPEL, G. Neugefundene Worte Jesu, Universitas 13 (1958) 359-66. Translated in: IDEM,
Unknown Sayings of Jesus, Universitas [English Edition] 2 (1958/59) 123-30
QUJSPEL, G. Saint Augustin et l'Evangile selon Thomas, in: Melanges d'histoire des religions
offerts a Henri-Charles Puech (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1974) 375-78
QUISPEL, G. Some Remarks on the Diatessaron Haarense, VC 25 (1971) 131-39
QmsPEL, G. Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas, NTS 5 (1958/59) 276-90
QmSPEL, G. The Syrian Thomas and the Syrian Macari us, VC 18 (1964) 226-35. Reprinted
QUISPEL, G. Das Thomasevangelium und das Alte Testament, in: W. C. VAN UNNIK, ed.,
Neotestamentica et Patristica: Eine Freundesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann
zu seinem 60. Geburtstag iiberreicht (NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962) 243- 48
REICHELT, J. Das 'Evangelium' nach Thomas, Im Lande der Bibel 8 (1962) 9-14
RENGSTORF, K. H. Urchristliches Kerygma und 'gnostische' Interpretation in einigen
Spriichen des Thomasevangeliums, in: U. BIANCHI, ed., Le origini dello gnosticismo:
Colloquio di Messina, 13 -18 Aprile 1966 (Numen Supplements 12; Leiden: Brill,
1967) 563-74
RICHARDSON, C. C. The Gospel of Thomas: Gnostic or Encratite?, in: D. NEIMAN and M.

SCHATKIN, eds., The Heritage of the Early Church: Essays in Honor of the Very
Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky (OrChrA 195; Rome: Pontifical Institute of
Oriental Studies, 1973) 65 -76
RoBERTS, C. H. The Gospel of Thomas: Logion 30", JTS 21 (1970) 91-92
RoBINSON, J. M. Interim Collations in Codex II and the Gospel of Thomas, in: Melanges
d'histoire des religions offerts a Henri-Charles Puech, 379-92 (cf. above)
ROQUES, R. L''Evangile selon Thomas': son edition critique et son identification, RHR 157
(1960) 187-218. Reprinted in: Structures theologiques de Ia gnose a Richard de Saint-
Victor: Essais et analyses critiques (Bibliotheque de !'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Section
des Sciences religieuses 72; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1961) 13-39
ROQUES, R. Gnosticisme et Christianisme: L'Evangile selon Thomas, Irenikon 33 (1960)
29-40
RosA, G. DE. Un quinto vangelo? II 'Vangelo secondo Tommaso,' Civilita Cattolica 111
(1960) 496- 512
SAVE-SODERBERGH, T. Gnostic and Canonical Gospel Traditions (with special reference to

