The Words of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas

This book offers a detailed analysis of the Gospel of Thomas in its historic and literary context, providing a new understanding of the genesis of the Jesus tradition. Discovered in the 20th century, the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas is an important early text whose origins and place in the history of Christianity continue to be subjects of debate. Aiming to re-locate the Thomasine community in the wider context of early Christianity, this study considers the Gospel of Thomas as a bridge between the oral and literary phases of the Christian movement. It will therefore be useful for religion scholars working on Biblical studies, Coptic codices, gnosticism, and early Christianity.

David W. Kim is a visiting fellow at the School of History, Australian National University, Canberra, and an associate professor of the history of Christianity, Kookmin University, Seoul. His publications include Sacred Sites and Sacred Stories across Cultures: Transmission of Oral Tradition, Myth, and Religiosity (2020), Colonial Transformation and Asian Religions in Modern History (2018), Religious Encounters in Transcultural Society: Collision, Alteration, and Transmission (2017), Religious Transformation in Modern Asia: A Transnational Movement (2015), and Intercultural Transmission in the Medieval Mediterranean (2012). Gnostica Series Editors: Garry Trompf, University of Sydney, Australia Jason BeDuhn, Northern Arizona University, USA Jay Johnston, University of Sydney, Australia

Gnostica publishes the latest scholarship on esoteric movements, including the Gnostic, Hermetic, Manichaean, Theosophical, and related traditions. Contributions also include critical editions of texts, historical case studies, critical analyses, cross-cultural comparisons, and state-of-the-art surveys. https://www.routledge.com/religion/series/GNOSTICA Angels of Desire Esoteric Bodies, Aesthetics and Ethics Jay Johnston Histories of the Hidden God Concealment and Revelation in Western Gnostic, Esoteric, and Mystical Traditions Edited by April D. DeConick and Grant Adamson Contemporary Esotericism Edited by Egil Asprem and Kennet Granholm Sufism in the Secret History of Persia Milad Milani The Religion of the Peacock Angel The Yezidis and Their Spirit World Garnik S. Asatrian and Victoria Arakelova Ritual Embodiment in Modern Western Magic Becoming The Magician Damon Zacharias Lycourinos The Words of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas The Genesis of a Wisdom Tradition David W. Kim The Words of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas The Genesis of a Wisdom Tradition

David W. Kim First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 David W. Kim The right of David W. Kim to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book

ISBN: 978-0-367-62922-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-62924-3 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-11146-7 (ebk)

Typeset in Sabon by MPS Limited, Dehradun Contents

List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes viii Preface ix

Introduction 1

1 The transmission of a Thomas tradition 21

2 The Thomasine community 56

3 Hermeneutical debates over mystical Logia: Sapiential versus gnostic 113

4 The parables and kingdom language in Thomas 169

5 The female disciples in Thomas 224

Conclusion 247 Appendix 254 References 260 Index 297 List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes

Tables 1.1 A comparison between Mark and Thomas 27 1.2 A comparison between the Greek text and the Coptic text 42 2.1 Modern conclusions on Thomas 61 3.1 A comparison between Philosophumena (i.e., Haeres.) 5.7.20 and Logion 4 117 3.2 Surveys of the Sapiential Logia in Thomas 143 3.3 A comparison of Deuteronomy 30:10–5 and P. Oxy. 654.9–17 150 4.1 Logia in Thomas identified as parables 171 4.2 A comparison of mustard-seed parables 188 4.3 A comparison of weed parables 190 5.1 NHC II, 2.43:23–34 228 5.2 A comparison of Gos. Thom. Logion 61a with passages in Luke and Matthew 231

Figures 0.1 The hypothesis for the origin of the Thomas text 2 0.2 Thomas studies by year, 1897–2006 5 1.1 A generational diagram from Jesus to the fourth generation 32 2.1 The image of Jesus in the “I” Logia of Thomas 75 4.1 The stream of the harvest tradition 182 4.2 Three concepts of the kingdom language in Thomas 201

Boxes 2.1 NHC II, 2.34:25–30 68 Preface

The motive for this research goes back to my previous studies. One course that caught my attention during my master's studies was called The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and Early Christianity. By the end of the course I was fascinated by the birth of early Christianity and the question of how the early Christian movement evolved in the Graeco-Roman world of the first century. I discovered that there was not just one group but many Christian communities, and each expressed the Christian message in its own way. During the last century, Thomas studies emerged as one particularly interesting area of research, but in my opinion the texts of Thomas were not fully evaluated in terms of the Logia tradition. My personal concern has focused on examining “the secret sayings” of the Thomasine community. The primary aim of this book, therefore, is to re-locate the position of this early Christian group and its texts in the wider context of early Christianity. While completing this book, I struggled mentally and emotionally with the financial challenges that are common for anyone who undertakes difficult research. If there were disheartened moments of life in Sydney, Australia, with three children, they were uplifted by the constant love of my wife Tammy, who encouraged me to keep going until I walked out the end of the dark tunnel. Our parents on both sides also supported our family in many ways, as did many friends, colleagues, and supervisors. In particular, I would like to honor Professor Iain Gardner, who was my sincere doctoral supervisor, critical reader, and helpful adviser. He has watched over his student and provided great opportunities in an unknown academic world. Emeritus Professor Garry Trompf was my comforter and mentor, guiding me to clarify the key issues of this book. Professor Carole Cusack offered publication possibilities. After her firstproposal, I became passionate about publishing my articles. As a result, (somewhat different versions of) several sections of the book have been published in separate international journals. Nine sections have been officially presented at local, national, and international conferences, and I have published eight books and many book reviews. Dr. Edward Crangle kindly counseled on administrative issues, while Pat Skinner (to whom I did not have time to say goodbye because of her unexpected death), Dr. Ben Copper, Rev. Tom James, and x Preface Katie Curro proofread a work written in my second language and suggested ways to improve the quality of this volume. I also wish to pass on my special thanks to the libraries of the University of Sydney (Fisher), Moore College, Morling College, the United Theological College, Presbyterian Theological Centre, Emmanuel College, Southern Cross College, Wesley Institute, and the University of Queensland. Finally, I remain extremely grateful to two of the editors of Gnostica, Emeritus Professor Garry Trompf and Professor Jason BeDuhn (of Northern Arizona University), for their suggested emendations, clarifications, and proofing. David W. Kim Australian National University and Kookmin University, Seoul Introduction

Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (or “Thomas studies”) have had a long history in the modern world, ever since the discovery of the first portion of text in 1897. The complete text(s) of the Gospel (hereafter, Gos. Thom.) constituted one of the most intriguing discoveries of the 20th century, but they were not generally held in positive esteem until the early 1980s. It was then that innovative readers such as Helmut Koester,1 Harold Attridge,2 Bentley Layton,3 Thomas Lambdin,4 and Stephen Patterson5 introduced a change of attitude and method of approach, re-evaluating the authenticity of the Logia tradition from the perspectives of independence and creativity. Furthermore, a few researchers have convincingly demonstrated the shared features of Gos. Thom. with the Jesus tradition of Q, the reconstructed source of the sayings of Jesus used in the composition of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. This book will rethink the originality of Gos. Thom., examining the Thomasine Jesus tradition not as data for sketching the historical Jesus but as a compilation of community wisdom rendered into writing in the transitional period between the oral and literary phases of the Christian movement, as a stepping-stone or internal bridge.6 As the cano­ nical writer Luke puts it, “many [tradition-keepers] have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the firstwere eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Lk 1:1–2).7 The post-apostolic leader(s) of the Thomas community, which I shall place at “1.5 generations from Jesus,”8 transferred the oral tradition of the Jesus Logia from “memories of the disciple (Thomas)”9 into a written form of tradition as “semi-eyewitnesses of Jesus.” The chronological diagram in Figure 0.1 illustrates the hypothesis argued in what follows: that Gos. Thom. is a first-century text, written at the end of the relatively peaceful and prosperous period of primitive Christianity (45–60 CE) before the social darkness of the era of the Jewish War (66–70 CE). Answers to the questions of how Gos. Thom. stands within the Jesus tradition or where the Jesus tradition of Thomas could be fitted into early Christian history have typically been based on both historical and literary evidence. Scholars once argued that the Thomasine text was written 2 Introduction

The Hypothesis for the Origin of the Thomas Text

(Jewish War) 45 60 66-70 80 100 120 150 30 C.E. 200

350 64 While Christians were persecuted in Rome, 400 C.E. James (62 C.E.), Paul and Peter were martyred.

140 C.E. Historic - literary evidence Archaeological evidence

Figure 0.1 The hypothesis for the origin of the Thomas text. anywhere in the period between 80 and 400 CE.10 But this argument eventually faced problems in its attempt to establish the process of redac­ tion. The archaeological evidence suggested that while the Nag Hammadi Codex II containing the Gospel did not provide any evidence for an earlier date than around 350–400 CE, the paelographic date of a Greek fragment of Thomas (Pap. Oxy. 1) was generally accepted to be ca. 200 CE.11 Likewise, those who believed that Syria (Edessa) was the geographical origin of the text maintained that it was written during the middle of the second century CE.12 Unfortunately this approach was also not plausible, for the Greek version of the Thomas Gospel had already been used in the Christian communities of Egypt around 150 CE.13 Scholars investigating the relation of Gos. Thom. to the canonical Gospels then changed their attention from the material evidence to the literary characteristics of the text. The claim that it was written around 120 CE was based on the supposed influence of a gnostic source or worldview within the text. In arguing for such a gnostic influence, Robert Grant observed a simi­ larity between Thomas and John,14 which allowed others to posit a date between 80 and 100 CE and to re-consider the value and importance of the Jesus Logia in Thomas as potential products of the first century. However, if one simply compares the particular literary characteristics of Thomas with those other ancient writings, the origin of the text can also be traced to the period before 70–80 CE, on the understanding that the synoptic Gospels, much more clearly than Gos. Thom., were written after the Jewish War (66–70 CE).15 If one is to take into account these arguments regarding the text’s origin, though, it is problematic to suppose that the Thomas com­ munity would write a text of the Jesus tradition during socially insecure conditions, such as those that prevailed in the second half of the 60s CE. Following these steps of argument, we arrive at a plausible date for the composition of Gos. Thom. that places it within the living memory of dis­ ciples of Jesus. Introduction 3 On the other hand, if one looks closely at the sources of the canonical texts, one can hardly miss that Gos. Thom. is clearly familiar with the same central figure in terms of a sayings tradition that also informs other Gospels. With which branch of that tradition, then, is the Thomasine Logia collection most congruent or related? The Jesus tradition of Thomas that initiates the reader in οἱ λόγοι οἱ ἀπόκρυφοι οὓς ἐλάλησεν Ἰη(σου̑)ς ὁ ζῶν (“the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke”) will be shown in this book in its proper position, so that the value of Gos. Thom. should be seen in its relation to those other written traditions of Jesus, especially so-called Q.16 In brief, Gos. Thom. can be placed in a literary genre similar if not identical to Q. In this regard, Burton Mack in The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins describes the general features of the Q community: the Q people were directly related with the first “Jesus people,” the text of Q offers stories not of Jesus but of his teachings, the text of Q is not a Gospel of the Christian kind, the Q community existed at the time of Paul and was based in Jerusalem, and one cannot deny the existence of a school in the community of Q.17 If we compare Gos. Thom. to Q in the common condition of the movement they reflect, we cannot deny the similarity in other respects: the people of Thomas would belong to the first Jesus people, including one or more eyewitnesses; the main text of this group does not contribute de­ scriptive materials for the life of Jesus, but a pattern of teachings; the text contains the rules or regulations for their community; and the existence of a school or institute connected to Thomas cannot be ignored in relation to the process of community textualization that Gos. Thom. attests. The common characteristics of Thomas and Q underpin the argument of the originality of Gos. Thom. from the era of a pre-canonical Gospel tradition. This re­ construction of an independent Jesus tradition from the preserved Greek and Coptic texts of Gos. Thom. will be a challenging point of view for con­ servative readers who remain “doubting Thomases” (Jn 20:26–27); but if one accepts the appearance of Q between the oral tradition and the later literary Gospels, the days of 45–60 CE carry quite considerable weight as being the most likely historical period during which the initial text of Gos. Thom. was recorded from the orally traditionalized Logia of Jesus.18

Problems and solutions Other ancient materials of the Jesus tradition, besides the four Gospels that became canonical, have not generally enjoyed a good reputation in terms of historical reliability. That is, the study of these documents has frequently brought on controversy among scholars due to the limited amount of evi­ dence. The Thomas Gospel of the Jesus Logia has been placed in the category of “unconfirmed documentary traces” of the historical tradition of Jesus. A historical kernel to the Jesus tradition in Gos. Thom., as in substantial portions of other extra-canonical texts, has not been definitely identified. Nevertheless, since the text of Thomas in terms of literary genre is more 4 Introduction primitive than the synoptic Gospels, investigating the origin of Gos. Thom. based on the extant Greek and Coptic copies of the original document is very much worth reconsideration. This book will present a new dimension of “Thomas ideology” to create a space in which the Jesus tradition of Gos. Thom. can stand in line with the practical intentions and purposes of the Logiographer19 (the compiler of this Gospel’s written tradition of Jesus). This will be done through reading the entire text, thinking about each Logion and imagining the religious life of the Thomasine people behind the text. Such Logia research will focus not so much on the changes and development in the Jesus tradition but rather on the simplicity, individuality, independence, and uniqueness of the text for reconstructing a “genesis of Jesus tradition,” because of several un­ known teachings and activities of Jesus that set Thomas apart from the canonical Gospels of the Christian Bible.

The history of Thomasine scholarship20 What follows is a chronological survey of Thomasine scholarship, reflecting the past stream of Thomas studies in history so as to address the question, “What was the status of Thomas scholarship before the present day?” After the discovery of the secret Logia of Jesus in 1897, the fieldof Thomas studies became very popular among scholars; but matters were extremely compli­ cated at the start, with little sense of direction offered from the wind-blown desert of Oxyrhynchus. However, initially extravagant theories gave way to scholars’ challenging questions of when these ancient texts—containing substantial numbers of unknown sayings of Jesus and material for studying early Jewish-Christian communities and Christianity in the Graeco-Roman world—were substantiated. Over approximately 100 years of Thomas scholarship, as shown in Figure 0.2, we see that the research output on the subject, after two extreme peaks (1897–8 and 1959–62) with a trough be­ tween them, has gradually increased, thereby to some extent diminishing the “sand-wind” (confusion) of the field. According to Figure 0.2, 77 books and articles were published in 1897 and 1898, and 30 in 1904 and 1905, reflecting the serious interest of Biblical readers in the discovery of the three Greek papyri.22 After a mostly silent half century (between 1906 and 1956), almost 300 research studies are reported in the four years from 1959 through 1962, indicating the successful result of the translation of the complete text of the Sahidic Coptic Gos. Thom. in 1959.23 In particular, 103 studies were counted in the year following the first English translation (1960), showing the extreme speed at which the Thomas text spread among scholars of the world. The text began to diminish in popularity from about 1963. However, the declining passion of Thomas scholars, which continued through the first half of the 1970s, was restored with the publication and renewal of The Nag Hammadi Library in English, from 1977 to 1996.24 Interest in Thomas has increased continuously since Introduction 5

120 H

C 100 R A

E 80 S E R 60 F O

R 40 E B

M 20 U N 0 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 YEAR (1897 - 2006)

Figure 0.2 Thomas studies by year, 1897–2006. 21 then, as the literary independence of the Thomas texts from the canonical Gospels became the dominant view, and as readers adhering to this view adopted individual ideologies in their reading practices (1985–present).25 This historical stream of Thomasine scholarship can be divided into four developmental periods: the age of uncertainty (1897–1944), the age of identification (1945–76), the age of popularization for modern readers (1977–93), and the age of ideological readings (1994–present).

The age of uncertainty—the Logia Rumor (1897–1944) Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt’s 1897 discovery of a papyrus titled Sayings of Our Lord was, in fact, the discovery of a leaf of a papyrus book26 (known as the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1) measuring 15 cm by 9.7 cm,27 the origin of which unfortunately remained uncertain.28 Although the Greek papyrus was roughly evaluated as having been written during the period of 150–300 CE, it was not regarded as being part of a canonical Gospel. Instead, the first discovered papyrus was assumed to have originated from either the Gospel of the Egyptians or the Gospel According to the Hebrews.29 As the two papyrologists involved, Grenfell and Hunt did not support a gnostic view of the Greek papyrus. Furthermore, biblical scholars Walter Lock and William Sanday claimed that the papyrus was a copy of some pre- canonical collections of Jesus’ discourses, set aside by the writer of a Gospel (1897).30 Dutch scholar Charles George Griffinhoofe made a quite plausible case that a Jewish convert to the faith had collected these sayings from an­ other source, which became an individual tradition used by the four Gospels (1903).31 Regarding the intention of the unknown writer of the Logia,32 Bible scholar Charles Taylor insisted that the Logia compiler should be called the Logiographer (1899).33 6 Introduction The discovery of two more leaves of papyri at Oxyrhynchus that were si­ milar to the first one was another amazing achievement of Grenfell and Hunt among agrapha34 scholars (1903). The one Logia collection (today called Oxyrhynchus Papyri 654), containing 42 incomplete lines of a piece of a pa­ pyrus roll35 (244 mm long by 78 mm wide), was titled New Sayings of Jesus,36 and its derivation was specified as a terminus a quo of 140 CE.37 The second papyrus (known as Oxyrhynchus Papyri 655), containing five new Logia, was titled Fragment of a Lost Gospel (1904).38 Nevertheless, the result of the Oxyrhynchus discoveries was not to bring scholars into agreement but rather to scatter them in the field of agrapha. The discoverers themselves assumed that the Oxyrhynchus collection (Oxy. P. 1, 654, and 655) constituted works or citations of Matthew’s Logia, while Taylor supposed that the “authors or redactors had recourse for materials to the canonical Gospels” (1905).39 Further, classicist Hugh Evelyn-White denied the view that the works or comments of an Apostolic Father Papias (bishop of Hierapolis), containing some kind of Thomas sayings tradition, dealt with the canonical sayings of Jesus; he argued instead that Papias rarely regarded the synoptic Logia in terms of “Messianic prophecies” (1920), the dominant view at the time that was also held by Montague James (1924).40 This unclear perspective was challenged by Martin Dibelius, who asked whether the Oxyrhynchus sayings might be an “outside tradition” of Jesus (1936).41 However, the efforts of the early scho­ lars were not enough to draw an accurate identification of Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1, 654, and 655, even though the Oxyrhynchus Logia revealed variants of known and unknown sayings of Jesus from the canonical Gospels.

The age of identification—the problem of Thomas (1945–76) The discovery of the complete text of the Coptic Thomas (1945),42 dated to either the second half of the fourth century CE or the beginning of the fifth century, clearly solved the identity issue of the Greek Logia. The relation of the Oxyrhynchus papyri to the Coptic Gos. Thom. was explained by a French scholar, Henri-Charles Puech, in 1952–4.43 Antoine Guillaumont and his fellow translators (e.g., Puech, Gilles Quispel, Walter Till, and Yassa ‘Abd al-Masih) then opened the “closed door” by providing the first English version of the secret 114 Logia through which even non- professional readers could access the “Jesus sayings tradition” of Thomas (1959).44 Nonetheless, the Coptic scholars were then confronted with a major stumbling block: the “problem of Thomas,” or the question of the ultimate position of the Thomas text among the canonical Gospels. The credibility of the Nag Hammadi Thomas, especially in relation to the sy­ noptic Gospels, remained a mystery and was often scaled down in im­ portance among scholars of this period. Thomas’ dependence on the canonical traditions was the most dominant claim at the beginning of the 1960s, supported by Robert Grant and David Freedman (1960) and by Harvey McArthur (1960), who held that “while Introduction 7 more of its materials come from the synoptics than from John, its point of view (Thomas’ dependence) is more like that of John.”45 The disposition towards seeing the Greek and Coptic sayings of Jesus as “an earlier and more original version” than their canonical counterpart, again, became increasingly less probable according to Leon Wright and Joachim Jeremias in the 1950s. These two scholars, in relation to the transmission of the sayings tradition, believed that the Jesus of the Gos. Thom. had been taken over by the G/gnostics and re-edited to suit the secret purposes of their sect.46 However, a dependence on the canonical Gospels was not the only view of Thomas within the Jesus tradition. The opposite view, that the Thomas tradition of Jesus was independent from any other early Christian community or communities, was argued on the basis that readers of Thomas can observe whether or not the text was similar in form to Q. This argument, constructed by Robert Wilson in the early 1960s, assumed the possibility that “somewhere behind Thomas there may lie an independent tradition, similar to Q” (1960 and 1963).47 Wilson’s perspective on Thomas’ relationship to the pre-synoptic tradition was upheld by Claus- Hunno Hunzinger and Thomas Bauer, who assessed the authenticity of two Thomas parables: Logia 8 and 98 (reported on by Jeremias).48 The view of Simon Kistemaker that Thomas’ sayings do not “have a parallel in the canonical Gospels” took the independence of the Thomas text in yet another direction.49 Meanwhile, a neutral approach—that the Logia in the Thomas text simply contain the characters of both “dependence” and “independence”—challenged these main two hypotheses by asserting that while in many cases the literary form of the sayings of Jesus in the Thomas text are not far removed from the canonical tradition, the author (or editor) lacks those forms of expression of the synoptic and John tradition that was so much favored among the G/ gnostics. This was sustained in the case of the “beatitudes” that often occur in the Thomas texts—a favorite form among the G/gnostics ‒ by Bertil Gärtner (1961).50 Henry Turner supported the neutral approach, arguing that the Thomas text was of a Gospel origin and that some of those sayings were then shaped in a gnostic milieu for the purpose of its re-editor or copywriter.51 Although neither of them ignored the possibility that certain Logia could be expressions of a Gospel tradition outside the New Testament, they also did not attempt to go further into the field of “oral” and “written” traditions to assess the literary Gattung of Thomas sayings. The three conclusions put forward by scholars for the ultimate position of Thomas eventually resulted in dis­ regarding the fact that the (original) Thomas Gospel constituted an earlier tradition than (Coptic) Thomas itself. In addition, Hugh Montefiore, through a “comparison of the parables of the Thomas Gospel and of the synoptic Gospels,” proposed a possible origin of the Thomas sayings in agrapha52 or Judaeo-Christian sources prior to any Gospel composition.53 8 Introduction The age of popularization for modern readers (1977–93) Although there were many complicated issues in the publishing process,54 James M. Robinson’s work in publishing the Gos. Thom, and presenting it as a significant text in The Nag Hammadi Library in English (1977), brought it to a much wider readership, and Lambdin used modern linguistic methods to make the English version friendlier to its “present-day” readers.55 As a result, Lambdin’s English text of Thomas, together with Layton’s ten years later,56 became the best examples among other new translations. The researchers of Thomas texts, on the basis of these two versions, produced new thoughts and theories on other hidden challenges of Thomas’ Jesus. In 1989 a wealth of new ideas and a new movement of Thomas studies were initiated by Helmut Koester.57 Although Quispel had early compared the similarity of the Syrian apologist Tatian’s Diatessaron to Gos. Thom. (1975),58 various theories about the language of Gos. Thom., its date, authorship, and relationship with the synoptic Gospels and Q, the influence of the G/gnostics, and certain crucial words were now extended to other areas. Examples include an examination of phrases be­ ginning with “Jesus said” (“Jesus says” by Hans-Gebhard Bethge)59; comparisons between fragments of the Greek text and the Coptic text, and between Gos. Thom. and other relevant ancient texts (e.g., the Gospel of the Egyptians); and probing Gnostic insights into the text and studying its topical views (e.g., “the Kingdom of God”). Ron Cameron’s proposition that the Thomas sayings were in their form based on “smaller collected sequences of sayings” was already known, and had been criticized in the Lambdin translation.60 The 1980 English rendering of Thomas by David Cartlidge, we should note—which contained four unique divisions as well as a “prologue” and an “added saying”—was different from most of the other translations in certain major features.61 Cartlidge’s style was not only free from the quaintness and archaisms of an ancient Christian text but also avoided over-literalism and the tendency to retain Coptic sentence structure, as in the case of ⲧⲏⲣϥ, “all things” (instead of “all,” which is not an exact English translation). Marvin Meyer, one of Robinson’s students, also created a “new generation” translation with another view on how the text was constituted. He contended that the Thomas text was collected and edited as a part of the early church’s process of reworking the sayings of Jesus; and this is somewhat assumed in his new translation and commentary of 1986.62 The several editions of the Thomas text, in each English version, ultimately became the most interesting items among scholars in terms of proving, improving, or disproving the previously discovered facts in the Thomas study of the Jesus tradition. Further, when biblical references for each saying became accessible through Craig Evans, Robert Webb, and Richard Wiebe (1993),63 John Dominic Crossan was able to establish analytical data about Thomas with Introduction 9 other synoptic traditions of Jesus in the familiar way.64 The “Biblical parallels and echoes in Thomas” and comparable “parables in Thomas” by William Morrice were also added to the numerous databases that reflectthe literary closeness of Thomas to Matthew and Luke.65 At the same time, William Stroker was comparing the Thomas text with other extra-canonical sayings of Jesus,66 putting them at the same level. Furthermore, after Miller’s “commentated text” of Thomas on other Gospels,67 members of the renowned Jesus Seminar actually came to consider Gos. Thom. as the fifth Gospel of the New Testament (by 1993).68 In their search for the “authentic Words of Jesus,” the Thomas Gospel was accepted on an equal level with canonical Gospels, clearly indicating how much the Thomas text had become recognized among scholars for its authenticity and influence.

