“A New Synoptic Problem: Goodacre and Gathercole on Thomas.” JSNT 36, no. 3...

httpjntsagepubcomTestament

Journal for the Study of the New

httpjntsagepubcomcontent363199The online version of this article can be found at

DOI 1011770142064X14520653

2014 36 199Journal for the Study of the New TestamentJohn S Kloppenborg

ThomasA New Synoptic Problem Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole on

Published by

httpwwwsagepublicationscom

can be found atJournal for the Study of the New TestamentAdditional services and information for

httpjntsagepubcomcgialertsEmail Alerts

httpjntsagepubcomsubscriptionsSubscriptions

httpwwwsagepubcomjournalsReprintsnavReprints

httpwwwsagepubcomjournalsPermissionsnavPermissions

httpjntsagepubcomcontent363199refshtmlCitations

What is This

- Mar 14 2014Version of Record gtgt

at UNIV TORONTO on March 14 2014jntsagepubcomDownloaded from at UNIV TORONTO on March 14 2014jntsagepubcomDownloaded from

Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament

2014 Vol 36(3) 199 ndash239copy The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions sagepubcoukjournalsPermissionsnav

DOI 1011770142064X14520653jsntsagepubcom

A New Synoptic Problem Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole on Thomas

John S KloppenborgUniversity of Toronto Canada

AbstractRecent analyses of the Gospel of Thomas by Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole make only a partial and in several instances unconvincing case for Thomasrsquos knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels Other neglected data suggests that some portions of Thomas are substantially autonomous This calls for a more complex understanding of the composition of Thomas one that recognizes its construction as a lsquoschool textrsquo or lsquoanthologyrsquo drawing on multiple and parallel streams of the Jesus tradition

KeywordsSynoptic Problem Gospel of Thomas literary dependence non-canonical gospels gnomological literature ancient schools

The Synoptic Problem which had its origins in the late eighteenth century in the works of JJ Griesbach GE Lessing and JG Eichhorn has traditionally been restricted to the investigation of the literary relationships among the first three canonical Gospels1 In recent years however there has been not only renewed attention to exploring solutions to the Synoptic Problem beyond the

1 Throughout this paper I will use the following shorthands 2DH for Two Document (Source) Hypothesis FH for the Farrer (-Goulder) Hypothesis 2GH for the lsquoTwo Gospelrsquo (neo-Griesbach) Hypothesis

Corresponding authorJohn S Kloppenborg Department for the Study of Religion University of Toronto Jackman Humanities Bldg 170 St George Street Toronto M5R 2M8 CanadaEmail johnkloppenborgutorontoca

Article

at UNIV TORONTO on March 14 2014jntsagepubcomDownloaded from

200 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36(3)

still-dominant Two Document hypothesis2 but additional quests for understand-ing the relationship of the Synoptics to John3 the Didache4 Longer (Secret) Gospel of Mark5 the Gospel of Peter6 and the so-called Jewish Christian gos-pels7 One of the most hotly debated lsquoSynoptic Problemrsquo issues has become the relation of the Gospel of Thomas to the Synoptic Gospels

The enlarged lsquoSynoptic Problemrsquo is consequential for historical reasons for if Thomas and any of the other above-mentioned documents show no knowl-edge of or dependence upon the Synoptic Gospels they might provide other windows onto the Jesus tradition On this view scholars such as John Dominic Crossan Robert Funk and many others have utilized the Gospels of Thomas and Peter in their reconstructions of the historical Jesus and the early Jesus tradition An independent Thomas played a critical role in the articulation of the model of lsquotrajectoriesrsquo proposed forty years ago by James M Robinson and Helmut Koester (1971) but also taken up by theologians like Edward Schillebeeckx whose book on Christology was deeply influenced by the idea of multiple primi-tive Christological configurations (1979) This model does not award unique privilege to Jesusrsquo death as the core and centre of all Christian theologizing but instead imagines multiple conceptual frameworks in which to conceive the significance of Jesus including scenarios of apocalyptic rescue Torah scholar-ship thaumaturgy sapiential instruction and the revelation of hidden wisdom

If Thomas and the others are entirely dependent on and hence posterior to the Synoptic Gospels the case for other independent lines of access to the early Jesus tradition disappears and the lsquotrajectoriesrsquo model requires some adjustment It is not that the conceptions of Jesus as the purveyor of special wisdom or as a heavenly revealer disappear entirely there are still hints of Jesus-as-Sophia embedded in Matthew (Deutsch 1996) and the heavenly revealer is clearly pre-sent in the Gospel of John But with a late and dependent Thomas the lsquotrajec-toriesrsquo model would lose one of its earliest and pristine examples of Jesus as a wisdom figure and the Jesus-as-revealer model could easily be dismissed as a later aberration rather than as one of the earliest generative soteriological models

The debate is consequential for theological reasons as well Goodacre is aware of the linkage between the question of Thomasrsquos status and American

2 See the collection of papers in Foster et al 2011 and recent monographs and collections Kloppenborg 2000 Black and Beck 2001 Stein 2001 Goodacre 2002 Neville 2002 Peabody Cope and McNicol 2002 Burkett 2004 Goodacre and Perrin 2004 Derrenbacker 2005 Mournet 2005 Williams 2006 Burkett 2009 Fuchs 2009 MacDonald 2012 Damm 2013

3 Eg Labahn and Lang 2004 MacKay 2004 Siegert 2004 Viviano 20044 Eg Garrow 2004 Kloppenborg 2005 Tuckett 2005a 2005b5 Eg Brown 2005 20116 Eg Crossan 1998 Green 1987 Kirk 1994 Schonhoffer 2011 Stillman 19977 Eg Boismard 1966 Edwards 2002 Gregory 2005


Kloppenborg 201

evangelical scholars frightened of deep theological diversity at the earliest stages of the Jesus movement and wedded to the notion that only the documents that were canonized in the fourth century should be used for constructing the historical Jesus and the main lines of early Christian theologizing8 To his credit Goodacre insists that he is not engaged in such theological identity politics and this indeed seems to be the case It is nevertheless important to keep in mind that the question of Thomasrsquos dependence or independence is not innocent of theological investment

The two volumes under review Goodacrersquos Thomas and the Gospels The Case for Thomasrsquos Familiarity with the Synoptics (2012) and Gathercolersquos The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas Original Language and Influences (2012) have both certain similarities and very substantial differences Both argue that Thomas betrays knowledge of the Synoptics and cannot therefore be regarded as an early autonomous witness to the Jesus tradition at least as far as those sayings with Synoptic parallels are concerned Both try to avoid the claim that Thomas is lsquodependentrsquo on the Synoptics in the way that Matthew on the 2DH and the FH is dependent on Mark where one imagines Matthew copying significant chunks of Mark Both build a good portion of their case on the similarities between the Oxyrhynchus fragments and the texts of Matthew and Luke in order to fore-stall the objection that similarities with the Synoptics exist only at the level of the fourth-century Coptic text where one might reasonably expect some harmo-nization with the better-known canonical Gospels Both rejectmdashrightly in my viewmdashthe older arguments for the independence of Thomas that appeal to sup-posed unidirectional lsquolawsrsquo of development in the Jesus tradition whereby shorter formulations are always prior to longer versions Finally both treat Thomas as a unified document thus avoiding the possibility raised by a number of scholars that as a composite or layered document Thomas might reflect Synoptic influence in some of its compositional moments but not in others

Scribalism vs Secondary Orality

There are some important differences however For Goodacre Thomas has lsquoknowledgersquo of the Synoptics ostensibly on the analogy of debates about Johnrsquos knowledge of the Synoptics which does not thereby turn John into a lsquoderivativersquo gospel9 Nevertheless as his book progresses it is in fact about

8 There is of course a linkage between the hypothesis of an independent Thomas and lsquoprogressive Christianityrsquo and neo-gnostics but as far as I am aware there are no academic exponents of either contributing to the scientific debate about gospel origins

9 Goodacre 7 even suggests that lsquoknowledge ofrsquo rather than lsquodependence uponrsquo might be appropriate on the FHrsquos view of Lukersquos use of Matthew although it would appear that he has no difficulty in supposing that Matthew is lsquodependent uponrsquo Mark



lsquodependencersquo although Goodacrersquos preferred term is that there is a lsquodirect linkrsquo between Thomas and Matthew and Luke10 In his summary of how Thomas worked Goodacre adopts an essentially linear and scribal model

[T]he author is highly likely on occasions to have consulted the Synoptic Gospels directly These will be occasions where the author has obtained a copy of Matthew or Luke either his own or copies belonging to his church or community and has looked up a passage in order to check the wording (p 150)

In order however to account for the almost complete disagreement between Thomas and the Synoptics in the sequence of materials he then suggests that Thomas sometimes accessed the Synoptics via memory extracting sayings and juxtaposing them through his own associative preferences The disagreements in sequence are also due to Thomasrsquos adoption of the genre of a sayings collection which allowed Thomas to present sayings in whatever order he chose Variations from the Synoptics in wording are a function of memory distortion and deliber-ate redaction (pp 151-53)

Goodacrersquos lsquoscribalrsquo approach is related to another aspect of his argument Anticipating the objection lsquoYes Thomas betrays knowledge of the Synoptics at a few places but in other sayings is independent of the Synopticsrsquo Goodacre invokes what he called the plagiaristrsquos charter lsquoIf twenty percent of a studentrsquos essay shows clear signs of plagiarism it would be no counter argument for the student to complain that the remaining eighty percent of the essay was his or her own workrsquo (p 45)

The analogy fails With undergraduate plagiarism we have the lsquoautographrsquo (ie the studentrsquos paper) we have access to the sources (a printed scholarly article or book or more likely Wikipedia) we know the chronological relation-ships between the paper and its sources (because we know that the paper was prepared shortly before the due datemdashprobably the night before) and we know the vector of usage (ie how the source arrived in the paper)11 In the case of early Christian material we know none of this We have neither the lsquoautographrsquo of Thomas (allegedly the secondary text) nor autographs of its supposed sources we have at best third- or fourth-hand copies of each We do not have a secure idea of the temporal relationships between Matthew and Luke or between Thomas and the other two and the common assumption that lsquocanonicalrsquo works must be chronologically prior to extracanonical works should be rejected as theologically

10 Goodacre 32 36 38 46 48 92 n 33 117 131 (lsquodirect contactrsquo)11 William Arnal points out to me (per litt) that plagiarism involves a value judgment while

source criticism does not Moreover in the case of student plagiarism unacknowledged use of any source direct or indirect is an offence in the case of Thomas no one disputes that Thomas (or Matthew or Luke) uses unacknowledged sources The issue is which sources were used and whether they were used directly or indirectly


Kloppenborg 203

freighted and historiographically fallacious And we have no idea at all of the vector by which a source text reached its secondary users or of the compositional moments of Thomas or the Synoptics12 What we do know is that the earliest phase of transmission of early Christian documents was fluid with plenty of cross-fertilization and cross-contamination such that modern text-critical meth-ods always produce an eclectic reconstruction of the lsquoinitial textrsquo (not a putative Urtext) from multiple divergent witnesses To use the analogy of physics the earliest phase of the transmission of materials is not like electrons as determinate objects circling a nucleus in discrete linear orbits but clouds of probabilities It is precisely our lack of knowledge of the autographs of the Synoptics and our lack of knowledge of transmissional and performative processes that leaves the Synoptic Problem as yet a problem and which also leaves the tantalizing agreements between John and the Synoptics as less than compelling evidence of Johnrsquos lsquodirectrsquo knowledge of the Synoptics and leaves the issue of Thomasrsquos sources as a problem These unresolved problems probably mean that we need a more complex model of textual interactions to account for the present state of texts rather than simply embracing the simple linear Newtonian models cur-rently available a point to which I will return later

Instead of thinking in linear and scribal terms Gathercole routinely invokes the model of secondary orality13mdashthe notion that Thomas without having a direct literary dependence on the Synoptics has been influenced by the re-oral-ization of Synoptic sayings14 For example apropos of the lsquoconfession scenersquo in Gos Thom 134-8 Gathercole argues following Uro that although there is lsquodependencersquo on Matthew Thomas is not a consequence of lsquoa ldquoscribal rework-ingrdquo [of Matthew] but rather of ldquothe influence of Matthewrsquos literary redaction on the oral tradition drawn upon by Thomasrdquorsquo15 In the case of Luke Gathercole doubts that Thomas knew Luke lsquoas an evangelistrsquo but nonetheless betrays the lsquoinfluence of Luke upon the memory behind Thomasrsquo (p 220)

12 For a discussion of such problems in relation to the quest of the historical Jesus see Arnal 2011 especially 379-80

13 Snodgrass 1990 Uro 199314 Gathercole 157-58 177 184 198 220-21 224 269 Gathercole seems at times hesitant to

rely on this model exclusively lsquoldquoSecondary oralityrdquo may be one way to avoid the overly scribal models of Synoptic influence on Thomas which were made by some scholars especially in the 1960s and 1970s as well as the correspondingly simplistic understanding of Thomas as tapping into a ldquopure oralityrdquo uncontaminated by any literary influence It should be remembered however that secondary orality is no more than a hypothesis it could be that the redactional features from Matthew and Luke are merely reminiscences in the mind of Thomasrsquos author or editor from having read the canonical Gospels or parts thereof in some form helliprsquo (Gathercole 224) Elsewhere however the model is adduced as the best explanation

15 Gathercole 177 citing Uro 2003 88-89



Goodacre objects strenuously to the appeal to lsquosecondary oralityrsquo along with his rejection of lsquoprimary oralityrsquomdashthat is the notion that Thomasrsquos variations from the Synoptics point to the use of oral tradition independent of and prior to the Synoptics He begins by faulting as lsquounidirectionalrsquo Werner Kelberrsquos notion of secondary orality as the oralization of a written textmdashthe passion narrativemdashthat never had a primary oral expression16

It plays down the interaction between text and tradition underestimating the role played by texts in the earliest period and overestimating the fixed nature of texts from Mark onward The term lsquosecondaryrsquo orality here functions to emphasize that it is an orality that is derivative of the fixed text with no link to the oral tradition from which the text was derived (Goodacre 138)

His other objection to lsquosecondary oralityrsquo is that it

effectively elevates a kind of primary orality to an importance it never had and it detracts attention from the fact that texts were often composed and almost always mediated orally In other words we should be thinking about a kind of dynamic interaction between orality and literacy between text and tradition throughout the early period (Goodacre 139)

