target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_bb5a4451-5e1e-5352-9b50-ac14dfd2d605">4. See the October issues of volumes 109 (1990); 110 (1991); 111 (1992); 112 (1993); 113 (1994); 114 (1995); and 116 (1997).
5. Robinson, Hoffmann, and Kloppenborg, eds., The Critical Edition of Q. The text of the CEQ occasionally differs from the IQP text because the CEQ text is the result of deliberations by the managing editors in consultation with the earlier IQP decisions. Every variation between the CEQ and the IQP is identified in the apparatus of the CEQ.
6. See Johnson, Q 12:33–34.
7. Johnson, “Gospel of Thomas 76:3.”
8. Schrage, Das Verhältnis.
9. See Sieber, “Redactional Analysis”; Patterson, Gospel of Thomas; idem., “Gospel of Thomas.”
10. Recent examples of stratigraphical analysis include Arnal, “Rhetoric”; McLean, “On the Gospel of Thomas and Q”; and DeConick, Recovering. Some of these studies use recent work on the stratigraphy of Q as models for understanding the composition history of Thomas. Examples of recent analyses of the text as a whole include Asgeirsson, “Doublets and Strata”; Robbins, “Rhetorical Composition”; and Valantasis, Gospel of Thomas.
11. E.g., Haenchen, “Literatur zum Thomasevangelium”; Fallon and Cameron, “Gospel of Thomas”; Riley, “Gospel of Thomas in Recent Scholarship”; and Perrin, “Recent Trends.”
12. E.g., Cullmann, “Gospel of Thomas,” 434–35; Chilton, “Gospel according to Thomas,” 164; Fallon and Cameron, “Gospel of Thomas,” 4237; Hedrick, “Thomas and the Synoptics,” 56; Neller, “Diversity,” 18.
13. Uro, “Neither Here Nor There,” esp. 13–20, 30–31.
14. Ibid., 20. On the one hand, Thomas’ conclusion appears to be a redactional expansion. Uro suggests that GTh 113 comes from the same textual source as GTh 3:3a. On the other hand, Luke’s lack of a second “lo” (before “there”) suggests to Uro Lukan redaction. Also, the identity of the questioners differs in GTh 113 (disciples) and Luke 17:20–21 (Pharisees). Uro argues that if there were a change in the tradition, it would likely be from disciples to Pharisees, not vice versa.
15. Ibid., 30.
16. Uro, “‘Secondary Orality,’” esp. 317–20, 22–24. This article was revised as “Thomas and Oral Gospel Tradition.” Uro expands on the interaction of orality and textuality in Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context, 106–33.
17. For the concept and term, Uro cites Haenchen, “Literatur,” 178; Snodgrass, “The Gospel of Thomas,” 27–28; and Kelber, Oral and the Written Gospel, 197.
18. “Uro, “‘Secondary Orality,’” 20–22, 24.
19. Robinson, “Evaluation of Q 12:49–53,” 119–21.
20. Robinson and Heil, “Zeugnisse.”
21. Ibid., 36–39, 42–44. Robinson argues elsewhere that P. Oxy. 655 (GTh 36) preserves many details of this pericope that are more primitive than Q and can be used to reconstruct a pre-Q aphoristic core of sayings. See Robinson, “Pre-Q Text”; idem, “A Written Greek Sayings Cluster.” Robinson’s and Heil’s findings have not gone unchallenged. Jens Schröter addressed them in “Vorsynoptische Überlieferung.” Robinson and Heil responded with “Noch einmal.” Stanley E. Porter challenged the thesis in “P.Oxy. 655.” Robinson and Heil responded with “P.Oxy. 655 und Q”; and “The Lilies of the Field,” esp. 9–21. Robinson provides a thoroughgoing English response to Schröter in “A Pre-Canonical Greek Reading.” There, he also addresses the concerns of Robert H. Gundry, “Spinning the Lilies.” The most recent critique comes from Dirk Jongkind, “‘The Lilies of the Field’ Reconsidered.” All of the Robinson (and Heil) articles on this subject are contained in Robinson, The Sayings Gospel Q.
22. Robinson, “Pre-Q Text.”
23. Robinson, “Evaluation.”
24. Uro, “’Secondary Orality.’”
25. Uro, “Neither Here nor There”; Robinson and Heil, “Zeugnisse.”
26. Uro, ibid., 30.
27. Robinson and Heil, “Zeugnisse,” chart.
28. Riley, “Influence.”
29. Ibid., 230–31. On μεριστήϚ, see LSJSupp, 98b.
30. Riley, “Influence,” 231–32.
31. Ibid., 232.
32. Ibid., 233.
33. Ibid., 233–34.
34. On the one hand, knowledge of a particular community privileging this sayings tradition may have given the collection more authority in the eyes of the Lukan editor. On the other hand, unlike what Riley finds in his book Resurrection Reconsidered, a study which provides evidence of hermeneutical polemics between communities, Luke wouldn’t appear to have a particular theological bone to pick with the Thomas tradition, judging by the examples Riley gives in the HTR article (“Influence”).
35. See Robinson, “The Study of the Historical Jesus after Nag Hammadi,” esp. 50–53. Robinson sees GTh 3 as evidence for an early tradition perhaps taken up by Q. Patterson rules out dependence in either direction on the basis of lack of verbal correspondence (Patterson, Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 71–72). However, what he shows is that neither thesis is ultimately demonstrable on the basis of verbal comparison,