The age of ideological readings (1994–present) During the last two and half decades, Thomas scholars have analyzed various literary and psychological aspects of the ancient texts. This new reading tendency, based on “reader-response criticism,” moved readers into new dimensions of “Thomas ideology.”69 Before the last version of The Nag Hammadi Library in English (1996) there were many new translations published with individual commentaries, indirectly demonstrating the fact that Thomas scholars were gradually unlocking the textual secrets of “the Thomas thought of Jesus” in individual and creative ways. Prior to this new ideological approach, Thirty Essays on the Gospel of Thomas by Hugh McGregor Ross had already presented various valuable ideas.70 Ross’ in­ tention, like Young Ok Kim’s earlier,71 was to offer an open-minded space in which other readers could fulfilltheir own ideology of the Thomas Jesus. This Thomas ideology was more specified in Ian Wilson’s approach to the authenticity of the Thomas text.72 Wilson’s treatment of the unknown words of Jesus73 deserves consideration for its simplicity and directness. Stevan L. Davies, at a quite early stage (in 1983), demonstrated a new way of reading with respect to the meaning of “image,” “light,” and “baptism,” suggesting that wisdom (sophia) sayings are one of the basic categories of Logia in the Thomas text.74 The parables of Thomas were also investigated as part of the research into finding a Jesus tradition, but this research suffered from confusion over the transmission of the Thomas text.75 In the 1990s, Keith Elliott accepted the inter-relationship between the sayings in Thomas and the oral tradition of orthodox Christianity on the condition that such mystical terms are not an anachronism from the second century CE, but followed the view that the style of the Cynics76 affected the original Thomas text.77 Meyer, in terms of “the Kingdom of God,” had by this time assumed that the Cynics influenced the area of Galilee in the first century CE, as the Kingdom language style was so prominent in the Jewish sophia literature of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach.78 A further question—“how might 10 Introduction Thomas believers and community fit into the development of early Christianity?”—was faced by Patterson, who considered Thomas a witness to an essentially autonomous tradition, even though the connecting clues between the Thomas and Jesus traditions had not been discovered.79 The diversity and individuality of Thomas ideology have continuously become more sophisticated in modern scholarship since the 1990s, as more apocryphal writings of Jesus have been published by scholars.80 Martha Lee Turner was the firstto associate some materials of the Gospel of Philip with the Thomas tradition. Verses of Philip such as 64:9–12 and 67:30–37 seemed related to Logia 18–19 and 22.81 The opinion of Gregory Riley that “the communities of John and Thomas were in close spiritual proximity to one another”82 was highly controversial in its creativity—in particular, in its case study of “the Resurrection of Jesus” and “the picture of doubting Thomas.” Riley’s ideas were somewhat reflected in Richard Valantasis’ view that the Thomas Gospel was an example of one variety of authentic Christianity in the same period as the Gospel of John and the letters of Ignatius.83 That the originality of Thomas stemmed not from gnostic traditions but from Jewish mystical and Hermetic origins was another reader’s ideological view. April DeConick insisted on the notion of “Thomas mystical soter­ iology,” that Thomas believers come from the “Light” and as “the chosen children of the Father” are pure, but others must necessarily purify them­ selves in order to ascend into the Kingdom.84 Concurrently, in the 1990s, Patterson’s study of ancient cultures and peoples of the Mediterranean described a cultural and literary custom of the firstcentury CE in which the sayings collection was followed by a common traditional writing style.85 This was concordant with Crossan’s view that the Thomas Jesus was seen as a sage who taught asceticism, celibacy, and the leaving of one’s worldly life behind, returning “to the primordial moment (or the image of the first human beings) of creation.”86 Risto Uro’s ideology of early Christianity in Thomas also began a new wave in the field of Thomas studies, even though the result was not sa­ tisfactory in its complexity. As the role of oral and written traditions had hardly been treated as a factor in the composition of the Thomas Gospel (except in the case of German reader Hans-Martin Schenke87), Uro at­ tempted to investigate the Thomas texts through “I-sayings” and attitudes towards women followers of Jesus.88 In contrast, Davies’ method, which focused on the prologue of the texts, encouraged a self-reading process that allowed the text itself to tell “the purpose the Gos. Thom. sets out for itself.”89 In the same reading style, Philip Jenkins reported on the radical, feminist, and post-modern positions of the Thomas texts, attracting a great deal of public attention, despite his belief that the Thomas texts had no reliable new information about Jesus or the early church.90 Following Quispel’s comparative study of the Diatessaron and Thomas back in 1975,91 the “third possibility (the neutral thought)” of a close Introduction 11 relationship between the Thomas text and the synoptics was again sug­ gested for the problem of Thomas92 by Nicholas Perrin, who at the turn of the millennium came to hold that the Thomas text possessed an “indirect dependence” on the synoptic texts (2002).93 On the other hand, Elaine Pagels looked at the literarily unexpected style of the Thomas text in re­ lation to the Gospel of John, concluding optimistically that ancient readers of Thomas would have had quite distinctive ways of understanding the Jesus tradition that was passed down to them (2003).94 Pagels’ reading method was, in a way, developing the one used in a previous study by Beate Blatz and Wolf-Peter Funk, for whom the selected ideology of Jesus in the Thomasine tradition became a major source for the Manichaeans.95 The Thomasine Logia 5, 17, 23, 37, 38, 40, 44, 57, 77, and 96–98 show up in Manichaean writings, including the Gospel of Mani, Manichaean Psalm 278, the Manichaean Kephalaia, and Turfan fragments (M551, M 763, M789, and M18220).96 Ultimately, it is right to imagine that the sand-winds of Oxyrhynchus and Nag Hammadi have not been settled as yet. This historical survey of Thomas studies suggests that not a few issues remain to be analyzed and resolved, and also that there are new areas through which the Thomas text needs to be further examined in order to re-position the present “address” or “level” of Thomas scholarship. One of the major issues in the problem of Thomas during the 1960s and '70s was that scholars failed to clarify the original provenance of the Thomas text, although they then tended to argue for Thomas’ independence from the synoptic Gospels. On the matter of Gnostic thought, Thomas scholars represented several points of view, based only on the Coptic text of Thomas, since the complete text of Thomas existed in Coptic only. Still, the Greek texts (P. Oxy. 1, 654, and 655), recognized as older than the Coptic, offered an open space to readers. What if the Thomas text had been written before the spread of Gnostic influences in the land of Palestine, during the first century CE? Koester and other researchers (including Joseph Fitzmyer)97 who argued for Thomas’ in­ dependence maintained that it had been written during the second half of the first century CE, but few scholars retained this view, because there was not enough supporting evidence. The ideological reading practices of the Thomas text during the last decade, however, provided some pointers to its origin. The problem of the transmission of the Jesus tradition was soon addressed by readers concerned with ideological questions, when the early Jewish-Christian communities were considered in the context of the culture and customs of the first century CE. The unknown identity of Thomas in relation to the Jesus tradition was also an issue for ideological readers. There was no ongoing concern about the connections between the oral and written traditions for the changes in the Jesus tradition, which were initially analyzed by DeConick in her “sister volumes” (of 2005 and 2006), where she argued that the text of Thomas experienced four different stages of literary development (so-called accretions) and that the Kernel Logia of 12 Introduction Jesus were assumed to be written in the early middle of the first century CE.98 From that time until 2020, more than 50 sources explored the mystical “black-hole” (sphere) of Thomas studies.99 Pokorný offered an­ other fresh interpretation of the Greek and Coptic texts (2011). Gathercole argued the irrelevance of Thomas from a Semitic origin for the view of a Greek Vorlage (2012).100 Thomas (Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2) was even embroiled in the hot debate (around 2013–8) over the mystical identity of the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.101 As a result, many scholars in the last century and the early 21st century were chasing uncertain traces of the Thomas text, without putting different research methods together to place the secret Logia of Jesus. So if one wants to re-open the text again with confidence, then the most likely causes of the transition of the Jesus tradition, the co­ herence between the oral and written traditions, and the unique Gattungen (sayings clusters) of the Thomas text should be combined in terms of the characteristics of the Thomas literature before observing each individual Logion.

Methodological considerations The Thomas collection of the sayings of Jesus will be analyzed in a historico-literary context, since the dual method logically improves the weaknesses of each separate method in reconstructing the provenance of the Thomasine Gospel for the Jesus tradition. The primary function of the literary approach is to examine the literary ingredients of the Jesus Logia in comparison with the canonical Gospels and non-canonical Gospels and the written source called Q; it will reveal how the early oral traditions of Jesus were used and transmitted in the community of Thomas. Likewise, distin­ guishing combined or separate accounts of Jesus, recognizing unique ter­ minologies, definingdivergent viewpoints, and tracing normative motifs are also useful parts of the literary method for answering questions of how the Thomasine Logia were collected, put into writing, further edited, and re­ peatedly revised. While it is possible that the framework of each Logion was not composed by the disciple of Jesus, the literary approach will indicate the purpose or achievement of the Logiographer in the unique structure of the Thomas text, adopting the principle that any author or editor of a book in general has certain goals for the particular groups or communities in view and keeps regular rules in arranging and composing his/her materials for the intended readers. In particular, the form-critical method is used in the first section of Chapter 4, while in the second section of Chapter 4 and in Chapter 5 the method of reader-response criticism will be applied to uncover the religio- cultural concept of the “Kingdom language” and the community under­ standing of the female disciples in Thomas.102 The comparative study of Gos. Thom. with Q, the synoptics, John, the Apostolic Fathers, and other early Christian texts, and evidence of non-Christian Jews, will allow us to Introduction 13 ascertain the way in which the Logiographer expressed his/her thoughts about the Jesus tradition. The limitations of the literary approach, however, need to be offset by considering the historical context of Thomas as it relates to the social de­ velopment of early Jewish-Christian life. Identifying well-known historical events that externally challenged the Thomas Christian community (such as persecution, the Jewish revolt in 66, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70), and the internal social dynamics of the community as its leadership decided to transmit the Jesus tradition in a different form from the oral form of tradition, can make up for the deficiencies of the literary approach, be­ cause the literary method does not capture all of the factors that come into play in the production of texts. The historical method—revealing the si­ tuation, time, and place of the Thomas text—helps to create a chronological sequence that is a temporal scaffolding, depicting how certain we can be about “what actually happened” in terms of social, political, economic, religious, and geographical environments. Regarding the community of Thomas, several secondary documents, as well as interpretations of his­ torical developments, will clarify the obscure historical background of the community in the Graeco-Roman world, providing further insights by which to define the ultimate position of the Jesus Logia of Thomas among early Christian gospel literature.

An outline of chapters This book is structured around a reading perspective in which each Logion (114 in all) of Gos. Thom. is approached equally and interpreted logically to redefine the genesis of the Jesus tradition in the history of early Christianity. Its five chapters will demonstrate particular terms, topics, is­ sues, and concerns of Gos. Thom. based on the working hypothesis that the original text, during the time of a generational transition, was creatively written out of oral tradition and casual notes once possessed by Thomas, the disciple of Jesus. Each chapter will provide crucial clues to redress what I regard as the wrong image of this text that has prevailed in scholarship to date. Chapter 1 will investigate the involvement of Gos. Thom. in the transi­ tional process of the oral Logia tradition on the theory that if it is in­ dependent of other literary gospels, the text should contain some traces of the oral tradition. The chapter will illustrate the evidence for this compo­ sitional independence, and draw the implications of that conclusion for the role of the text in the establishment and maintenance of a Thomasine community identity relatively early in the development of Christianity, prior to the time when the canonical Gospels emerged in the second half of the first century CE. Chapter 2 will, in consequence, draw a detailed picture of the Thomasine group behind the text as one of the primitive Christian communities. At what 14 Introduction time did the people of Thomas concern themselves with the subsistence or future of the Jesus movement? The socio-religious background under the imperial persecution of Roman authorities and the oppression of the Jewish people externally incited responses aimed at the security of the community, initially based in Jerusalem or at least close by. The I-sayings tradition in Gos. Thom. reflects the Jesus portrait through which the Logiographer re­ presented an image of the ⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ (Savior) for the Thomasine community. And the textual evidence for the rules of the community will support the independence of the community movement among the fraternities of early Christianity. Chapter 3 will mention the three major types of confusion Thomas readers often confront when they read the text and the secondary materials about it. Symbolic terms and concepts will be reviewed, such as “dualism,” “image,” “light,” “vision,” “cosmos,” and “becoming one (and male),” that have made scholars suspect a general gnostic tone or specific Gnostic influences. I shall argue that these symbolic elements derive from Jewish sophia tradition rather than from a gnosis tradition. The strong influence of the Hellenized Jewish sapiential tradition will underpin the argument that the (Greek) text of Gos. Thom. must have been written before the appearance of the Gnostic movement in the motherland of the Jews. In this regard, Chapter 4 will examine the various types of the parabolic Logia. In particular, the Kingdom language in Gos. Thom. will show the intention of the Logiographer, who carefully quoted the Jewish sapiential term ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲟ (kingdom) for the three significant teachings of the Thomasine community, namely: the kingdom means the community of Thomas itself; the kingdom presents the process of canonization; and the kingdom symbolizes the Jesus of Thomas. Finally, in Chapter 5, through a study of the female characters (Salome and Mary) demonstrating the equality of female discipleship with male disciples, I will confirm that the Logia tradition not only should be char­ acterized as an “anti-canonical and feminine approach” but also in­ trinsically functions as an inter-bridge tradition between oral traditions and synoptic traditions. The hypothesis of the Thomasine Logia, in such a transformation of communication media, is grounded in the notion that there was a certain period in which the oral and written traditions of Jesus co-existed, before the canonical Gospels came to be written (70–100 CE).