These objections seem rather odd since (a) the proponents of secondary orality agree that lsquotexts were hellip almost always mediated orallyrsquo and (b) in the case of Thomas to emphasize the lsquointeraction between text and traditionrsquo presumably in a multi-directional manner in fact undermines Goodacrersquos own thesis Indeed he needs to stress the lsquofixed naturersquo of Matthew and Lukersquos redaction of Mark and the unidirectionality of influence if Thomasrsquos alleged dependence on that redaction is to constitute an indication of Thomasrsquos secondary status

In the end both Goodacre and Gathercole seem intent on eliminating or minimizing the appeal to primary orality Says Goodacre lsquoit seems that the oral tradition presupposes literacy and literate tradentsrsquo (p 142)17 Gathercole makes I think the more nuanced point that the variations in wording between Thomas and the Synoptics that one potentially could ascribe to the vagaries of

16 Kelber 1983 196-220 where he stresses the contrast between lsquoprimary oralityrsquo and the lsquopassion narrative largely built on texts and texts recycled into the oral medium that is secondary oralityrsquo (197) Elsewhere Kelber contrasts Q as an lsquooral genrersquo with Markrsquos written gospel as a lsquocounterformrsquo to the oral gospel lsquoThe resultant text [of Mark] as all texts is fixed and in a sense dead permanently open to visual inspection and the object of unceasing efforts at interpretation If this text enters the world of hearers by being read aloud it functions as secondary orality But now the story narrated is one that was never heard in primary orality for it comprises textually filtered and contrived languagersquo (217-18)

17 Both Goodacre (143) and Gathercole (218-19) rightly I think reject Vernon Robbinsrsquo thesis (1997) that Thomas reflects oral rather than scribal culture


Kloppenborg 205

oral transmission18 are equally typical of deliberate transformations of written sayings19 This implies that one cannot know a priori whether variation in word-ing is due to oral performance (either prior to or following textualization) or the literate manipulation of texts

It seems to me that it matters little to the general conclusions of Goodacre and Gathercole whether Thomas knew Synoptic redaction via re-oralization of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Gathercole) or via direct copying as Goodacre thinks The result is the same The only difference is that Goodacre needs Matthew and Luke to be physically accessible for Thomas to consult even if only occasionally while Gathercole only needs Matthew and Luke to be lsquoin the airrsquo that Thomas breathes

Genre and Sequence

Goodacre introduces the issue of the genre of Thomas He begins with the dubi-ous affirmation that lsquothe argument [for an early date of Thomas] from the genre of Thomas requires appeal to the existence of the hypothetical Synoptic source Q hellip We do not have extant examples of the kind of gospel sayings collec-tion that the genre argument requiresrsquo (pp 9-10) Indeed This only recycles the specious argument of Austin Farrer who made the same argument against the existence of Q (Farrer 1955) and repeated by disciples of Farrer ever since The problem with the argument is that it ignores entirely the gnomological tradi-tion attested in Greek Latin Demotic Coptic and other Near Eastern languages many attested well before the Synopticsmdashand indeed Christian literature like the Sentences of Sextus and the Sayings of Apa Antoniusmdashwhich is organized precisely around the serialization of wise sayings without a narrative framework Collections of this sort are plentiful indeed And it is precisely here that one sus-pects a theological argument intruding that early Christians were insulated and isolated from their cultural environments and so surely would not and did not employ the didactic forms of their neighbours But of course they did as Thomas and Sextus illustrate Irrespective of onersquos judgments about Q and the Synoptic Problem whatever Thomasrsquos relation to the Synoptics might be and whatever the date of Thomas Thomas is an extant sayings collection easily placed within the range of gnomological collections

Goodacre seems to be aware of the problems with his argument and so turns to distancing Q from Thomas pointing out (rightly) that whereas Q displays

18 Koester 1983 195 Patterson 1991 37 1993 passim Dewey 2004 and especially DeConick 2006 21 who lists as the characteristics typical of oral transmission differences in length the tenses and mood of verbs and the substitutions of synonyms

19 Citing Whittaker 1989



a slight tendency in the direction of narrative sequencing20 this is lacking in Thomas But this kind of argument reifies one of the several developmental options of the genre of sayings collection and turns it into the criterion for genre membership It relies ultimately on an outdated prescriptive theory of genre and ignores the fact that within the gnomological tradition there are multiple ways of organizing contents from random miscellanies to strong thematic organization to proto-biographical presentations

Traditionally the lack of sequential agreement between Thomas and the Synoptics in the reproduction of sayings has been taken as an indication that Thomas did not know the Synoptic sequence Goodacre turns this around if Thomas is indeed a sayings collection which by his stipulative definition of the genre lacks a narrative sequence then it is not surprising that Thomas does not agree with the Synoptic sequence especially because Thomas might be lsquoself-consciously enigmaticrsquo in nature (p 17) This argument in fact gets us nowhere Thomas is intentionally enigmatic as the incipit indicates21 but it is not clear how the sequencing of individual sayings makes it so22 Moreover to say that Thomas frames his sayings in an enigmatic fashion says nothing about whether Thomas knew or did not know the Synoptics This kind of argument is not much differ-ent from the one that Goodacre himself tries to use to demonstrate Lukersquos use of Matthew which entails the dramatic re-ordering of Matthaean sayings for no evident reason that can be found or for reasons that turn out on inspection to be baseless23 How likely is it that Thomas has managed to completely disengage Synoptic sayings from their performative contexts in the Synoptics

Gathercole has a different argument First against Wilson (1960ndash61 38) he argues that the non-agreement in order would be telling only if there were a scribal relation between the two lsquoWhen the scribal mentality is abandoned however the objection ceases to have any forcersquo (p 131) This of course also cuts against Goodacrersquos argument since he adopts a scribal model Secondly Gathercole (p 131) also cites Tuckett (1998 23-24) to the effect that lsquosomeone somewhere must have changed or created either the synoptic order or GThrsquos order to produce the other (probably with a number of stages in between)rsquo In an article published earlier however Tuckett makes his position clear The argu-ment from the different order of Thomas is not a convincing defence of Thomasrsquos

20 This was already observed in Kloppenborg 1987 325-28 where it was noted that similar narrativizing development could be observed in several other sayings collections

21 See brilliantly Arnal 200522 There are differing arrangements of the Pythogorean Symbolae with eg mh geuampesqai

melanouamprwn lsquoDo not eat the blacktailrsquo appearing first in Plutarchrsquos list (De liberis educandis 12E) well down the list in Diogenes Laertius 819 and fifth in Iamblichusrsquos Protrepticus but with no indication that one sequence is more or less enigmatic than the others

23 See Kloppenborg 2003


Kloppenborg 207

independence because of the lsquosecondary nature of the Coptic text of Thrsquo That is in at least one case the Coptic sequence differs from the Greek sequence (ie the lsquosplitting the woodrsquo saying is found in POxy 1 in Greekmdashsaying 30 but in saying 77 in Coptic) and there is one example of the use of catchwords in Coptic to link sayings (331 2 linked by maaè) (1988 123-40)24

The point is well taken and indicates that one should not press the argument from order too far There is however general agreement between the Greek fragments and the Coptic version apart from the dislocation of one sentence sxison to_ cuamplon kaampgw_ e0kei= ei0mi (POxy I 19-10Gos Thom 772) suggesting that the sequence of Thomas while admitting some variation was also reason-ably stable25 This being the case the differences in sequence between Thomas and the Synoptics are still noteworthy

Tuckett seems to believe that the lack of obvious sequence is a problem

[T]he claim that Th has no logical order of its own and hence the order of Th must reflect the order of a source (which therefore cannot be the synoptic gospels) really only pushes the problem one stage further back What are we to make of the equally formless source(s) which lie(s) behind Th If the formlessness of Th is problematic ascribing the order to a prior source merely transfers the problem It does not solve it (Tuckett 1988 140)

Yet an examination of the many instances of sayings collections that are extant shows that while some show signs of deliberate serialization others seem rather random (Kloppenborg 1987 ch 7) Hence while Tuckett may be right that the lsquooriginalrsquo sequence of Thomas is not securely known and for that reason lsquoargu-ments based on the order of the material in Th are thus not very convincing in defending the view that Th is independent of the synopticsrsquo (1988 140) equally those who argue for Thomasine dependence on the Synoptics should explain how Thomas using the Synoptics came up with so random an order Gathercole rather weakly pleads that Thomas is a lsquolistrsquo in which lsquoone would not expect order to be as important as it clearly is in a narrativersquo (p 132) This only pushes aside the problem of how to account for the massive re-ordering of sayings in Thomas that were ordered in the Synoptics

24 Arnal (per litt) points out that saying 77 in Coptic also has a catchword n_ta pthr3rsquo pw6

4aroei pw6 nnou4e anok 5mmau lsquounto me did the All extend (pw6) Split (pw6) the piece of wood and I am therersquo The presence of the catchword pw6 (meaning both lsquoextendrsquo or lsquoreachrsquo (Crum 281ab) and lsquosplitrsquo (Crum 280ab) may be precisely the reason for the relocation of the lsquosplitting the wood sayingrsquo from POxy 1 (= Saying 30) to its current location in Coptic Thomas

25 Gathercole (163) seems to agree lsquoif Thomas is as permeable as some comment why are no sayings added between the Greek fragments and the Coptic versionrsquo



Thomas and the Redaction of Matthew and Luke

The main argument offered by both Goodacre and Gathercole is not a new one but it is perhaps put on a better footing than many previous attempts to argue for Thomasrsquos dependence on the Synoptics The principle is a simple one if Thomas betrays knowledge of the features of the Synoptics that can be identified as redactional then Thomas must be subsequent to the Synoptics26

Earlier critics such as JP Meier based the case for the secondary nature of Thomas on similarities between Thomas and Matthew Meier cited alleged par-allels between Mt 61-18Gos Thom 6 14 Mt 1347-50Gos Thom 8 Mt 1344Gos Thom 109 Mt 1344-46Gos Thom 76 Mt 1820Gos Thom 30 Mt 1016bGos Thom 39 Mt 1513Gos Thom 40 Mt 1324-30Gos Thom 57 Mt 1128-30Gos Thom 90 and Mt 76Gos Thom 93 arguing that Mt 1513 and 1324-30 are most likely redactional creations of Matthew (Meier 1991 135) The obvious logical problem with this argument however is that each of these Matthaean texts is Sondergut and hence one cannot know whether Matthew is the creator of the text or whether Thomas reflects alternate formulations of sayings that also found their way into Matthew27

Meier added Gos Thom 33 (Q 123) and 34 (Q 639) both of which have Q parallels Neither is decisive however In the case of Gos Thom 33 the IQP reconstructed Q with Matthew rather than Luke (Robinson Hoffmann and Kloppenborg 2000 292-93) which means that Thomas agrees with both Matthew and Q not with an element of Matthaean redaction In the case of Gos Thom 34 (not available in Greek) Thomasrsquos use of swk 6ht⸗ suggests agein proaampgein (Crum 327a) or e3lkein (Gos Thom 3POxy IV 65410) rather than Matthew and Lukersquos o(dhgei=n28 Moreover as Plisch points out the proverbial uses of the image of blind leading the blind and of the dangers of falling into a boampqunoj are so widely attested that little can be concluded from Thomasrsquos use of this image (Plisch 2008 103-104) Wisely neither Goodacre nor Gathercole treats this saying as an example of the depen dence of Thomas on the Synoptics29

Goodacre and Gathercole try to set the examination of Thomas on a more secure footing by focusing on instances where one can control for Synoptic

26 The approach is already well worn but with differing conclusions See for example Sieber 1966 Tuckett 1988 and many more since

27 See more recently Meier 2012 where he argues that Lk 1213-15 16-21 are Lukan creations and therefore that Gos Thom 63 and 72 are dependent on Luke

28 Plisch (2008 103) reconstructs the Greek as legei 0Ihsou=j tuflo_j e0a_n proaampgh| tuampfloampn a)mfoampteroi piptousin ei0j boampqunon Patterson (1993 34) also points out against Schrage (1964 86-87) the substantial differences between the Sahidic version of Matthew and Coptic Thomas

29 See the rather devastating critique of Meierrsquos approach by Aune 2002 244-58


Kloppenborg 209

redaction Even here there are differences Gathercole restricts himself to those Thomasine sayings that have both a Markan and either a Matthaean or Lukan parallel so that one is able to isolate MatthaeanLukan redaction of Mark and to determine whether Thomas betrays knowledge of this redaction This avoids the impressionistic form-critical arguments that have sometimes been invoked in the past according to which Thomasrsquos version is simpler more direct or less lsquodevelopedrsquo than its Synoptic cousins and therefore ear-lier The con sequence of the strictures that Gathercole imposes on himself is that only 20 sayings are the subject of intensive analysis Gos Thom 4 5 9 13 14 20 22 25 31 33 35 41 44 47 65 66 71 99 100 and 104 (149-55)

This is certainly a defensible and cautious procedure but it is implicitly faulted by Goodacre (who writes independently of Gathercole) on the grounds that double tradition pericopae such as Mt 937-38Lk 102 and Mt 820Lk 958 which display a high degree of similarity with respectively Gos Thom 73 and 86 might also indicate Thomasine dependence on one or other (or both) of the Synoptics (Goodacre 43-44) For since there is little reason for deny-ing that there exists a literary relationship between Matthew and Luke at these pointsmdashwhether one presumes the 2DH and posits common dependence on Q or the FH and posits Lukersquos dependence on Matthewmdashit is reasonable to posit some sort of literary relationship between Thomas and the other two especially where there is high-verbatim agreement between Thomas and the Synoptics Of course one might also observe that for proponents of the 2DH it would be impossible in such cases to distinguish between Thomasrsquos use of Q (or Qrsquos use of Thomas) and Thomasrsquos use of the Synoptics (or vice versa) For proponents of the FH (or 2GH) it would be impossible to determine whether Thomas depended on Matthew or on Luke or whether the two ultimately depended on Thomas30 Moreover since these sayings appear to have enjoyed a very stable transmission it is also not impossible that the similarities reflect the overall stability in trans-mission and hence are of little help when it comes to establishing directions of literary dependence

It is impossible to give to all of the texts considered by Goodacre and Gathercole the attention that they deserve and so a few examples in each of their categories will have to do