the Gospel of Thomas}, in: U. BIANCHI, ed., Le origini dello gnosticismo, 552-59 (cf.
above)
SALVON I, F. L'Evangelo secondo Tommaso, Ricerche bibliche e religiose 6 (1971) 177-205
SAUNDERS, E. W. A Trio of Thomas Logia, BR 8 (1963) 43-59
SCHAFER, K. TH. Das neuentdeckte Thomasevangelium, Bib Leb 1 (1960) 62-74
SCHAFER, K. TH. Der Primat Petri und das Thomas-Evangelium, in: W. CoRSTEN, A. FROTZ,
and P. LINDEN, eds., Die Kirche und ihre Amter und Stande: Festgabe seiner Eminenz
dem hochwiirdigsten Herrn Joseph Kardinal Frings, Erzbischof von Koln, zum golde-
nen Priesterjubilaum am 10. August 1960 dargeboten (Cologne: Bachem, 1960) 353-63
SCHIPPERS, R. Het evangelic van Thomas een onafhankelijke traditie? Antwoord aan
professor Quispel, Gereformeerd theologisch tijdschrift 61 (1961) 46-54
SCHIPPERS, R. The Mashal-character of the Parable of the Pearl, StEv 2 (TU 87; Berlin:
SCHNEEMELCHER, W., and }EREMIAS, J. Spruchsammlungen auf Papyrus, in: E. HENNECKE,
ed., and W. ScHNEEMELCHER. rev., Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, vol. 1, 61 -72 (cf.
above). Translated in: IDEM, Sayings-Collections on Papyrus, in: E. HENNECKE, ed.;
W. ScHNEEMELCHER. rev.; and R. MeL. WrLSON, trans. ed., New Testament Apocrypha,
vol. 1, 97-113 (cf. above)
ScHNIDER, F. Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Schaf und seine Redaktoren: Ein intertextueller
Vergleich, Kairos 19 (1977) 146-54
SCHOEDEL, W. R. Naassene Themes in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, VC 14 (1960) 225-34
ScHOEDEL, W. R. Parables in the Gospel of Thomas: Oral Tradition or Gnostic Exegesis?,
CTM 43 (1972) 548-60. Translated in: IDEM, Gleichnisse im Thomasevangelium:
Miindliche Tradition oder gnostische Exegese?, in: W. HARNISCH, ed., Gleichnisse
Jesu: Positionen der 4-uslegung von Adolf Jiilicher bis zur Formgeschichte (Wege der
Forschung 366; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981) 369- 89
ScHRAGE, W. Evangelienzitate in den Oxyrhynchus-Logien und im koptischen Thomas-
Evangelium, in: W. ELTESTER. ed., Apophoreta: Festschrift fiir Ernst Haenchen zu
seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 10. December 1964 (BZNW 30; Berlin: Topelmann,
1964) 251-68
ScHtlRMANN, H. Das Thomasevangelium und das lukanische Sondergut, BZ 7 (1963) 236-60.
Reprinted in: IDEM, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen
Evangelien: Beitrage (Kommentare und Beitrage zum Alten und Neuen Testament;
Dusseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1968) 228-47
SELL, J. Johannine Traditions in Logion 61 of The Gospel of Thomas, Perspectives in
Religious Studies 7 (1980) 14-37
SEVENSTER, J. N. Het evangelie naar Thomas en de synoptische evangelien, Vox theologica