Notes 1 H. Koester, “The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century.” In Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Texts and Transmission, ed. W.L. Petersen (Notre Dame, Ind., 1989), 124–126. 2 H.W. Attridge, “Appendix: The Greek Fragments.” In The Coptic Gnostic Library; Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7 (with XII,2, BRIT. LIB. OR. 4926[1], and P.OXY. 1, 654, 655), vol. 1 Gospel According to Thomas, Gospel According to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons, and Indexes, ed. B. Layton: (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 125–128; Attridge, “‘Seeking’ and ‘Asking’ in Q, Thomas, and John.” In From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson, eds. J.M. Asgeirsson, K. De Troyer, and M.W. Meyer (Louvain, 2000), 295–302. 3 B. Layton (ed. and trans.), The Gnostic Scriptures (London [SCM] 1983 and Garden City. NY [Anchor Bible Ser.], 1987), 98–112; B. Layton, The Coptic Gnostic Library (Leiden, 1989), 96–99. 4 T.O. Lambdin, “The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2).” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. J.M. Robinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 124–138. 5 S.J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma, Ca., 1993); S.J. Patterson, “Wisdom in Q and Thomas.” In In Search of Wisdom, eds. L.G. Perdue, B.B. Scott, and W.J. Wiseman (Louisville, Kent., 1993), 187–221; S. Patterson, J.M. Robinson, and H.-G. Bethge, The Fifth Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas Comes of Age (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998). 6 In Korean the useful phrase Jing Geum Dari applies here, symbolizing a source that connects two different places (traditions) at the beginning of a permanent conjunction. 7 The author of the Gospel of Luke, at the beginning of his writing to Theophilus, clearly mentions that there were some sources written not by the disciples of Jesus but by the people or leaders of Christian communities, which he himself used for his own gospel: “Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you” (Lk 1:3). At least three stages of transmission may be inferred from this passage. 8 These people would have been just the ‘little children’ (who themselves cannot remember much about Jesus) during the time of Jesus. Many kingdom parables of Jesus in the synoptic gospels make reference to ‘the little children,’ indicating the possibility that the Jesus movement, in a socio-religious way, read the significance of the 1.5 generation back into the Jesus story. 9 Jacques Hervieux attempts to argue that the oral tradition of the Jesus Logia was initiated from the memories of his disciples and lasted more than three centuries in some areas, even if the beginning of the end of the oral tradition came with the deaths of the first eyewitnesses; see his What are Apocryphal Gospels? (London: Burns & Oates, 1960), 120–122. 10 R.M. Grant, J. McArthur, N.T. Wright, and J. Jeremias are the key scholars in the 1960s positing a post-canonical view on the origin of Thomas. Their ar­ guments will be described under 'The History of Thomasine Scholarship.’ 11 Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, 98; idem, Coptic Gospel Library, 96–99. 12 B. Blatz, “The Coptic Gospel of Thomas.” In New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings (ed. W. Schneemelcher, trans. R.McL. Wilson) (Cambridge, etc., 1991), 109–116. 13 E.M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism (London, 1973), 89–90; cf. H. Koester, Introd. to “The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2).” In The Coptic Gnostic Library; Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7, op. cit., 124–126. 14 See R.M. Grant and D.N. Freedman (trans. and comm.), The Secret Sayings of Jesus according to the Gospel of Thomas (London, 1960); cf. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (London, 1971). 15 The possibility that the Gospel of Mark could have been written before 70 CE is an exceptional case for the synoptic gospels. A. von Harnack’s suggested dating to ca. 65–70 CE still remains unconfirmed, but see J.A.T. Robinson, Reading the New Testament (London, 1976), 5; J.S. McLaren, “Christians and the Jewish Revolt, 66–70 C.E.” In Ancient History in a Modern University, vol. 2: Early Christianity, Late Antiquity and Beyond, eds. T.W. Hillard et al. (Sydney: Eerdmans Pub Co, 1998), 53–60. 16 See J.S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Continuum International Publishing, 1987). 17 B.L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (New York, 1994.), 1–11. 18 Although R.M. Wilson was just guessing without substantial sources, he was the firstreader who brought Thomas into relationship with Q in the 1960s; see his Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (London, 1960); chapter 7 by R.McL. Wilson (with Schneemelcher) in New Testament Apocrypha. 19 C. Taylor was first to describe the compiler of Thomas as the Logiographer; see his The Oxyrhynchus Logia and the Apocryphal Gospels (Oxford, 1899), 5. 20 A version of the following section was published by the International Association for Coptic Studies as: D.W. Kim, “The Wind-Blowing Desert: Thomasine Scholarship,” Journal of Coptic Studies 8 (2006): 87–101. 21 See Appendix 1: Thomas Studies by Year, 1897–2006 to idem, ‘The Thomasine Logia: The Genesis of a Jesus Tradition’ (Doctoral dissert., University of Sydney), Sydney, 2009), all subsequent references to appendices being to those in this dissertation. The data in the figurewas counted from and based on D.M. Scholer’s three bibliographical books (1971, 1997, and 2008), while the data of the early period between 1897 and 1945 was collected by a personal survey and J.A. Fitzmyer’s reference list. The materials counted were related books, journal articles, reviews, and dissertations. See D.M. Scholer, Nag Hammadi Bibliography (1948–1969) (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 136–165; D.M. Scholer, Nag Hammadi Bibliography (1970–1994) (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 309–327; D.M. Scholer and Susan Wood, Nag Hammadi Bibliography (1995–2006) (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 309–327; J.A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London, 1971), 420–426. 22 See Appendix 1: The Chronological Research Numbers of Thomas Studies (Kim, dissert. University of Sydney) 23 There were 23 reports about Thomas in 1957 and 1958, during which critical debate on the close relationship of the three Greek papyri with the Coptic text of Thomas was confirmed; A. Guillaumont, H.-C. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till and Yassah ‘Abd al-Masih, The Gospel According to Thomas: Coptic Text Established and Translated (Leiden, 1959). 24 There were four developing editions in 1977, 1984, 1988, and 1996. 25 There is no collected data from 2006 to the present. However, the last part of the graph indicates a gradual increasing number of Thomas studies. 26 Regarding details of paleography, see J.H. Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Peabody, Mass., 1995), 8–23; J. Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism (London, 1975), 19–46; B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford, 1992), 3–67. 27 This papyrus fragment was found “in an ancient dump of the hamlet of Behnesa on the edge of the Western Desert about 120 miles south of Cairo, where Oxyrhynchus, the capital of the Oxyrhynchite nome of ancient Egypt, stood in Roman times”; Fitzmyer, Essays, 355. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt, Sayings of Our Lord (London, 1897); Metzger, Text, 6. 28 B. Jackson, Twenty-Five Agrapha or Extra-Canonical Sayings of Our Lord (London, 1900). 29 L.E. Wright, Alterations of the Words of Jesus as Quoted in the Literature of the Second Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1952). 30 They speculated about a Graeco-Egyptian under Palestinian influence or a Palestinian Jew under Graeco-Egyptian influence. W. Lock and W. Sanday, Sayings of Jesus (Oxford, 1897). 31 C.G. Griffinhoofe, The Unwritten Sayings of Christ (Cambridge, 1903). 32 The text of the Logia is known today as Logia 26 (end), 27, 28 (start) on the front, 29 (end), 30 + 77b, 31, 32, and 33 (start). 33 Taylor used both the terms ‘compiler’ and ‘Logiographer’ in the beginning of Logia studies; see his The Oxyrhynchus Sayings of Jesus Found in 1903 with The Sayings Called “Logia” Found in 1897 (Oxford, 1905), 45–61. 34 The Greek means ‘things unwritten’ or ‘unwritten sayings.’ In particular, the unknown sayings of Jesus in non-canonical texts are indicated in this study. 35 The remarkable use of a scroll suggests that this papyrus is older than the previous so-called book, even though one might object that the use of a roll does not automatically confer chronological priority over a codex. The pa­ pyrus roll (scroll) was commonly used in the first century CE of the Graeco- Roman world; Metzger, Text, 3–8. 36 Known as the prologue and the first seven Logia of Jesus, following Grenfell and Hunt. See also Chapter 3. 37 Grenfell and Hunt, Sayings of Our Lord (London, 1897), 27; Fitzmyer, Essays, 364–387. 38 Grenfell and Hunt, Sayings of Our Lord, 37–45; Fitzmyer, Essays, 404–419. 39 Taylor, The Oxyrhynchus Sayings of Jesus Found in 1903 with the Sayings Called ‘Logia’ Found in 1897. Oxy. P. 1, 654, and 655 can be described as Oxy. P. 1.1, Oxy. P. 4. 654, and Oxy. P. 4. 655, because the Greek texts were eventually categorized in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vols. 1 and 4. 40 H.G. Evelyn-White, The Sayings of Jesus from Oxyrhynchus (Cambridge, 1920). M.R. James simply agreed with the view of Evelyn-White in his edited The Apocryphal New Testament (1924) (Oxford, 1926). 41 M.A. Dibelius, A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (London, 1936), 56–72. 42 The firstEnglish edition was published in 1959, and the second and the third in 1976 and 1998, respectively. There are many sources that describe the dis­ covery story and its geography. One of them is the dissertation by T. Akagi, The Literary Development of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (PhD diss, Western Reserve University) (Cleveland, Oh., 1965). 2–24. 43 In fact, V. Bartlet had previously argued this position, but it was generally rejected. H.-Ch. Puech, “Un logion de Jésus sur bandelette funéraire,” Bulletin de la Société Ernest Renan 3 (1954): 126–129; Fitzmyer, Essays, 362. 44 Guillaumont, Puech, Quispel, Till and ‘Abd al-Masih (trans.), Gospel According to Thomas. 45 Grant and Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus; H.K. McArthur, “The Dependence of the Gospel of Thomas on the Synoptics,” Expository Times 71, no. 9 (1960): 286–287. 46 L.E. Wright, Alterations of the Words of Jesus as Quoted in the Literature of the Second Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1952). J. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus, trans. R.H. Fuller (London, 1957). 47 Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas; Wilson (joint ed.), New Testament Apocrypha, ch. 7E. 48 J. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (London, 1964 edn.). 49 S.J. Kistemaker, The Gospels in Current Study (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1972). 50 B. Gärtner, The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas, trans. E.J. Sharpe (London, 1961). 51 H.E.W. Turner, “The Gospel of Thomas: Its History, Transmission and Sources,” and “The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomas and the Evangelists (Studies in Biblical Theology, 35), eds. H. Montefiore and H.E.W. Turner (London 1962), 11–39 and 79–116, respectively. 52 H. Montefiore, “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel According to Thomas and of the Synoptic Gospels,” NTS 7 (1961): 220–248; “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel According to Thomas and of the Synoptic Gospels.” In Thomas and the Evangelists, 40–78. (It is the same ar­ ticle in different places). 53 Montefiore, Apocalypse: What Does God Say? (London, 1976). 54 A total of 288 studies were published in this period (1977–1993), which means that on average 18 were annually reported over the 16 years. 55 See J.M. Robinson (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library in English (Leiden, 1977), 117–130 (Lambdin assisting Helmut Koester). 56 Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, 98–122. 57 Koester, Introd. to “The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2),”, 19–37. 58 G. Quispel, Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas (Leiden, 1975). 59 Patterson, Robinson and Bethge, The Fifth Gospel. 60 Cameron, Other Gospels. 61 The translation of the Gospel of Thomas by D.R. Cartlidge was published by Fortress Press in 1980 and is part of Davies’ book, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom (New York, 1983), 157–171. 62 M. Meyer, The Secret Teachings of Jesus (New York, 1986). 63 C.A. Evans, R.L. Webb, and R.A. Wiebe, Nag Hammadi Texts & the Bible: A Synopsis & Index (Leiden, 1993). 64 J.D. Crossan, Sayings Parallels: A Workbook for the Jesus Tradition (Philadelphia, 1986). 65 G.W. Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus: Words attributed to Jesus Outside the Four Gospels (London, 1997). 66 W.D. Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus (Atlanta, Geo., 1989). 67 R.J. Miller, The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version (Sonoma, Ca.,1992). 68 R.W. Funk et al. (trans. and comm.), The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York, 1993). 69 The term has been personally made up for Thomas thinkers, describing how in readings of the Thomas text one can apply one's own creativity. See J.P. Tompkins, “An Introduction to Reader-Response Criticism.” In Reader- Response Criticism, ed. J. Tompkins (Baltimore, 1980), ix–xxvi. 70 H.M. Ross, Thirty Essays on the Gospel of Thomas (Shaftesbury, 1990). 71 Y.O. Kim, Study of the Gospel of Thomas (Seoul, 1983). 72 I. Wilson, Are These the Words of Jesus?: Dramatic Evidence from Beyond the New Testament (Oxford, 1990). 73 Logia 17, 22, 64, 65, and the end of 5. 74 S.L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom (Austin, 1983). 75 J.D. Crossan, Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon (Minneapolis, 1985). 76 D. Burkett, An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity (Cambridge, 2002), 85. 77 J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation based on M. R. James (Oxford, 1993). 78 M. Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas (New York, 1992). Note also 2002 edition. 79 S.J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma, 1993). 80 Starting with R.J. Hoffmann, The Secret Gospels: A Harmony of Apocryphal Jesus Tradition (New York, 1996). 81 M.L. Turner, The Gospel according to Philip: The Sources and Coherence of an Early Christian Collection (Leiden, 1996). 82 G.J. Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (Minneapolis, 1995). 83 R. Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas (London, 1997), 177. 84 A.D. DeConick, Seek To See Him; Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (Leiden, 1996). 85 As an example, Patterson suggested from his reading that the students of well- known teachers or leaders collected the master’s words for their activities in public places. Patterson, Robinson and Bethge, The Fifth Gospel, 45–52. 86 In terms of “two becoming one,” Crossan associates the Thomasine sayings of Jesus with the story of creation; see J. Dart, and R. Riegert, The Gospel of Thomas: Unearthing the Lost Words of Jesus (Berkeley, 2000), 3–7. 87 Schenke, through the large pile of aporiae, assumed that the origin of Thomas may have been multi-staged in its transformation: see his “On the Compositional History of the Gospel of Thomas,” Foundation and Facts Forum 19 (1994): 1–28. 88 R. Uro, Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas (Edinburgh, 1998). 89 Although he believed that the text challenged every reader in the era to seek and understand its meanings, this view seemed to have developed from the historical perspectives of Patterson (1998) and Crossan (2000). 90 P. Jenkins, Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way (Oxford, 2001). 91 Quispel, Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas. 92 Thomas’ dependence on or independence from the synoptic Gospels has re­ mained one of the major unsolved areas of Thomas studies. 93 N. Perrin, Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron (Leiden: Brill, 2002). 94 E.H. Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (New York, 2003). 95 “It is certain that the Gospel of Thomas was known and used in Manichaeism”; R.W. Funk, “‘Einer aus tausend, zwei aus zehntausend’: Zitate aus dem Thomas-Evangelium in den koptischen Manichaica.” In For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften’s Thirtieth Year (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 54), eds. H-G. Bethge et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 68; and see Blatz, “The Coptic Gospel of Thomas,” 110–133. 96 See J.K. Coyle, “Manichaeism and Its Legacy.” In Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 69, eds. J. van Oort and E. Thomassen (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 101–121; P.A. Mirecki, “Coptic Manichaean Psalm 278 and Gospel of Thomas 37.” In Manichaica Selecta: Studies Presented to Professor Julien Ries on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, eds. A. van Tongerloo and S. Giversen (Louvain, 1991), 243–262. 97 For details, see the beginning of the Introduction statement. Fitzmyer initially pointed out the independent view of Thomas, but it was not quite clear; see his Essays, 355–364. 98 For DeConick’s theory of accretions (over (1) 30–50 CE, (2) 50–60 CE, (3) 60–100 CE, (4) 80–100 CE), see her Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth (Library of New Testament Studies 286) (London, 2005) and The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation: With a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel (Library of New Testament Studies 287) (London, 2006). 99 2007: 2, 2008: 1, 2009: 3, 2010: 5, 2011: 6, 2012: 4, 2013: 3, 2014: 4, 2015: 7, 2016: 2, 2017: 2, 2018: 2, 2019: 5, and 2020: 3 (until Sep., 2020). 100 See P. Pokorný, Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas: From Interpretations to the Interpreted (London, 2011); S. Gathercole, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series) (Cambridge, 2012). 101 D.W. Kim, “Reconsidering the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: An Imperfect Forgery or Another Polemical Gnostic Fragment,” Religious Studies and Theology 34, no. 1 (May, 2015): 19–40; A. Bernhard, “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: Textual Evidence of Modern Forgery,” New Testament Studies 61, no. 3 (2015): 335–355; A. Bernhard, Postscript: A Final Note about the origin of the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife,” NTS 63, no. 2 (2017): 305–317. 102 See Tompkins, Reader-Response Criticism. 1 Many studies on the issue of orality and literacy have previously been written by various scholars of anthropology, sociology, and psychology; see A.B. Lord, Epic Singers and Oral Tradition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991); W.J. Ong, “Orality-Literacy Studies and the Unity of the Human Race,” Oral Tradition 2 (1987): 371–382; J.M. Foley, “Words in Tradition, Words in Texts,” Semeia 65 (1994): 169–180. 2 An old version of this section may be found as “A Korean Reader’s Insight on Thomas and Its Oral Tradition Origin.” In Global Korea: Old and New, Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial KSAA International Conference, New South Wales, Australia, July 2009 (Sydney 2010), 499–510. 3 R. Riesner, “Jesus as Preacher and Teacher.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, ed. H. Wansbrough (Sheffield: T. &T. Clark Ltd., 1991), 208–209. 4 E.B. Aitken, “Tradition in the Mouth of the Hero: Jesus as an Interpreter of Scripture.” In Performing the Gospel, eds. R.A. Horsley, J.A. Draper, and J.M. Foley (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2006), 97–103; J.A. Draper, “Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity, ed. J.A. Draper (Semeia Studies 47) (Atlanta: Brill Academic Publishers, 2004), 5–6. 5 “They (the Naassenes) say that not only the mysteries …, but also … their account of the blessed nature of the things which were, are and are yet to be, a nature which is both hidden and revealed at the same time, and which he calls the sought-for kingdom of heaven which is within Man. They transmit a tra­ dition concerning this in the Gospel entitled According to Thomas, which states expressly, ‘the one who seeks me will find me in children from seven years of age and onwards.’” For more details, H.W. Attridge, “Appendix: The Greek Fragments.” In The Coptic Gnostic Library; Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7, ed. B. Layton, vol. 1 (New York: HarperOne, 1987), 103–109. 6 The German technical term for “tradition criticism” refers to the research of the growth of traditions, especially those things about Jesus, until they were finally re-formed into a written type. The methodology that was initially practised by G.F.E.W. Wrede has been widely applied to Gospel studies, in particular to the Jesus tradition in the pre-Pauline period of 30–50 CE. See esp. P.H. Davids, “Tradition Criticism.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds. J.B. Green, J.K. Brown, and N. Perrin (Westmont, Ill.: IVP Academic, 1992), 831–834. and with fresh insights on the traditionsgeschliche approach, T. Akagi, “The Literary Development of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas” (PhD diss. Western Reserve University, 1965) 328, 361–363; A. DeConick, Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth (London: Library of New Testament Studies, 2005), 3–37. 7 Such as Acts 18: 24–19:7; P. Oxy 654. 36–40; Mk 4:3–8; Nag. Hammadi Codex (hereafter NHC) 34. 30–35.14; and Thomas Logia 13, 21, and 41. 8 P.J.J. Botha, “Cognition, Orality-Literacy, and Approaches to First-Century Writtings.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity, ed. J.A. Draper (Semeia Studies 47) (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004): 37–63; J.-L. Solère, “Why Did Plato Write?” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity, 83–92 https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:100270; J.M. Foley, “Indigenous Poems, Colonialist Texts.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity, 9–36; idem, “Memory in Oral Tradition.” In Performing the Gospel, 83–96; J. Assmann, “Form as a Mnemonic Device: Cultural Texts and Cultural Memory.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity , 67–82. 9 L. Horsley, “The Origins of the Hebrew Scriptures in Imperial Relations.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity, 107–134; Draper, “Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity,” and “Practicing the Presence of God in John: Ritual Use of Scripture and the Eidos Theou in John 5: 37.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity, 1–6 and 155–168, respectively; M.S. Jaffee, “Rabbinic Oral Tradition in Late Byzantine Galilee: Christian Empire and Rabbinic Ideological Resistance.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity, 171–191; Jaffee, “Gender and Otherness in Rabbinic Oral Culture: On Gentiles, Undisciplined Jews, and Their Women.” In Performing the Gospel, 21–43; Draper, “‘Less Literate Are Safer’: The Politics of Orality and Literacy in Biblical Interpretation,” Anglican Theological Review 84 (2002): 303–318; Y. Elman and I. Gershoni, Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality, and Cultural Diffusion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000). 10 See H. E. Hearon, “The Implications of Orality for Studies of the Biblical Text.” In Performing the Gospel, 3–20; J. Schröter, “Jesus and the Canon: The Early Jesus Traditions in the Context of the Origins of the New Testament Canon.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity, 104–122. 11 In the field of the Gospel tradition, the Greek word means “the unwritten words of Jesus.” 12 B. Gerhardsson, Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity, trans. E.J. Sharpe (Lund: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1964), 5–10; B.F. Meyer, “Some Consequences of Birger Gerhardsson’s Account of the Origins of the Gospel Tradition.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, 424–440. Further, the eyewitnesses of Jesus were also left their own verbalized traditions for pre­ serving the Jesus movement: “dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said …, ‘In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires’” (Jude 1: 17–18). 13 B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, trans. E.J. Sharpe (Lund: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1961), 280–288. T. Holtz, “Paul and the Oral Gospel Tradition.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, 380–393. 14 “For I received … what I also passed on to you (Corinthians)” 1 Cor 11:23-32. H. Koester argues that the passage clearly proves that “Paul had received a tradition of an oral version of this account,” in his “Written Gospels or Oral Tradition?” Journal of Biblical Literature 113, no. 2 (Sum., 1994): 293; Helmut Koester, “The Synoptic Sayings Gospel Q in the Early Communities of Jesus’ Followers.” In Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions, and Symbols, eds. François Bovon et al. (Boston: Wiley, 2003), 46–58. 15 The authoritative tradition Paul had received was obviously from Jerusalem; P. Barnett, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 28–29, 180–185; P. Richardson, and P. Gooch, “Logia of Jesus in 1 Corinthians.” In Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, vol. 5, ed. Wenham (Sheffield: Wipf & Stock Pub, 1985), 39–57. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 280–283; B.W. Henaut, Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 16. 16 Other examples include “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband” (1 Cor 7:10) and “In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel” (1 Cor 9: 14). Paul’s putatively exact quotation of Jesus spoken for the Ephesian elders in Miletus would be another example: “remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself who said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’” (Acts 20: 35). The Logion is not found in any of the canonical Gospels, but was available to Luke from the still-vibrant oral tradition as an agraphon. Grant and Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus according to the Gospel of Thomas (London: Fontana Books), 25–27. It has been argued that the string of pithy instructive sayings toward the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (12:9–21) is from Jesus Logia (or distilled from them), especially considering the stress on loving one’s enemies; E.K.C. Wong, “The De-Radicalization of Jesus’ Ethical Sayings in Romans,” NovT 43, no. 3 (2001): 245–263. 17 Kelber insists that the literary intention of the early Christian scribes was limited under the power of the Roman imperialism: The Oral and the Written Gospels: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (Bloomington and Indianapolis: John Wiley & Sons, 1997), xix–xxviii; W.H. Kelber, “Roman Imperialism and Early Christian Scribality.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity, 135–153. 18 This subject will be detailed in section four of Chapter Two. S.J. Patterson, “Paul and the Jesus Tradition: It Is Time for Another Look,” Harvard Theological Review 84, no. 1 (1991): 23–42. 19 The Greek λόγιος, as an adjective of λόγος (“word”), conveys both “eloquent” and “learned,”—that is, “skilled in words.” 20 F. Blass, Acta Apostolorum sive Lukae ad Theophilum liber alter (Leipzig: Nabu Press, 1896), 201–203; J.O. Ryen, “Baptism in Jordan—for Christians and Gnostics: Remarkable Similarities between Old Syrian Baptismal Liturgies and the Mandaean Masbuta,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 13, no. 2 (2009): 282–315. 21 Papias (70–140 CE?), who seems to have been the bishop of Hierapolis (near Laodicea and Colossae in Lycus, Phrygia), wrote a five-volume Exposition of the Lord’s Reports; D. Farkasfalvy, “The Papias Fragments on Mark and Matthew and Their Relationship to Luke’s Prologue: An Essay on the Pre- History of the Synoptic Problem.” In The Early Church in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson, eds. A.J. Malherbe, F.W. Norris, and J.W. Thompson (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 47–68; R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 12–38. 22 Eusebius, however, had his doubts that the figure John known to Papias was the disciple (Historia ecclesiastica 3. 39.2; cf. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 12–38. 23 Historia ecclesiastica. 3. 39. 3. 24 Historia ecclesiastica. 3. 39. 4. 25 The assertion “I did not take pleasure as the many do … in those who relate foreign precepts” shows the social situations where Papias was living in Historia ecclesiastica. 3. 39. 3. M.L. Soards, “Oral Tradition Before, In, and Outside the Canonical Passion Narratives.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, 346–350. 26 P.S. Alexander, “Orality in Pharisaic-rabbinic Judaism at the Turn of the Eras.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity, 159–161. 27 R. Uro, “Thomas and Oral Gospel Tradition.” In Thomas at the Crossroads, 8–32. 28 Henaut, Oral Tradition and the Gospels, 268. 29 J. Marcus, “Entering into the Kingly Power of God,” Journal of Biblical Literature 107, no. 4 (1988): 663–675; F. Hahn, “Das Verständnis des Glaubens im Markusevangelium,” in Glaube im Neuen Testament: Studien zu Ehren von Hermann Binder anlässlich seines 70. Geburtstags (Biblisch- Theologische Studien 7), eds. Hermann Binder, Ferdinand Hahn, and Hans Klein (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 69–92. 