30 Goodacre (44) attempts to make his case for a strong literary relationship between Thomas and the Synoptics in Gos Thom 86 by suggesting that fwleoampj and kataskhnwsij are lsquouncommon wordsrsquo (and hence the coincidence in Thomasrsquos use of them suggests literary dependence) But they are not especially uncommon fwleoampj is attested more than 120 times prior to the 2nd century ce and kataskhnwsij is frequent in LXX Moreover Thomas does not use Greek loan words at this point but rather b[h]b (Crum 28b) and ma6 (Crum 208a) respectively



Matthaean Redaction in Thomas

1 Goodacrersquos search takes him to a variety of pericopae that have no Markan parallels He notes for example the impressive agreements between POxy I 11-4 and Mt 75Lk 642 the only difference between Luke and Thomas being the position in the sentence of e0kbalei=n31 Likewise there are close similarities between POxy IV 655ii20-23 and Mt 1016 But both are also proverbs with striking imagesmdasha kaamprfoj (speck) in onersquos eye and being prudent (froampnimoi) as snakes As an examination of patristic literature shows these images were cited in remarkably stable ways the kaamprfoj saying is cited more than thirty times up to the time of Cyril of Alexandria and the injunction to be as prudent as snakes appears dozens of times32 They glide so easily off the pens of these writers that it would be absurd to suppose that each time the writer had looked up Lk 642 or Mt 1016 The point is twofold first that these data concern short pithy sayings that are known to have a stable transmission and second that they are sayings for which one cannot demonstrate that Thomas has taken over redac-tional features of the Synoptics33

2 Goodacre seems however to have made a strong case that Gos Thom 20 and 54 (and 114 all extant only in Coptic) use the distinctively Matthaean expression tmn-tero nmphue lsquokingdom of the heavensrsquo (66-69) On both the 2DH and the FH Matthew edits Mark and substitutes h9 basileia tw~n ou)ranw~n for Markrsquos h9 basileia tou= qeou= Moreover Matthewrsquos term is unat-tested prior to Matthew and used by Matthew 24 times So it seems inevitable to conclude that Coptic Thomas here depends on Matthewrsquos formula Yet the case is not exactly straightforward and this for several reasons

First the phrase h9 basileia tw~n ou)ranw~n occurs nowhere in the Greek fragments At POxy IV 65415-16 kai h9 bas[ileia tou= qeou=] | e0nto_j u(mw~n [e0s]ti ka)ktoampj is part of a restoration where the Coptic simply has tmn-tero

sm_petn_6ounrsquo auw sm_petnbal that is without an equivalent to tou= qeou= or

31 Tuckett (2013 224) urges that the Oxyrhynchus fragments are not to be taken as necessarily better witnesses to the original Gospel of Thomas and wonders whether they contain examples of textual assimilation lsquoBut might not [the possibility of textual assimilation] also apply to cases (quite rare) of very close verbal agreement in the Greek fragments For instance the phenomenon of close verbal agreement between Thomas 26 = POxy 11-4 and Lk 642 is the exception rather than the rule Yet this is used by Goodacre as his parade example to show that there is a prima facie case for accepting the theory of some sort of dependencemdashbetween probably the original Thomas and the Synopticsrsquo

32 Eg Origen In Prov (PG 1320) Physiologus 93 14 111 1617 242 39 Gregory of Nyssa De Virginitate 172 Epiphanius Haer 604 11 Athanasius Oratio III contra Arianos 185 Basil Regula morales (PG 31797) Didymus the Blind In Gen (SC 233 p 93)

33 Goodacre (35-37) also considers POxy IV 65415-16 || Lk 1720-21 which does not have strong verbal similarities and POxy IV 65423-26 || Mt 1930 which has a Markan parallel but where one cannot made a strong case for Matthaean redaction Both are proverbial


Kloppenborg 211

tw~n ou)ranw~n At POxy I 16-8 where ou) mh | eurhtai thn basilei|an tou= q(eo)u= is visible the Coptic (saying 27) has simply tetna6e anrsquo etmn_tero again without a further elaboration of lsquokingdomrsquo Unlike the Greek fragments Coptic Thomas never uses the phrase tmn-tero m_pnoute but normally refers simply to tmn_tero or to tmn_tero m_peiwt34 or to tmn-tero nmphue (as in the three sayings named above) Hence between the Greek fragments and the Coptic translation there has clearly been some adjustment the equivalent of tou= qeou= has been dropped at least in Gos Thom 27 and perhaps also in Gos Thom 3 probably as is routinely observed because (Coptic) Thomas does not assign a positive valence to qeoampjpnoute (Muumlller 1973 272) It is even worth consid-ering whether there was a negative valence for qeoampj in the original Gospel of Thomas and that the Greek fragments are already corrupt35 In any event there is no evidence whatsoever that Greek Thomas used either h9 basileia tw~n ou)ranw~n or h9 basileia tou= patroampj

What is noteworthy is that the Matthaean locution seems to have become a lsquomemersquo in the third century employed not only in the citation of Matthaean texts36 but also being imported into both non-Matthaean texts and other say-ings37 Indeed this same importation of the Matthaean formula has occurred in Hippolytusrsquos citation of the Naassene version of the Gospel of Thomasmdashmakarian hellip fuampsin h1nper fasin lsaquothnrsaquo e0nto_j a)nqrwamppou basileian lsaquotw~nrsaquo ou)ranw~n zhtoumenhν lsquoa blessed nature which [the Naasenes] say is the king-dom of the heavens to be sought within a personrsquo (Hippolytus Ref 5720) and in the Manichaean Psalmbook tmn_trro n_m_phue eiste m_p_n[6o]un eiste

m_p[n]bal enna6te aras nawn6_ n6ht_s 4anian6e lsquothe kingdom of the heav-ens behold is within us behold is without us believing in it we shall live in eternityrsquo38 The facts that (a) Greek Thomas does not witness the Matthaean formulae and that (b) there was a pronounced tendency to import this Matthaean meme into later sayings make the suggestion likely that its appearance in Gos Thom 20 54 and 114 is also secondary

Second Gos Thom 20 (the Parable of the Mustard Seed) is in other respects more distant from Matthew (and Luke) insofar as it neither features an anqrwpoj sowing the seed nor does it make the extravagant claim that mustard

34 Sayings 57 76 96 97 98 99 11335 A suggestion of Arnal (per litt)36 Eg Justin Dial 512 (Mt 417) 513 (Mt 1112) 764 1206 1404 (Mt 811) Clement

Strom 51280 (Mt 1333) 51280 (Mt 1311) 61195 (Mt 1347) Paed 1512 (Mt 1914) 1516 (Mt 184) Quis dives 313 (Mt 1111) Protrep 989 (Mt 417)

37 Eg in other scriptural citations such as those found in Irenaeus Adv Haer 1116 (conflating Lk 962 with Matthewrsquos formula) and Clement Protrep 10994 or in other sayings eg Epistulae de virginitate 122 Clement Quis dives 31 171 Acta Pauli (ed C Schmidt and W Schubart Acta Pauli Gluumlckstadt Augustin 1936) frag 8 Irenaeus Adv Haer 5 frag 9

38 Allberry and Ibscher 1938 16020-21



becomes a dendron in which the birds shelter (katasknou=n) Instead the sub-ject of the sentence is the seed (not the person) and the seed only becomes a great branch (nouno2 n-tar) which serves as a skeph for birds not a kataskhnwsij or a skia as in Mark Moreover Coptic Thomas in spite of the use of tmn-tero nm-phue and its similarities to Markrsquos syntax lacks the element in Mark o$j otan sparh= e0pi th=j gh=j (431b) that is suspected as being redactional39 The difficulties in imagining how Gos Thom 20 could have been formulated on the basis of knowledge of the Synopticsmdashthe kingdom formula taken from Matthew other portions from Mark but avoiding Markan redaction and exer-cising different choices in vocabularymdashare such that it is significantly less cum-bersome to suppose that the lsquokingdom of the heavensrsquo had become a meme by the time of Thomasrsquos translation into Coptic and that it was incorporated into a version of the parable that in fact looks more pre-Markan than post-Matthaean

3 Gathercole makes the original argument that Gos Thom 13 betrays knowl-edge of Matthewrsquos Gospel by Thomasrsquos very mention of the disciple Matthew and his confession of Jesus as a lsquowise philosopherrsquo (pp 167-77) Arguing that Matthew is otherwise an lsquoundistinguished member of the apostolic collegersquo except as his putative role as an author of a gospel Gathercole concludes that Gos Thom 133 not only knows of Matthewrsquos Gospel and the authority that it had gained but thinks that Matthewrsquos confession is lsquoclearly wrongrsquo and wishes to lsquodebunkrsquo his gospel (pp 169 171)

Yet it is far from clear that Thomas wishes to characterize Matthewrsquos confes-sion (or Peterrsquos confession of Jesus as a lsquorighteous angelrsquo) as wrong any more than that the Fourth Gospel wants to dismiss Peter as lsquowrongrsquo in relation to the Beloved Disciple40 Nor is it at all compelling to believe that the confession of Peter in Mt 1616-19 has influenced Thomasrsquos confession in Gos Thom 13 since the two are completely different In fact had Thomas known Mt 1617 and the statement that Peterrsquos knowledge was not due to flesh and blood but rather to a revelation of the Father one might have expected Thomas to have some version of this now transferred to Thomas especially given the attention that Thomas otherwise gives to contrasting the lsquofleshrsquo with the soul or body (Gos Thom 28 29 112) and to revelation (Gos Thom 6 83 108) The simple naming of Matthew by Thomas hardly indicates that he knows the Gospel of Matthew

4 Goodacre makes the case that Gos Thom 57 the parable of the wheat and weeds is a creation of Matthew and that Thomasrsquos use of the parable shows him to be dependent on Matthew (73-80 110-111) Part of the argument rests on sup-posing that Mt 1324-30 is based on or is a compensation for the omissions of Mk 426-29 And partly it rests on the observation that Thomasrsquos version fails to

39 See Crossan 1973b 256-57 Carlston 1975 158 Marcus 2000ndash2009 I 32540 Contrast Uro 2003 88-92 who argues that Thomas only represents the confessions of all male

disciples as inadequate (not wrong) in order to elevate the confession of Thomas


Kloppenborg 213

provide an antecedent for lsquohe would not permit themrsquo (m-pe prwme koou) and lsquohe said to themrsquo (peà3 nau) which Matthew has provided in the explicit men-tion of the slavesrsquo question (Mt 1327)41 Hence this is an instance of a lsquomiss-ing middlersquo that is a point where Thomas presupposes but does not narrate a detail that is essential to comprehension but omits a detail that is known from Matthew

Goodacrersquos case is not strong since his best argument depends on the conclusion that Mt 1324-30 is a Matthaean creationmdashhardly obvious and widely disputed42 Without that support everything rests on the rather fragile supposition that one needs expressly to mention the ownerrsquos slaves Matthew clearly does because his interpretation in 1336-43 puts the angels in the role of those slaves who refrain from separating the good seed from the darnel until the judgment Thomasrsquos story however does not offer such an allegorical decoding of the parable and it is perfectly intelligible without the slavesrsquo explicit question After all given what we know about agricultural management in the ancient world landowners routinely engaged slaves or e0rgaamptai to work their properties and hence a hearer would likely assume that the owner is speaking to slaves or workers without needing to have them expressly mentioned There is nothing unintelligible or truncated about Thomasrsquos story

5 In the case of Gos Thom 99 the agreement of Thomas with Matthew in the use of lsquothe will of my fatherrsquo (tou= patroampj moupaeiwt) rather than Markrsquos lsquoGodrsquo is scarcely significant since Thomasrsquos ordinary term for the divine is lsquomy fatherrsquo (and not Matthewrsquos lsquomy father who is in the heavensrsquo) Gathercole in fact takes Gos Thom 99 to be an instance of Lukersquos influence on Thomas since both Lk 819-21 and Thomas lack Jesusrsquo question of Mt 1248b-49Mk 433b-34 and frames Jesusrsquo concluding declaration in the plu-ral (ou[toi e0stinnaei ne nasnhu mn- tamaau) rather than the ostijoj an formulation of Matthew and Mark (pp 197-98) However Thomas agrees not with Lukersquos redactional oi9 to_n loampgon tou= qeou= a)kouampontej kai poiou=ntoj but instead has e5re mpouw4 in agreement with Mark Matthew and the Gospel of the Ebionites This choice against Luke is all the more striking because Thomas elsewhere privileges lsquohearingrsquo (swtm_) repetitively in the phrase peteum maaè mmo3 mare3rsquoswtm and especially in Gos Thom 79 but uses ouw4 as a substantive (lsquowillrsquo) only here Thus it is by no means clear that to assume Matthaean or Lukan redactional influence is more con-vincing than to suppose that Thomas represents an independent performance of the saying

41 Thus Davies and Allison 1988ndash97 II 41542 Eg Jeremias 1972 81-85 Davies et al 1988ndash97 II 409-11 Roloff 2005 47-53

Zimmermann 2007 405-16



6 Gathercole makes a fascinating case for an agreement of Thomas with Matthewrsquos redactional sequencing of the injunction against blasphemy (Mt 1231-32Gos Thom 44) and the saying about trees and fruit (Mt 1233-34Gos Thom 45) (2012 182-83) There seems no doubt on the 2DH at least that Matthew has redactionally conflated the Markan saying on blasphemy with a similar saying from Q 1210 and combined these with Q 645 (= Mt 1235) embellishing this further by repeating his characterization of his opponents as a lsquobrood of vipersrsquomdasha phrase recycled from Q 37 Hence on the face of the matter it would seem that Thomasrsquos sequence betrays knowledge of Matthaean redaction

The devil is in the detail however The first portion of Gos Thom 45 is paral-lel not to Mt 1234-35 but to QLk 644 the saying about the impossibility of gathering figs from thorns or grapes from thistles Matthew used this part of Q 643-45 at Mt 716b and split Q in order to use the first part at 716-20 and the second part at 1234-35 Hence if one supposes that Thomas knew Matthew one must also suppose that he knew Lukersquos (or Qrsquos) saying too and recombined what Matthew had split Moreover Thomasrsquos oute is closer to Lukersquos formula-tion of the saying than it is to Matthewrsquos h (716b) However one construes the relationship between Thomas and Matthew it is clearly more complicated than Gathercole allows

