section of the Letter to the Colossians (Col 3:1–2). It seemed wise to investigate this version, along with the previously recognized version in James 5:2–3, particularly for their relevance to the issue of the transmission of sayings traditions in epistolary literature. Chapter 4 is a result of this investigation, with interesting implications for gospel studies. Chapters 5 and 6 summarize the results of preceding chapters and suggest several significant implications for New Testament studies.
Before I launch into the more detailed comparative studies of chapters 2–4, however, it seems prudent to introduce those studies by a brief and limited survey of the current state of research with regard to the Gospel of Thomas and the study of the New Testament and Christian origins. The remainder of this chapter will look at research into several specific areas: (1) contemporary studies of individual Thomasine sayings of Jesus and their connection, if any, to the synoptic sayings traditions; (2) studies of the relationship, if there is one, between the gospels of Thomas and John; and (3) an overview of what comparisons have been made between Thomas and epistolary literature.
Recent History of Studies in Thomas
With Wolfgang Schrage’s seminal 1964 study, Gospel of Thomas studies all but died off in Europe and North America.8 However, Thomas studies have experienced something of a renaissance in recent years for a couple of reasons. First, Schrage’s study has been reassessed and found to be methodologically lacking.9 These reassessments have led to a reopening of the issue of Thomas’ date, provenance, and relation to synoptic sayings of Jesus traditions. Second, combined with these reassessments has been a convergence of Thomas and Q studies, especially in the fields of redactional analysis and social reconstruction of communities behind texts. Because of the growing recognition of the fluidity of sayings traditions both in oral and written form, the history of the composition of Thomas has become an important area of study. In tracing the methods of composition of the text, scholarship is moving in at least two different directions: the search for redactional evidence of a stratigraphical development of the text on the one hand, and on the other, an analysis of the text, either rhetorical or hermeneutical, as it stands in the extant Coptic manuscript.10 The literature is growing fast, and several attempts have been made through the years to mark the status of Thomas scholarship.11 It is my intention to pick up from the most recent Forschungsberichten and see where scholarship stands in the tracing of the relative antiquity of the Thomas tradition, the development of the text over time, and the place of the non-canonical gospel in relation to the canon.
One idea that is beginning to find wider acceptance among scholars is the notion that the Gospel of Thomas was not composed in its entirety at any one place or time. Many studies seem to assume that it was, though there have been periodic calls to analyze the gospel one saying at a time.12 Indeed, many studies have been made of individual sayings or small groups of sayings through the years, but often with overt or covert presuppositions that predetermined the results. The primary assumption seemingly held by a broad spectrum of commentators is that the Gospel of Thomas is either a first-century, non-gnostic document embodying traditions that are independent of canonical traditions, or it is a mid- to late-second century, thoroughly gnostic document, directly or indirectly dependent upon the synoptic gospels for parallel material. But need this strict dichotomy be maintained? Is not some sapiential and philosophical literature somewhat “gnostic” in character, literature that predates the first century? Could not the traditions behind the Gospel of Thomas have been interpreted, and hence shaded, in a gnostic direction in the early first century, especially if they bore resemblance to Jewish wisdom literature? And need the text in its entirety have been written in one place and time? What sets apart some recent attempts to address the issue of Thomas’ relationship to canonical tradition on the basis of individual sayings is the openness to seeing broader possibilities concerning the history of the composition of the text. These studies should be examined carefully.
Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels
Though research into the Gospel of Thomas has expanded into many different directions in recent years, the issue of its place in the history of sayings of Jesus traditions continues to be debated. Several recent works suggest that some scholars are finally taking seriously the many previous calls to approach the Gospel of Thomas by analysis of one or two sayings at a time. The result of this approach is different studies, sometimes by the same scholars, that yield potentially divergent conclusions with regard to the tradition history of Thomas sayings.
Risto Uro, in his 1990 essay “Neither Here Nor There: Luke 17:20–21 and Related Sayings in Thomas, Mark, and Q,” finds that both GTh 113 and Luke 17:20–21 show signs of redaction, but that GTh 113 does not include any of the redactional elements of Luke 17:20–21.13 On the contrary, Uro finds two specific differences between the texts that shows GTh 113 to be the more primitive version of the sayings complex.14 Uro takes this evidence to suggest that GTh 113 and Luke 17:20–21 represent use of a common tradition.15 Uro does not go beyond this to suggest a date for the Thomas versions of the saying, and this is perhaps wise. The evidence, as Uro has laid it out, does not warrant such a conclusion.
In his 1993 Forum article, “‘Secondary Orality’ in the Gospel of Thomas? Logion 14 as a Test Case,” Uro discerns evidence of synoptic redaction in at least one of the sayings included in Thomas 14 (GTh 14:5; cf. Matt 5:11’s redaction of Mark 7:15).16 At the same time, however, the evidence is not substantial enough to suggest to Uro direct use of a synoptic gospel in the construction of the logion. In fact, he argues that the structure of GTh 14 and the order of the sayings therein rule out direct dependence on the synoptic gospels. In trying to adjudicate between these two conflicting results, Uro develops a theory of “secondary orality.”17 In other words, Uro argues that sayings of Jesus found in the canonical gospel texts often circulated independently after the gospels were written as isolated sayings of Jesus in oral transmission among Jesus communities. Uro’s thesis is an attempt to respect both the pervasive influence of oral tradition in the first century and the influence of the written gospels. While Uro does not come to any conclusions about the first two sayings of GTh 14 (he thinks Luke 10:8–9, circulating independently of the written gospel, may have been the source for GTh 14:4),18 the implication of his study would be that the brief chreia elaboration-like sayings cluster of GTh 14 is a construction that postdates the writing of the Gospel of Matthew (and maybe Luke).
While the results of Uro’s earlier study need not imply a written text of GTh 3 and 113 pre-dating the writing of the synoptics, they do imply that the composition of the Gospel of Thomas involved sources for the sayings of Jesus other than the synoptic gospels. The evidence of Luke’s redactional elements in Luke 17:20–21 and the lack of these elements in GTh 113 does not rule out Uro’s later theory of “secondary orality” for this particular saying of Jesus, but there is no evidence to support it. To summarize, Uro has provided evidence for Thomas’ use of oral tradition that ultimately goes back both to the synoptic gospels and to oral tradition that lies behind or is independent of the synoptic gospels.
James M. Robinson has likewise presented evidence that precludes any easy resolution regarding the history of traditions behind the Gospel of Thomas. In his evaluation of Q (Luke) 12:52 for the International Q Project, he argues that the Gospel of Thomas does not provide independent testimony of this saying being in Q.19 Rather, GTh 16:3 lacks elements