30 NHC 2. II, 39: 16–18; cf. Lk 11:33 (‘that those who enter may see its light’). 31 Quoted by Henaut, Oral Tradition and the Gospels, 275. 32 See further below. 33 Quoted from T.O. Lambdin’s trans. in “The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2),” 124–138. 34 Jesus said, “Whoever has something in his hand will receive more, and who­ ever has nothing will be deprived of even the little he has.” 35 “When the grain ripened, he came quickly with his sickle in his hand and reaped it” (NHC II, 2. 37:18-19). 36 Henaut, Oral Tradition and the Gospels, 222–223. 37 Ibid., 263–266. 38 Ibid., 230–233. 39 Pace R. Uro, Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas (London: Continuum International Publishing, 2003), 112. 40 The narrator of Mark says that the owner of the vineyard sent many other servants after the third servant (who is not even mentioned in Thomas). The third person in Thomas is not another servant, but the only son of the vineyard owner. 41 Henaut, Oral Tradition and the Gospels, 53–74. 42 V.K. Robbins, “Rhetorical Composition and the Sources in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Society of Biblical Literature, Seminar Papers 36 (1997): 88, quoted by Uro, Thomas, 113. 43 The part of “haven’t you read this scripture” indicates that the author of Mark qouted the rest of the passage from a previous written source (if regarding to ‘this scripture’). For more details, see R. Uro, Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas (London and New York; T & T Clark, 2003), 113. 44 “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.” 45 In some 20 sayings common to Mark and Thomas, Davies discovered the phenomenon that Mark consistently drew upon Thomas: S.L. Davies, “Mark’s Use of the Gospel of Thomas,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series 30, 2 (1996): 307–334. See also A.D. DeConick, “On the Brink of the Apocalypse: A Preliminary Examination of the Earliest Speeches in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas, eds. J.M. Asgeirsson, DeConick and Pace R. Uro (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 93–118. 46 R. Cameron, “The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins.” In The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, ed. B.A. Pearson (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1991), 385. 47 See D. Lührmann, “Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia?” In The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. R.A. Piper (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 98–104; Holtz, “Paul and the Oral Gospel Tradition.” 381–382. 48 H.M. Schenke, “On the Compositional History of the Gospel of Thomas,” Foundations and Facts Forum 19 (1994): 1–28. 49 See Appendix 3: Thomas and Q Parallels (Kim dissert.). 50 H. Koester, “The Sayings of Q and Their Image of Jesus.” In Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical Essays in Honour of Tjize Baarda, eds. W.L. Petersen, J.S. Vos, and H.J. de Jonge (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 137–154. B.L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth (New York: HarperCollins, 1989), 43–64. 51 The term kernel for DeConick “represents the first attempt to capture in writing materials from the free-text oral pool known to the early Jerusalem- based preachers (30–50 CE) as part of their performance tradition.” This book will not recount any more, but for further details see her Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas, 58 with 38–130; April Deconick, The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation: With a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel (London: T. & T. Clark, 2006). 52 This section has been previously published as “Thomasine Metamorphosis: Community, Text, and Transformation from Greek to Coptic,” in Intercultural Transmission in the Medieval Mediterranean, eds. David W. Kim and S.L. Hathaway (London: Bloomsbury, 2012), 3–36. 53 Riesner, “Jesus as Preacher and Teacher,” 203–208; D.E. Aune, “Oral Traditions and the Aphorisms of Jesus.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, 87–89. 54 R. Cameron, “On Comparing Q and the Gospel of Thomas,” in Early Christian Voices, 59–69; J.M. Robinson, “On Bridging the Gulf from Q to the Gospel of Thomas (or Vice Versa).” In Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, eds. C. Hedrick and R. Hodgson. Jr (Peabody, Mass.: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 167–170; Uro, Thomas, 111–115. 55 This kind of school can be called a school of experiences. See I. Iribarren, “‘Responsio secundum Thomam’ and the Study for an Early Thomistic School,” Vivarium 39, no. 2 (2001): 255–296. I.P. Brown, “The Pepaideumenoi and Jesus: Ancient Education and Marginal Intellectuals in Paul’s Corinth and the Gospel of Thomas” (PhD diss. University of Toronto, 2020). 56 Mk 2:18, Lk 5:33 and Mt 9:14. 57 L. Koenen, “From Baptism to the Gnosis of Manichaeism.” In Rediscovery of Gnosticism, vol. 2, ed. B. Layton (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 734–756; J.J. Buckley, “Mani’s Opposition to the Elchasaites: a Question of Ritual.” In Traditions in Contact and Change, eds. P. Slater et al. (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1983), 323–336; idem, The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); J.O. Ryen, “Baptism in Jordan—for Christians and Gnostics: Remarkable Similarities between Old Syrian Baptismal Liturgies and the Mandaean Masbuta,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 13, no. 2 (2009): 282–315; R. Kurt, “Coptica-Mandaica: Zu einigen Übereinstimmungen zwischen koptisch-gnostischen und mandäischen Texten.” In Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honor of Pahor Labib, ed. M. Krause (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 191–216. 58 Ø. Andersen, “Oral Tradition.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition, 22. 59 Riesner, “Jesus as Preacher and Teacher,” 203. 60 See G. Cameron, The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1982), 122–130; R.J. Miller, The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version (Sonoma: HarperOne, 1992), 363–372; R.F. Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas: With Introduction, Notes, and Original Text Featuring the New Scholars Version Translation (Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 1996), 104–143; F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (London: Eerdmans Pub Co., 1974), 87; Iribarren, “‘Responsio secundum Thomam,’” 263–264; W.J. Courtenay, Schools and Scholars in Fourteenth-Century English (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 171–175. 61 “… when Paul placed his hands on them, … there were about twelve men in all … He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus … went on for two years …” (Acts 19:6–10). 62 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city (Jerusalem). Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.” 63 Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 29; Henaut, Oral Tradition and the Gospels, 44–53. 64 Patterson and Robinson mention the literary genre of the Book of Proverbs, the intertestamental books of the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach, and Thomas in terms of the same culture of the ancient world: Patterson, Robinson, and Bethge, The Fifth Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas Comes of Age, 36–37. 65 For L.W. Hurtado, the Prologue and Logia 1 and 13 display the concerns of a Thomasine elite; see his Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 461–462. 66 See H.W. Attridge, “Reflections on Research into Q,” Semeia 55 (1992): 224; R.A. Horsley, “Logoi Propheton? Reflections on the Genre of Q.” In The Future of Early Christianity, 207–211; K. Stendahl, The School of Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (Lund: Sigler Pr, 1968). 67 Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? 43–47. 68 J.M.G. Barclay, “There Is Neither Old Nor Young? Early Christianity and Ancient Ideologies of Age,” New Testament Studies 53 (2007): 225–241; T.G. Parkin, Old Age in the Roman World: A Cultural and Social History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003). 69 See ibid., 51–52. 70 Barclay, “Neither Old Nor Young,” 228. 71 Ibid., 226–232. R. Aasgaard, “From Boy to Man in Antiquity: Jesus in the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies 3, no. 1 (2009): 3–20. 72 Parkin, Old Age in the Roman World, 16–19. E. Stewart, “Sending a Boy to do a Man’s Job: Hegemonic Masculinity and the ‘Boy’ Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” Theological Studies 71, no. 1 (2015): 1–9. 73 If one can regard the social custom of “youth” and the maturity of the 30s and 40s with the military view of the era, in which a man enrolled into military service at 17 and obtained the status of senior at 46; see ibid. 74 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 14–38; Hervieux, What Are Apocryphal Gospels? 127–131. 75 See, for example, Barnett, The Birth of Christianity, 19–21 and 97–108; B. Witherington III, New Testament History: A Narrative Account (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 132–134. 76 See P. McKechnie, The First Christian Centuries: Perspectives on the Early Church (Leicester: Intervarsity Pr, 2001), 34–61. 77 Ibid., 67–92. 78 Papias would belong to the third generation, and claims to have personally met eyewitnesses of Jesus. See the testimony of Eusebius in Historia ecclesiastica. 3. 39. 3–4. 79 M. Hengel, it should be noted, regards it as likely and even essential that some of the first generation were still alive when the process of the writing of the Gospels was launched: Hengel, “Eye-witness Memory and the Writing of the Gospels.” In The Written Gospel, eds. M. Bockmuehl and D.A. Hagner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 70–95. 80 “Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them… Jesus said, let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” See R. Aasgaard, The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 81 ‘“First let the children eat all they want,” He told her (a Greek-Syrophoenician woman), “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs”’ (Mk 7: 27); “At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, ‘I … revealed them to little children’” (Lk 10: 21); “… and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God (more spiritual)…” (Jn 11: 52). 82 Mt 19: 15. The act of “laying on of hands” is a significantritual for the person who experiences it. The case of the children would not be exceptional. 83 Note the accentuation of children in Gos. Thom., which repeatedly praises their purity (Logia 22, 37, and 46) and likens disciples of Jesus to the condition of children: “They (the disciples of Jesus) are like children who have settled in a field” (Logion 21); “if they say to you, ‘is it you?’ say, we are its children” (Logion 50). 84 “Paul, an Apostle - sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, … and all the brothers with me, To the churches in Galatia” (Gal 1:1–2), “Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.” (1 Th 1:1), “Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes” (1 Cor 1:1). 85 E.R. Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove: Ivp Academic, 2004), 21. 86 Paul’s statement “this is my gospel” in 2 Tm 2:7–8 demonstrates that the term was coming into use at his time exactly as it is employed in Gos. Thom., as a compendium or summation of the school’s teaching, implicitly distinguished from similar bodies of teaching by the possessive “my”—that is, “of Paul,” compared to “of Thomas.” 87 The relation between the Qumran community and the Thomas community will not be treated in depth in this volume, but in an historical context the era of 45–60 CE has great potential for both of them, in terms of the anti-Roman communities living in the land of Palestine before the Jewish revolt (67 CE). 88 Attridge, “Appendix: The Greek Fragments,” 125–128; T.O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic (Macon, 1988 edn.); Lambdin, “The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2).” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 124–138; Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus; Patterson, “Wisdom in Q and Thomas,”, 187–221; Patterson, Robinson, and Bethge, The Fifth Gospel. 89 G. Theissen suggests three different factors that make up the condition of transmitters: socio-economic, socio-ecological, and socio-cultural factor; see his “The Wandering Radicals: Light Shed by the Sociology of Literature on the Early Transmission of Jesus Sayings.” In Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation, ed. D.G. Horrell (Edinburgh: Bloomsbury, 1999), 108–121. 90 N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996), 134; cf. N. Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 11–12. 91 McLean supports the plurality of the sayings in the genre, in that “the Gos. Thom. does not represent a reductionist or derivative genre in which the sayings of the synoptic Gospels have been stripped of their biographical fra­ mework, Christological titles, redaction, and then rearranged.” B.H. McLean, “On the Gospel of Thomas and Q.” In The Gospel Behind the Gospels, ed. R.A. Piper (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 342. 92 Schenke and DeConick, based on Akagi’s study, theoretically explored the “compositional history of Thomas” from a view independent of the canonical texts. Akagi, ‘The Literary Development of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas’; Schenke, “On the Compositional History of the Gospel of Thomas,” 1–28; DeConick, Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas (Sheffield: T. & T. Clark International); Deconick, The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation. See also R. Cameron, “The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins,” 384–385. Patterson, Robinson, and Bethge, Fifth Gospel, 1–5. 93 A. Callahan, “‘No Rhyme or Reason.’ The Hidden Logia of the Gospel of Thomas,” Harverd Theological Review 90, no. 4 (1997): 411–427. 94 J.D. Crossan, “Lists in Early Christianity: A Response to Early Christianity, Q and Jesus,” Semeia 55 (1991): 237. See also G.D. Kilpatrick, Literary Fashions and the Transmission of Texts in the Graeco-Roman World, (Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1976), 1–8. 95 J.Z. Smith, Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 44. 96 J.S. Kloppenborg, “Review,” 7, quoted from McLean, “On the Gospel Thomas and Q,” 337. 97 See Appendix 2: Catchwords in Thomas (Kim dissert.). P.J. Williams, “Alleged Syriac Catchwords in the Gospel of Thomas,” Vigiliae Christianae 63, no. 1 (2009): 71–82. 98 See Appendix 4: Doublets in the Logia of the Gospel of Thomas (Kim dissert.). The data is re-arranged on the basis of Asgeirsson’s “Arguments and Audience (s) in the Gospel of Thomas (Part I).” In Society of Biblical Literature, Seminar Papers 36 (1997), 49 and 75. 99 Ibid., 63–65. 100 “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.” 101 Λέγει Ἰη(σου̑)ς μὴ παυσάσθω ὁ ζητῶν τοῦ ζητεῖν ἕως ἂν εὕρῃ, καὶ ὅταν εὕρῃ θαμβηθήσεται, καὶ θα μβηθεὶς βασιλεύση, καὶ βασιλεύσας ἐπαναπαήσεται: ([Jesus said], “Let him who seeks continue [seeking until] he finds. When he finds, [he will be amazed. And] when he becomes [amazed], he will rule. And [once he has ruled], he will [attain rest]”). 102 This is only mentioned in the Greek fragment (P. Oxy. 654: 9). 103 R. Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas (London: Routledge, 1997), 29–33. See also M.W. Meyer, The Secret Teachings of Jesus: Four Gnostic Gospels (New York: Vintage, 1986), 97–98. 104 H.W. Attridge, “‘Seeking’ and ‘Asking’ in Q, Thomas, and John,” 295–302. 105 D.E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B Eerdmans Publishing, 1983), 242–245; Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospels, xix–xxviii; H.M. Ross, Thirty Essays on the Gospel of Thomas (Mayo: Evertype, 2008) 19–21. 106 “The Lord said, ‘Blessed is that which existed before it came into existence.’” 107 Philip’s terminology of “upper and lower” and “inner and outer” is quite comparable with Thomas’ terms of “inside and outside” and “above and below” (Logion 22). See M.L. Turner, The Gospel According to Philip: The Sources and Coherence of an Early Christian Collection (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 206–215. 108 “Jesus said, ‘Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being.’” 109 B. Hoberman, “How Did the Gospel of Thomas Get Its Name?,” Biblical Archaeologist 46, no. 1 (1983): 11. 110 Every text has its own motivation and purpose created by the author; Thomas is not an exception. A.K. Bowman and G. Woolf, “Literacy and Power in the Ancient World.” In Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, eds. Alan K. Bowman and Greg Woolf (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 6; M. Goodman, “Texts, Scribes and Power in Roman Judaea,” and R.L. Fox, “Literacy and Power in Early Christianity.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity, 99–101 and 126–148, respectively. 111 Nabataean and Palmyrene belonged to the Western group of dialects, Syriac and Hatran to the Eastern group. Each of the Aramaic dialects possesses its own scripts. S.P. Brock, “Greek and Syriac in Latin Antique Syria,” in Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, 149–150. 112 E.M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism (London: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1973), 90–91. S.L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained (London: SkyLight Paths, 2003), xvii–xxi. 113 Perrin, Thomas and Tatian; Nicholas Perrin, “NHC II, 2 and the Oxyrhynchus Fragments (P. OXY 1, 654, 655): Overlooked Evidence for a Syriac Gospel of Thomas,” Vigilae Christianae 58, 2 (2004): 138–144. 114 Logia 3, 6, 27, 28, and 30 of the Greek and Coptic texts are used “to posit a Syriac subtext behind both the Greek and Coptic”: see Perrin, “NHC II, 2 and the Oxyrhynchus Fragments,” 144–151. 115 J.H. Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Peabody, Mass.: Baker Academic, 1995), 39–40. 116 Quispel believes that the Diatessaron has many variants in common with Thomas, as preserved in its Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, Persian, Italian, English, and Dutch translations, and argues that Tatian returned from Rome to the east (the Mesopotamian Edessa) with a Western text of the Gospels, from which he wrote his harmony; G. Quispel, Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas: Studies in the History of the Western Diatessaron (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 26–49. 117 ⲉⲓⲥϩⲏⲏⲧⲉ` ⲁϥⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ̄ϭⲓⲡⲉⲧ`ⲥⲓⲧⲉ ⲁϥⲙⲉϩ ⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ̄ ⲁϥⲛⲟⲩϫⲉ ⲁϩⲟⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲙⲉⲛ ϩⲉ ⲉϫⲛ̄ (“See the sower went out, he filledhis hand, he threw. ⲧⲉϩⲓⲏ` ⲁⲩⲉⲓ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲛ̄ϩⲁⲗⲁⲧⲉ Some fell on the road, the birds came, they gathered them”). 118 G. Quispel, “Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas,” New Testamentg Studies 5, no. 4 (1959): 276–290, with Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas, 26–29, and “The Gospel of Thomas and the Trial of Jesus,” in Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijn, eds. T. Baarda, A. Hilhorst, and B. Lutikhuizen (Kampen: Kok, 1988), 193–199; T. Baarda, “‘The Cornerstone,’ An Aramaism in the Diatessaron and the Gospel of Thomas?” Novum Testamentum 37, no. 3 (1995): 285–300. 119 W.H.C. Frend, “The Gospel of Thomas: Is Rehabilitation Possible?,” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1967): 13–26; G.W. Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus: Words Attributed to Jesus outside the Four Gospels (London: Hendrickson Pub, 1997), 63–65. 120 See the entire book of Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q. 121 For more details, see later and R.Mc. Helms, Who Wrote the Gospels? (Altadena: Millenium Press, 1997), 100–108. 122 M.A. Murray, Elementary Coptic (Sahidic) Grammar (London: Aris & Phillips Ltd, 1911), 1–4. 123 O. Cullmann, “The Gospel of Thnas and the Problem of the Age of the Tradition contained Therein”, trans. B.H. Kelly, Interp 16 (1962): 418–438. 124 J.D. Crossan, Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon (Sonoma, Ca., 1992), 9. On the embarrassment of Judas + Judas, when comparing the Gospel of Judas with the Epistle of Jude: G.W. Trompf, “The Epistle of Jude, Irenaeus, and the Gospel of Judas,” Biblica 91, no. 4 (2010): 555–582. 125 I. Gardner, and S.N.C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 2004), 158–159. 126 I. Wilson, Are These the Words of Jesus? Dramatic Evidence from beyond the New Testament (Oxford: Queen Anne Press, 1990), 58–60. 127 R. Cameron, “The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins,” 387. 128 Logia 1–7, including the Prologue, belong to the Greek text of P. Oxy. 654. Logia 24, and 36–39 are part of P. Oxy. 655, and Logia 26–33 belong to P. Oxy. 1. 129 The rest of the Greek Logion 7 is not changed, even in the Coptic text. 130 According to the existing part of the Greek Logion 24, the Coptic version has not been changed. If that is correct of the whole, the lost part of the Greek text could be understood like the beginning of the Coptic: “His disciples said, ‘Show us the place where you are, since it is necessary for us to seek it.’ He said to them, ‘whoever has ears, let him hear’” (NHC II, 2.38:03–07). 131 The beginning part of the Coptic version is the same as the Greek text (P. Oxy. 1). One can then consider the lost (end) part of the Greek text like the Coptic section: “for empty they came into the world, and empty too they seek to leave the world. But for the moment they are intoxicated. When they shake off their wine, then they will repent” (NHC II, 2.38:27–31). 132 For the Greek text, see Attridge, “Appendix: The Greek Fragments,” 95–128; Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 41–49. 133 For the Coptic text, see Lambdin, “The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2),” 124–138. 134 For the case of P. Oxy. 1 (Logia 26–33), five of the eight Logia are partly unclear (Logia 26, 28, 29, 30 and 33). For the case of P. Oxy. 655 (Prologue- Logia 7), two of the fiveLogia have been lost (Logia 24 and 37). However, the P. Oxy. 654 (Logion 24 and Logia 37–39) is in the best condition as only one of the eight Logia is damaged (Logion 7). 135 The rest are the same even in the Coptic version of Thomas, but there is no certain idea for the lost parts of Logia 7, 24, and 28. They are simply not able to be compared. 136 Logia 2, 3, 6, 26, 29–33, and 36–39. It is common that when a translator tries to deliver a sentence from one language into another, the sentence may be rearranged according to the culture or customs of the new readers. 137 D. Mueller also points out scribal errors of the Coptic translator through the case of Logion 3. The phrase “then you will become known, and” is also considered a secondary addition; in his “Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God?” Vigiliae Christianae 27 (1973), 267–269. 138 These parts of the Greek Logia 4 and 5 are ignored, but the Coptic translator did not create any words or phrases to improve the translation. See more with De Conick, “The Original Gospel of Thomas.” VC 56, 2 (2002): 167–199. 139 C. Tuckett, “Thomas and the Synoptics.” Novuim Testamentum 30, 2 (1988): 132–157. 140 This is an unusual case, in that the Greek text (P. Oxy. 655) was summarized and the last part was cut off by the Coptic translator. 141 The reduction of “and once he has ruled, he will attain rest” into “over the all” seems to imply that the Coptic translator, while keeping the main context, discarded the original Greek text. 142 The view that the adverb “rather” from the Coptic version seems to be more advanced than the Greek conjunction “and” also supports the primitive figure of the Greek Logion 3. 143 It is the same question, but the Coptic translator seems to have approached the question from a different linguistic angle, while the style of the next question is the same as in the Greek text. The Greek and Coptic texts are both “How shall we pray? How shall we give alms? What diet shall we observe?” (P. Oxy. 654 & NHC II, 2.33:16–8). 144 A large (beginning) part of the Greek text (P. Oxy. 1) is missing, but if one wished to reconstruct it, the phrase could be like the Coptic version: “Jesus said, ‘You (sg.) see the mote in your brother’s eye, but you do not see the beam in your own eye. When you cast the beam out of your own eye’” (NHC II, 2.38:12–6). 145 The damage rate of the Greek Logion 29 is very critical, but if one tried to reconstruct the lost (beginning) part from the Coptic version, it would be like: “Jesus said, ‘If the fleshcame into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth’” (NHC II, 2.38:31–39:02). 146 The Greek Logion 33 is not clear in terms of meaning, and the damaged section (the last part) has also been changed in the Coptic version. However, the lost part of the Greek text could be similar to the Coptic “for no one lights a lamp and puts it under a bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place, but rather he sets it on a lampstand so that everyone who enters and leaves will see its lights” (NHC II, 2.39:13–18). 147 The beginning part of the Coptic version is similar to the Greek text. We can then hypothesize the missing (last) part of the Greek text from the Coptic version: “and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then will you see the son of the living one, and you will not be” (NHC II, 2.39:31–40:02). 148 No one argues the assumption that the complete version of one of the three Greek texts was the historical manuscript from which the existent Coptic text of Thomas was translated. 149 Koester confesses that “the only surviving manuscript evidence for the Gos.Thom. is either Greek or translated from the Greek.” There is no evidence, but one can still not exclude the case that the Coptic version could be derived from one of the three Greek texts. Thus his “The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century,” In Gospel Traditions in the Second Century, ed. W.L. Petersen (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 40. 150 For more details, see Chapter Two, Section Two: B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York, 1977), 7–10. 151 The Old Testament references in the New Testament are not from the Hebrew, but are based on the Greek text. 1 C.N. Jefford, The Sayings of Jesus in the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 1–45; R.E. Brown and J.P. Meier, Antioch and Rome (New York, 1983), 18–27. 2 For social affairs and religious conflicts during the middle of the first century CE (40–70), we have a chronologically relevant picture of the historical en­ vironment drawn by E.E. Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 238–295. 3 For a general view, F.P. Esler, The First Christians in their Social Worlds: Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation (London: Routledge, 1994), 6–18. For a social setting of second-century Christianity, R.M. Grant, “The Social Setting of Second-Century Christianity.” In Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 1: The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries, ed. E.P. Sanders (London: Fortress Press, 1980), 16–29. 4 In terms of waiting for the second coming of Jesus, the Messiah, the theological term “eschatological”—though it would be helpful to keep in mind—will not be given serious consideration here, since this section focuses on the historical background only. 5 The main reason was theoretically elucidated in the last part of the second section of Chapter One. See M. Goodman, Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations (London: Vintage, 2008). 6 The dual citizenship that is identifiedthrough Paul (Acts 21:39) nonetheless shows the liberal policy of the emperor; R.P. Martin, New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students, vol. 2: Acts—Revelation (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 19–20; C. Freeman, Egypt, Greece and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 405–408; , De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors: Claudius (41–54 A.D.), ed. G.G. Fagan, viewed on 09/11/04. 7 “Churches of Judea” in Gal 1:22–3 and 2 Thes 2:14–6; L.W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 157–158. 8 The lives of the elite and non-elite, the economic situation in the land of Israel, the state and religious taxes, and the composition of the religious institutions of the Temple, Synagogue, and family that were not stable are described in E.W. and W. Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century, trans. O.C. Dean, Jr. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 66–175. 9 The exact meaning of Chrestus is not yet certain, but the view that the dis­ turbances were caused by Jewish-Christian controversy is generally accepted by scholars from the perspective of the conflicting relationship between Jews and Christians; C.K. Barrett, ed. and comm. The New Testament Background: Selected Documents (London: HarperOne, 1987), 14; F. Clark, The Rise of Christianity (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1974), 14. 10 E. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 418–421. 11 R.H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (London: Forgotten Books, 1963), 37–38. 12 The death of King Herod Agrippa I is traditionally presumed to be being “eaten by worms”; see N. Williams, Chronology of the Ancient World: 10,000 B.C. to A.D. 799 (London: Charles Scribners Sons, 1976), 292–293; cf. G.W. Trompf, Early Christian Historiography: Narratives of Retributive Justice (London: Routledge, 2000), 76–77, 126, and 150–151 (discussing also Josephus’s account). 13 Luke, the Christian historian, in this second book mentions the story of the love offering sent from the Gentile community of Antioch “to the brethren in Judaea” (Acts 11:29). 