32 (1961/62) 9-17
SEVENSTER, J. N. Geeft den Keizer, wat des Keizers is, en Gode, wat Gods is, NedThTs 17
(1962/63) 21-31
SEVRIN, J.-M. L'evangile apocryphe de Thomas: un enseignement gnostique, Foi et Vie 81
(1982) 62- 80
SEVRIN, J.-M. L'Evangile selon Thomas: Paroles de Jesus et revelation gnostique, RThL 8
(1977) 265-92
SMELIK, K. A. D. 'Aliquanta ipsius Sancti Thomae,' VC 28 (1974) 290-94
SMITH, J. Z. The Garments of Shame, HR 5 (1965/66) 217-38. Reprinted in: IDEM, Map
Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions (SJLA 23; Leiden: Brill, 1978)
1-23
SMITH, K. Gnosticism in 'The Gospel according to Thomas,' Hey J 1 (1960) 189- 98
SNODGRASS, K. R. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen: Is the Gospel of Thomas
Version the Original?, NTS 21 (1974/75) 142-44
SoLAGES, B. DE. L'Evangile de Thomas et les evangiles canoniques: l'ordre des pericopes,
BLE 80 (1979) 102- 8
STEAD, G. C. Some Reflections on the Gospel of Thomas, StEv 3 (TU 88; Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, 1964) 390-402
STROBEL, A. Textgeschichtliches zum Thomas-Logion 86 (Mt 8,20/Luk 9,58), VC 17 (1963)
211-24
TILL, W. C. New Sayings of Jesus in the Recently Discovered Coptic 'Gospel of Thomas,'
BJRL 41 (1959) 446-58
TOYOSHIMA, K. Neue Vorschlage zur Lesung und Obersetzung von Thomasevangelium Log.
21, 103 und 68b, Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 9 (1983) 230-41
TRENeSENYI-WALDAPFEL, I. Der Hund in der Krippe, AcOr 14 (1962) 139-43
TRENeSENYI-WALDAPFEL, I. Das Thomas-Evangelium aus Nag' Hammadi und Lukian von
Samosata, AcOr 13 (1961) 131-33
TREVIJANO ETCHEVERRfA, R. La escatologia del Evangelio de Tomas (Logion 3), Salmanti-
censis 28 (1981) 415-41
TREVIJANO ETCHEVERRfA, R. Gnosticismo y hermeneutica (Evangelio de Tomas, logion 1),
Salmanticensis 26 (1979) 51-74
TREVIJANO ETeHEVERRfA, R. La incomprensi6n de los disdpulos en el Evangelio de Tomas,
StPatr 17, part 1 (Oxford: Pergamon, 1982) 243-50
TREVIJANO ETeHEVERRfA, R. Las pr:icticas de piedad en el Evangelio de Tomas (logion 6,
14,27 y 104), Salmanticensis 31 (1984) 259-319
TRIPP, D. H. The Aim of the 'Gospel of Thomas,' ExpTim 92 (1980/81) 41-44
VIELHAUER, P. ANATIAYCIC: Zum gnostischen Hintergrund des Thomasevangeliums, in:
W. ELTESTER, ed., Apophoreta, 281-99 (cf. above). Reprinted in: IDEM, Aufsatze zum
Neuen Testament (ThBii 31; Munich: Kaiser, 1965) 215-34
VIELHAUER, P. Das Thomasevangelium, in: IDEM, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur
(de Gruyter Lehrbuch; Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 1975) 618-35
WALLS, A. F. The References to Apostles in the Gospel of Thomas, NTS 7 (1960/61) 266-70
WALLS, A. F. 'Stone' and 'Wood' in Oxyrhynchus Papyri I, VC 16 (1962) 71-76
WAUTIER, A. Thomas, jumeau de Thaddee ou de Jesus?, Cahiers du Cercle Ernest-Renan
18 (1971) 66-68
WILSON, R. MeL. The Coptic 'Gospel of Thomas,' NTS 5 (1958/59) 273-76
WILSON, R. MeL. Further 'Unknown Sayings of Jesus,' ExpTim 69 (1957/58) 182
WILSON, R. MeL. The Gospel of Thomas, ExpTim 70 (1958/59) 324-25
WILSON, R. MeL. The Gospel of Thomas, StEv 3 (TU 88; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964)
447-59
WILSON, R. MeL. 'Thomas' and the Growth of the Gospels, HTR 53 (1960) 231-50
WILSON, R. MeL. Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels, ExpTim 72 (1960/61) 36-39
5. Dissertations
AKAGI, T. The Literary Development of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (Ph. D. diss., Western
Reserve University, 1965)
ARTHUR, R. L. The Gospel of Thomas and the Coptic New Testament (Th. D. diss.,
Graduate Theological Union, 1976)
BAUER, J. B. Studien zum koptischen Thomasevangelium (Habilitationsschrift, Graz, 1962)
BRISCOE, H. L. A Comparison of the Parables in the Gospel According to Thomas and the
Synoptic Gospels (Th. D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1965)
CHURCH, F. F. The Secret to the Gospel of Thomas (Ph. D. diss., Harvard University, 1978)
DEHANDSCHUTIER, B. Het Thomasevangelie: Overzicht van het onderzoek (Licentiate diss.,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1975)
jACKSON, H. The Lion Becomes Man: The Gnostic Leontomorphic Creator and the Platonic
Tradition (Ph. D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1983) (cf. above)
KIM, Y. 0. The Christological Problem in the Gospel According to Thomas (Ph. D. diss.,
Drew University, 1965)
LELYVELD, M. Les logia de Ia vie dans l'Evangile selon Thomas: A Ia recherche d'une tradition
et d'une redaction (Doctoral diss., Strasbourg, Faculte de theologie catholique, 1981)
NATIONS, A. L. A Critical Study of the Coptic Gospel According to Thomas (Ph. D. diss.,
Vanderbilt University, 1960)
SHEPPARD, J. B. A Study of the Parables Common to the Synoptic Gospels and the Coptic
Gospel of Thomas (Ph. D. diss., Emory University, 1965)
StEBER, J. H. A Redactional Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels with Regard to the Question
of the Sources of the Gospel According to Thomas (Ph. D. diss., Claremont Graduate
School, 1966)
SPIVEY, R. A. The Origin and Milieu of the Gospel According to Thomas (Ph. D. diss.,
Yale University, 1962)