7 Finally Goodacre (pp 70-71) and Gathercole (pp 178-79) following Tuckett (1988 143) draw attention to the use of lsquomouthrsquo in Gos Thom 145 Gathercole observes that Thomasrsquos use of the lsquowhat goes inrsquo saying is very dif-ferent from that found in Mk 7 and Mt 15 since Thomas uses it to justify the injunction to lsquoeat what is set before yoursquo (Lk 108b = Q)43 Thomas however agrees with Mt 1511 against Mk 715 in using to_ ei0serxoampmenon ei0j to_ stoampma hellip to_ e0kporeuoampmenon e0k tou= stoampmatoj instead of Markrsquos ei0sporeuoampmenon ei0j au)to_n hellip ta_ e0k tou= a)nqrwamppou e0kporeuoampmenaamp (petnabwk garrsquo e6oun 6n

tetntapro hellip petnnhu ebol 6n tetntapro) although Thomas also has lsquoyour mouthrsquo not just lsquothe mouthrsquo Gathercole notes in addition that Thomas like Matthew has a demonstrative (n_to3 = tou=to) and both omit Markrsquos e1cwqen tou= a)nqrwamppou and o$ duampnatai

Thomas indeed here seems to betray knowledge of Mt 1511 It must be said however that since the saying obviously contrasts kashruth practices with inte-rior purity the explicit mention by Matthew and Thomas of the mouth as the point of entry of impurities is hardly unexpected or idiosyncratic This is all the more the case with Thomas since as noted above he employs this in the context of an injunction to lsquoeat what is set before yoursquo

43 The IQP (Robinson et al 2000 170) constructed the mission speech with e0sqiete ta_ paratiqemena u(mw~n but gave it a grade of C


Kloppenborg 215

Lukan Redaction in Thomas

1 A noteworthy case for Thomasrsquos knowledge of Luke comes from Gos Thom 31 where we have a Greek parallel in POxy I 110-1544

10 legei 0Ih(sou=)j ou)- k e1stin dekto_j pro- fhthj e0n th=| p(at)ridi au)- t[o]u= ou)de i0atro_j poiei= qerapeiaj ei0j tou_j15 geinwampskontaj au)toamp(n)

Since both Matthew and Mark use atimoj Thomasrsquos dektoampj 4hp appears to reflect the Lukan redactional form of the saying especially because this version of the saying is not cited very commonly elsewhere45

2 Goodacre finds another lsquomissing middlersquo in Gos Thom 63 As with Gos Thom 57 he argues that Lk 1215-21 is a Lukan creation and that Thomas in copying the parable has taken over Lukersquos characteristic interior monologue but missed the Lukan characterrsquos musings on his good fortune lsquoAnd I will say to my soul ldquoSoul you have ample goods laid up for many years relax eat drink be merryrdquorsquo (1219) (pp 87-91 111-12)

It should be clear that some of Lk 1215-21 is redactional The paraenetic imperatives in v 15 are clearly Lukan (Jeremias 1980 215) and v 21 which goes well beyond any plausible point of the parable is also secondary46 Neither of these details however is represented in Thomas On the other hand it is far from clear that the bulk of the parable itself is a Lukan creation As Skehan and Di Lella point out the Hebrew version of Sir 1118-19 invokes a scenario quite like Lk 1215-20

A person may become rich through a miserrsquos life and this is his allotted reward When he says lsquoI have found rest now I will feast on my possessionsrsquo he does not know how long it will be till he leaves them to others and dies (Skehan and Di Lella 1987 236)

Of course it is still possible that Luke created the parable using a theme from Sirach The text from Sirach however shows that the scenario of the parable is not distinctively or characteristically Lukan As I noted in an earlier publication

44 Thus Goodacre 84-86 Gathercole 187-88 Schroumlter 2012 50245 The Lukan version of the saying is cited only by Origen Comm in Ioh 1355 sect375 The

MatthaeanMarkan versions are more frequently cited in patristic literature46 Thus Kloppenborg 1987 222 Bovon 1996 258 lsquoA mon avis le v 21 est secondaire Il est

neacute drsquoune exigence celle pour la parabole de recevoir une moralersquo Dupont (1985 1067) notes that Luke has used qhsauroampj in QLk 1234 as the basis for his composition of 1221



a significant number of Synoptic critics regard the parable at least 1216b-20 as pre-Lukan47

As to Goodacrersquos claim that Thomas betrays knowledge of Lukersquos lsquointerior monologuersquo48 it must be pointed out not only that both Mk 121-9Gos Thom 65 (admitted by Goodacre) and Q 1242-46 (on the FH Mt 2545-51) also use interior monologues But this also is a routine feature of stories such as Aesoprsquos Fables Luke is scarcely the inventor of this technique nor does he hold a copy-right on it Its appearance in Thomas is not a sign of dependence on Luke

The difference between Luke and Thomas which Goodacre does not notice is that Luke is worried about what the rich do with their wealth using this as a story of the inappropriate use of wealth For Thomas by contrast it is economic pursuit as such that is the problem since this blinds one towards the truth Lukersquos focus is distinctively Lukan since he also wants to enjoin the rich to give alms Thomasrsquos focus is equally Thomasine antagonistic to wealth and commerce as such Thus one might argue that Thomas has edited a story like Sir 1118-19 not in a way that betrays knowledge of Luke but in a way that is entirely consistent with Thomasrsquos view of agricultural economics Moreover on the supposition that Thomas knew Luke it is curious to say the least that he passed over the one Lukan sentence with which he agrees entirely lsquoThe one who treasures up things is not rich towards Godrsquo (Lk 1221)

Hence it is far from clear that Gos Thom 63 betrays knowledge of Lukan redaction It is only by assuming that Lk 1216-21 is a Lukan creation and that interior monologue is a monopoly of Luke that one can draw this conclusion

3 Goodacre (pp 97-108) devotes an entire chapter to Gos Thom 79 argu-ing that it is lsquoso strikingly Lukanrsquo depending on Lk 1127-28 and 2327-31 Thomas rather gratuitously and unusually has a woman from the crowd (6m_ pmh4e) address Jesus perhaps reflecting Lk 1127a The argument here is that Thomas prefers to have disciples address Jesus rather than outsiders while the lsquocrowdrsquo is a standard Lukan feature It is a mistake however to suppose that Thomas does not imagine Jesus interacting with his surroundings sayings 22 60 72 and 91 depict Jesus as either commenting on something he sees or responding to an outsider question and hence Gos Thom 79 is not quite as anomalous as Goodacre makes out He also argues that the phrase lsquofor there will be days when helliprsquo (oun_ 6n_6oou gar na4wpe) reflects Lk 2239 (e1rxontai h9merai) The problem with the latter phrase is that it also appears in Gos Thom 38 where there is no reason to suppose dependence on Luke His claim that the

47 See those cited in Kloppenborg 1988 12848 See Sellew 1992 Meier (2012 544-46) also argues that the presence of the interior monologue

in Thomas is a fingerprint of Lukan redaction although he concedes that similar monologues are found in non-Lukan parables His main argument is that Lk 1213-15 is a Lukan creation and therefore its presence in Gos Thom 72 is a sign of Thomasrsquos dependence on Luke


Kloppenborg 217

phrase is lsquodistinctively Lukanrsquo (p 107) is belied by its appearance in Mk 220Mt 915 Mk 1319 and the extremely common phrase (h9merai e1rxontai) that appears many times in the LXX (Amos 811 Isa 396 Jer 732 etc)

The much stronger point is that Thomasrsquos phrase nnenta6swtm arsquoplogos

mpeiwt auare6 ero3 6n oume lsquothose who have heard the word of the father and have truly kept itrsquo echoes a well-known Lukan redactional interest visible for example in his editing of Mk 335 in lsquohearing the word of Godrsquo Yet as I have observed above Thomas is deeply interested in lsquohearingrsquo as a cognitive activity related to apprehension of the true meaning of Jesusrsquo saying49 The combination however of lsquohearingrsquo and lsquokeepingrsquo which appears in Lk 1128 makes it rather likely that Thomas is influenced by Lukersquos formulation

Counterindications

Because of the approach taken by Goodacre and Gathercole which treats Thomas as effectively unitary it is logically required only to show that some of Thomasrsquos sayings betray knowledge of the Synoptics in order to be able to conclude quite reasonably that even those where the case is not as strong probably also rely on the Synoptics

As soon as this assumption is problematized the case becomes rather more complicated A case for Thomasrsquos priority can be made for Gos Thom 9 and the Synoptic versions of the Parable of the Sower for POxy IV 655 i1-17 and its Synoptic parallel in Lk 1222-31 and above all in the Parable of the Tenants (Gos Thom 65 Mk 121-12 and parallels) In these instances it is difficult to imagine Thomas using the Synoptic Gospels and somehow arriving at a version of the saying that avoids all of the elements of Synoptic redaction and which appears more primitive than that of the Synoptics Thomas was either a skilful redaction critic able surgically to excise redactional elements (which would be incredible) or Thomas is autonomous

Goodacre (pp 60-63) cites POxy IV 655 i1-17Gos Thom 36 both to illus-trate the undoubtedly correct observations that abbreviation as well as expansion is attested in the Synoptic tradition (since Gos Thom 36 is much shorter than the Oxyrhynchus fragment) and to illustrate the point that the Coptic version here is less like the Synoptics than the Oxyrhynchus fragment and hence to challenge the notion that similarities between the Coptic version and the Synoptics are necessarily due to harmonization Later he takes the Oxyrhynchus fragment to be an instance of a lsquomissing middlersquo (pp 119-23) at least in regard to the Coptic version Gathercole does not discuss the saying at all presumably because it lacks a Markan parallel with which to establish Matthaean or Lukan redaction

49 Above p 15



The Synoptic unit consists of an admonition not to care for food and clothing (Q 1222-23) and it then invokes two illustrations the ravens who do not plant or reap but nonetheless eat (1224) and the lilies which do not toil or spin (1227) further elaborating the latter with reference to Solomonrsquos clothing (1228) Q (or Matthew on the FH) has complicated the admonition with a rhetorical ques-tion about adding to onersquos height (1225) which not only is not then illustrated by reference to an agricultural process but also breaks the connection between the admonition on clothing (1222) and its buttressing illustration in 1227-28 POxy IV 655i1-17 by contrast offers a more logical structure it offers admo-nitions concerning eating then clothing illustrating this latter by reference to the lilies which neither card (cainei) nor spin (nhqei) then a rhetorical question about having clothing That question is answered with a second rhetorical ques-tion that returns to the issue of food the one who can provide sustenance (and adds to onersquos life-span [ei0likia]) is the one who provides lsquoclothingrsquo to the lilies (ie God)50

In this case not only does the Oxyrhynchus version of the saying cohere bet-ter as a rhetorical unit but it allows us to see how Q elaborated the elements of the saying creating an overloaded version in which Q 1225-26 an original element of the unit now seemed to interrupt the flow of the saying To suppose that Greek Thomas derived his version of the saying from Matthew or Luke is to suppose that he rolled back the elaborations of the Synoptic version to arrive at a simpler more original version51 Goodacre (p 121) argues apropos of Thomasrsquos shorter Coptic version that while it is not incoherent or somehow defective the Synoptic version provides a fuller lsquological progression from exhortation to poetic justification that as usual is better crafted and more rhetorically powerful than the Thomas versionrsquo In fact this observation cuts against his conclusion since it is the Oxyrhynchus version that is the more carefully crafted and by his own principles should be the earliest

50 This point is made by Robinson and Heil 2001 13 lsquothe question [about life-span] does not refer to an impotent human but rather to a caring God who can indeed add to the humanrsquos stature (or span of life) and from whom one can hence quite appropriately expect to receive clothing It is no worldly despairing distraction from the original focus on trust in God Rather it emphasizes precisely this trustrsquo Schroumlter (2012 503) by contrast takes Q 1225 to be a later addition to the cluster of sayings in which case Thomas is at least posterior to the redaction of Q But in this case it seems more likely that it is Q who has expanded the cluster which had the effect of lsquoorphaningrsquo Q 1225

51 Similarly Zoumlckler 1999 74 lsquoMan wird allerdings diesbezuumlglich uumlber die allgemeine Feststellung nicht hinauskommen daszlig die stilistisch ausgeformten und sorgfaumlltig verknuumlpften Einzelaussagen der Q-Version auf einen aumllteren Spruchkomplex mit sehr viel einfacher gestalteten Spruumlchen zuruumlckgehen muumlssenmdashund daszlig in P Oxy 655 die Form einer solchen Spruchkombination vorliegt helliprsquo


Kloppenborg 219

POxy 655i1-17[legei 0Ih(sou=)jmh merimna~te a)]po_ prwi e3[wj o)ye mht]e a)f 0 e0sp[eraj e3wj p]rwi mhampte [th=| troampfh| u(]mw~n ti faamp[ghte mhte] th=| st[olh=| u(mw~n] ti enduamp[sh]sqe

[pol]lw~| krei[sson]ej e0[ste] tw~n [kri]nwn ati[na ati[na o]u) ca[i]nei ou)de n[h]qei

k[ai] e4n e1xont[ej e1]nd[u]ma ti e0n[duampesqe] kai u(mei=jtij an prosqlteigth e0pi thn ei9likian u(mw~n au)to_[j d]wampsei u(mei=j to_ e1nduma u(mw~n

Q 1222-29 (IQP)52

22bdia_ tou=to legw u(mi=nmh merimna~te th=| yuxh= u(mw~n

ti faampghte mhde tw|~ swampmati u(mw~n ti e0nduampshsqe23 ou)xi h9 yuxh plei=oampn e0stin th=j trofh=jkai to_ sw~ma tou= e0nduampmatoj 24 katanohsate tou_j koamprakaj oti ou) speirousin ou)de qerizousin ou)de sunaampgousin ei0j a)poqhkaj kai o( qeo_j trefei au)touampj ou)x u(mei=j ma~llon diaferete tw~n peteinw~n 25 tij de e0c u(mw~n merimnw~n duampnatai prosqei=nai e0pi thn h0likian au)tou~ ph=xun 26 kai peri e0nduampmatoj ti merimna~te27 kata[[maampqe]]te ta_ krina pw~j au)caampn[[ei]] ou) kopi[[a~|] ou)de nhq[[ei]] legw de u(mi=n ou)de Zolomw_n e0n paampsh| th|= doampch| au)tou= periebaampleto w(j e2n touamptwn 28 ei0 de e0n a)grw~| to_n xoamprton onta shmeron kai aurion ei0j klibanon balloampmenon o( qeo_j outwj a)mfie[[nnusin]] ou) pollw~| ma~llon u(ma~j o)ligoamppistoi 29 mh [[ou]n]] merimnhshte legontej ti faampgwmen [[h1]] ti piwmen [[h1]] ti peribalwampmeqa 30 paampnta ga_r tau=ta ta_ e1qnh e0pizhtou=sin oi]den [[ga_r]] o( pathr u(mw~n oti xrhzete touamptwn [[a(paampntwn]] 31 zhtei=te de thn basileian au)tou= kai tau=ta [[paampnta]] prosteqhsetai u(mi=n