14 Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, 39. 15 E.T. Merrill, Essays in Early Christian History (London: Oxford University Press, 1924), 82–130; H.D.M. Spence, Early Christianity and Paganism: A. D. 64 to the Peace of the Church in the Fourth Century (London: Forgotten Books, 1902), 40–63; H.-J. Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions, trans. B. McNeil (Edinburgh: Bloomsbury, 2000), 306–308; J. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus, trans. R.H. Fuller (London, 1957), 1–4. 16 Known as one of the most articulate proponents of Roman Stoicism (“a single brotherhood of the world”). His brother Gallio was governor of Greece in the period (Acts 18:12); Freeman, Egypt, Greece and Rome, 408–411. 17 “The prefect of the praetorian guards.” Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 34. 18 The story implies the increasing number of Gentiles in the Jewish-Christian community, but they were still marginalized. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times, 38–39. 19 His prophetic terms of “a voice,” “four winds,” “the bridegrooms,” and “the brides” imply that he was a Jewish-Christian prophet following after John the Baptist, though this is not confirmed yet; cf. [Flavius Josephus], The Complete Works of Josephus (tran. W. Whiston) (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), 439 and n. 20 It is also quoted in Hist. eccles. 2. 23. 4–18; Clark, The Rise of Christianity, 30–31. 21 There is evidence, implicit and explicit, for the Letter of James in many ancient writings: Josephus, Antiquitates Judaeorum 20. 200; Hegesippus, apud. Eusebius’ Hist. eccles. 2. 23, 4–18; Clement Alexandrinus, Hypotyposes 7 apud Eusebius’ 2. 1, 4f. J.A. Robinson even argues for the period of 47–8 CE; Redating the New Testament (London: Wipf & Stock Pub, 1976), 352–353; and see F.F. Bruce, New Testament History (London: Aquila Press, 1969), 373; E.E. Ellis, “New Directions in the History of Early Christianity.” In Ancient History in a Modern University, 71–92; M. Grosso, “A New Link between Origen and the Gospel of Thomas: Commentary on Matthew 14:14,” Vigiliae Christianae 65, no. 3 (2011): 249–256. 22 The firebegan among shops filledwith wares and raged for six days and seven nights. Numberless palaces and important buildings were consumed. A full account is presented in Tacitus’ Annales XV. 44. 2–8, quoted also in L.T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament (assist. Penner) (London: Fortress Press, 1999), 97; cf. Spence, Early Christianity and Paganism, 42–44; A.S. Barnes, St. Peter in Rome and His Tomb on the Vatican Hill (London: Literary Licensing, 1900), 84–86. 23 Williams, Chronology of the Ancient World, 300–301. 24 The book covers the Roman history between 14 and 68 CE. 25 Although Tacitus (52–117 CE) was not an eyewitness of the persecution and a pagan historian, that his information was entirely accurate and trustworthy is the common view of modern readers; N.P. Miller, Tacitus Annals 15: Annalivm Liber XV (Basingstoke and London: St. Martin’s Press, 1973), 24; J.C. Ayer, A Source Book for Ancient Church History: From the Apostolic Age to the Close of the Conciliar Period (New York: Nabu Press, 1913), 6–7; Clark, The Rise of Christianity, 14; Barrett, New Testament Background, 15–16. About the pagan historiography of Tacitus, see Merrill, Essays in Early Christian History, 82–105; R.L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Heaven: Yale University Press, 1984), 104–105. 26 See C. Suetonius Tranquilus, Opera Omnia, vol. 3 (London: Nabu Press, 1826), 736–737, and 813–814; K.R. Bradley, Suetonius’ Life of Nero: An Historical Commentary (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1978), 100–105, and 294–295; Barrett, New Testament Background, 16. 27 K. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers (Cambridge, 1912–1913), 129. 28 J.C.Jr. Ayer, A Source Book for Ancient Church History (Fairford, Glos: Echo Library, 2008), 7–8; C.E.C. Everitt et al. Part III: The Christian Testament Since the Bible (New York: Penguin, 1986), 5–6. 29 Barnes, St. Peter in Rome and His Tomb on the Vatican Hill, 70–73. 30 W. Lowrie, Peter and Paul in Rome: An Archaeological Rhapsody (London, 1940), 148–164. 31 “We are in the same lists (as the martyrs Peter and Paul), and the same contest awaiteth us” (the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 7:1); see Robinson, Reading the New Testament, 313; Everitt et al. Part III, 20–23. 32 According to Josephus’ interpretation of “when the city (Jerusalem) was in very great peace and prosperity” (Bell. Jud. 6.5.5 [300]), the period for Thomas may be possible up to 61 or early 62, if the Thomasine community had already launched its textualization work before then. 33 S.G.F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity (London, 1978), 154–166. 34 This does not mean that the Pella Jewish group was originally the Thomasine community. See the next section of this chapter, with Eusebius’ Hist. eccles 3.5.3. The Pella Christians will be mentioned there. J.S. McLaren, “Christians and the Jewish Revolt, 66–70 CE.” In Ancient History in a Modern University, 53–60. R.A. Spivey and Jr. D.M. Smith, Anatomy of the New Testament: A Guide to Its Structure and Meaning (New York, 1974), 14. On the followers of John the Baptist being in similar straits to the Jesus followers at this time, see the Mandaean text Haran Gawaita; B. Nasoraia and G.W. Trompf, “Mandaean Macrohistory,” Aram 22 (2010): 416–418. 35 See Pliny, Naturalis historia 17. 5, with Ellis, “New Directions in the History of Early Christianity,” 71–92; Robinson, Redating the New Testaments, 13–30. 36 There are many theories involving the historical location of the community, which is the next subject in this chapter. Williams, Chronology of the Ancient World, 300–305. 37 One can guess that some copies of the original text would be unofficially preserved in an isolated place, for today we have three Greek fragments of Thomas. 38 The historical person Paul was living and performing his ministry of Jesus at the same time as Thomas. This has not been denied by any scholar as yet. 39 Most of the early Jewish-Christian communities in the first century CE began in urban areas; this also applies to Thomas, even though W.H.C. Frend contends that the rural Christian movement appeared in the late second and early third century CE. A.D. DeConick adopts a large number of Thomas Logia for the view of the Jerusalem-based church: 2, 4b, 5, 6b, 6c, 8, 9, 10, 11a, 14b, 15, 16a, 16b, 17, 20, 21b, 21d, 21e, 24b, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33a, 33b, 34, 35, 36, 38a, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47a, 47b, 47c, 48, 54, 57, 58, 60a, 61a, 62a, 62b, 64, 65, 66, 68a, 69a, 69c, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100a, 100b, 102, 103, 104, 107, 109, and 111a. Quoted from the footnote #102 of R. Uro, Thomas, 125, and see A.D. DeConick, “The Original Gospel of Thomas,” Vigiliae Christianae 56, no. 2 (2002): 194–195; W.H.C. Frend, “Town and Countryside in Early Christianity.” In The Church in Town and Countryside (Ecclesiastical History Society Studies in Church History 16), ed. D. Baker (Oxford, 1979), 25–42.; T.E. Gregory, VOX POPULI: Popular Opinion and Violence in the Religious Controversies of the First Century A. D. (Columbus, 1979), 15–39. 40 The Oxyrhynchus fragments (P. Oxy. 654, 1, and 655) do not contain this part of the Logia of Jesus. 41 Thomas cannot be thought of as having been written in an unusual situation or by the personal will of the community, since the text represents the religious doctrine of its community. 42 These scholars, plus Uro, represent the contemporary Thomas scholars offering “the creative reader-response ideology.” 43 R. Valantasis, in The Gospel of Thomas (London: Routledge, 1997), 1–27, insists that Thomas has common points with John and Ignatius, so that the text was written around 100–10. But he still approves the independence of Thomas from those texts. 44 H. Koester, “The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century.” In Gospel Traditions in the Second Century, 19–37; G. Cameron, Other Gospels, 23–25. 45 The following section will give further details. See Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus; with I.O. Dunderberg, “Thomas’ I-Sayings and the Gospel of John.” In Thomas at the Crossroads, 33–64, also assuming that Thomas was written in the period of 70–100 CE. 46 An exception to this is G.W. Morrice’s view of Aramaic, in his Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 23–25, and 63–69. 47 See R.A. Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity (Jerusalem, 1988), 122–127. 48 H.M. Gwatkin, Early Church History to A. D. 313 (London, 1912), vol.2, 1–18; Robinson, Reading the New Testament, 16–25. 49 The phrase is quoted by Epiphanius (Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus), in The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Book I (sects 1–46), ed. F. Williams (Leiden: Brill, 1997), Panarion 30.2.7, 121. 50 From Treatise on Weights and Measures 15, quoted from G. Lüdemann, “The Successors of Pre-70 Jerusalem Christianity: A Critical Evaluation of the Pella- Tradition.” In Jewish and Christian Self-Definition: Volume One The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries, ed. E.P. Sanders (London, 1980), 161. 51 Ibid., 161–173. The flight of the Jerusalem Christians to Pella is recognized more as a historical event among the vast majority of scholars: McLaren, “Christians and the Jewish Revolt, 66–70 CE,” 53–60; L.E. Elliott-Binns, The Beginnings of Western Christendom (London, 1948), 72–86. 52 “The city of the Jews (Jerusalem after the Jewish War) was thus reduced … by strangers. The Roman city which subsequently arose, and changing its name, was called Aelia … when the church was collected there of the Gentiles”: Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 4.6.4. 53 Mk 16:7, “But go, tell His disciples and Peter, He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him, just as He said to you,” is used by W. Marxsen, in Mark the Evangelist, trans. J. Boyce (Nashville, 1969), 102–107, to argue that the disciples of Jesus in the story changed the direction of flight from Galilee to Pella, but this is not acceptable, and there is no certain support as yet for an appropriate reason to change direction. 54 “But when you see Jerusalem encircled by armies, then you may be sure that her destruction is near” (Lk 21:20). See Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, 172–184. 55 The controversial view that James was “the Teacher of Righteousness” or “Righteous Teacher” in the Dead Sea Scrolls for the Qumran community and James was called ⲡⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥ (the righteous) in Logion 12 of Gos.Thom., can still sustain the argument of R. Eisenman that the Pella refugees of Jerusalem were the “Jamesian community,” in his James the Brother of Jesus (London, 2002), xx–xxii. 56 Lk 21:20–4 (and 19:42–4); and see C.H. Dodd, “The Fall of Jerusalem and the ‘Abomination of Desolation.” In More New Testament Studies (Manchester, 1968), 69–83, quoted by Ellis, “New Directions in the History of Early Christianity,” 71–92. 57 “For from there (Pella) it took its beginnings (of the Nazoraean heresy) after the exodus from Jerusalem when the disciples went to live in Pella” (Panarion 29.7.7). Lüdemann, “The Successors of Pre-70 Jerusalem Christianity,” 164. 58 The third-largest city of the Roman Empire (Antioch) was composed of many mingled races. The leading classes of the society were of Greek-speaking Hellenistic background, implying the Gentile Christian communities if they were Jesus followers after Paul’s activity. See Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 4–10; Burkett, An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 94–96. 59 Stephen’s party of Christianity was mainly “the Hellenists” (Acts 6:1); R.E. Brown, and J.P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York, 1982), 32–36. 60 The author of the Acts reports that the converted Saul, on the way to Damascus, returned to Jerusalem and introduced the Gospel of Jesus in front of the former fellows of Judaism, but was rejected by them (Acts 9:29). 61 The human-rights issue of the Hellenists in the Jerusalem church, which is well described in Acts 6:1–7, implies that the Gospel was open to Gentiles as well as Jews. But the open mind of the Jerusalem church opposes the Thomas text, since no certain tension in Thomas was given to any outsiders. 62 “Greek culture and thought” were generally understood as Hellenistic: A.D. Nock, Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 2–22; Elliott-Binns, The Beginnings of Western Christendom, 29–41. 63 Nock, Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background, 87–89, and 100–104. 64 Esler, The First Christians in their Social Worlds, 7. 65 Details in Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 7–10. 66 The ministry of Thomas was extended to Edessa, Parthia, Persia, and India, at least according to a generalized legend still accepted by very many today; see H. Koester, “GNOMAI DIAPHOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity.” In Trajectories through Early Christianity, eds. J.M. Robinson and H. Koester (Philadelphia: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1971), 126–132; A.E. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 1962); T. Jansma, A Selection from the Acts of Judas Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 1952). 67 “And I was chosen, together with my fellows, to be a preacher”: B.S. Labubna and G. Howard (ed. and trans.), The Teaching of Addai (Chicago, 1981), 17. However, the two interpretations by Eusebius of Thaddaeus and Addai are doubtful, since the two texts involved were written at least 200 years later (around 325–60 CE): Eusebius, Hist. eccles., 1.13; 2.4–7; cf. I. Wilson, Are These the Words of Jesus? Dramatic Evidence from Beyond the New Testament (Oxford, 1990), 56–67. Jude the Apostle (not Iscariot) is usually identified as the apostle Thaddaeus (Mt 10:3). 68 Despite Metzger’s argument that the young Syrian community was not limited to “urban people,” but included the evangelization of “country-folk” as well, the question of how they avoided the Christian persecutions of Domitian (81–96), Trajan (98–117), and Hadrian (117–38) after Nero (54–68) is still a mystery. A. Vööbus, Early Versions of the New Testament: Manuscript Studies (Stockholm, 1954), 68–70. J.G. Given, “Finding the Gospel of Thomas in Edessa,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 25, 4 (2017): 501–530. 69 G. Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle (London, 1876). 70 Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 4–7. F. Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha (London: Bloomsbury, 2003), 35–38. 71 The kingdom of Osrhoëne, including Edessa, was briefly occupied by the Roman emperor Trajan between 115 and 118. F.C. Burkitt, Early Christianity outside the Roman Empire (Piscataway, 2002), 8–16; B. Lincoln, “Thomas- Gospel and Thomas-Community: A New Approach to a Familiar Text,” Novum Testamentum 4 (1977): 65–76. 72 Addai’s Palestine-Syrian origin is also indicated from his Aramaic- and Greek- speaking background: Vööbus, Early Versions of the New Testament, 67–73. The testimony of Addai (Addaeus) regarding the church rules of Edessa em­ phasizes the authentic authority of the Jewish-Christian leadership in Jerusalem: “according to the ordinances and the laws which were appointed by the disciples in Jerusalem, and by which my fellow-apostles … I also am guided by them amongst you”: Doctrine of Addai the Apostle, trans. G. Phillips (London, 1876), 39–40. It is also called “The Teaching of Addaeus the Apostle”: thus Labubna, The Teaching of Addai. 73 However, rural Christianity, according to Liebeschuetz, was not established in the Syrian area before Constantine: W. Liebeschuetz, “Problems Arising from the Conversion of Syria.” In The Church in Town and Countryside, (Studies in Church History 16), ed. D. Baker (Oxford, 1979), 17–24. 74 Aggaeus, the second bishop of Edessa, was not able to lay his hand upon Palut, because he suddenly died by the cruel hand of one of Abgar’s contumacious sons; see Labubna, Teaching of Addai, 92–103. 75 “A great number of the population of the city stayed with him. … Addaeus (spoke) these things before all the town of Edessa. … Jews who were familiar with the law and the prophets, also were persuaded, and became disciples.” Labubna, Teaching of Addai, 100. 76 This text reflecting the work of Bardaisan was written by his pupil called Philip, as the Syriac text of The Book of the Laws of Countries, trans. H. J. W. Drijvers, 1965, quoted from W.S. McCullough, A Short History of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam (Chicago, 1982), 23; S.P. Brock, “Greek and Syriac in Latin Antique Syria.” In Literary and Power in the Ancient World, eds. J. Bowman et al. (Cambridge, 1994), 152–158. 77 Quoted from McCullough, Short History of Syriac Christianity, 23. 78 There is a view that a Christian council was held at Edessa as early as 197: Eusebius, Hist. eccles. 5.23.2. 79 This text, as an anonymous work, was written in 540: [Anonymous], “The Chronicle of Edessa,” Journal of Sacred Literature NS 5 (1864): 28–45. 80 W.H.C. Frend, “The Ecology of the Early Christianities.” In Town and Country in the Early Christian Centuries, ed. W.H.C. Frend (London: Variorum, 1980), 17–28. 81 Africanus, Chronograph. (apud G. Syncellinus); see H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie (Leipzig, 1880), 3; A.A. Schoene, Eusebius, Chronicorum libri duo 1–2 (Berlin, 1875) 2239; see R. Habas, “The Jewish Origin of Julius Africanus,” Journal of Jewish Studies 45, no 1 (1994): 86–91; McCullough, A Short History of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam, 31–32; cf. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 5–9. 82 Using “The Epistle of Saint Ignatius to the Romans IV. 1.” In Part III, 20–23. 83 “Addaeus … appointed in them deacons and elders, and instructed in them those who should read the scriptures”; from “The Teaching of Addaeus the Apostle,” trans. B.P. Patten. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, eds. A.C. Coxe et al. (Peabody, Mass., 1995), 663. Cf. Labubna, The Teaching of Addai, 104. 84 The assertion by Josephus in Antiq. 20.2–4 that Izates, the king of Adiabene, sent his sons to Jerusalem for their education after he turned to the Jewish religion is proven by the archaeological discovery of Syriac epigraphic traces on the sarcophagus of his mother Helen in Palestine; Vööbus, Early Versions of the New Testament, 68–70. 85 Hennessy, as a result of the Pella excavation, surmises that the ancient city was not only “a major city in the Jordan River, but also sat astride the principal trade route that linked the Red Sea ports (south) with Galilee, Jezreel and Damascus to the north.” 1,106 coins were discovered during the first 12 sea­ sons of the University of Sydney excavations at Pella, but the various categories of the ancient coins such as Hellenistic, Jewish, Greek imperial, Roman, Islamic and Byzantine coins, can only support the trade activity of the city in their flourishing period. On his findings, see J.W. Betlyon, “Pella in Jordan 1970–1990: the Coins,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 329 (2003): 97. 86 As for Thomas going to south India after 52, this is another rumor which has turned into a Thomas tradition: A. Dihle, “Early Christianity in India.” In Ancient History in a Modern University, 305–316. 87 About the origin of Christianity in India, Dihle (in ibid.), systematically de­ monstrated the hypothesis of the sea-route between Egypt and Vietnam. Dihle used the various traditional stories and books, such as “the ancient book called the Cosmography of Cosmas Indicopleustes,” “the story of a sea-captain, Eudoxus who discovered the Monsoon Passage from the Red sea to India,” “the testimony of Lucian regarding some sort of tourism as well as trade to India,” “Graeco-Roman coins found in South India and Ceylon,” and “the so- called Periplus of the Red Sea that has listed all the harbours, sea-routes and trade-goods.” 88 The fact that Tatian was a formal student of Justin Martyr, raises another thought that the sayings of Jesus in Apology mainly based on the synoptic sayings, could be repeated or quoted in the Diatessaron of Tatian; see A.J. Bellinzoni, The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr (Leiden: Brill, 1967). 89 Originally the Syriac Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew as early as the second century and as late as the fourth, whereas the New Testament was translated from Greek versions (and without all canonical books), being copied with the Old Testament of Peshitta from probably the fourth century on. See Burkitt, Early Christianity outside the Roman Empire, 8–25; T. Baarda, “The Syriac Versions of the New Testament.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, eds. B.D. Ehrman et al. (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1983), 97–109. 90 H.W. Hogg (trans.), “The Diatessaron of Tatian.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 9, ed. A. Menzies (Peabody, Massa., 1995), 42–138. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 9–10. H.J.W. Drijvers, “IV: Hellenistic and Oriental Origins.” In East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity, ed. H.J.W. Drijvers (London, 1984), 25–33. S. Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian: A Harmony of the Four Holy Gospels Complied in the Third Quarter of the Second Century (London, 1888), 3–51. 91 Before the Syriac version of the Gospels (add. MS. 14451), the Peshitta—which was probably influencedby the Diatessaron—was the earliest Syriac version of the New Testament. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 36–98. A. Siverstev, “The Gospel of Thomas and Early Stages in the Development of the Christian Wisdom Literature,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8, 3 (2000): 319–329. N. Perrin, Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron (Leiden: Brill, 2002). R.F. Shedinger, “Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship Between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron,” Journal of Biblical Literature 122, no. 2 (2003): 387; Baarda, “‘The Cornerstone’ An Aramaism in the Diatessaron and the Gospel of Thomas?,” Novum Testamentum 37, no. 3 (1995): 285–300. For more, see P. Luomanen, “‘Let him Who Seek, Continue Seeking’: The Relationship between the Jewish-Christian Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity, 119–153. 92 Klijn, The Acts of Thomas. 93 Labubna, The Teaching of Addai. 94 See B. Rehm and G. Strecker, Die Pseudoklementinen (I) (Berlin, 1989); B. Rehm and G. Strecker, Die Pseudoklementinen (II) (Berlin, 1992); Strecker, Die Pseudoklementinen (III) (Berlin, 1994); Labubna, The Teaching of Addai. 95 See I. Gardner, The Kephalaia of the Teacher: The Edited Coptic Manichaean Texts in Translation with Commentary (Leiden, 2004). 96 Perrin, Thomas and Tatian, 20–25. 97 Prologue and Logia 1, 2, 17–19, 22, 23, 32, 33, 46, 51, 55, 85, 90, and 94 were particularly important for him in seeking “the nature of Thomas”: Lincoln, “Thomas-Gospel and Thomas-Community”: 65–76; Uro, Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas, 25–30. 98 Baker’s argument was based on comparison of the word “wash” in Greek, Coptic, and Syriac: see his “The Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron,” Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1965): 449–454; followed by W.L. Petersen, “The Diatessaron of Tatian.” In Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, 77–79. 99 See J.B. Segal, Edessa, “the Blessed City” (Oxford, 1970), 9–22. 100 Considered in the period of 52–3, because the cases of 91–109 and 116–8 are less relevant to the two characters. 101 J.A. Bewer, The History of the New Testament Canon in the Syrian Church (Chicago, 1900), 1–33. 102 In terms of a strong Jewish diaspora city, Alexandria was once assumed as a place in which the Greek Thomas text was being read and used before being rendered into Coptic and finding its way to the region of Nag Hammadi. T. Akagi presumes Alexandrian Christianity in relation to a satellite community of the original Thomasine community, in his T. Akagi, ‘The Literary Development of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas,’ 43–77. I.P. Brown, “Where Indeed Was the Gospel of Thomas Written? Thomas in Alexandria,” Journal of Biblical Literature 138, no. 2 (2019): 451–472. 103 B. Layton, The Coptic Gnostic Library; Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7 (with XII,2, BRIT. LIB. OR. 4926(1), and P.OXY. 1, 654, 655), 103–109. 104 See J.M. Robinson, and the Department of Antiquities of the Arab Republic of Egypt, The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices: Codex II (Leiden: Brill, 1974). 105 According to Hegesippus’ Hypomnemata (120–80), James’ devotional life was expressed as “his knees grew hard like a camel.” He seems to spend a long time in prayer and intercession. See W.H.C. Frend, “The Gospel of Thomas: Is Rehabilitation Possible?” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1967): 13–26; Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha, 23. James, the brother of Jesus in a Jewish-Christian setting, was regarded as the leader after Jesus: F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (London, 1974), 117–118; H. Conzelmann, History of Primitive Christianity (tran. J.E. Steely) (Nashville, 1979), 48–63. 106 Irenaeus’ Against Heresies 1.26.2: “Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God.” Also see Justin’s Dialogue 46–47 (written in the middle of the second century). 107 Five Jewish-Christian examples of Thomas contain Logion 12 with other Logia—27 (P. Oxy. 1), 30, 80, and 95—for the independence of Thomas from the synoptic Gospels. Each Logion will be individually analyzed later. R.M. Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (London: A. R. Mowbray & Co.), 117–132. 108 Paul never opposes James’ legitimate right or “the fact of his authority”: Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus, 51–60. 109 Logion 12 tells of the direct appointment of James by Jesus, though the Hypotypoesis of Clement of Alexandria (150–215 CE), reported by Eusebius in Hist. eccles. 2.1.3 indicates an election by the Apostles. The quotation of Hegesippus in Hist. cccles. 2.23.4–7 refers to James the Righteous: “I sent each one of them to a different place. But I myself went up to Jerusalem, praying that I might acquire a share with the beloved ones who will appear.” M.W. Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus (New York, 2002), 74. 110 Eisenman’s interpretation of James’ leadership of Jerusalem in the context of the Qumran community and the Damascus Document is a new approach, still problematic within Thomas scholarship. See his James the Brother of Jesus, 200–204. 111 Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha, 22. 112 A population of 80,000 in Jersualem in the firstcentury is quite understandable in light of the facts that the population of Rome was approximately 1,000,000 and over 750,000 people were living in Antioch, the third-largest city of the Roman Empire, where the first Gentile Christian church was born: N.J. Bull, The Rise of the Church (London, 1967), 58–72; D.V. Diema, and K. Armstrong, “Jerusalem at the Time of Jesus,” Time (2001): 46–56. 113 During Passover, Sukkoth, and Shavuot, the people of Jerusalem, including visitors, numbered between 100,000 and 250,000: I.J. Davidson, The Birth of the Church: From Jesus to Constantine AD 30–312 (Oxford, 2005), 19–21, 36–38. 114 “The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.” 115 Mt 16:16. P. Oxy 655.i.17–23 matches with NHC 39:27–40:02, but this part is omitted in the Oxyrhynchus text. 116 The attempt to distinguish the various traditions of Jesus cannot be treated as absolute, because there are still differences between them. Peter and Matthew are representatives of “Judean Christianity or Palestinian Christianity” around the towns of Judaea and Galilee (the land of Palestine): Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 452–485. The Letters of the Apostle Paul refer to Judaean Christian traditions, and it is to be assumed that Paul would have learned of the Jesus tradition from Judaean Christian groups: D.R. Catchpole, “Tradition History.” In New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. H. Marshall (Exeter, 1977), 165–179; and see Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 155–175. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, 31–53. 117 G.R.S. Mead (trans.), Pistis Sophia: A Gnostic Miscellany, ed. R. Russell (Blauvelt, 1984), 114–115; E. Amélineau, Pistis-Sophia (Paris, 1975). 118 The phrase from Refutation of All Heresies 5.8.4 has relevant interest for the Gospel of Bartholomew and the Secret Book (Apocryphon) of John (II, 1), which describes some kind of identification with the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son. In the Refutation 5.8.4, Kaulakau is Adamas (primal man), Saulasau is mortal man, and Zeesar is the Jordan, which flows upward; M. Marcovich (ed.), Hippolytus: Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (Berlin, 1986), 155; Cf. W. Schneemelcher and F. Scheidweiler, “The Gospel of Bartholomew.” In New Testament Apocrypha, 537–557: F.E. Williams, “The Apocryphon of John.” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 29–37; Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas, 74–75. 119 (Pseudo-)Hippolytus, Refutation 5.8.5 See Grant, and Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus: According to the Gospel of Thomas, 31–57; Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, 111–112. 