has argued that the Gospels of John and Thomas represented separate and distinct communities that were in dialogue, but that were also in fundamental disagreement over aspects of christology and soteriology.62 That they were in dialogue is evident by the many similarities in cosmology, literary symbolism, and, especially, anthropology. The Gospel of John gives specific indications of the conflict, however, in its portrayal of Thomas as first doubter, then believer in the physical resurrection of Jesus. More specifically,
The Doubting Thomas pericope is evidence within the Gospel of John for the prior existence of the community of Thomas. The elements present and positions countered in the pericope cohere well with those in the Gospel of Thomas, and lead to the conclusion that the Gospel of Thomas itself was already at some stage of completion, either written or oral, and that its contents were known to the author of John, probably through verbal contact with members of this rival community. In addition, the Gospel of Thomas contains evidence of reciprocal debate with the community of John, although in a form which predates the Gospel.63
April D. De Conick agrees wholeheartedly with Riley that analysis of John reveals “a discourse between the Thomasine and Johannine Christians”—one that reflects a dispute over soteriology.64 However, she argues this for very different reasons. She has argued that the Gospel of John contains a polemic against Thomasine ascent mysticism.65 In John’s insistence that the disciples cannot follow Jesus where he goes, she sees an argument against Thomas’ call to mystical ascension to the place where Jesus is. She also refutes Riley’s understanding of John 20:24–29 as an argument for the fleshly resurrection of Jesus. She sees the exchange between Thomas and Jesus as an example of a common topos of identifying the hero through touch, and argues that John 20:29 “criticizes visionary experience in favor of faith.”66
Ismo Dunderberg questions whether the argument has been demonstrated that the Gospel of John was written in part as polemic against a Thomas community. He is not persuaded largely because the conflict exists on an implicit level in the two gospels.67 Dunderberg argues that there are problems with Riley’s thesis related to the inconsistent use of Judas/Thomas terminology in the Thomas tradition, the lack of a distinctive characterization of Thomas in John, and problems Dunderberg sees with Riley’s analysis of the Doubting Thomas pericope in John (John 20:24–29).68 While he is right that the case has not been proven, none of the problems noted are decisive.
Dunderberg extends his critique of the thesis of a literary relationship between Thomas and John in two more recent articles.69 In “Thomas’ I-Sayings and the Gospel of John,” he surveys the different theories of Thomas’ relationship to John and finds definitive evidence of a literary relationship lacking. Occasionally, he finds closer verbal or thematic parallels to John or Thomas in other literature.
In “Thomas and the Beloved Disciple,” Dunderberg argues that the disciple Thomas in the so-named gospel is not literarily related to the Beloved Disciple of John. Rather, both reflect the use of authorial fiction to gain authority for the text. Whereas late second century writers attached the names of disciples or early apostles to the gospels to give them authority, John and Thomas reflect a more primitive tradition of placing a key figure, even the author, into the narrative itself.70 Nevertheless, Dunderberg sees Thomas and John working in different ways and reflecting “a more broadly attested phenomenon in early Christianity.”
Apart from Dunderberg’s studies, what distinguishes research into the relationship between Thomas and John from Thomas-synoptic research is the broad and general recognition that the two texts/traditions are somehow related. For the most part, there is also recognition that this relationship is not simply one of direct literary influence. This latter point should again make us hesitate before making general claims concerning specific sayings of Jesus. Nevertheless, the aforementioned studies provide a number of possibilities for understanding the relationship or lack of relationship between the texts, and should be kept in mind when undertaking a saying-by-saying analysis of sayings of Jesus found in both Thomas and John.
Thomas and the Pauline Tradition
There has been relatively little discussion of connections between the Gospel of Thomas or a Thomasine tradition and the epistolary corpus of the New Testament. This is due in part to the fact that Thomas is a collection of sayings of Jesus and the bulk of its similarities to the New Testament canon are to the gospels, in part to the lack of consensus on the history and development of the Gospel of Thomas, and in part to the larger historical problem of assessing connections between gospel traditions and the Pauline tradition. The first problem should not deter scholarship. The second problem is, of course, an on-going discussion, but perhaps can be dealt with by a study of similarities between Thomas and the New Testament letters. It is the third issue that ought to be addressed here since it is relevant to a discussion of Thomasine and epistolary traditions. Therefore, the following survey of literature on possible connections between the Gospel of Thomas and the Pauline tradition is prefaced by the review of a more basic and ongoing discussion concerning Paul’s knowledge and use of sayings of Jesus.
Biblical scholarship is divided on how much acquaintance Paul had with traditions of sayings of Jesus.71 Several problems contribute to this disagreement. For one, Paul shows little interest in the earthly Jesus outside of his death, burial, and resurrection. For another, Paul never cites sayings of Jesus by name; only occasionally does he cite sayings as words of “the Lord.” These problems have not stopped many from searching for allusions to sayings of Jesus throughout the Pauline corpus. D. M. Stanley and John Pairman Brown are two good examples of this.72 Works like theirs have largely been rejected because of the extent and lack of defensibility of their claims.
Perhaps more important, where and how Paul uses different sayings of Jesus in the letters is not often discussed, as though the rhetorical context makes little difference. By “where and how” I am not referring to the common observation that apparent allusions are found grouped in isolated passages such as Romans 12–14, 1 Thessalonians 4–5, or 1 Corinthians 1–4. More specifically, I am referring to the type of epistolary material in which the supposed sayings are embedded. The exceptions—some have observed that possible sayings are never found in sections where Paul is expounding upon central theological issues, but are found rather in sections of “ethical paraenesis”—are usually stated in general terms, and still leave us with the question of why Paul almost never attributes sayings tradition material to Jesus.73 However, observing the context in which the material is used may help to explain how Paul is using it and why he does not cite Jesus, or even “the Lord,” when adapting material from sayings collections.
In three cases, there is little debate about Paul’s use of Jesus’ teaching. Paul cites traditions of Jesus’ teaching in 1 Cor 7:10–11 (divorce and remarriage), 9:14 (evangelists earning a living), and 11:23–25 (the Last/Lord’s Supper).74 In a fourth case, 1 Thess 4:15 (order of eschatological ascension), it appears that Paul is citing a saying of Jesus. In each of these cases, Paul uses teachings of Jesus as authoritative teaching within the rhetorical structure of his arguments and exhortations. To be more explicit, Paul is addressing particular problems in the Corinthian community in 1 Corinthians 5–7; 8–10; and 11:17–34. Sayings parallels (1 Cor 7:10–11; 9:14; 11:23–25)