In this case it is far from clear that the Oxyrhynchus version depends on either Matthew or Luke (or Q)52

A second example is Gos Thom 9 the parable of the Sower Comparison with the Synoptic versions shows that Thomas lacks the overloaded descrip-tions (dia_ to_ mh e1xein baampqoj gh=j kai ote a)neteilen o( h3lioj e0kaumatisqh) Markan elements taken over by Matthew These overloadings are not the result of the vagaries of oral transmission but are due to the fact that Markrsquos interpretation of the parable (missing in Thomas) needs to stress the shal-lowness of certain kinds of belief (417 kai ou)k e1xousin r9izan e0n e9autoi=j a)lla_ proampskairoi ei0sin) and the result that lsquotribulationrsquo destroys shal-low belief (ei]ta genomenhj qliyewj h2 diwgmou= dia_ to_n loampgon eu)qu_j

52 I use the Q version exempli gratia The Matthaean and Lukan versions agree strongly and hence the hypothetical Q version can be employed to make the point



skandalizontai)53 That is Markrsquos editorial interest lies in the additions he has made to vv 5-6 which prepare for his interpretation in 413-20 Because Thomas lacks the Markan allegorical unpacking of the parable there is no rea-son for him to have the overloading either

Luke omitted this overloaded Markan phrase but substituted lsquobecause it did not have moisturersquo for Markrsquos lsquobecause it had no depth of soilrsquo Since Matthew took over Markrsquos extra phrases it is peculiar to imagine that Thomas depending either on Mark or Matthew would have eliminated along with the allegorical unpacking of the parable precisely what Mark added to the parable and what Matthew took over And Thomas also lacks the way in which Luke redacted Mark So either Thomas was a fine redaction critic able to discern the primary and secondary elements of Markrsquos parable or Thomas does not depend on Mark or its literary successors but evidences another version of the story (yet another is available in 1 Clem 245)

A third example is also a parable Gos Thom 65 a showcase example of a Thomasine saying that has every appearance of being independent of its Synoptic parallels As I have shown in detail elsewhere (2006) not only does Thomas lack the citation of Isa 51 7 which is prominent in Mark and Matthew and still vestigial in Lukersquos e0fuampteusen but Thomas also lacks an equivalent to Mk 125mdashby almost universal agreement a Markan addition (summarized by Matthew in 2136 and dropped by Luke) But even more importantly while Thomasrsquos version reflects accurately the patterns of vineyard ownership in the first century ce the economic and agrarian practices associated with viticulture and the legal situation of the owner in instances of conflict with tenantsmdashwhich was not uncommon in this agricultural sectormdash54 Markrsquos version and its succes-sors have allegorized the story into one of Godrsquos vineyard in which agricultural and legal realism is completely sacrificed to the apologetic interests of defend-ing Jesus against his adversaries None of the defenders of Thomasrsquos depend-ence on the Synoptics has been able to account for Thomasrsquos transformation of this story which results in a realistic reflection of viticulture Because none

53 Crossan 1973a 40-41 similarly Marcus 1986 32-33 who thinks that 6a was in the original parable but 6b was an addition

54 Gathercole 133 asserts that Kloppenborg (2006) uses lsquorealismrsquo as a criterion for the lsquooriginalityrsquo of Thomasrsquos version This is incorrect I do not argue that Thomasrsquos version is prior to Markrsquos since Thomasrsquos version clearly manifests some of its own allegorization for example lsquolabourrsquo as standing for intellectual inquiry Rather the argument concerns the impossibility of deriving Thomasrsquos realistic version of the parable from Markrsquos patently unrealistic version especially given the fact that Thomas is not especially interested in narrative realism Moreover the ideologies of ownership absenteeism honor and deadly force that are manifest in Thomas are much more easily reconcilable with any reasonable reconstruction of the life of Jesus than those manifest in Mark This is decidedly not an argument from realism brevity or allegorical content but from the fundamental values inchoate in the two forms of the parable


Kloppenborg 221

of the proponents of dependence appears to reflect any knowledge of the reali-ties of viticulture they do not notice that Thomasrsquos story is generally realistic while Markrsquos is unrealistic on several counts But since Thomasrsquos interests in this story do not lie in explaining how vineyards work but rather in who manages to achieve knowledge and who does not it is impossible to imagine him beginning with the Synoptic story and coming up with his highly realistic version in order to illustrate a completely different point The unrealistic Markan version would have served him even better

It should be underscored that I do not think that Thomasrsquos version of the Tenants is the source of Mark (contrary to what Gathercole [p 186] suggests)55 On the contrary Thomas has his own interests in the parable not least of which is vilifying the owner as a lsquousurerrsquo and underscoring the slaversquos ignorance (peè pe3òeis è me4ak mpe3souwnou)56 Thus most emphatically I do not argue that Thomasrsquos version of the parable is the earliest especially since I have spent some time accounting for various singular features of Gos Thom 65 that point to Thomasrsquos own redaction What I do argue is that the two parables stripped of their obvious Markan and Thomasine editorializings turn out to look pretty much the same and suggest that the parable was performed with two dif-ferent trajectories one that led to the Markan form and with the help of Isa 5 turned the owner of the story into a figure for God and another version which made very different choices treating the owner (more realistically) as belonging to the social strata of the parvenu and construing his attempts at exploitation as failures just as the Rich Farmerrsquos efforts were doomed to failure (Kloppenborg 2006 271-77) Thus I explicitly do not privilege Thomasrsquos version over Markrsquos because I regard both as secondary elaborations of an originating parable

Gathercole continues

Many will find it hard to accept Kloppenborgrsquos proposal that (a) Thomasrsquos version reflects the earliest form of the parable without Isaiah and (b) Mark inserts the Isaianic material into the introduction and (c) Luke removes most of it again leaving an introduction coincidentally similar to that of Thomas (p 193)

He does not explain why lsquomanyrsquo will find this difficult Cadoux Jeremias Hubaut Klauck Weder Hengel Via Crossan Hester Frankemoumllle Marcus Schmeller Weihs and others did not find the point that the Isaianic reference was secondary difficult or improbable at all57 Second I did not argue that Mark inserted the allusion to Isa 5 into the parable After considering various possibilities I sided

55 Also Gathercole 208 20956 This is often lsquocorrectedrsquo to mpltougtsouwnlt3gt lsquothey did not recognize himrsquo but this misses

Thomasrsquos point57 See Kloppenborg 2006 chs 4 5



with the majority who think that the Isaiah reference is pre-Markan (2006 228) Gathercole could no doubt reply that this only puts the issue of the expansion of the parable to an earlier stage On the other hand the Septuagintal nature of the quotation and in fact its complete irrelevance to the rest of the narrative details of the parablemdashthe fence the vat and the tower play no role whatsoever in the storymdashsuggest that it is an accretion at some stage and in Greek Finally Luke did not remove the allusion entirely but retained through an editorial inad-vertence the Isaianic reference to planting The reason for Lukersquos removal of the details of Mk 121 can be surmised Lukersquos more acutely honed rhetorical sensibilities and interest in conciseness58 led him to omit detail that was plainly irrelevant to the telling of the story But his retention of planted is a telltale sign that he was using Mark as his source Such a sign is not present in Thomas59 But Lukersquos version is not like Thomasrsquos since Lukersquos version still has the retaliation sequence completely lacking in Thomas and implicitly constructs the owner positively rather than negatively as in Thomas

This leaves only Thomasrsquos me4ak (lsquoperhapsrsquo) which agrees with Lukersquos i1swj which Gathercole declares to be a lsquorelatively unusual wordrsquo Au contraire A TLG search shows that it occurs more than 2500 times prior to the beginning of the second century and is especially frequent in Platonic dialogues where Socrates introduces a belief that he wishes to refute60 This is not an unusual term at all and precisely one that might be expected in this context all the more so since as I have noted the erroneous nature of the ownerrsquos belief is fundamental to Thomasrsquos story but only incidental to Lukersquos Again it would be different were it the case that i1swj was incidental to Thomasrsquos narrative line but essen-tial to Lukersquos For in that case we would have something like a smoking gun of Thomasrsquos use of Luke and his inadvertent absorption of a Lukan element that served no real purpose in Thomas The reverse in fact is the case

58 On the rhetorical virtue of conciseness see now Damm 201359 On the issue of the supposed agreement between Lk 2010b i3na hellip dwampsousin au)tw|~ and

Gos Thom 65 (4ina hellip n-3ì mpe3karpos n-tootou) Gathercole states that lsquoKloppenborg argues that lambaampnein and didoampnai are ldquostereotyped verbs used in the description of leasing arrangementsrdquo and so little can be made of the agreements between Thomas and the Synopticsrsquo (193) This is not quite true I did not argue this I showed it to be the case through a careful and detailed analysis of extant leases of vineyards (Kloppenborg 2006 359-583 and p 258 n 127) referring to multiple leases using either lambaampnein (for rent received) or didoampnai (for rent paid) The point was that such variation is not especially telling when both verbs are part of the stereotypical vocabulary of leasing It would be different if Luke and Thomas agreed in using an unusual verb of leasing They do not These verbs are in fact the most commonly used

60 Eg Apol 28B 1Iswj an ou]n ei1poi tij laquoEi]trsquo ou)k ai0sxuampnh| w Swampkratej toiou=ton e0pithdeuma e0pithdeuampsaj e0c ou[ kinduneuampeij nuni a)poqanei=nraquo lsquoPerhaps someone might say ldquoO Socrates donrsquot you feel ashamed at pursuing a way of life that runs the risk of deathrdquorsquo


Kloppenborg 223

So we are left with the juxtaposition of the parable with Ps 11722(-23) in Mark (and Luke) and Thomas Indeed there is almost unanimity that Ps 11722-23 is a secondary addition to the parable with the exception of Snodgrass and Lowe who try to rescue the reference for the original parable by positing a word-play between ben and rsquoeben and thus must argue that the parable was originally performed in Hebrew rather than Aramaic61

The question remains whether it was Mark who connected the psalm with the parable as some hold (Klauck Hoffmann Donahue) or is pre-Markan (Jeremias Gundry Mell)62 It is critical to note that this debate is normally conducted with-out any attention to the Gospel of Thomas and so it cannot be claimed that those favouring the former position are secretly advocating Thomasrsquos dependence on Mark or its successors or contrariwise that those who favour the former are clandestinely leaving room for a Thomas that is autonomous of the Synoptics I in fact have favoured the latter position that the connection of the parable with the psalm is not Markrsquos work The juxtaposition of Ps 11722-23 with the parable of the tenants provided Mark with the occasion to draw a strong connec-tion between the two units so that in Markan redaction it functioned to vindicate the son who would otherwise have been left dead by the parable This strategy was doubly appealing for Mark since his parable already contained allusions to Isa 52 5 so that the equation of the owner with God logically required both the slaves and the sons to be interpreted as Godrsquos envoys and their rejection and deaths as acts that elicited divine vengeance and vindication (Kloppenborg 2006 241)

Thus contrary to Gathercole I do have an explanation for the use of Ps 117 both in the pre-Markan story and in Mark and offer a reading of Thomasrsquos use of Ps 117 that is consistent with Thomas in general

Thomas assumes an entirely different tertium com parationis the rejected stone is not the son of the parable but the pursuit of salvation and the lsquorejectersrsquo are not the tenants but the usurer It is difficult to imagine how Thomas seeing the unequivocally clear Synoptic equations could have arrived at his version except by a feat of interpretive perversity Thomas would have had to reverse the Synopticsrsquo identification of the owner with God delete the conclusion to the parable which underscores the negative evaluation of the tenants and detach the psalm quotation which emphasizes the fact that human appraisal and divine perspective are at odds with each other (Kloppenborg 2006 271)

Thus when Gathercole concludes that Kloppenborg lsquodoes not explain away the evidence for Mark rarr Luke rarr GThrsquo (p 194) (where he surely means not the

61 Lowe 1982 259 Snodgrass 1983 63 and passim This is answered effectively by Gundry 1993 689-90

62 See the discussion in Kloppenborg 2006 240



lsquoevidencersquo but the data that might be accounted for on the scenario Mark rarr Luke rarr GTh) he does so by neglecting major features of the data outlined in The Tenants in the Vineyard on viticultural regularities the summation of exe-getical opinion offered in chs 3ndash5 and the arguments that are assembled from the Synoptic and other data

The Unity of Thomas

Both Goodacre and Gathercole need Thomas to be a unified composition for if it is not the road is open to argue that while some portions of Thomas reflect the editorial features of the Synoptics other portions do not Yet here too there are varying nuances between Goodacre and Gathercole

Goodacre if I understand him aright is not averse to conceding that Thomas may be dependent on the Synoptics for only some of its material63 For since he is concerned with something like the final composition of Thomas his point is only that at the level of composition Thomas knows the Synoptics

In order for Thomasrsquos familiarity with the Synoptics to be established one only requires knowledge of the Synoptics in certain places It does not need to be a lsquoconsistent patternrsquo And even if more primitive traditions are contained in Thomas this is relevant only to the issue of Thomasrsquos knowledge of oral traditions and is not directly relevant to the question of literary priority (Goodacre 46)

This seems consistent with his lsquoplagiaristrsquos charterrsquo In order to demonstrate the secondary nature of the final version of a document all one needs to show is that some of its material is posterior to known datable sources One does not have to show that the document was cut from whole cloth or that it is a compositional unity

The Gospel of Luke for example on both the FH and the 2DH is lsquodepend-entrsquo on Markan redaction and editorial features and is thus demonstrably post-Markan But is that the end of the story Luke had access to Q (on the 2DH) or Matthew (on the FH) which he interpolates into his Markan material On most reckonings much of this material is at least as early from a tradition-historical point of view as Mark some of it earlier than Mark and certainly independent of Mark And Luke also has special material which most scholars (with notable exceptions like Michael Goulder) would suppose to be early even authentic The situation is not different with Matthew whether one adopts the 2DH or the FH