120 The “three secret instructions” (“knowledge,” or γνωσις in Greek) of Jesus given to Thomas are one of the main claims gnostic believers advance about the Thomasine text. 121 Patterson also believes that this kind of rivalry occurred more in the first century than later; see Patterson, Robinson, and Bethge, The Fifth Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas Comes of Age, 42. G. Quispel, who is a supporter of Thomas’ independence in that the Thomas text has a marked affinity with the Jewish-Christian gospels, also sustains the Judaic-Christian movement of Thomas; he still holds the view that the text was written in 140, but his Jewish- Christian origin of Thomas is quite adaptable. See his “‘The Gospel of Thomas’ and ‘Gospel of the Hebrews,’” New Testament Studies 12, 4 (1966): 371–382; G. Quispel, “The Gospel of Thomas and the Trial of Jesus.” In Text and Testimony, 193–199. 122 B.L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth (New York, 1989), 60–64; R. Horsley, “Logoi Prophetôn? Reflections on the Genre of Q.” In The Future of Early Christianity, 195–211. 123 This tradition, mentioned by Koester, refers to Christian activities in Galilean cities as a Judaean Christian community (Q 10:13–15). H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London, 1990), 164. 124 Burkett, Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity, 176. 125 “ ⲛⲧⲱⲧⲛ̄ ⲇⲉ ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲙ̄ⲫⲣⲟⲛⲓⲛⲙⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲑⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛϩⲟϥ` ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̄ⲁⲕⲉⲣⲁⲓⲟⲥ ⲛ̄ⲑⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ ϭⲣⲟⲙ`ⲡⲉ (you, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves: NHC II, 2. 40:11–13). 126 See later for details of the community rules of Thomas in relation to Q. Burkett, Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity, 176. 127 G.J. Riley places the Pauline, Matthaean, and Johannine communities as the brotherhood communities of Thomas, though the historical order of origin is still controversial; in his “Influenceof Thomas Christianity on Luke 12: 14 and 5:39,” Harvard Theological Review 88, 2 (1995): 229–235. See also C.F.D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (London, 1962), 153–177; Spivey and Smith, Anatomy of the New Testament: A Guide to Its Structure and Meaning, 57–65; K.L. Jolly, Tradition and Diversity: Christianity in a World Context to 1500 (New York, 1997), 15–26. 128 On the missionary activities of the Jerusalem church, see DeConick, “Original Gospel of Thomas”: 195. 129 Because one cannot expect a well-organized Christian community to produce the religious text of their doctrine through a life of exile, no scholar has sug­ gested the origin of Thomas within the Pella community. 130 NHC II, 2.51:07. DeConick previously suggested a connection between Thomas and Alexandrian Christianity. See, DeConick, “Original Gospel of Thomas”: 195–198. 131 See H.K. McArthur, In Search of the Historical Jesus (New York, 1969); R.H. Hiers, The Historical Jesus and the Kingdom of God: Present and Future in the Message and Ministry of Jesus (Gainesville, 1973); L.E. Keck, A Future for the Historical Jesus: The Place of Jesus in Preaching and Theology (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1981); G. Cornfeld, The Historical Jesus: A Scholarly View of the Man and His World (New York, 1982); J.L. Segundo, The Historical Jesus of the Synoptics, trans. J. Drury (New York, 1985). 132 This does not mean that the community of Thomas remained in Jerusalem forever and was marginalized among other Christian communities; it religio- geographically reached out when the community had grown, around the middle of the first century. See earlier. 133 The Jesus of the Rabbinic traditions in both texts is seen as “the magic prac­ titioner.” The same sentence is repeatedly quoted in two different texts: “He (Jesus of Nazareth) has practiced magic and led Israel astray”: H.C. Kee, What Can We Know About Jesus? (Cambridge, etc., 1990), 12–16; R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus (London: Regent College Publishing, 1986), 32–39; G. Twelftree, “Jesus in Jewish Traditions.” In Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, vol. 5, ed. D. Wenham (Sheffield, 1985), 5, 289–341. 134 Ayer, A Source Book for Ancient Church History, 6–7; Barrett, The New Testament Background, 15–16; Clark, The Rise of Christianity, 14. For in­ formation about the pagan historian of Tacitus, see Merrill, Essays in Early Christian History, 82–105; Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, 104–105. 135 And see Cornfeld, The Historical Jesus, 188–190. 136 Paul would have known or possessed some written traditions of Jesus, prob­ ably quoting them as assumed knowledge of his Letters’ recipients: P. Richardson, and P. Gooch, “Logia of Jesus in 1 Corinthians.” In Gospel Perspectives, 39–57. For the study of Agrapha, see B.D. Ehrman and P. Zlatko, The Other Gospels: Accounts of Jesus from Outside the New Testament (Oxford and New York, 2013), 155–188. 137 Burkett, Introduction to the New Testament, 174 & 184–185. 138 More at Mt 2:1–6, 9:27, 12:23, 15:22, and 20:30. 139 Mk 1:21–2, 1:27, 6:2, 10:26, and 11:18 (rabbi); 1:14–5, 1:38–9, 9:1, and chapter 13 (prophet); 3:14–5 and 6:12–3 (miracle worker); 1:10–1, 10:47–48, 13:26, and 14:62 (Messiah). 140 D. Cupitt, “One Jesus, Many Christs?” In Christ Faith and History: Cambridge Studies in Christology, eds. S.W. Sykes and J.P. Clayton (Cambridge, 1972), 136. 141 For Luke as would-be historian (and characterizer of Jesus) as distinct from the other Evangelists, see Trompf, Early Christian Historiography, 63–5 and the literature cited there. 142 In this regard, the Jesus in Thomas is often recognized as a gnostic Jesus, in that “the words which Jesus speaks (in Thomas) … are hidden words and they contain a hidden sense, available to the gnostic-minded reader who searches for this sense”: Grant and Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus, 105. 143 D.E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1983), 233–245, especially 234. 144 Jn 4:26, 6:20, 6:35, 6:41, 6:48, 6:51, 8:12, 8:18, 8:23 (twice), 8:24, 8:28, 8:58, 10:7, 10:9, 10:11, 10:14, 11:25, 13:19, 14:6, 15:1, 15:5, 18:5, 18:6, and 18:8. See L. Kreitzer, The Gospel According to John (Oxford, 1990), 87–98; J.F. O’Grady, According to John: The Witness of the Beloved Disciple (New York, 1999), 11–19: S. Yamaguchi, “‘I AM’ Sayings and Women in Context.” In A Feminist Companion to John, vol. 2, ed. J. Levine (London, 2003), 34–63. 145 To ascertain the meaning of this declaration, the readers of the text should return to the context given in the passage. 146 According to Dunn, the prophetic I-sayings imply that the (Johannine) com­ munity, one of the earliest Christian groups, survived until the period of false prophecy, and that the community used the prophetic I-sayings for their benefit against false teachings: J.D.G. Dunn, “Prophetic ‘I’-Sayings and The Jesus Tradition: The Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances Within Early Christianity,” New Testament Studies 24 (1978): 175–198. For a detailed guide to the seven sayings of John, refer to the following sources: J. Painter, John: Witness and Theologian (London, 1975), 37–49; P.C. Counet, John, A Post-Modern Gospel: Introduction to Deconstructive Exegesis Applied to the Fourth Gospel (Leiden, 2000), 190–195; S.S. Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter (Downers Grove, Illi., 1998), 133–135. 147 R.E. Brown, “The Gospel of Thomas and St. John’s Gospel,” New Testament Studies 9 (1963): 155–177. W.J. Harrington, John: Spiritual Theologian (The Jesus of John) (Dublin, 1999), 21–28. 148 Logia 10, 13, 17, 23, 28–30, 38, 43, 61, 77, 92, 104, 108, and 114. 149 R.E. Brown, “The Gospel of Thomas and St. John’s Gospel”: 155–177. 150 J. Sell, “Johannine Traditions in Logion 61 of the Gospel of Thomas,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 7 (1980): 24–37. C.G. Lingad also assumes that Logia 1 (Jn 10:6 and 8:52), 13 (Jn 7:37), 28 (Jn 1:14), 38 and 68 (Jn 7:34), 40 (Jn 15:6), 97 (Jn 11:26), 99 and 104 (Jn 7:3), and 114 (Jn 20:1–10) echo: see J.G. Celestino, and Lingad, The Problems of Jewish Christians in the Johannine Community (Rome, 2001), 402–404; Sell, “Johannine Traditions”: 24–37. 151 For the view of Jesse Sell, see Marcovich, “Textual Criticism on the Gospel of Thomas,” Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1969): 53–74, especially 72–74. 152 G.J. Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (Minneapolis, 1995), 127–179. 153 Ibid. See also J.H. Cho, “Thomas in John’s Gospel and the Controversy on the Resurrection of the Body,” Korean Journal of Christian Studies 116 (2020): 105–32. 154 Mirkovic quotes Logia 13, 28, 29, 30, 43, 61, 77, 92, and 104. http://www. misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/johnthom.htm, Johannine Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas: The Sayings Traditions in their Environment of First Century Syria, ed. Mirkovic, viewed on 02/06/04. 155 Logia 13, 28, 38, 77, and 108 are used for the term “Redeemer.” For sidelight, B. Witherington III, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis, 1994). 156 This is the case where the ego eimi sayings of self-identification are seen as the Rabbinic “I AM.” C.H. Williams, “‘I AM’ or ‘I AM He?’: Self-Declaratory Pronouncements in the Fourth Gospel and Rabbinic Tradition.” In Jesus in Johannine Tradition, eds. R.T. Fortna and T. Thatcher (Louisville, 2001), 343–352. 157 See Appendix 5. 158 See I. Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence (San Francisco, 1984), 175–184. 159 The scenario of a communication between Jesus and his disciples in Logion 13 reflects the heavenly Man interrogating his followers about his identification: “Compare Me to someone and tell me whom I am like.” NHC II, 2. 34:31–2: ⲧⲛ̄ⲧⲱⲛⲧ` ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̄ ϫⲟⲟⲥ ⲛⲁⲉⲓ ϫⲉ ⲉⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲓⲙ. 160 “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a flesh (body), was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.” 161 A. Marjanen, “The Portrait of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity, 210–211; Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas, 212. 162 Dunderberg, “Thomas’ I-Sayings and the Gospel of John,” 47–48. 163 Marjanen, “The Portrait of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas,” 210–211. Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas, 210. 164 That is, NHC II, 2. 38:34–39:02. 165 Riley, “Influence of Thomas Christianity on Luke 12:14 and 5:39,” Harvard Theological Review 88, 2 (1995): 129–130. 166 NHC II, 2. 39:03–05: ‘ … , “there are ⲉⲩⲛ̄ϣⲟⲙⲧ ⲛ̄ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ` ϯϣⲟⲟⲡ` ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ` three Gods … I Myself am with him.” 167 P. Oxy. 1:25–7 (Logion 30). 168 “Jesus said, ‘Many times have you desired to hear these words which I am saying to you, and you have no one else to hear them from. There will be days when you will look for me and will not find me.’” 169 “You will look for me, but you will not find me; and where I am, you cannot come” (Jn 7:34). “What did he mean when he said, ‘You will look for me, but you will not find me,’ and ‘Where I am, you cannot come?’” (Jn 7:36). See Helms, Who Wrote the Gospels? 110. 170 The word can also be understood as “from the same” or “from what is whole,” but “from the undivided period” is the most suitable meaning in this context. The translation of Thomas Lambdin will be the primary source throughout this book: T.O. Lambdin, “The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2).” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 124–138. 171 Through the method that “where Thomas redaction is found in the text of Luke, then the text of Luke must post-date and be dependent on sayings formed in Thomas Christianity.” See Riley, “Influence of Thomas Christianity on Luke”: 230; J. Wilson, The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations, vol. 2: Luke and John (Louaize, 2002), 512–513. 172 “Friend, who set me to be Judge or divider over you?” Riley’s point is that the fact that the author of Luke uses the terms “Judge” and “Divider” in the verse, unlike Thomas and the Old Syriac of Luke, indicates the trace of the textual redaction of Luke: Riley, “Influence of Thomas Christianity on Luke”: 229–235. 173 H. Koester, “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels,” Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968): 222. 174 Even if the second saying regarding the matter of ⲛⲟⲃⲉ, “sin,” is used as the method by which he advocates himself with the disciples. 175 These sayings, which are collections of the Revealer, have no direct value for any historical event to witness, which indirectly proves the fact that this text was written in the process of transformation between the oral tradition and written tradition of Jesus. Koester, “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels”: 221–223. 176 In spite of the fact that Logia 28 (Jn 1:11, 1:14, and 1:26), 43 (Jn 8:25), 61 (Jn 5:18–23), and 104 (Jn 8:46), by general observation, seem close to the sayings of John: Dunderberg, “Thomas’ I-Sayings and the Gospel of John,” 33–64. 177 Notwithstanding his viewpoint of Thomas as a fellow community of John, which still remained in the socio-cultural setting of 70–100; ibid. 178 According to Kloppenborg, Logion 10 is part of Q (Q 12:49). J.S. Kloppenborg, Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, and Concordance (Sonoma, 1988), 142. 179 “They said to Jesus, ‘Come, let us pray today and let us fast.’ Jesus said, ‘What is the sin that I have committed, or wherein have I been defeated? But when the bridegroom leaves the bridal chamber, then let them fast and pray.’” 180 J.M. Robinson, The Sayings of Jesus: The Sayings Gospel Q in English (Minneapolis, 2002), 3–31. 181 “Everyone hearing my sayings and acting on them is like a person who built one’s house on bedrock; and … it (house) did not collapse, for it was founded on bedrock. And everyone who hears my sayings and does not act on them is like a person who built one’s house on the sand; and … promptly it (house) collapsed, and its fall was devastating.” See Robinson, The Sayings of Jesus, 8. 182 For the view of Bertil Gärtner's interpretation, see Dunderberg, “Thomas’ I- Sayings and the Gospel of John,” 56–58. 183 Riley, “Influence of Thomas Christianity on Luke”: 148–151. 184 Defining the beginning of the Gnostic movement varies according to each specificform of the movement, but this book follows the view that the origin of the dual movement in the history of early Christianity appeared in the post–Jewish War period, since the Pseudo-Pauline Letters have often indicated the furtive invasion of the Gnostic movement into the Gentile-Christian churches. See Chapter 3. 185 “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 186 Dunderberg, “Thomas’ I-Sayings and the Gospel of John,” 56–58. 187 “ⲡⲉϫⲉⲓ̄ⲥ̄ ϫⲉ ϯⲛⲁϣⲟⲣϣⲣ̄ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲉⲓⲏⲉⲓ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲙⲛ̄ⲗⲁⲁⲩⲛⲁϣⲕⲟⲧϥ ⲁⲛ ⲛ̄ⲕⲉⲥⲟⲡ” (Logion 71). 188 NHC II, 2. 36:05–09. 189 Dunderberg, “Thomas’ I-Sayings and the Gospel of John,” 61. 190 See details of the anti-gnostic interpretation in Chapter 3. 191 This is one of many Jewish wisdom traditions in relation to Genesis 2. “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life” (Logion 114). See the second section of Chapter 5 for more detail. 192 For more information on the Thomasine concept of women, see Chapter 5. 193 The ⲁⲛⲟⲕ` does not bring any change to the word, but is only considered when one reads the word as a kind of accent or pitch point. 194 Logion 114. 195 The pseudepigraphic text, composed in the first half of the third century, re­ lates to the adventures of “Judas Thomas.” Some pictures of Acts Thom. are found in the Manichaean Psalms. See James (ed.), The Apocryphal New Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1924) 378. 196 For the Q image of Jesus well described, Robinson, The Sayings of Jesus, xiii–xiv. 197 DeConick insists that “each has its own Sitz im Leben: its own geographical location, its own community history and its own religious traditions”: A.D. “John Rivals Thomas from Community Conflictto Gospel Narrative.” In Jesus in Johannine Tradition, 303. 198 Koester, “The Sayings of Q and Their Image of Jesus.” In Sayings of Jesus, 137–54. 199 While the Gnostic texts of Nag Hammadi do not accept Jesus as a Savior with real physical flesh, the Logia of the Thomas Jesus connote the role of Savior: M. Franzmann, “A Complete History of Early Christianity: Taking the ‘Heretics’ Seriously,” Journal of Religious History 29, 2 (2005): 117–28. 200 Chapter 3 will explore the influence of the Jewish sophia tradition in Thomas. 201 See Marjanen, “The Portrait of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas,” 209–10. 202 P. Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus (New Heaven, etc., 1988), 18–26. 203 The text takes place between Easter and the Ascension, during which time Thomas asks Jesus, like in Gos. Thom., about the secrets of spiritual truth. See J.D. Turner, “The Book of Thomas the Contender (II, 7).” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 199–207; N. Herausgegeben, Das Thomas- Bush: Nag-Hammadi-Codex II, 7 (Berlin, 1989), 24–38. 204 ⲉⲛⲧⲁϥϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲩ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲥ̄ⲱ̄ ̄ⲣ (that the Saviour spoke to), ⲡⲁϫⲉϥ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲥ̄ⲱ̄ ̄ⲣ (the Saviour said), ⲁϥ’ⲟⲩ’ⲱϣⲃ̄ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲥ̄ⲱ̄ ̄ⲣ (the Saviour replied), ⲁϥ΄ⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ̄ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲥ̄ⲱ̄ ̄ⲣ (the Saviour answered), and ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱϩ ⲉⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ’ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲥ̄ⲱ̄ ̄ⲣ ⲡⲁϫⲉϥ then the Savior continued and said.” Turner asserts that Thom. Cont. has a median position between Gos. Thom. and Acts Thom. in his “Book of Thomas the Contender,” 529–30. 205 James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 147. 206 See Klijn, The Acts of Thomas. 207 This section has been published by the Journal Biblica 88, 3 (2007): 393–414. 208 The members, who were originally Jews, denied their mothers’ customs and accepted the Thomasine Logia of Jesus as the new religious rules. K. King interprets Logia 3, 113, and 114 as concerning conversion. See her “Kingdom in the Gospel of Thomas,” Foundation and Facts Forum 3, 1 (1987): 48–67. 209 Also Logia 25, 26, 37, 72, 86, and 114. 210 See also Logia 86b, 99a, 101, and 105. 211 If the legends of Thomas and his successors in the Eastern world are acceptable materials, the Christian origin of the Edessa of Osrhoëne belongs to this case at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century, rather than the end of the second century. See under “The DNA of the Thomasine Community” earlier. 212 The texts of 4Q280, 286–287, 4Q502 and 5Q 13 are also regarded as the community rules of the Qumran community. 213 The major part of the community scrolls was discovered in the form of a parchment scroll in Cave 1 of the Qumran site. Fragments of 12 other manuscripts were found in Caves 4 and 5. For guidance, G. Vermes (ed. and trans.) The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London, 1998), 97–98, and 99–239; L. Rost, Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon: An Introduction to the Documents (tran. Green) (Nashville, 1976), 164–169; J. Campbell, “The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rules,” Journal of Theological Studies 51, 2 (2000): 628–631. 214 Although the existence and nature of the Qumran community are controversial issues among contemporary Qumran scholars, one cannot ignore the certain policy of the Jewish community: Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 98. 215 The title reconstructed by modern scholars. The text was originally called The Teachings of the Apostles. 216 While many readers agree on the origin of the text as being between 50 and 150, A. Milavec, who claims the period of 50–70, supports Robinson’s view in the context that the text simply presents the necessary rules of a Christian community. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 323–358; A. Milavec, The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (Collegeville, Minn., 2003); T.M. Finn, From Death to Rebirth: Ritual and Conversion in Antiquity (New York, 1997), 146–149; J.R. Harris, The Teaching of the Apostles (London, 1887). 217 J. Reed, “The Hebrew Epic and the Didache.” In The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Texts, History and Transmission, ed. C.N. Jefford (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 215–225. 218 Jefford, The Sayings of Jesus in the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, 1–139; Mitchell, “Baptism in the Didache.” In The Didache in Context, 226–229. 219 Patterson, “Didache 11–13: The Legacy of Radical Itinerancy in Early Christianity.” In The Didache in Context, 313–329; M. Slee, “The Church in Antioch in the First Century CE: Community and Conflict.” In Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series 244 (London, 2003), 101–116; Draper, “Social Ambiguity and the Production of Text: Prophets, Teachers, Bishops, and Deacons and the Development of the Jesus Tradition in the Community of the Didache.” In The Didache in Context, 284–312. 220 The Prayer of the Lord (Dida. 8:2), false prophets (11:3), correcting another (15:3), and alms, prayers, and fasting (15:4) are similar to Mt 6:9–13, 7:15, 5:21–2, and 6:1–6. This book will not explore this area further. See Draper, “The Jesus Tradition in the Didache.” In Gospel Perspectives, 269–287; H. Koester, “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels.” In Trajectories Through Early Christianity, 184–187; W. Rordorf, “Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?” In Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series 64, ed. H. Wansbrough (Sheffield, 1991), 394–423. 221 This Logion 25 relates the standard of one’s self-consciousness and the ex­ periential world of those for whom Thomas was proposed. Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity, 112. 222 “Tell my brothers to divide my father’s possessions with me. He (Jesus) said to him, O man, who has made me a divider?” 223 This Logion is matched with Q 9:58. However, since the author of Q expresses “the son of humanity” as the subject, the expression “the son of man” in Thomas can be interpreted in various ways. Jacobson supposes that the “Thomas version of the Jesus movement includes homeless wanderers with no place to rest.” R. Doran, “The Divinization of Disorder: The Trajectory of Mt 8:20// Luke 9:58// Gos. Thom. 86.” In The Future of Early Christianity, 210–219; A.D. Jacobson, “Jesus against the Family: The Dissolution of Family Ties in the Gospel Tradition.” In From Quest to Q, 216. 224 See Lincoln, “Thomas-Gospel and Thomas-Community”: 65–66. 225 Q 10:4, 12:22–32, 16:13, and 16:18 are also related to, or imply, anti- family ties. 226 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 121–128, quoting from Jacobson, “Jesus Against the Family: The Dissolution of Family Ties in the Gospel Tradition,” 189. 227 This is obvious in the middle of the firstcentury, when Jews and Romans hated Christians. They did not worship God together, even though the beginning of the new movement (30–40) was not similar to the period before the Jewish War (50–70). The fact that the Christian persecution was not organized by Romans but was plotted by Jews displays the emotions of the Jews. See more under “The Historical Context for Thomas” earlier. 228 Lincoln, “Thomas-Gospel and Thomas-Community”: 65–76. 229 Yet to evaluate the whole text as ascetic in character is an irresponsible risk without evidence. Uro, “Is Thomas an Encratite Gospel?” In Thomas at the Crossroads, 140–162. 230 Logion 16 is similar to Q 12:51–3. 231 R. Uro, “Asceticism and Anti-Familial Language in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor, ed. H. Moxnes (London, 1997), 216–234: Uro, “Is Thomas an Encratite Gospel?” 159. 232 Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas, 84. 233 See Chapter 4 for more details. Uro, “Is Thomas an Encratite Gospel?” 158–160. 234 “Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me” (Logion 55). “Whoever does not hate his [father] and his mother as I do cannot become a [disciple] to me. And whoever does [not] love his [father and] and his mother as I do cannot become a [disciple to] me” (101). In interpreting these two similar Logia, Quispel argues that Thomas used at least two written sources, one Jewish-Christian and the other encratite, quoted by Uro, “Is Thomas an Encratite Gospel?,” 145–146. In addition, “For my mother …, but [my] true [mother] gave me life” is quite mystical, unless “[my] true [mother]” means “His heavenly Father, God,” in relation to Jesus’ heavenly origin. 235 Q is not recognized as Gnostic among modern readers. “For I have come to divide son against father, and daughter against her mother, and daughter-in- law against her mother-in-law” (Q 12:49–53). “(The one who) does not hate father and mother (can) not (be) my (disciple); and (the one who does not hate) son and daughter cannot be my disciple” (Q 14:26). 236 The episode of Jesus’ true family (Logion 99), however, is used once for the post-canonical perspective in relation to the Lukan passage “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s Word and put It into practice” (8:21). See F. Strickert, “Jesus’ True Family: The Synoptic Tradition and Thomas.” In For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity, eds. Randal A. Argall, Beverly Bow, and Rodney A. Werline (Harrisburg, PA: Bloomsbury, 2000), 246–257. 237 Uro, “Is Thomas an Encratite Gospel?,” 140–162; Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas, 216–234. 238 Jacobson, “Jesus Against the Family,” 216. 239 The Thomasine family rule, for Uro, is seen as “the true (divine) family lineage.” Uro, “The Social World of the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity, 26–28. 240 This does not mean that Judaism was a monolithic entity in the period, but simply addresses the socio-religious policy of the Thomasine community that was different from the Jewish-majority environment. 241 A. Marjanen, “Thomas and Jewish Religious Practices.” In Thomas at the Crossroads, 163. 242 Logion 39 is presented in both Greek and Coptic texts: P. Oxy. 655 col. ii. 11–23 and NHC II, 2.40:07–13. If “keys of knowledge” was attractive to gnostic readers only, “the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven” in Mt 13:11 and Lk 8:10 and “you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were en­ tering” in Lk 11:52 should be accepted as gnostic sayings as well. See Chapter 3 for more details on the gnostic debate. 243 Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas, 48. 244 “Woe to you, exegetes of the Law, for you shut the kingdom of (God) from people; you did not go, nor let in those trying to get in.” Robinson, The Sayings of Jesus: The Sayings Gospel Q in English, 18. 245 It is better to understand the terms “keys,” “knowledge,” and “secret words” as being quoted later by gnostic forerunners. See Chapter 3. 246 “But you have become like the Jews, for they (either) love the tree and hate its fruit (or) love the fruit and hate the tree.” 247 The combination of the three religious practices, which are also in the Book of Tobit (12:8), implies that its origin belongs to the Jewish ethical tradition. Marjanen, “Thomas and Jewish Religious Practices,” 167. 248 See also “For there is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed and there is nothing covered that shall remain without being uncovered.” 249 The view that the question of Logion 6.1 seems in a way to be answered in Logion 14:1–3 is interpreted in many ways among Thomas readers, such as the organizational matter of Quispel for Logion 5, S.L. Davies’ suggestion of the mistake of “a tired scribe,” and Pearson’s accident theory. See Marjanen, “Thomas and Jewish Religious Practices,” 167–168; Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom, 153. 250 The reverse concept that “if you do not fast as regards the world, you will not find the kingdom” means that a person who indeed fasts for what the world needs will find the kingdom or will experience what he/she was fasting for. H.W. Attridge’s Greek phrase “fasting as regards the world,” according to Valantasis, can be reinterpreted as “fasting with respect to the world.” See his The Gospel of Thomas, 40–41; Marjanen, “Thomas and Jewish Religious Practices,” 169. 251 “But when the bridegroom leaves the bridal chamber, then let them fast and pray” (Logion 104b). Marjanen interprets ‘ⲡⲛⲩⲙⲫⲱⲛ, “the bridal chamber,” as “the state a Thomasine Christian attains after having been chosen for sal­ vation.” Marjanen, “Thomas and Jewish Religious Practices,” 172. 252 “If you keep not the Sabbath as Sabbath, you will not see the Father” (Logion 27b). 253 Paterson Brown’s one-page article is quite clear on the meaning of the Thomasine Sabbath: “The Sabbath and the Week in Thomas 27,” Novum Testamentum 34, 2 (1992): 193. See also J.T. King, “Sabbath Keeping as Metaphor in the Gospel of Thomas,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 81, 4 (2019): 641–656. 254 Ptolemy’s Letter to Flora has a similar vein: “to keep the Sabbath (means) that we desist from evil works” (Epiphanius, Panarion 33.5.12), quoted from Marjanen, “Thomas and Jewish Religious Practices,” 177–178. 255 See details with Baarda, “‘If You not Sabbatize the Sabbath …’ The Sabbath as God or World in Gnostic Understanding (EV. THOM., LOG. 27).” In Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World, eds. R. van den Broek, T. Baarda, and J. Mansfield (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 180–192. 