Fallon and Cameron, Gospel of Thomas

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fallon and Cameron, Gospel of Thomas

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG

DER ROMISCHEN WELT

RISE AND DECLINE

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON I EDITED BY

TElL II: PRINCIPAT

PART II: PRINCIPATE

WALTER DE GRUYTER · BERLIN · NEW YORK 1988

Printed on acid-free paper

1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek

Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt:

Band II. 25.6:

FALLON, F. T. (Medway, Mass.) - CAMERON, R. (Middletown,

NACHTRAG ZU BAND II. 25.4:

Band II. 25.1:

Band II. 25.2:

VOELZ, ]. W. (Fort Wayne, Ind.)

KosTER, H. (Cambridge, Mass.)

Band II. 25.3:

RESE, M. (Munster [West£.])

Band II. 25.4:

Band II. 25.5:

DAVIDS, P. H. (Vancouver, British Columbia)

CHARLESWORTH,]. H. (Princeton, N.J.)

HowARD, G. (Athens, Georgia)

by FRANCIS T. FALLON, Medway, Massachusetts

for GEORGE W. MAcRAE, in memory

Among the documents discovered at Nag Hammadil perhaps none has

1. The Coptic Text: Plates, Editions, Translations, Commentaries, and Con-

The scholar who wishes to examine the photographic plates is in a better

In that same year the study of GIVERSEN (Thomas Evangeliet) also

Thom.'s authorship, genre, date and place of composition, arrangement of

artificially, to conform to S.... In other words the language of Codex II is a

2. The Greek Text

In 1897 the British scholars GRENFELL and HUNT discovered a papyrus

3. Relationship of the Greek to the Coptic Text

tt See also ScHNEEMELCHER and jEREMIAS, Sayings-Collections on Papyrus, 97-113.

Thorn. GARITIE (Les ·Logoi' d'Oxyrhynque et l'apocryphe copte dit ·:Evangile

a) The Greek combines elements distinct in the Coptic

As ATIRIDGE remarks, these differences result from a variety of causes. Some,

The one indubitable testimonium to the Gos. Thorn. is found in the

III. Literary Criticism and Form Criticism

The important questions of the Gos. Thom.'s genre, compositional ar-

ta See J. D. CROSSAN, Four Other Gospels (Minneapolis/Chicago/New York: Winston,

u See M. DIBELIUS, James (Hermeneia; rev. H. GREEVEN; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976)

1) "Parables which depict the greatness and uniqueness of gnosis" (sayings 8,

27 JEREMIAS, The Parables of Jesus, 113-14.

3) "Parables which characterize the nature of gnosis or the attitude of the

translation of GARITIE, CERFAUX (Les paraboles du royaume) analyzed the

IV. Relationship to the Canonical Gospels

In discussing the parables, we have of necessity already broached the

32 RoBINSON, LOGO! SOPHON, 102 n. 69.

support of this hypothesis he points to the numerous doublets in the text,

The Jewish-Christian source is identified as the Gospel of the Hebrews/

1) The Gospel of the Hebrews/Nazoreans or another Jewish-Christian gospel:

37 See especially P. VIELHAUER, Jewish-Christian Gospels, in: E. HENNECKE, ed.; W.

Gos. Thorn., when he originally maintained that they were (non-paired)

39 KLOPPENBORG, The Literary Genre of the Synoptic Sayings Source.

sayings traditions. He also pointed to the repeated references to the Gos.

aphoristic compound 40 comprising parallel sayings on hating one's family

in Mark 12:1 par. is secondary, introduced to provide a biblical precedent for

42 CROSSAN, Four Other Gospels, 54.

65), illustrate the methodological points at issue in the discussion of the

V. Origin: Date, Place, and Language of Composition