If the issue then is whether the composition of Thomas is post-Matthaean and post-Lukan the presence of Matthaean and Lukan redactionmdashMatthewrsquos () lsquointo the mouthrsquo and Lukersquos dektoampj and lsquohear the word of the father and guard

63 See Goodacre 46 citing Snodgrass 1990 19


Kloppenborg 225

itrsquomdash would seem to indicate that the answer is that Thomas is post-Matthaean and Lukan This however is not a surprise except for those who date Thomas to sometime in the mid- to late-first century ce That there are a few instances of Synoptic redaction hardly implies that all of the Synoptic-like material depends on the Synoptics

Gathercole takes a different approach Stressing the apparent lack of differ-ence between the Greek fragments and the Coptic version he doubts the concep-tion of Thomas as a lsquorolling corpusrsquo64 He notes varying theological perspectives in Thomasmdashoften taken as a sign of composite constructionmdashbut avers that the eschatology of Thomas lsquois hellip not too difficult to fit togetherrsquo and seems to embrace the suggestion that Thomasrsquos alleged differing audiences might account for differing perspectives

These are rather weak and grasping responses to the diverse contents of Thomas But when he considers the several doublets in Thomas he turns to the explanation that Thomas was only a moderately educated writer and hence that the doublets are due to his carelessness or maybe they are deliberate (p 165) This seems a rather desperate attempt to avoid the way in which doublets have been treated in the Synoptics in Genesis in Exodus in the Deuteronomistic his-tory where doublets are routinely taken as evidence of the presence of multiple sources This seems a prima facie case of changing analytic rules when they point in the wrong direction

Ironically perhaps Gathercole needs Thomas to be unitary more than Goodacre Since for Goodacre the focus of attention is on the final version of Thomas he can tolerate bits of diverse materials in its compositional history The issue for Goodacre is whether Thomas as a composition is anterior to the Synoptics and he shows that our copies of Thomasmdashboth Greek and Copticmdashare not For Gathercole because he does not posit a direct literary relationship between Thomas and the Synoptics but instead suggests a relation of secondary orality he seemingly cannot tolerate a composite Thomas for in that case the road would be open to agree that some bits of Thomas reflect Synoptic redaction but others do not something he seems keen to reject

The marked and dramatic difficulties that Thomas has posed for interpreters to arrive at a coherent and consistent editorial perspective and the various seem-ingly incompatible positions it espouses seem to suggest disunity rather than compositional unity65 And to invoke Gathercole against Gathercole if Thomas indeed is a list in which order does not make much difference it is also a list in which additions probably also do not make much difference Examination of

64 Wilson 1960ndash61 39 compare DeConick 200265 See however Arnal 2005 who makes a case for the way in which at the compositional level

Thomas has managed to compass the various contradictory terms



other collections such as the Life of Aesop give good evidence of such collections (or lsquolistsrsquo) being supplemented and sometimes abbreviated

A New Model

So Thomas does reflect Synoptic elementsmdashperhaps Matthewrsquos stoampma at Gos Thom 145 Lukersquos dektoampj in POxy I 110-15 and Lukersquos notion of lsquohearing the word and guarding itrsquo in Gos Thom 79 No doubt there are other elements that we might recognize as redactional But it also includes signs of autonomous performances of Jesusrsquo sayings where Thomas is not only not dependent on the Synopticsmdashthe parables of the Mustard Seed the Sower and the Tenants and the saying on anxietymdashbut arguably represents versions of the sayings that can claim at least as much antiquity as Mark or Qrsquos versions These elements are then juxtaposed in a manner that likely defies a simple means of disentangling them What this calls for is not a reiteration of the linear and simplistic models of tex-tual interaction that we have had since the works published fifty years ago which either pronounced Thomas to be an entirely secondary gospel from the mid-sec-ond century without historical or theological merit or exaggerated claims that it was the earliest gospel from the 40s or 50s of the first century Neither takes the textual data of Thomas seriously

What we need are complex and sophisticated models which allow us to understand the complex data-sets with which we are presented in the Synoptics Thomas Jesus tradition in the Apostolic Fathers and in other expressions of the Jesus tradition

A possible way forward engages the work of John Whittaker (1989) on the transmission of philosophical texts Whittaker challenged the common view according to which fragments of philosophical texts transmitted in the form of quotations were unreliable lsquosince they are likely to be quoted from memory or borrowed from someone else who was quoting from memory or even worse quoted from memory from someone else who was quoting from memoryrsquo (1989 63) Variations in longer quotations were often dismissed as due either to the carelessness of the secondary author or the corruption of the text being cited

In order to evaluate these dismissive claims Whittaker examined a Middle-Platonic epitome the Didaskalikos of Alcinous (firstsecond century ce) who drew heavily on the Timaeus and Parmenides and which was designed for use in a school setting Comparing the citations of Alcinous to those of Plato Whittaker noted changes in word order (which were probably regarded as too insignificant to even warrant comment by ancient authors) additions deletions the substitu-tion of synonyms pluralsingular variations and grammatical changes that con-formed the citation to the grammatical context of the secondary work These were apparently not deemed to be either misquotation or corruption of the text


Kloppenborg 227

but rather clarifications of the points being made66 Later Porphyry would even say of his citations of the Chaldean Oracles that ou)den oute prosteqeika oute a)fei=lon tw~n xrhsqentwn nohmaamptwn lsquoI have added nothing nor subtracted from the sentiments of the oraclesrsquo even though he also admits that he corrected readings that he believed to be corrupt improved the clarity of the text and omitted what was irrelevant to his own purposes (1989 69) Clearly quoting the sentiments of a text was not the same thing as quoting the text verbatim Whittaker concludes

We may conclude that such modifications were not considered improper even where in the case of alteration of the logical sequence they might necessitate changes in the grammatical forms of words Nor is the [modern] editor obliged to assume in such instances faulty memory or carelessness on the part of his author nor unless other circumstances so dictate is he under any obligation to correct the indirect evidence in the light of its original nor even worse the original in the light of the indirect evidence (1989 74-75)

Whittakerrsquos investigations indicate that verbatim reproduction of sources was not a controlling virtue

Instead we must acknowledge that there is about the ancient manner of quotation something of the technique of theme and variation as though one thought it constricting and impersonal as well as boring to repeat perpetually the same familiar words as though it were expected of the epigone not that he deny himself by leaving well alone but that he add to what he quotes the touch of his own or some commentating predecessorrsquos presumptive individuality or at the very least assume a measure of studied carelessness hellip (1989 94-95)

Whittakerrsquos remarks have been cited widely by members of our guild usu-ally in the context of evaluating the alleged citations of New Testament texts in the Apostolic Fathers and Justin67 and in order to challenge the view that patristic citations of these texts were careless or the result of faulty memory68 Gathercole adduces Whittaker to qualify DeConickrsquos point (2006 21) that varia-tions of Thomas from the Synoptics are due to the vagaries of oral transmission

66 Stanleyrsquos (1990) finding in respect to citations of Homer in Strabo Longinus Heraclitusrsquos Homeric Allegories and Plutarch mirror those of Whittaker while there is general faithfulness to the source text the citations display an array of modifications that conform the citation to the grammatical requirements of the secondary author the omission of irrelevant or problematic details and the conflation of texts He finds however few instances of additions

67 See Hill 2004 68-69 Gregory and Tuckett 2005 esp 67 n 1368 Hill 2012 280 lsquoChristian writers inherited from Greco-Roman and from Jewish culture an

approach to literary borrowing which did not prize exact replication of the text in the new setting as its chief idealrsquo



Gathercole points out that they may also be due to intentional literary manipula-tion of written texts (p 217)

It is important however to take note of Whittakerrsquos full argument which is routinely ignored by those who cite him only on the topic of the manipulation of citations Whittaker argues that there are instances where the variation from the primary source in the secondary materials is due not to the alterations of the sec-ondary author but point to now-lost school traditions For example Alcinousrsquos paraphrase of Timaeus 42e7ndash43a2 in Didaskalikos 171-72 agrees with Galenrsquos citation and points to a lsquovanished tradition of commentary running parallel to the text of Plato but coinciding with that text only spasmodicallyrsquo (Whittaker 1989 82) Plotinus Origen and Gregoryrsquos citations of Parmenides (130c6) a$ hellip oi]on qric kai phlo_j kai r9uamppoj lsquothings hellip such as hair and mud and dirtrsquo reverse the latter two terms and omit the first again pointing to a commentary tradition current at Origenrsquos school The citation of Timaeus 42e7ndash43a2 by Philo and Alcinous adds the phrase pro_j w(rismenouj xroampnouj (Alcinous) or kaqrsquo w(rismenaj perioampdouj kairw~n (Philo) terms absent from Plato (1989 83) These variants says Whittaker lsquoare likely to belong not to the textual tradition of Plato but to the tradition of commentaryrsquo (1989 94)

What Whittaker suggests then is that Platonic materials come to Alcinous both through the textual transmission of Platonic works and through a paral-lel commentary tradition that has elaborated abbreviated and reframed Platonic sayings Similar observations can be made of the use of Homeric texts by later authors some of their citations may rely on the textual transmission of the epics but others rest on the rich Homeric commentary tradition that was already well developed in the Common Era

Applying Whittakerrsquos model to Thomas we must make some adjustments Citations of Plato and Homer in first- and second-century works derive proxi-mately or ultimately from the texts of Plato and Homer The situation with Thomas and the Synoptics is different for we do not in fact know the relative temporal rela-tion between Thomas and the Synoptics So is the variation due to Thomas know-ing the Synoptics and deliberately varying the wording for his own purposes Or is it due to Thomas relying on traditions of Jesusrsquo sayings whichmdashto use Whittakerrsquos wordsmdashlsquo[ran] parallel to the text of Plato but coincid[ed] with that text only spas-modicallyrsquo (1989 82) The fact that Thomas sometimes betrays knowledge of the redaction of the Synoptic authors and at other times appears to know autonomous even earlier versions of sayings that also appear in the Synoptics suggests that like Alcinous Thomas is the beneficiary of multiple sources of information

Thomas as a School Document

There is every reason to think that Thomas like Alcinous was composed for a school setting There are several indications of this First the incipitmdashlsquowhoever


Kloppenborg 229

finds the hermeneia [of these sayings] will not taste deathrsquomdashis a virtual adver-tisement of its setting in a context where study and reflection are practised Likewise saying 2 (POxy IV 6595-9) maps a process of intellectual discovery from seeking to finding being troubled being astonished ruling and rest

Secondly key notions in Thomas are the themes of lsquolabourrsquo and lsquotoilrsquo As Cameron notes the shepherd locates his lost sheep by lsquoaccomplishing his labourrsquo (n_tare36ise)69 and Thomas elsewhere describes an array of work-related activities choosing (76) making bread (96) practising an assassination (98) and taking pains (107) In an earlier essay Cameron added to this list in Thomasrsquos version of the Mustard seed (20) in contrast to the colourless description of the ground in Markrsquos parable of the Mustard or the lsquogardenrsquo of the Q version Thomasrsquos seed falls on ground that has been worked (etour_6wb70) (1996 esp 42-48) Gos Thom 109 stresses the toil that goes into the discovery of the hid-den treasure71 By contrast the woman of Gos Thom 97 loses what she has because lsquoshe had not known how to toilrsquo (e6ise) We can add that in Thomasrsquos parable of the Tenants (Gos Thom 65) the writer draws explicit attention to the labour of the tenants (4ina eunar_ 6wb) which according to Sevrin is a key part of Thomasrsquos symbolization of knowledge and its pursuit72 Gos Thom 58 epitomizes his interest in toil lsquoblessed is the person who has toiled (n_ta66ise) and found lifersquo

The privileging of labour recalls the popular chria usually attributed to Isocrates and elaborated in the progymnasmata that lsquoeducationrsquos root is bit-ter [but] its fruit is sweetrsquo73 Hermogenesrsquo elaboration exercise shows how this maxim was developed to valorize the toil (poampnoi) and hardship entailed in the process of learning

Then [elaborate] the rationale lsquoFor the greatest things are wont to succeed through toil (e0k poampnwn) and when successful bring pleasurersquo Then by contrast lsquoOrdinary things need no toil and in the end give no pleasure but things of importance are the oppositersquo Then from a comparison lsquoFor just as farmers need to reap fruits by working the soil (ponhsantoj peri thn gh=n) so also with speechesrsquo Then from an example lsquoDemosthenes by shutting himself up at home and working hard (polla_ moxqhsaj) later reaped the fruit in the form of crowns and testimonialsrsquo It is also possible to bring in a judgment for example Hesiod said [Opera et Dies 289] lsquoThe gods put sweat before virtuersquo and another poet says lsquoThe gods sell all good things

69 Cameron 2004 107 According to Crum 711 6ise translates such Greek works as koamppoj poampnoj moampxqoj paampqhma and kaampkwsij

70 r_6wb translates e0rgaampzesqai pragmateuampseqai and xra~sqai (Crum 1939 654)71 See Cameron 2008 106-10772 Sevrin 1989 esp 435-37 and see Kloppenborg 2006 25673 See Hock and OrsquoNeil 1986 325-26



to us for toilsrsquo [= Epicharmus frag 287 ed Kaibel] (Kennedy 2003 77 Hock and OrsquoNeil 1986 176-77)

What is especially interesting in the use of these terms is not only that Hermogenes and after him Aphthonius stressed them in their respective elaborations of the chria of Isocrates but that toil and labour became identity markers for schools This is especially clear in the fourth century with Libanius whose elaboration of the Isocrates chria is even longer than those of his predecessors74 As Paul Petit has shown references to lsquotoilsrsquo (poampnoi) are particularly common in Libaniusrsquos letters in connection with the characterization of his relationship with his own students75 Although toil and pain might be denigrated in elite circles the toil of learning was valorized in schools especially grammar and rhetorical schools

The particulars of Thomasrsquos characterization of the process of scholastic learn-ingmdashseeking puzzlement discoverymdashsuggest similarities to what I have else-where called lsquosapiential researchrsquo illustrated in Pythagoreanism (Kloppenborg 1987 300-306) The Pythagorean symbola were formulated in a deliberately obscure fashion (mh geuampesqai melanouamprwn lsquodo not eat the black-tailrsquo) precisely in order to encourage lsquoreading below the surfacersquo76 What is socially formative here is the inculcation of a group ethos devoted collectively to the penetration of obscure sayings where labour puzzlement and insight become the markers of membership Thomas displays the same interest in promoting lsquoresearchrsquo into the sayings of Jesus whether they appear to be transparent in their meaning or deliberately obscure77