256 For more details of the Demiurge and the world, see the principle of a gnostic cosmos in Chapter 3; and see ibid., 178–201. 257 Ibid., 200. See also P. Linjamaa, “Savoring Life with an Unsympathetic World View: Sabbath as Rest and Contemplation in Gospel of Thomas Logion 27,” Numen 63, 5–6 (2016): 461–482. 258 See Marjanen, “Thomas and Jewish Religious Practices,” 179. 259 After the saying against fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. Logion 14:4–5. 260 “For what goes into your mouth will not defileyou, but that which issues from your mouth—it is that which will defile you.” 261 Thomas follows Matthew twice in using the specific word ⲧⲁⲡⲣⲟ, “mouth”; this is quoted by McArthus in terms of the dependence of Thomas on the synoptic Gospels. But his view is quite irrelevant—rather, it is clearer that Thomas is close to Q, since many scriptures of Matthew are part of Q: H.K. McArthur, “The Dependence of the Gospel of Thomas on the Synoptics,” Expository Times 71, 9 (1960): 286–287. 262 NHC II, 2.39:24–7. 263 One could assume that the redactor of the Coptic text omitted some of the Greek phrases, whether deliberately or not. For a brief authentication of Thomas, see R.M. Wilson, “The Coptic ‘Gospel of Thomas,’” New Testament Studies 5 (1959): 273–276. 264 P. Oxy. 655.13–7. 265 See Baker, “The Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron”: 449–454; idem, “Pseudo-Macarius and the Gospel of Thomas,” Vigiliae Christianae 18 (1964): 217–225. 266 While Uro handles the Matthaean and Lukan texts, he does not allow the involvement of Q. He still believes that the origin of the Thomasine tradition was definitely involved in “some form of Jewish-Christianity.” Uro, “Washing the Outside of the Cup.” In From Quest to Q, 303–322. 267 Many Jesus sayings of Thomas are in Q. This is one of them: “Woe to you, Pharisees, for you purify the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and dissipation. Purify … the inside of the cup, … its outside … pure” (Q 11:39b and 11:42): Robinson, The Sayings of Jesus: The Sayings Gospel Q in English, 18. 268 These virtues include childlikeness, singleness, abstinence, world renunciation, wealth renunciation, family renunciation, sexuality renunciation, prohibition of procreation and marriage, continuous prayer, and fasting. See Frend, “The Gospel of Thomas: Is Rehabilitation Possible?”: 13–26; J.J. Buckley, “An Interpretation of Logion 114 in the Gospel of Thomas,” Novum Testamentum 27, 3 (1985): 270–273; M.W. Meyer, “Making Mary Male: The Categories ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ in the Gospel of Thomas,” New Testament Studies 31, 4 (1985): 554–556. 269 See C. Richardson, “The Gospel of Thomas: Gnostic or Encratite?” In The Heritage of the Early Church: Essays in Honour of the Very Reverend George Vasilevich Florovsky (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, vol. 195), eds. D. Neiman and M. Schatkin (Rome, 1973), 71; G. Quispel, “Gnosticism and the New Testament,” Vigiliae Christianae 19 (1965): 65–85. B. Gärtner, The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas, trans. E.J. Sharpe (London, 1961), 12; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 75–128; O. Cullmann, “The Gospel of Thomas and the Problem of the Age of the Tradition Contained Therein,” trans. B.H. Kelly, Interpretation 16 (1962): 418–438. Cameron, “The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins.” In The Future of Early Christianity, 381–392. 270 M. Desjardins, “Where was the Gospel of Thomas Written?,” Toronto Journal of Theology 8 (1992): 126. See also Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas, 59–60. 271 The monastic life of Syrians and Egyptians in the fourth and fifth centuries riginated from the ascetic Christians of the early church. See Brock, “Greek and Syriac in Latin Antique Syria,” 149–160. 272 DeConick, in terms of “accretion” argues the involvement of “encratism” in the process of the textual development of Thomas in the early second century. See her Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas; idem, The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation: With a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel (Library of New Testament Studies (LNTS) 287) (London, 2006). 273 For further details, see under “The DNA of the Thomasine Community” earlier. 274 Although the new community concept of Valantasis is still based on the ascetic view of 100–10, his imagining of the new proselytes is quite plausible, in The Gospel of Thomas, 75–81. 275 W.D. Stroker’s Extra-Canonical Sayings of Jesus does not include any beati­ tudes of Jesus as part of the rules of the early Christian communities, but he collected many non-canonical Logia of Jesus including Thomas and en­ umerated them with other relevant texts; see his Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus, 198–245. 276 NHC II, 2.33:24, 36:14, 36:17, 41:27, 42:23, 43:08; 45:21, 45:25, 45:28, 47:04, 47:06–7, 47:10, and 50:06. 277 Logia 7, 18, 19, 49, 54, 58, 68, 69, 79, and 103. 278 Logia 7, 18, 19, 79a, 79c, and 103. 279 These ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ statements are chosen according to the following objects. They are not relevant to the interpretation of the ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ Logia of Thomas. 280 The editor of the Nag Hammadi Thomas uses a different term for “blessed,” which is not clearly identified yet. 281 The ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ Logia 7, 18, and 19 belong to the traditional sophia (wisdom) sayings, which will be detailed in Chapter 3. Logion 103, like Q 12:39, will be identifiedas a parable of Jesus in Chapter 4. The two ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ Logia of NHC II, 2.47:04 and 47:10 are already mentioned in the family rules of Thomas. This part will selectively treat the ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ Logia 49, 54, 58, 68, 69 (NHC II, 2.45:25, 45:28), 79 (NHC II, 2.47:07), and 103. 282 When a Jew leaves the traditional religion, he/she become ⲛⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ (‘the solitary’) from them but at the same time he/she is ‘ⲉⲧⲥⲟⲧⲡ` (elect or chosen).’ While Lambdin interprets ⲉⲧⲥⲟⲧⲡ` as ‘elect,’ Meyer’s explanation is more applicable here; see the latter’s Gospel of Thomas. 283 “But it is the solitary who will enter the bridal chamber” (Logion 75). The word ⲉⲧⲥⲟⲧⲡ` is also interpreted as “superior”: Layton, The Coptic Gnostic Library; Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7. Morrice, who has an independent concept for Thomas, does not seem to relate the physical celibacy practice, but rather an insight into the internal celibacy of Thomas members; in Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 84–89. 284 “These solitary individuals formed small groups which led their own lives within large groupings of communities.” Klauck does not specify one parti­ cular Christian group, but it is certain that his concept includes the Thomas group as well, since the Thomasine community was also an early Christian community, not a second- or third-century Gentile group reproduced some­ where in Syria. Klauck, The Religious Context of Early Christianity, 112. 285 Attridge, “Reflections on Research into Q,” 223–234. 286 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you”: Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 89. 287 Even though the saying contains some elements of Mt 5:6, 5:8, and 5:10. 288 Quoted from the first English translation of A. Guillaumont et al., The Gospel According to Thomas. Cf. Lambdin, “The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2),” 124–138. 289 This phrase is also in Q 6:21a. See R.W. Funk, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (n.tran. and com. Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar) (New York, 1993), 512; G. Lüdemann, Jesus after 2000 years: What He really said and did, trans. J. Bowden (London, 2000), 625. 290 Robinson, The Sayings of Jesus, 5; Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia, 1987), 171–173; Attridge, “Reflections on Research into Q,” 223–234; S. Witetschek, “Going Hungry for a Purpose: On Gos. Thom. 69.2 and a Neglected Parallel in Origen,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32, 4 (2010): 379–393. 291 “Jesus said: Blessed are the poor, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven.” 292 Robinson, The Sayings of Jesus: The Sayings Gospel Q in English, 5. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 171–173. Attridge, “Reflections on Research into Q,” 223–234. B. Chilton, “The Gospel According to Thomas As a Source of Jesus’ Teachings.” In Gospel Perspectives, 155–157. 293 Lk 6:20. 294 Mt 5:3. Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, 55. D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Thomas (Sacra Pagina Series 1) (Collegeville, Minn., 1991), 76–85. 295 Morrice, Hidden Sayings, 86–87. 296 ⲛⲉⲉⲓⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲁϩⲥⲱⲧⲙ̄ ⲁ` ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲁⲩⲁⲣⲉϩ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϩⲙ̄ⲟⲩⲙⲉ. 297 See Chapter 4 for more details. 298 Logion 95. 299 K.A. Fowler, “Reading Gospel of Thomas 100 in the Fourth Century: From Roman Imperialism to Pachomian Concern over Wealth,” Vigiliae Christianae 72, 4 (2018): 421–446. 300 This Logion will be re-examined in the context of “the parable tradition” in Chapter 4. 301 “When you say, ‘Mountain, move away,’ it will move away.” 302 Since the text does not show any sign of the unnecessary duplication “hate the one and love the other” or of the secondary application of the proverb (“serving God and mammon”). Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 90. 303 Ibid. 304 Grant and Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus, 159. 305 Lk 5:36, Mt 9:16, and Mk 2:21. 306 However, the discernment of a wise fisherman, picking up only the “fine large fish” without difficulty, can conclusively remind the Thomas readers of when an outsider becomes an insider in the community: “The man is like a wise fishermanwho cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them the wise fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose the large fish without difficulty” (Logion 8). 307 Logia 16, 55, 79, 86b, 99a, 101, and 105. 308 See the internal (controversial) meanings in section three of Chapter 3. 1 The sophia tradition of Judaism was transmitted into (Greek) philosophy and the new religion (early Christianity), and progressively transformed in the process of its development. 2 In particular, the philosophical teachings of Philo are reflectingly revealed on the religious picture of Thomas; J.M. Asgeirsson, “Conflicting Epic Worlds.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity, 164–171. 3 B. Hoberman, “How Did the Gospel of Thomas Get Its Name?” Biblical Archaeologist 46, no. 1 (1983): 10–11. See also the Introduction to this book. 4 See J.S. Kloppenborg, “A New Synoptic Problem: Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole on Thomas,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36, no. 3 (2014): 199–239. S.J. Patterson, “Twice More—Thomas and the Synoptics: A Reply to Simon Gathercole, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas, and Mark Goodacre, Thomas and the Gospels,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36, no. 3 (2014): 251–261. 5 Although the view was that the original language was not (Sahidic) Coptic or Syriac, but Greek, there is no clear evidence about its translator, copyist, collector, binder, user, or burier—except a hypothetical account that monks living near ancient monasteries were the group who received, kept, and pro­ tected the Christian document in their own way of culture, customs, and belief. See A.D. DeConick, Seek to See Him; Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (Leiden, 1996), 3–16; B.D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford, 2003), 51–65. 6 H.-Ch. Puech, “Un logion de Jésus sur bandelette funéraire,” Bulletin de la Société Ernest Renan 3 (1954): 126–129. 7 In the introduction of his book, R.McL. Wilson partly describes the process of dating the Oxyrhynchus scrolls in relation to the Nag Hammadi Thomas: Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, 5–8. 8 H.-J. Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels, trans. B. McNeil (London, 2003), 107–110. 9 Soon after the news (in 1952), the Coptic text was translated into many lan­ guages, including English in 1959. But the complete translation of the Nag Hammadi Codices did not appear until 1977, with J.M. Robinson’s The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 10 See Figure 0.2. H.E.W. Turner, “The Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomas and the Evangelists, 11–39. 11 R.L. Wilken, “Wisdom and Philosophy in Early Christianity.” In Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. R.L. Wilken (Notre Dame, 1975), 143–168; J.L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom (London, 1981), 188–189. 12 F. Wisse, in Nag Hammadi Library in English, 503; DeConick, Seek to See Him, 11–16. 13 On the basis of its style, Teach. Silv. is argued to belong to non-gnostic sophia literature. On relating the Jewish sophia tradition to the formation of early Christian asceticism, see W.R. Schoedel, “Jewish Wisdom and the Formation of the Christian Ascetic.” In Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, 169–199; Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 188–189. 14 M.L. Peel and J. Zandee, in Nag Hammadi Library in English, 379. See details in the next section. 15 DeConick, Seek to See Him, 11–12. 16 See Chapter 4. 17 H.M. Jackson, in Nag Hammadi Library in English, 318–320. 18 Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels, 108–109. 19 According to C.B. Smith. Jr, “the Jewish rebellion in Cyrenaica and Egypt under Trajan (115–117 CE) triggered the origins of Gnosticism,” which was not a religion but “a sort of pathological attitude toward the kosmos, marked by radical dualism, anti-cosmism and a denigration of the Jewish God.” See Smith’s No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins (Peabody, Mass., 2004), with N. Denzey, “No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67, no. 3 (2005): 542–543. 20 See M. Franzmann, “A Complete History of Early Christianity: Taking the ‘Heretics’ Seriously,” Journal of Religious History 29, no. 2 (2005): 117–128. 21 “The word (gnosis), as a self-designation, referred to a school of thought and then its members (of Sethians)” (Adversus Haereses 1.11.1). For details about Sethian gnosticism, see J.D. Turner, “Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History.” In Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, eds. C.W. Hedrick and R. Hodgson, Jr. (Peabody, MA, 1986), 55–86; Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 301. 22 R.A. Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity (Jerusalem, 1988), 29–47. Grant and Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus According to the Gospel of Thomas, 60–61. 23 P.R. Amidon (trans.), The Panarion of St. Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 76–77; cf. Franzmann, “A Complete History of Early Christianity”: 119–120. 24 Grant says that “But the son of man has no place to lay his head and rest.” See Montefiore, “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel According to Thomas and of the Synoptic Gospels.” In Thomas and the Evangelists, 42–45; P. McKechnie, The First Christian Centuries, 162–164. 25 See Refutatio omnium haeresiuml Heresies 5.6.3–11.1, using M. Marcorich (ed.), Hippolytus: Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (Berlin, 1986), 141–173. 26 Marcorich, Hippolytus, 147; and see J.H. Macmahon, “The Refutation of All Haereses.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, eds. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (Peabody, Mass., 1995), 53; S.R. Johnson, “Hippolytus’ Refutatio and the Gospel of Thomas,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 18, no. 2 (2010): 305–326. 27 Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels, 105–107. 28 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 1–2. B.H. McLean, “On the Gospel of Thomas and Q.” In The Gospel Behind the Gospels, ed. R.A. Piper (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 322–325. 29 E. Haenchen, Die Botschaft des Thomasevangeliums (Berlin, 1961), 9–10. See also A. Marjanen, “Is Thomas a Gnostic Gospel?” In Thomas at the Crossroads, 108–109., n. 8. 30 Turner, “The Gospel of Thomas,” 14. 31 B. Gärtner consistently asserts the influence of Valentinus, Marcion, and the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo over Gos. Thom. The similar quotation formula of Thomas (λέγει Ἰησου̑ς, “Jesus said”) is commonly seen within the Valentinian scriptures. See his The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas, 39–41; W.R. Schoedel, “Parables in the Gospel of Thomas: Oral Tradition or Gnostic Exegesis?” Concordia Theological Monthly 43 (1972): 548–560. 32 The Valentinians used to combine different sayings of Jesus from the Lukan source of Thomas—for example, the connection of Lk 15:4–7 (“the parable of the lost sheep”) with Lk 19:10 (“for the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost”): Gärtner, The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas, 75–79. 33 See Valentinians’ Frag. 8 in ‘Hippolytus,’ Refut. 6.37.6–8, using Marcorich, Hippolytus, 252–253. 34 Clement of Alexandria, The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria, trans. R.P.Casey (London, 1934); Clément d’Alexandrie, Extraits de Théodote/ Clément d’Alexandrie; Texte Grec, (Introd., trans. and notes F. Sagnard) (Paris, 1970), 56, 162–165. 35 Marjanen, “The Portrait of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity, 209–219. 36 Apud Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 4.89.1–3, using B. Layton (ed. and trans.), The Gnostic Scriptures (New York: Anchor Bible, 1995), 240–241. 37 Dunderberg, “From Thomas to Valentinus: Genesis Exegesis in Fragment 4 of Valentinus and Its Relationship to the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity, 222. 38 A deep exploration of the Thomasine term appears under “Thomas and Inter- Testamental Jewish Literature.” 39 Dunderberg, “From Thomas to Valentinus,” 233–237, especially, 234–235. 40 Mani, the son of Patik, was born in 216 and left the Baptist community of his parents by the age of 24 (Psalm-Book 142.28–30). In terms of a literary transition, the “five Paradise trees tradition” of Thomas (Logion 19) is em­ ployed in the Manichaean text of Manichaean Psalm Book II (161:17–18); see also Chapter 4; C.R.C. Allberry, A Manichaean Psalm-Book II (Stuttgart, 1938), 161; I. Gardner, and S.N.C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 2004), 10, 196–199, 240–244; McKechnie, The First Christian Centuries, 176–180. 41 This is witnessed in the writings of Eusebius (Hist. eccles. 3.25.6), Jerome (Commentartium in Matthaeum. Prolog.), and Ambrose (Expositio Euangelli secondum Lucam, I.2). See the view of Doresse at Turner, “The Gospel of Thomas: Its History, Transmission and Sources,” 14–16. 42 Layton (ed. and trans.), The Gnostic Scriptures, 360. 43 Grant and Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus, 62–66. 44 For Patristic usages, see Lampe, Patrist. Lexic. (1960), 320b. Regarding the definition of “Gnostic terms,” Michael Williams clearly points out the in­ definite style of contemporary scholars in handling gnostic sects of early Christianity. Valentinians, Basilideans, Nicolaitans, Marcion, Sethians, Simon Magus, Cerdo, and so on, are for contemporary readers too often placed under the same kind of grouping; and when their individuality is probed, the use­ fulness of the overarching category becomes questionable: M.A. Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”; An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton, 1996); M.A. Williams, “On Ancient Gnosticism as a Problematic Category.” In The Gnostic World, eds. G.W. Trompf, G.B. Mikkelsen, and J. Johnston (London, 2019), 100–170. 45 “Which had formed the most considerable part of the ancient religions of the Orient and had also been adopted by the Neo-Platonists of the West”; J. Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics: An Introduction to the Gnostic Coptic Manuscripts Discovered at Chenboskion (London, 1960), 2; reflecting back on A.J. Matter, Histoire critique du Gnosticisme et de son in­ fluence dans les sectes religieusescet philosophiques des six premiers sièclwa (Paris, 1828), 2 vols. 46 The identity of gnostic people assumed in this book would be Hellenistic Gentiles who became Christians but eventually seceded from the existing Jesus movements (including the Thomasine community) through the development of their own cultic/belief specificities, based on a continuing interpretation of the Jesus tradition in engagement with the larger Hellenistic tradition. This book will not examine their identity any further. For guidance G.V. Groningen, First Century Gnosticism (Leiden, 1967). N.D. Lewis, “A New Gnosticism: Why Simon Gathercole and Mark Goodacre on the Gospel of Thomas Change the Field,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36, 3 (2014): 240–250. 47 In the Coptic language, ⲅⲛⲱⲥⲓⲥ (Logion 39). Note the serious influence of the Theosophical Society in the linguistic change, given Helena P. Blavatsky’s usages in her masterworks and those by her last secretary, G.R.S. Mead, translator of Pistis Sophia and Mandaean texts; see G.W. Trompf, “Theosophical Macrohistory.” In Handbook of the Theosophical Current, eds. O. Hammer et al. (Leiden, 2013), 375–403; and on Gnosis and secrecy, see K. von Stuckrad, Was ist Esoterik? Kleine Geschichte des geheimen Wissens (Bielefeld, 2004). 48 P. Oxy. 654. 1–3. H.W. Attridge, “Appendix: The Greek Fragments”. In The Coptic Gnostic Library; Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7 (with XII,2, BRIT. LIB. OR. 4926(1), and P.OXY. 1, 654, 655), 96–128. 49 “When he (Jesus) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, ‘The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables.’” 50 “He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his disciples, he explained everything.” 51 See the Introduction. D.W. Kim, “The Wind-Blowing Desert: Thomasine Scholarship,” Journal of Coptic Studies 8 (2006): 87–101. 52 Grant and Freedman, Secret Sayings of Jesus, 61. 53 K. Rudolph, “‘GNOSIS’ AND ‘GNOSTICISM’—The Problems of Their Definition and Their Relation to the Writings of the New Testament.” In The New Testament and Gnosis, ed. R.McL. Wilson (Edinburgh, 1983), 21–37. Gilhus also presents the sociologically marginal situation of the gnostic groups. Franzmann, “A Complete History of Early Christianity”: 125–126. 54 Gärtner, The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas, 12. 55 Turner, “The Gospel of Thomas,” 91. 56 See U. Bianchi (ed.), The Origins of Gnosticism: Colloquium of Messina 13–18 April 1966 (Leiden, 1970); Robinson, “On Bridging the Gulf from Q to the Gospel of Thomas (or Vice Versa).” In Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, 128–129. 57 Robinson, loc. cit. 58 Bianchi, The Origins of Gnosticism, xx–xxix. For another summary of Gnosticism, see H.M. Ross, Thirty Essays on the Gospel of Thomas (Longmead, Dorset, UK, 1990), 66–68. 59 Bianchi, The Origins of Gnosticism. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. 62 C. Richardson, “The Gospel of Thomas: Gnostic or Encratite?” In The Heritage of the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Georges Florousky, eds. D. Neiman and M. Slatkin (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 195) (Rome, 1973), 71. 63 Ibid. 64 Robinson, “On Bridging the Gulf from Q to the Gospel of Thomas (or Vice Versa),” 128–135. See also Rudolph, “‘GNOSIS’ AND ‘GNOSTIC­ ISM,’” 21–37. 65 DeConick, Seek to See Him, 25. 66 Observers draw various distinctions between the Supreme God and the earthly god, or between the creator(s) and controllers of the material world, or be­ tween divine and evil, or between Man and world. 67 See the next section of this chapter. 68 Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 300–301; Williams, Rethinking ‘Gnosticism,’ 23–47. See also McKechnie, The First Christian Centuries, 100–103. 69 The diverse contexts of the terminology seem to sustain less sense of Thomas’ relationship to Gnosis, as if the original Greek document was unfortunately transformed by those dualistic instigators; R.A. Segal, “Gnosticism, Ancient and Modern,” The Christian Century 112, no. 32 (1995): 1053. 70 McKechnie, The First Christian Centuries, 159; N. Perrin and C.W. Skinner, “Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research (1989–2011). Part II: Genre, Theology and Relationship to the Gospel of Thomas,” Currents in Biblical Research 11, no. 1 (2012): 65–86. 71 This does not allude to all the readers of Thomas in that era, but points to the major stream of thought among the early readers. 72 When Thomas, in the 1960s, was strongly related to the view of dependency on the canonical Gospels, Klijn’s approach was a fresh idea for those who read Thomas with a non-Gnostic mind. Klijn’s research was barely perused at that time, but after a half century the situation has begun to change; A.F.J. Klijn, “The ‘Single One’ in the Gospel of Thomas,” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 271–278. 73 Koester, “GNOMAI DIAPHOROI,” 138–140. 74 Several ideological features of the text derive from the Genesis tradition and its Hellenized interpretation in the philosophy of Philo. The period ‘Middle Platonism’ roughly refers to the period of time between Plato’s immediate successors and the rise of third century CE Neoplatonism. This philosophy impacted Jewish thought through Hellenistic culture laid down in the Jewish cities of Israel during the rule of Alexander the Great, whose imperial con­ quests had carried the norms of Greek civilisation over the Eastern Mediterranean world. See J.J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Edinburgh, 1997), 229–231; Uro, Thomas, 54–65. T.H.S.J. Tobin, “Interpretations of the Creation of the World in Philo of Alexandria.” In Creation in the Biblical Traditions (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series), eds. R.J. Clifford and J.J. Collins (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1992), 108–111. The Jewish sophia literature of Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, and the Wisdom of Solomon significantly influenced the philosophy of Philo: J. Laporta, “Philo in the Tradition of Biblical Wisdom Literature.” In Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, 103–141. 75 See Rom 2, 11; 1 Cor 7–8:1–13 and 15; 2 Cor 3–5; Gal 2–3 and 5;1 Thess 5:5, and Col 1:15. 76 Legum allegoriae I. 31–32; De Opificio mundi 15–16, 55, 134, 148; De Somniis 1. 231; De Cherubim 97; Quod Deus sit immutabilis 58; De Fuga et inventione 165; De Vita contemplativa 11, 13, 18, 20, 30; and De Mutatione nominum 9. 77 Franzmann, “A Complete History of Early Christianity”: 117–128; Akagi, “The Literary Development of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas,” ix–xi. 78 Burkett, Introduction to the New Testament, 410–411; Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 330–335; C.L. Albanese, “The Gnostic in Us All: Thinking from the Macrobiotics of Michio Kushi,” Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 5, 1 (2020): 1–21. 79 The ancient Gnostics, according to Segal (“Gnosticism, Ancient and Modern”: 1055), espoused a radical dualism between the material and the immaterial worlds. The ideological similarity supports the insight that Thomas, to Gnostics, was a popular Christian text for creating their own doctrine and belief: Burkett, Introduction to the New Testament, 407–410. About the no­ tion of the “pre-Christian Gnosticism,” see Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism. 80 Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 407–419; A. Siverstev, “The Gospel of Thomas and Early Stages in the Development of the Christian Wisdom Literature,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8, no. 3 (2000): 329–340. 81 Uro, Thomas, 74. 82 “Woe to the soul that depends on the flesh.”The Logion shows the uselessness of the flesh to the soul. 83 This is an argument for the immortality of the soul, set as a conversation be­ tween his master Socrates (469–399 BCE) and his friends in his last hours; Plato (428–347 BCE), as a disciple, developed the teachings of the great Athenian philosopher. See D. Gallop (trans.), Plato, Phaedo (Oxford, 1975), 9, 88–91; Burkett, Introduction to the New Testament, 407–414; I.J. Davidson, The Birth of the Church, 30–35. 84 “The soul is divided into three parts: the intellectual or rational, the vibrant or spirited and the desirous or appetitive”: Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 330–338. 85 G. Vermes (ed. and trans.), Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London, 1998), 98–99, 108–109; Davidson, The Birth of the Church, 42–44; R.W. Funk and R.W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York, 1993), 497. 86 The texts of Qumran, such as 1Q 26, 1Q 27, 4Q 184, 4Q 185, and 11Q Ps 26:9–15, 27:2–11, and 21:11–22:1, reflect the direct or indirect continuation of the sophia tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures. “Philo definitely knew (Proverbs and other sapiential books) and made use of their ideas and images, developing them according to his own views, often altering their meaning”; see Laporta, “Philo in the Tradition of Biblical Wisdom Literature,” 105; with Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 112–131; J. Kampen, “Aspects of Wisdom in the Gospel of Matthew in Light of the New Qumran Evidence.” In Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran, eds. D. Falk, F.G.Martinez, and E.M. Schuller) (Proceedings of the Third Meetings of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998) (Studies in the Texts of the Desert of Judah, 35) (Leiden, 2000), 227–239; cf. C.D. Yonge (ed. and trans.), The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, Mass., 1993), xiv–xv. 87 Acts 15:19 in particular shows that James (the leader of the Jerusalem Council) agrees with Paul and Barnabas on the unnecessary use of circumcision: “It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it obligatory for the Gentiles who are turning to God.” 88 “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1 Cor 7:19); “neither circumcision nor un­ circumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation” (Gal 6:15). 