74 Libanius Progymnasmata 3 (ed Foerster 1903ndash27 VIII 82-97)75 See Petit 1957 25-26 who notes the use of poampnoi in Libaniusrsquos comments on identifiable

students Andronicus (Ep 61) the two sons of Antiochus (Ep 1543 xrw~ntai toi=j peri tou_j loampgouj poampnoij e0nnoou=ntej) Euerthius (Ep 1201 a)namnhsqhti poampnwn te e0keinwn ou$j e0poampnhsa peri se) Gerontius (Ep 878) the sons of Julianus (Ep 1261) Letoius (Ep 1265) Maximus (Ep 1003) Polybios (Ep 1250) Priscus (Ep 1099) Romanus (Ep 1544 peri ga_r dh tou_j toiouamptouj ou)k an thnaampllwj a)nalwqeih poampnoj) and Solon (Ep 1244 Soamplwn de ou[toj e0geneto men an ou) xeirwn i1swj e0keinou toi=j au)toi=j poampnoij xrhsaampmenoj)

76 The Pythagorean symbolae are preserved in Plutarch De liberis educandis 12D-F Diogenes Laertius 817-20 Iamblichus De vita Pythagorica 24 sect108-109 and Iamblichus Protrepticus 106-108 Iamblichus De vita pythagorica 161 lsquoHe was accustomed to reveal manifold and complex truths to his pupils in a symbolic manner by means of very short sayingsrsquo Plutarch De liberis educandis 12E takes the prohibition of the black-tail as referring to spending too much time with persons of evil character

77 Goodacre (181-84) argues that the Synoptic-like sayings are present in Thomas in order to legitimate the more obscure sayings Were this the case one might expect the Synoptic-like sayings to be incorporated more or less unchanged But such is not the case they too have been manipulated as the examples above concerning lsquotoilrsquo and lsquolabourrsquo indicate All of the sayings whether seemingly banal or obscure are in the lsquohermeneutic of researchrsquo framed as though they contained a deeper meaning


Kloppenborg 231

Thirdly Thomas itself takes the form of a gnomological anthology collect-ing the sayings of Jesus for discussion and interpretation just as a host of other wise sayings were collected for use in schools the Kyriai doxai of Epicurus the Chrysē ēpē of Pythagoras the Sentences of Cleitarchus the Golden Words of Democritus and the later Byzantine gnomologia such as the Gnomologium Vaticanum78

Fourthly while the collection itself is framed with the conceit that Thomas is the most insightful student of Jesus indeed even achieving a standing on a par with Jesus (Gos Thom 13) Gos Thom 12 is clearly concerned with the issue of succession the lsquobestrsquo disciple of Jesus was clearly Thomas but James was the institutional successor Succession was a common topic in the history of the Academy the Stoa the Epicurean school and the Peripatetics79

Thomas and the Jesus Tradition

Just as Alcinous had access to a complex of sayings drawn directly from Plato and from the Platonic commentary tradition on Plato Thomas seems to have drawn on the Synoptics (or at least was influenced by redactional elements in Matthew and Luke) but also knew of forms of sayings that lack the obvious editorial features of Matthew Mark and Luke and thus are likely independent forms Moreover it is widely recognized that Thomas also had access to sayings that appear quite independently in such early collections as the Gospel of the Egyptians and the Gospel of the Hebrews80

Given the data from the comparison of Thomas with the Synoptics and other non-canonical documents we should perhaps imagine Thomas to have been composed like other school products drawing on the lsquoJesus traditionrsquo in its vari-ety of forms either selecting versions of the sayings that were congenial to its interestsmdashno doubt including those stressing lsquoseeking and findingrsquo and androg-ynymdashand adapting others in just the same way that we find commentators on Homer and Plato adapting their sources This allowed for a complex interplay of tropes that we can conclude are drawn from Synoptic redaction such as lsquothe

78 For details see Kloppenborg 1987 337-40 Erler 201379 A similar situation may have existed with succession in the Stoa after the death of Zeno

Cleanthes became the head of the school even though Chyrsippus and others were likely intellectually superior to him (I am grateful to Brad Inwood for information on Chrysippus see Inwood 2013)

80 Gos Thom 2 = GHeb 4a b (Clement Strom 29455 51496) Gos Thom 15 cf GEgy 1 Gos Thom 22 = GEgy (Clement Strom 31393 2 Clem 122) Gos Thom 37 = GEgy (Clement Strom 31392 Acts of Thomas 14 Dial Sav 84-85) Gos Thom 82 = Origen In Jer hom 33104-105 Gos Thom 99 = GEbi 5 (Epiphanius Haer 30145 2 Clem 911) Gos Thom 104 = GHeb (Jerome Adv Pelagianos 32) See the analysis of parallels to Thomasrsquos saying in DeConick 2006



kingdom of the heavensrsquo sayings taken from non-canonical gospels or traditions sayings from the Synoptics themselves and sayings that reflect pre-redactional versions of sayings that also appeared in the Synoptics81

References

Allberry Charles RC and Hugo Ibscher

1938 A Manichaean Psalm-Book (Manichaumlische Handschriften der Sammlung A Chester Beatty 2 Stuttgart W Kohlhammer)

Arnal William E

2005 lsquoThe Rhetoric of Social Construction Language and Society in the Gospel of Thomasrsquo in Willi Braun (ed) Rhetoric and Reality in Early Christianities (ESCJ 16 Waterloo Ont Wilfrid Laurier University Press) 27-47

2011 lsquoThe Synoptic Problem and the Historical Jesusrsquo in Paul Foster Andrew Gregory John S Kloppenborg and Joseph Verheyden (eds) New Studies in the Synoptic Problem Oxford Conference April 2008 Essays in Honour of Christopher M Tuckett (BETL 239 Leuven Peeters) 371-432

Aune David E

2002 lsquoAssessing the Historical Value of the Apocryphal Jesus Tradition A Cri-tique of Conflicting Methodologiesrsquo in Jens Schroumlter and Ralph Brucker (eds) Der historische Jesus Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwaumlrtigen Forschung (BZNW 114 Berlin Walter de Gruyter) 243-72

Black David Alan and David R Beck (eds)

2001 Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (Grand Rapids MI Baker Academic)

Boismard Marie-Eacutemile

1966 lsquoEacutevangile des Ebionites et problegraveme synoptique (Mc 12-6 et par)rsquo RB 73 321-52

Bovon Franccedilois

1996 Lrsquoeacutevangile selon saint Luc (951ndash1435) (CNT 3b Geneva Labor et Fides)

Brown Scott G

2005 Markrsquos Other Gospel Rethinking Morton Smithrsquos Controversial Discovery (Studies in Christianity and JudaismEacutetudes sur le christianisme et le juda-iumlsme 15 Waterloo Ont Wilfrid Laurier University Press)

2011 lsquoThe Longer Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problemrsquo in Paul Foster Andrew Gregory John S Kloppenborg and Joseph Verheyden (eds) New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (BETL 239 Leuven Peeters) 753-81

Burkett Delbert

2004 Rethinking the Gospel Sources I From Proto-Mark to Mark (New Testament Guides London TampT Clark International)

2009 Rethinking the Gospel Sources II The Unity and Plurality of Q (Atlanta Society of Biblical Literature)

81 I am most grateful to Bill Arnal Ian Brown and Ron Cameron for reading an earlier version of this paper providing helpful comments and criticisms and saving me from various errors


Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron

1996 lsquoMythmaking and Intertextuality in Early Christianityrsquo in Elizabeth Castelli and Hal Taussig (eds) Reimagining Christian Origins A Colloquium Hon-oring Burton L Mack (Valley Forge PA Trinity Press International) 37-50

2004 lsquoAncient Myths and Modern Theories of the Gospel of Thomas and Christian Originsrsquo in Ron Cameron and Merrill P Miller (eds) Redescribing Chris-tian Origins (Symposium Series 28 Atlanta Society of Biblical Literature) 89-108

2008 lsquoAn Occasion for Thoughtrsquo in Willi Braun and Russell T McCutcheon (eds) Introducing Religion Essays in Honor of Jonathan Z Smith London Equi-nox) 100-12

Carlston Charles E

1975 The Parables of the Triple Tradition (Philadelphia Fortress Press)

Crossan John Dominic

1973a In Parables The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New York Harper amp Row)

1973b lsquoThe Seed Parables of Jesusrsquo JBL 922 244-66

1998 lsquoThe Gospel of Peter and the Canonical Gospels Independence Dependence or Bothrsquo Forum 1n NS 7-51

Crum WE

1939 A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford Clarendon Press)

Damm Alex

2013 Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem Clarifying Markan Priority (BETL 252 Leuven Peeters)

Davies WD and Dale C Allison

1988ndash97 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Matthew (ICC Edinburgh TampT Clark)

DeConick April D

2002 lsquoThe Original Gospel of Thomasrsquo VC 662 167-99

2006 The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation with a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel (LNTS 287 London TampT Clark International)

Derrenbacker Robert A

2005 Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem (BETL 186 Leuven Peeters)

Deutsch Celia

1996 Lady Wisdom Jesus and the Sages Metaphor and Social Context in Mat-thewrsquos Gospel (Valley Forge PA Trinity Press International)

Dewey Arthur J

2004 lsquoldquoKeep Speaking until you Find helliprdquo Thomas and the School of Oral Mimesisrsquo in Ron Cameron and Merrill P Miller (eds) Redescribing Christian Origins (Symposium Series Atlanta Society of Biblical Litera-ture) 109-32



Dupont Jacques

1985 Eacutetudes sur les eacutevangiles synoptiques (ed Frans Neirynck BETL 70A-B Leuven Peeters and Leuven University Press)

Edwards James R

2002 lsquoThe Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Lukersquo NTS 484 568-92

Erler Michael

2013 lsquoPhilosophical Literature Genres ofrsquo in Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schnei-der (eds) Brillrsquos New Pauly (Leiden Brill Online)

Farrer Austin M

1955 lsquoOn Dispensing with Qrsquo in Dennis E Nineham (ed) Studies in the Gospels in Memory of RH Lightfoot (Oxford Basil Blackwell) 57-88

Foerster Richard (ed)

1903ndash27 [1963] Libanii Opera (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneri-ana Leipzig BG Teubner)

Foster Paul Andrew Gregory John S Kloppenborg and Joseph Verheyden (eds)

2011 New Studies in the Synoptic Problem Oxford Conference April 2008 Essays in Honour of Christopher M Tuckett (BETL 239 Leuven Peeters)

Fuchs Albert

2009 Defizite der Zweiquellentheorie (Frankfurt am Main Peter Lang)

Garrow Alan JP

2004 The Gospel of Matthewrsquos Dependence on the Didache (JSNTSup 254 Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press)

Gathercole Simon

2012 The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas Original Language and Influences (SNTSMS 151 Cambridge Cambridge University Press)

Goodacre Mark S

2002 The Case against Q Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg PA Trinity Press International)

2012 Thomas and the Gospels The Case for Thomasrsquos Familiarity with the Synop-tics (Grand Rapids MI Wm B Eerdmans)

Goodacre Mark S and Nicholas Perrin (eds)

2004 Questioning Q A Multidimensional Critique (London SPCK Downerrsquos Grove IL InterVarsity)

Green Joel B

1987 lsquoThe Gospel of Peter Source for a Pre-Canonical Passion Narrativersquo ZNW 783-4 293-301

Gregory Andrew

2005 lsquoPrior or Posterior The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Lukersquo NTS 513 344-60

Gregory Andrew and Christopher M Tuckett (eds)

2005 lsquoReflections on Method What Constitutes the Use of the Writings that Later Formed the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathersrsquo in Andrew Gregory


Kloppenborg 235

and Christopher M Tuckett (eds) The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford Oxford University Press) 61-82

Gundry Robert H

1993 Mark A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids MI Wm B Eerdmans)

Hill Charles E

2004 The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford Oxford University Press)

2012 lsquoldquoIn these Very Wordsrdquo Methods and Standard of Literary Borrowing in the Second Centuryrsquo in Charles E Hill and Michael J Kruger (eds) The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford Oxford University Press) 261-81

Hock Ronald F and Edward N OrsquoNeil

1986 The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric I The Progymnasmata (SBLTT 279 Atlanta Scholars Press)

Inwood Brad

2013 lsquoChrysippus [2]rsquo in Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider (eds) Brillrsquos New Pauly (Leiden Brill Online)

Jeremias Joachim

1972 The Parables of Jesus (rev edn based on 8th 1970 German edn trans SH Hooke London SCM Press New York Charles Scribnerrsquos Sons)

1980 Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums Redaktion und Tradition im Nicht-Markusstoff des dritten Evangeliums (Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht)

Kelber Werner H

1983 The Oral and the Written Gospel The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition Mark Paul and Q (Philadelphia Fortress Press)

Kennedy George A

2003 Progymnasmata Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Atlanta Society of Biblical Literature)

Kirk Alan

1994 lsquoExamining Priorities Another Look at the Gospel of Peterrsquos Relationship to the New Testament Gospelsrsquo NTS 404 572-95

Kloppenborg John S

1987 The Formation of Q Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity Philadelphia Fortress Press)

1988 Q Parallels Synopsis Critical Notes and Concordance (Foundations and Facets New Testament Sonoma CA Polebridge)

2000 Excavating Q The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis Fortress Press Edinburgh TampT Clark)

2003 lsquoOn Dispensing with Q Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthewrsquo NTS 492 210-36

2005 lsquoThe Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did 13bndash21rsquo in Huub van de Sandt (ed) The Didache and Matthew Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu (Assen Van Gorcum Minneapolis Fortress Press) 105-29



2006 The Tenants in the Vineyard Ideology Economics and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine (WUNT 195 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck)

Koester Helmut

1983 lsquoThree Thomas Parablesrsquo in AHB Logan and AJM Wedderburn (eds) The New Testament and Gnosis Essays in Honor of Robert McLaughlan Wil-son (Edinburgh TampT Clark) 195-203

Labahn Michael and Manfred Lang (eds)

2004 lsquoJohannes und die Synoptiker Positionen und Impulse seit 1990rsquo in Joumlrg Frey and Udo Schnelle (eds) Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perepektive (WUNT 175 Tuumlbingen JCB Mohr [Paul Siebeck]) 443-515

Lowe Malcolm

1982 lsquoFrom the Parable of the Vineyard to a Pre-Synoptic Sourcersquo NTS 28 257-65

MacDonald Dennis R

2012 Two Shipwrecked Gospels The Logoi of Jesus and Papiasrsquo Exposition of the Logia about the Lord (Early Christianity and its Literature 8 Atlanta Society of Biblical Literature)

MacKay Ian D

2004 Johnrsquos Relationship with Mark An Analysis of John 6 in the Light of Mark 6ndash8 (WUNT 2182 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck)

Marcus Joel

1986 The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (SBLDS 90 Atlanta Scholars Press)

2000ndash2009 Mark (AB 27-27A New York Doubleday)

Meier John P

1991 A Marginal Jew Rethinking the Historical Jesus I The Roots of the Problem and the Person (Anchor Bible Reference Library New York Doubleday)

2012 lsquoIs Lukersquos Version of the Parable of the Rich Fool Reflected in the Coptic Gospel of Thomasrsquo CBQ 743 528-47

Mournet Terence C

2005 Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency Variability and Stability in the Syn-optic Tradition and Q (WUNT 2195 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck)

Muumlller Dieter

1973 lsquoKingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of Godrsquo VC 27 266-76

Neville David J

2002 Markrsquos GospelmdashPrior or Posterior A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order (JSNTSup 222 London Sheffield Academic Press)

Patterson Stephen J

1991 lsquoPaul and the Jesus Tradition It is Time for Another Lookrsquo HTR 841 23-41

1993 The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus Thomas Christianity Social Radicalism and the Quest of the Historical Jesus (Foundations and Facets Reference series Sonoma CA Polebridge)


Kloppenborg 237

Peabody David L Lamar Cope and Allan J McNicol

2002 One Gospel from Two Markrsquos Use of Matthew and Luke (Harrisburg PA Trinity Press International)

Petit Paul

1957 Les eacutetudiants de Libanius (Eacutetudes prosopographiques 1 Paris Nouvelles Eacuteditions Latines)

Plisch Uwe-Karsten

2008 The Gospel of Thomas (trans Gesine Robinson Stuttgart Deutsche Bibelge-sellschaft)

Robbins Vernon K

1997 lsquoRhetorical Composition and Sources in the Gospel of Thomasrsquo in Society of Biblical Literature 1997 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 36 Atlanta Scholars Press) 86-114

Robinson James M and Christoph Heil

2001 lsquoThe Lilies of the Field Saying 36 of the Gospel of Thomas and Secondary Accretions in Q 1222b-3127rsquo NTS 47 1-25

Robinson James M Paul Hoffmann and John S Kloppenborg (eds)

2000 The Critical Edition of Q A Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke Mark and Thomas with English German and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Hermeneia Supplements Leuven Peeters Minneapolis For-tress Press)

Robinson James M and Helmut Koester

1971 Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia Fortress Press)

Roloff Juumlrgen

2005 Jesu Gleichnisse im Matthaumlusevangelium Ein Kommentar zu Mt 131-52 (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 73 Neukirchen-Vluyn Neukirchener Ver-lag)

Schillebeeckx Edward

1979 Jesus An Experiment in Christology (trans Hubert Hoskins New York Sea-bury)

Schonhoffer T Nicholas

2011 lsquoThe Relationship of the Gospel of Peter to the Canonical Gospels A Compo-sition Critical Argumentrsquo ETL 871 229-49

Schrage Wolfgang

1964 Das Verhaumlltnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienuumlbersetzungen zugleich ein Betrag zur gnost-ischen Synoptikerdeutung (BZNW 29 Berlin Alfred Toumlpelmann)

Schroumlter Jens

2012 lsquoDas Evangelium nach Thomas (Thomasevangelium [NHC II2 p 3210ndash5128] Oxyrhynchus-Papyri I 1 IV 654 und IV 655rsquo in Christoph Markschies and Jens Schroumlter (eds) Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Uumlbersetzung I Evangelien und Verwandtes (7th edn Tuumlbin-gen Mohr Siebeck) 483-526



Sellew Philip

1992 lsquoInterior Monologue as a Narrative Device in the Parables of Lukersquo JBL 1112 239-53

Sevrin Jean-Marie

1989 lsquoUn groupement de trois paraboles contre les richesses dans lrsquoeacutevangile selon Thomas EvTh 63 64 65rsquo in Jean Delorme (ed) Les paraboles eacutevangeacute-liques perspectives nouvelles (Paris Les Eacuteditions du Cerf) 425-39

Sieber John H

1966 lsquoA Redactional Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels with Regard to the Question of the Sources of the Gospel According to Thomasrsquo (PhD dissertation Clare-mont Graduate School California)

Siegert Folker

2004 Der Erstentwurf des Johannes Das urspruumlngliche judenchristlichen Johan-nesevangelium in deutscher Uumlbersetzungen vorgestellt (Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum Muumlnsteraner judaistische Studien 16 Muumlnster LIT)

Skehan Patrick W and Alexander A Di Lella

1987 The Wisdom of Ben Sira A New Translation with Notes (AB 39 Garden City NY Doubleday)

Snodgrass Klyne R

1983 The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (WUNT 7 Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck)

1990 lsquoThe Gospel of Thomas A Secondary Gospelrsquo SecCent 71 19-38

Stanley Christopher D

1990 lsquoPaul and Homer Greco-Roman Citation Practice in the First Century CErsquo NovT 321 48-78

Stein Robert H

2001 Studying the Synoptic Gospels Origin and Interpretation (2nd edn Grand Rapids MI Baker Academic)

Stillman Martha

1997 lsquoThe Gospel of Peter A Case for Oral-Only Dependencersquo ETL 731 114-20

Tuckett Christopher M

1988 lsquoThomas and the Synopticsrsquo NovT 302 132-57

1998 lsquoThe Gospel of Thomas Evidence for Jesusrsquo Nederlands Theologisch Tijd-schrift 521 17-32

2005a lsquoThe Didache and the Synoptics Once More A Response to Aaron Milavecrsquo JECS 134 509-18

2005b lsquoThe Didache and the Writings that Later Formed the New Testamentrsquo in Andrew Gregory and Christopher M Tuckett (eds) The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford Oxford University Press) 83-127

2013 lsquoThe Gospel of Thomas Gathercole and Goodacrersquo SJT 662 221-29


Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto

1993 lsquoldquoSecondary Oralityrdquo in the Gospel of Thomasrsquo Forum 93-4 305-29

2003 Thomas Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas (London TampT Clark)

Viviano Benedict T

2004 lsquoJohnrsquos Use of Matthew Beyond Tweakingrsquo RB 902 209-37

Whittaker John

1989 lsquoThe Value of Indirect Tradition in the Establishing of Greek Philosophical Texts or the Act of Misquotationrsquo in John N Grant (ed) Editing Greek and Latin Texts Papers Given at the Twenty-Third Annual Conference on Edito-rial Problems University of Toronto 6ndash7 November 1987 (New York AMS Press) 63-95

Williams Matthew C

2006 Two Gospels from One A Comprehensive Text-Critical Analysis of the Syn-optic Gospels (Grand Rapids MI Kregel Publications)

Wilson Robert McL

1960ndash61 lsquoThomas and the Synoptic Gospelsrsquo ExpTim 72 36-39

Zimmermann Ruben (ed)

2007 Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu in collaboration with Detlev Dormeyer Gabi Kern Annette Merz Christian Muumlnch and Enno E Popkes (Guumltersloh Guumltersloher Verlagshaus)

Zoumlckler Thomas

1999 Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 47 Leiden EJ Brill)


Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament

2014 Vol 36(3) 199 ndash239copy The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions sagepubcoukjournalsPermissionsnav

DOI 1011770142064X14520653jsntsagepubcom

A New Synoptic Problem Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole on Thomas

John S KloppenborgUniversity of Toronto Canada

AbstractRecent analyses of the Gospel of Thomas by Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole make only a partial and in several instances unconvincing case for Thomasrsquos knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels Other neglected data suggests that some portions of Thomas are substantially autonomous This calls for a more complex understanding of the composition of Thomas one that recognizes its construction as a lsquoschool textrsquo or lsquoanthologyrsquo drawing on multiple and parallel streams of the Jesus tradition

KeywordsSynoptic Problem Gospel of Thomas literary dependence non-canonical gospels gnomological literature ancient schools

The Synoptic Problem which had its origins in the late eighteenth century in the works of JJ Griesbach GE Lessing and JG Eichhorn has traditionally been restricted to the investigation of the literary relationships among the first three canonical Gospels1 In recent years however there has been not only renewed attention to exploring solutions to the Synoptic Problem beyond the

1 Throughout this paper I will use the following shorthands 2DH for Two Document (Source) Hypothesis FH for the Farrer (-Goulder) Hypothesis 2GH for the lsquoTwo Gospelrsquo (neo-Griesbach) Hypothesis

Corresponding authorJohn S Kloppenborg Department for the Study of Religion University of Toronto Jackman Humanities Bldg 170 St George Street Toronto M5R 2M8 CanadaEmail johnkloppenborgutorontoca

Article










Kloppenborg 201

















Kloppenborg 203


















Kloppenborg 205



Genre and Sequence















Kloppenborg 207





















Kloppenborg 209
















Kloppenborg 211


















Kloppenborg 213















Kloppenborg 215






















Kloppenborg 217




Counterindications




49 Above p 15








Kloppenborg 219




Q 1222-29 (IQP)52














Kloppenborg 221
















Kloppenborg 223











The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas











Kloppenborg 201

















Kloppenborg 203


















Kloppenborg 205



Genre and Sequence















Kloppenborg 207





















Kloppenborg 209
















Kloppenborg 211


















Kloppenborg 213















Kloppenborg 215






















Kloppenborg 217




Counterindications




49 Above p 15








Kloppenborg 219




Q 1222-29 (IQP)52














Kloppenborg 221
















Kloppenborg 223











The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas












Kloppenborg 203


















Kloppenborg 205



Genre and Sequence















Kloppenborg 207





















Kloppenborg 209
















Kloppenborg 211


















Kloppenborg 213















Kloppenborg 215






















Kloppenborg 217




Counterindications




49 Above p 15








Kloppenborg 219




Q 1222-29 (IQP)52














Kloppenborg 221
















Kloppenborg 223











The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas













Kloppenborg 205



Genre and Sequence















Kloppenborg 207





















Kloppenborg 209
















Kloppenborg 211


















Kloppenborg 213















Kloppenborg 215






















Kloppenborg 217




Counterindications




49 Above p 15








Kloppenborg 219




Q 1222-29 (IQP)52














Kloppenborg 221
















Kloppenborg 223











The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas












Kloppenborg 207





















Kloppenborg 209
















Kloppenborg 211


















Kloppenborg 213















Kloppenborg 215






















Kloppenborg 217




Counterindications




49 Above p 15








Kloppenborg 219




Q 1222-29 (IQP)52














Kloppenborg 221
















Kloppenborg 223











The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas














Kloppenborg 209
















Kloppenborg 211


















Kloppenborg 213















Kloppenborg 215






















Kloppenborg 217




Counterindications




49 Above p 15








Kloppenborg 219




Q 1222-29 (IQP)52














Kloppenborg 221
















Kloppenborg 223











The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas













Kloppenborg 211


















Kloppenborg 213















Kloppenborg 215






















Kloppenborg 217




Counterindications




49 Above p 15








Kloppenborg 219




Q 1222-29 (IQP)52














Kloppenborg 221
















Kloppenborg 223











The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas











Kloppenborg 213















Kloppenborg 215






















Kloppenborg 217




Counterindications




49 Above p 15








Kloppenborg 219




Q 1222-29 (IQP)52














Kloppenborg 221
















Kloppenborg 223











The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas











Kloppenborg 215






















Kloppenborg 217




Counterindications




49 Above p 15








Kloppenborg 219




Q 1222-29 (IQP)52














Kloppenborg 221
















Kloppenborg 223











The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas












Kloppenborg 217




Counterindications




49 Above p 15








Kloppenborg 219




Q 1222-29 (IQP)52














Kloppenborg 221
















Kloppenborg 223











The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas









Kloppenborg 219




Q 1222-29 (IQP)52














Kloppenborg 221
















Kloppenborg 223











The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas










Kloppenborg 221
















Kloppenborg 223











The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas










Kloppenborg 223











The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas





The Unity of Thomas









Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas



Kloppenborg 225











A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas





A New Model






Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas



Kloppenborg 227


















Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas











Kloppenborg 229

















Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas












Kloppenborg 231












References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas





References



Arnal William E



Aune David E






Bovon Franccedilois


Brown Scott G



Burkett Delbert





Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas



Kloppenborg 233

Cameron Ron




Carlston Charles E






Crum WE


Damm Alex




DeConick April D





Deutsch Celia


Dewey Arthur J




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas




Dupont Jacques


Edwards James R


Erler Michael


Farrer Austin M






Fuchs Albert


Garrow Alan JP


Gathercole Simon


Goodacre Mark S





Green Joel B


Gregory Andrew





Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas



Kloppenborg 235


Gundry Robert H


Hill Charles E





Inwood Brad


Jeremias Joachim



Kelber Werner H


Kennedy George A


Kirk Alan


Kloppenborg John S









Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas





Koester Helmut




Lowe Malcolm


MacDonald Dennis R


MacKay Ian D


Marcus Joel



Meier John P



Mournet Terence C


Muumlller Dieter


Neville David J


Patterson Stephen J




Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas



Kloppenborg 237



Petit Paul


Plisch Uwe-Karsten


Robbins Vernon K








Roloff Juumlrgen






Schrage Wolfgang


Schroumlter Jens




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas




Sellew Philip


Sevrin Jean-Marie


Sieber John H


Siegert Folker




Snodgrass Klyne R





Stein Robert H


Stillman Martha









Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas



Kloppenborg 239

Uro Risto



Viviano Benedict T


Whittaker John


Williams Matthew C


Wilson Robert McL




Zoumlckler Thomas



“A New Synoptic Problem: Goodacre and Gathercole on Thomas.” JSNT 36, no. 3...

Documents

Transcript of “A New Synoptic Problem: Goodacre and Gathercole on Thomas.” JSNT 36, no. 3...