89 A.D. DeConick, Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospel of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature (Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series 157) (London, 2001), 95. 90 Wisse, “The Letter of Peter to Philip (VIII, 2),” 435. 91 The “image” language of Thomas is “derived from the middle-platonism which strongly influenced Philo of Alexandria and the Jewish writing, called Wisdom of Solomon”: S.L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom, 68; M. Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas, 68–121. 92 Gen 5:3: “When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.” 93 “As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.” 94 “Jesus said, ‘The images are manifest to man, but the Light in them remains concealed in the image of the Light of the Father. He will become manifest, but his image will remain concealed by his Light.’” 95 “Jesus said, ‘When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!’” 96 “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our Image, in Our Likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in his own Image, in the Image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” 97 Ásgeirsson expresses Logia 83 and 84 of Thomas as “a clear echo” from the Timaeus of Plato. In particular, the figure of the Logos (the Word) in Philo’s biblical interpretation is seen as “the Image of God,” reflecting “the truly existent God above,” and modeling how “the rest of the universe below was ordered.” The Logos (Word) was called by Philo variously “the First-Begotten Son of the Uncreated Father,” “the High Priest of the Kosmos,” and “the Man of God.” Using here Asgeirsson, “Conflicting Epic Worlds,” 164–166. 98 The created human beings then will realize how far they have been from the Glory of God for which they were made. See G.W. Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 111–112. 99 Legum allegoriae I.31–2. See Tobin, “Interpretations of the Creation of the World in Philo of Alexandria,” 115–117. 100 “To those souls which are still in the body he must appear in the resemblance of the angels, though without changing his nature, but merely implanting in those who behold him an idea of his having another form, … it is his image, not an imitation of him” (Yonge’s trans., The Works of Philo, 385–386). 101 W. Isenberg, “The Gospel of Philip.” (II, 3) In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 150. 102 DeConick, Seek to See Him, 149. 103 Isenberg, “The Gospel of Philip,” 145. 104 S.L. Davies, “The Christology and Protology of the Gospel of Thomas,” Journal of Biblical Literature 111, no. 4 (1992): 668–670. 105 The “great power” equates to “great glory.” “A great power and great glory have made the universe known” (112. 810). The “great power,” according to the Syriac version of Acts Thom. (which is generally understood to possess a substantial amount of Jewish-Christian ideas), is accounted as Christ. M.L. Peel, and J. Zandee, “The Teachings of Silvanus (VII, 4).” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 392. R.V.D. Broek, Studies in Gnosticism and Alexandrian Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 235–258. 106 DeConick, Seek to See Him, 17. 107 Davies, “The Christology and Protology of the Gospel of Thomas,” 663–682. 108 “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen” (Rom 11:36). “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (1 Cor 8:6). 109 D. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible) (New York, 1982), 178–183; S. Holmes, “The Wisdom of Solomon.” In The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English: vol. 1: Apocrypha, ed. R.H. Charles (Oxford, 1913), 547–548. M.D. Litwa, “I Will Become Him”: Homology and Deificationin the Gospel of Thomas,” Journal of Biblical Literature 134, no. 2 (2015): 427–447. 110 Davies, “The Christology and Protology of the Gospel of Thomas,” 670. 111 The key word, “Light,” is found in Sap. Sol.: “she (sophia) is a reflection of eternal Light” (7:26); see DeConick, Seek to See Him, 20–22. 112 E.H. Pagels, “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John,” Journal of Biblical Literature 118, no. 3 (1999): 483–487. Litwa, “I Will Become Him”: Homology and Deification in the Gospel of Thomas,”: 427–447. 113 See the reason in the next section. 114 The phrase “they come from the Light and will return to it” is quoted in the Manichaean Psalm Book: “O holy ones, rejoice with me, for I have returned to my beginning again. I have received my washed clothes, my robes that grow not old” (155.9–12); Allberry, A Manichaean Psalm-Book Part II, 155. 115 Plato, in the Timaeus, describes the world being created by a craftsman deity. See Davidson, The Birth of the Church, 30–33. 116 DeConick, Seek to See Him, 23. 117 1 Apoc. Jas. 33.11–34.1, Gos. Mary 15–7, and Apoc. Paul 22.24–23.26. 118 The Qumran text of the Community Rule (1QS) states that the children of injustice are controlled by the angel of darkness and walk in the ways of darkness: Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 112–131; and for 1QS Vermes (trans.), Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 101–102. 119 Daniel Harrington proposes the connection of Thomas with Qumran’s sa­ piential scrolls, in that “Jesus was to some extent a sophia teacher. … (He) used the forms typically employed by sophia teachers, such as in the Qumran sophia texts”: S.J. Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran (London: Routledge, 1996), 87–90; and see Kampen, “Aspects of Wisdom in the Gospel of Matthew in Light of the New Qumran Evidence,” 227–239. 120 “You are all sons of the Light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness” (1 Thes 5:5). 121 D.J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo.” In The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayer, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo- Hellenistic Works, ed. J.H. Charlesworth (London, 1985), 341–342; DeConick, Seek to See Him, 76–78. 122 Francis Fallon and Ron Cameron, although they do not attempt to prove it, assume that Logion 50 is “part of the Hellenistic catechismal technique of the philosophers.” F.T. Fallon and R. Cameron, “Gospel of Thomas: A Forschungsbericht and Analysis,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ANRW) II. 25.6 (1988): 4231; cf. DeConick, Seek to See Him, 44–45. 123 “Then you (God) commanded that a ray of Light be brought forth from your treasures”; G.H. Box, “4 Ezra.” In loc. cit., 461–624. 124 Forbes, and Charles, “2 Enoch.” In loc. cit., 445. 125 The text reads “destroyed,” but is probably corrupt. 126 The principle of unity is revealed in the writing of Clement of Alexandria (Excerpta ex Theodoto 36:1–2): “Indeed, our angels were put forth in unity, they say, being one, because they came forth from one. Now since we were divided, for this reason Jesus was baptized, that the undivided might be di­ vided, until He unites us with them in the Fullness, so that we, the many who have become one, may all be mingled with the One that was divided for us.” See Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas, 93–94. 127 Clement of Alexandria, Exc. Theo. 36.1–2, and see DeConick, Seek to See Him, 23–24. 128 T. Zöckler, “Light Within the Human Person: A Comparison of Matthew 6: 22–23 and Gospel of Thomas 24,” Journal of Biblical Literature 120, no. 3 (2001): 490. 129 Ibid., 487. 130 “The images are manifest to Man, but the Light in them remains concealed in the Image of the Light of the Father. He will become manifest, but his Image will remain concealed by his Light.” 131 “But, he said, ‘you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.’” 132 DeConick, Voices of the Mystics, 90. 133 Another similar passage is “when the priests withdrew from the Holy Place, the cloud filled the temple of the Lord” (1 Kgs 8:10–1). 134 G. Trompf, “Macrohistory and Acculturation: Between Myth and History between Modern Melanesian Adjustments and Ancient Gnosticism,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 31, no. 4 (1989): 621–648. 135 W. Bousset, “Die Himmelsreise der Seele,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 4 (1901): 136–169, with DeConick, Voices of the Mystics, 89. 136 “The most holy ones who were nigh to him did not leave by night nor depart from him. And until then I (Enoch) had been prostrate on my face, trembling.” When Enoch sees the Light of God’s Face, he falls down flatand worships God: Charles, “1 Enoch.” In loc. cit., vol. 2: Pseudepigrapha, 197. See 2 Enoch 22:4: “and I (Enoch) fell prone and bowed down to the Lord, and the Lord with his lips said to me: ‘Have courage, Enoch, do not fear, arise and stand before my face into eternity'”: Forbes and Charles, “2 Enoch.” In loc. cit., 443. S.J. Patterson, “Apocalypticism or Prophecy and the Problem of Polyvalence: Lessons from the ‘Gospel of Thomas,’” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 4 (2011): 795–817. 137 “Thus I saw the Lord’s face, but the Lord’s face is ineffable, marvellous and very awful, and very, very terrible” (2 Enoch 22:1). See ibid., 442, with DeConick, Seek to See Him, 103–106. 138 Ibid., 131–134; DeConick, Voices of the Mystics, 101–104; DeConick and J. Fossum, “Stripped Before God: A New Interpretation of Logion 37 in the Gospel of Thomas,” Virgiliae Christinae 45, no. 2 (1991): 123–150. 139 Charlesworth, “Odes of Solomon.” In Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in English, vol. 2, 745. 140 “The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” 141 H. Kee, “‘Becoming A Child’ in the Gospel of Thomas,” Journal of Bblical Literature 82 (1963): 307–314. The following parts of “becoming one” and “becoming male” will be related with this concept of Thomas. 142 DeConick, Voices of the Mystics, 103. 143 “Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as He was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.” 144 B.P. Grenfell, and A.S. Hunt, Logia Iesou: Sayings of Our Lord From An Early Greek Papyrus (London, 1897), 10–15. 145 See G.H. Box and W.O.E. Oesterley (trans.), “4 Ezra.” In the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol. 1, ed. R.H. Charles (Oxford, 1913), 461–624. 146 “And these eat nothing save will herbs which they gathered on the mountains, and having cooked them”; R.H. Charles (ed.), The Ascension of Isaiah (London, 1900), 12–13. 147 See also De Vita contemplativa 34–5, 37–8, 68–9, 73–4, and 90. 148 See Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 275–276. 149 In Logia 10, 16, 21, 24, 27, 28, 51, 56, 80, and 110. 150 Koester in 1988 counted 44 Logia which are equal to the traditional Q, but he reduced his number in 1997 to only 21. See Appendix 3: Thomas and Q Parallels (Kim dissert.). Helms, Who Wrote the Gospels? 109–110. 151 “You, then, be on your guard against the world …” (Logion 21). 152 Among the three interpretations, T.O. Lambdin’s is generally adopted in this book. See also Uro, “The Social World of the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity, 22–24. M. Meyer, “‘Be Passersby’: Gospel of Thomas 42, Jesus Traditions, and Islamic Literature.” In loc. cit., 256–266. 153 M. Meyer, Secret Gospels: Essays on Thomas and the Secret Gospel of Mark (Harrisburg, etc., 2003), 59–75; P. Sellew, “Jesus and the Voice from Beyond the Grave: Gospel of Thomas 42 in the Context of Funerary Epigraphy.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity, 39–73. 154 Haenchen, Die Botschaft des Thomas-Evangeliums; Marjanen, “Is Thomas a Gnostic Gospel?,” 117–118. 155 The worldview is constituted based on the kingdom and kosmos sayings, such as Logia 16, 21, 27, 42, 49, 55, 63, 64, 75, 79, 97, and 101. 156 See Tobin, “Interpretations of the Creation of the World in Philo of Alexandria,” 112–115. 157 T. Taylor (trans.), The Works of Plato II ([1804], London, 1986 edn.), vol. 2, 460–570; G.R. Carone, Plato’s Cosmology and Its Ethical Dimensions (Cambridge, 2005), 24–52. 158 Tobin, “Interpretations of the Creation of the World,” 121–123. 159 Marjanen, “Is Thomas a Gnostic Gospel?,” 115–117. 160 S.L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained (London, 2003), 71–72. 161 “But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other” (12:24–5). 162 The Christians are free from the world (1 Cor 3:22) and the people of the world will be judged by them (1 Cor 6:2). Marjanen, for the Thomasine cos­ mology, divides the relevant Logia into three dimensions: the positive con­ notation of the kosmos, the kosmos as a stage for salvific events and actions, and consideration of the kosmos as worthless and threatening. See his “Is Thomas a Gnostic Gospel?,” 118–130. 163 Composed between 220 BCE and 50 CE; see ibid., 130–139. 164 Sap. Sol. 8.19–20; Gos. Thom. 50 and 70: see Holmes, “The Wisdom of Solomon.” In loc. cit., 549. 165 Sap. Sol. 9.15; Gos. Thom. 29. See Holmes, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” 550. 166 Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 180–195. 167 “Jesus said, ‘If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty’” (Logion 29). “Jesus said, ‘Wretched is the body that is dependent upon a body, and wretched is the soul that is dependent on these two’” (87). 168 Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 187–189. 169 Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels, 116–119; Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 33–63. 170 “When you make the two one, … and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female … then will you enter [the kingdom].” 171 Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels, 116. 172 Uro, “Is Thomas an Encratite Gospel?.” In Thomas at the Crossroads, 149–156. 173 Guillaumont et al., The Gospel According to Thomas and Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas. 174 For εἰς ἓν (Greek text) and ⲟⲩⲁ ⲟⲩⲱⲧ (Coptic text), see respectively Attridge, “Appendix: The Greek Fragments,” 96–128 and Lambdin, “The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2).” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 124–138. 175 M. Meyer, Secret Teachings of Jesus, 98. 176 “For the Lord himself, when asked by someone when his kingdom will come, said: ‘when the two shall be one, … and the male and the female, neither male nor female.’ … When you do these things, He said, ‘the kingdom of my Father will come’” (using trans. By K. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers [Cambridge, 1912–1913], 147–148). 177 2 Clement 12.2–6 (Lake, 147–148). 178 K.P. Donfried, The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity (Novum Testamentum Supplements, 38) (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 154, quoted from the fn. 46 of Uro, “Is Thomas an Encratite Gospel?” 153. 179 O. Stählin, and L. Früchtel (eds.), Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata Buch I-VI (Leipzig, 1960), 238. 180 Clement points out the misinterpretation of the author of the non-canonical gospel: “Therefore, when someone gives in neither to wrath nor to desire—which indeed … overshadow and cover rationality—but takes off the mist of these things by repentance after having been ashamed, he ought to unite spirit and soul by obedience to the Word” (Stromateis 3.13.93). 181 Isenberg, “The Gospel of Philip,” 150–151. 182 Acts Thom. 112. See J. Ferreira (ed. and trans.), The Hymn of the Pearl: the Syriac and Greek Texts with Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Sydney, 2002), 92–93, and A.E. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas (Leiden, 1962), 124. 183 This is argued by Ásgeirsson, “Conflicting Epic Worlds,” 164–165. 184 “The one that was after the (divine) Image was an idea or type or seal, an object of thought, incorporeal, neither male nor female, by nature in­ corruptible” (De Opific. mund. 134). 185 See D.K. Wallace, “Androgyny as Salvation in Early Christianity” (PhD dis­ sert., Claremont Graduate University), 2000; J.A. Kelhoffer, “Eschatology, Androgynous Thinking, Encratism, and the Question of Thomas,” Vigiliae Christianae 72, no. 2 (2018): 142–164. 186 Uro, “Asceticism and Anti-Familial Language in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Constructing Early Christian Families, 216–223. 187 Meyer, Secret Gospels, 83. 188 This is also manifested in 1 Cor 12:13: “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” 189 Meyer, Secret Gospels, 83. 190 Klijn’s assumption is that Philo and the author of Thomas drew the ideas of “oneness” and “twoness” from the same Jewish sources: The Acts of Thomas, 271–273 and 275–276. 191 See Meyer, Secret Gospels, 97. 192 See ibid., 93, n. 18; with J. Leipoldt (ed. and trans.), Das Evangelium nach Thomas: Koptisch und Deutsch (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 101), (Berlin, 1967), 123–126. 193 109.21–25: H.-G. Bethge, and B. Layton, “On the Origin of the World (II, 5 and XIII, 2).” In op. cit., 178. 194 140.2–14: S. Emmel, “The Dialogue of the Savior (III, 5).” In op. cit., 252. 195 144.9–10: J.D. Turner, “The Book of Thomas the Contender (II, 7).” In op. cit., 206. 196 Dial. Sav. 144, 19–20. Emmel, “The Dialogue of the Savior (III, 5).” In op. cit., 254. The Second Treatise of the Great Seth tells readers not to become female, “that you may not give birth to evil and what is related to it: jealousy and division, anger, and wrath, fear and a divided heart, and empty, non-existent desire.” 65, 24–31: R.A. Bullard, and J.A. Gibbons, “The Second Treatise of the Great Seth (VII, 2).” In op. cit., 369. 197 “Flee … from the bondage of femaleness, and choose for yourselves the sal­ vation of maleness” (131, 2–10); J.H. Sieber, “Zostrianos (VIII, 1).” In op. cit., 430. 198 A.E. Taylor, A Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (Oxford, 1962), 632–643. 199 Meyer, Secret Gospels, 85–87. 200 Ibid., 88. 201 “The male is more perfect than the female. … the female is nothing else than an imperfect male.” R. Marcus (trans.), Questions and Answers on Exodus (Philo Supplement II) (London, 1929–1962), 14–15. 202 The text of De Fuga et invention defines the position of the feminine as des­ tined to be always lower than the masculine (51): “as indeed all the virtues have women’s titles, but powers and activities of consummate men … and therefore was termed feminine to express its contrast with the maker of the universe, who is masculine, and its affinity to everything else. For preeminence always pertains to the masculine, and the feminine always comes short of and is lesser than it” (Yonge’s trans. of Philo, Works, 325). 203 The principle of oneness could be visualized in the scene in which a man should unite with a woman for “becoming one”: “for she (woman) was taken out of man. … A man will … be united to his wife (female), and they will become one flesh” (Gen 2:23–4). 204 The view of Torjesen is demonstrated at Meyer, Secret Gospels, 101. 205 Ibid. 206 Quaest. et solut. in Exodum (1, 8). Marcus (trans.), Questions and Answers on Exodus, 15–17. 207 Pagels, “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John”: 477–481. 208 The Creation account is represented in many sayings, such as Logia 4, 11, 18, 19, 22, 24, 37, 49, 50, 61, 70, 77, and 83–5. 209 The nature of “image and likeness” is formed in the process of the human creation. Pagels interprets Gen 1:27 as the division of the singular human being into two different sexes by the Creator of the kosmos: when God created Adam in his Image, Adam was a singular being (“in the Image of God He created him (Adam)”). Humankind then developed into a dual species, divided into male and female (“male and female He created them” (1:27). Pagels, “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John”: 482–496. 210 “The study of sophia literature in Jewish and Christian scholarship regularly moves from Near Eastern backgrounds through the classical expressions of Jewish sophia in the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus to the less typical reflections of sophia in Ecclesiastes and Job or the Hellenised form of sophia contained in the Wisdom of Solomon.” Schoedel, “Jewish Wisdom and the Formation of the Christian Ascetic,” 169. 211 Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon. 212 The Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclus.) draws on Proverbs, and Sap. Sol. draws on the Wisdom of Sirach. But all of these books are based on aspects of Proverbs. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 222–232. 213 The general consensus is that authentic Pauline Letters, such as 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Romans, and Philemon, belong to the pre–Jewish War writings, while the synoptic Gospels (except perhaps Mark) and John belong to the post–Jewish War context. J.A.T. Robinson identifiesvon Harnack, Soden, Kummel, and Perrin as representative of this common view of New Testament history, in his Reading the New Testament (London, 1976), 1–12. 214 H. Conzelmann, “Paulus und die Weisheit,” New Testament Studies 12 (1965–1966): 231–244. See also, B.A. Pearson, “Hellenistic-Jewish Wisdom Speculation and Paul.” In Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, 43–45. 215 “Some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe. … So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.” 216 “Sophia” (1:22, 1:30, and 2:7), “its sophia” (1:21), “superior sophia” (2:1), “man’s sophia” (2:5), “message of sophia” (2:6), “sophia of this age” (2:6), “God’s secret sophia” (2:7), and “sophia of this world” (3:19). 217 “Sophia” (1:22), “superior sophia” (2:1), “man’s sophia” (2:5), “sophia of this age” (2:6), and “sophia of this world” (3:19). 218 The Solomonic magical-sophia tradition, according to C.E. Arnold, is based on the scenes of 1 Kgs 3:5–12 and 4:29–34 and Sap. Sol. 7:17–20 in which a knowledge of astral powers, the realm of spirits, and magic are interpreted within “the structure of the world and the activity of the elements.” C.E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1996), 201–204. 219 “Its sophia” (1:21) and “sophia” (1:30 and 2:7). 220 Pearson, “Hellenistic-Jewish Wisdom Speculation and Paul,” 45–59, esp. 57. 221 Vermes (trans. and ed.), Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 244–300. 222 H.-W. Kuhn, “The Wisdom Passage in 1 Cornthians 2:2–16 between Qumran and Proto-Gnosticism.” In Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran, 248–249. Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 291. 223 It appears in Gen 41:38–9, Ex 31:3, Is 11:2, Jb 32:17–9, Dn 5:14, Sap. Sol. 9:17, Ecclus. 39:6, and 4Q504 4:5 (4Q 506 131). 224 Supporting the view with the text of the Community Rule (1QS), which speaks of the “sophia” and “gnosis” of revelation, see Kuhn, “The Wisdom Passage in 1 Corinthians 2:2–16 between Qumran and Proto-Gnosticism,” 250–530. 225 It is most probable that the passage of 1 Cor 1:19 was quoted from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text; cf. also 1:22. J.A. Davies, Wisdom and Spirit: An Investigation of 1 Corinthians 1:18–3:20 Against the Background of Jewish Sapiential Traditions in the Greco-Roman Period (Lanham, 1984), 71. 226 Ibid., 74–81. 227 P. Oxy. 654.1–5. 228 See Kuhn, “The Wisdom Passage in 1 Corinthians 2: 2–16,” 244 n. 9; W. Schmithals, The Theology of the First Christians, trans. O.C. Dean, Jr. (Westminster, 1997), 210–214. 229 It is more persuasive to suppose that the initial Gnostic leaders liked such terms, which appeared in Jewish-Christian texts, and then eventually adopted the useful terms and ideas. 230 See Davies, Wisdom and Spirit, 94, n. 43; J. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (Philadelphia, 1980), 321–325. 231 “Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him” (Is 64:4). 232 Davies, Wisdom and Spirit, 95. 233 S.J. Patterson, J.M. Robinson, and H.-G. Bethge, The Fifth Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas Comes of Age (Harrisburg, 1998), 50; Patterson, “The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Beginnings.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity, 1–17. 234 Meyer (Secret Gospels, 5–7) argues that the sapiential saying was “known already in the middle of the first century CE.” The language of Paul such as “mystery of God,” “sophia,” “rulers of this age or aeon,” “the depths of God,” “psychical person or natural person,” and “spiritual person” eventually became “technical terms in Sethian, Valentinian and other gnostic texts.” 235 This approach to Thomas has been established since the 1990s. The following researchers consider Gos. Thom. to be a “sophia text” in the same vein as Q: K. Arnold, “The Circle of the Way: Reading the Gospel of Thomas as a ChristZen Text,” Cross Currents 1, no. 4 (2002): 459–471: A. Callahan, “‘No Rhyme or Reason.’ The Hidden Logia of the Gospel of Thomas,’” Harvard Theological Review 90, no. 4 (1997): 411–427. J.M. Robinson, “LOGOI on the Gattung of Q.” In Trajectories through Early Christianity, 71–113. 236 See Appendix 3: Thomas and Q Parallels (Kim dissert.). The relationship of Thomas with Q in terms of the early Jesus tradition is far removed from the large framework of the canonical Gospels: J.D.G. Dunn, “Q as Oral Tradition.” In The Written Gospel, 45–69. Asgeirsson, “Conflicting Epic Worlds,” 155–158. S.J Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins: Essays on the Fifth Gospel (Leiden, 2013), 141–174. 237 J.M. Robinson (in The Sayings of Jesus) has not divided the sayings of Q in relation to Thomas’ Logia, but his text is a useful reference. 238 Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus, 115–150. 239 Logia 2, 26, 29, 31–35, 45, 47, 62, 67, 93, 94, and 111. 240 H. Koester, The Coptic Gnostic Library; Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7 (with XII,2, BRIT. LIB. OR. 4926(1), and P.OXY. 1, 654, 655), vol. 1: Gospel According to Thomas, etc., 41–43; with Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 227–229; W. Eisele, “The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas,” Biblische Zeitschrift 58 (2014): 301–303. 241 Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom, 8–9. Horman similarly suggests the existence of a common written Greek source for Mark and Thomas. See J. Horman, A Common Written Greek Source for Mark and Thomas (Studies in Christianity and Judaism) (Waterloo, 2011). 242 J.M. Robinson, “Jesus as Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the Gospels.” In Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, 1. 243 S.J. Patterson, “The Gospel of Thomas and the Historical Jesus: Retrospectus and Prospectus,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 29 (1990): 628; Patterson. The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 232. 244 Kloppenborg believes that the Q text is a series of sophia speeches: Q 6:20b–49, 9:57–62, 10:2–16, 10:21–4, 11:2–4, 11:9–13, 12:1–12, 12:22–34, 13:24–30, 13:34–5, 14:16–24, 14:26–7, 14:34–5, and 17:33: Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 171–245. 245 Patterson, “Wisdom in Q and Thomas.” In In Search of Wisdom, 187–221. 246 Q 11:9–10 is applied in two different Logia (92 and 94), whereas Logion 6 is related to both Q 12:25 and Q 14:16–24. 247 J.M. Robinson and the Department of Antiquities of the Arab Republic of Egypt, The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices: Codex II (Leiden, 1974), 77–96; idem, “Jesus as Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the Gospels,” 1–16; P.J. Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series. 47) (Sheffield, 1993), 53–60. 248 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 191. 249 Mead, Pistis Sophia: A Gnostic Miscellany, ed. R.K. Russell (Blauvelt, 1984); E. Amélineau, Pistis-Sophia (Milano, 1975). 250 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 191. 251 Koester, “GNOMAI DIAPHOROI”: 279–318; Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 192–193; Hartin, James and the Q Sayings, 53–65. 252 William Arnal believes the view that Thomas and Q originally share a common source but at the later stage of their development altered into different figures of transformation, Thomas following “a Gnostic route” and Q adding “apocalyptic materials.” But this view is based on the conservative theory that Thomas is “dependent for its traditions on the synoptic gospels.” W.E. Arnal, “The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings Gospels,” Harvard Theological Review 88, no. 4 (1995): 471–494. 253 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 194–196. 254 including Logia 36 (Q 12:22), 45 (Q 6:44b–5), 47 (Q 16:13), 73 (Q 10:2), 86 (Q 9:58), and 94 (Q 11:9–10). 255 Meyer, Secret Gospels, 49–50; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 187–196. 256 “Since it is necessary for us to seek it” (Logion 24); “if you do not observe …, you will not see” (P. Oxy. 1.4–11 [Logion 27]); “he who seeks will find, and [he who knocks] will be let in” (Logion 94); “he … looked for that one until he found it” (Logion 107); “[there will be] days [when you will look for me and will not find me]” (P. Oxy. 655 col. ii.2–11 [Logion 38]); “the kingdom of the Father is like a merchant … who discovered a pearl. … You too, seek his unfailing and enduring treasure” (Logion 76); “he who has recognized the world has found the body, but he who has found the body is superior to the world” (Logion 80); “for you will find …, and to it you will return” (Logion 49); and “seek and you will find” (Logion 92). See Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom, 36–37. Meyer, Secret Gospels, 22–24. 257 The life-after-death of the finder or discoverer (Logion 76) is also explained in the form of “returning” (Logion 49). 258 Davies, The Gospel of Thomas, 37–38. 259 P.W. Skehan, and A.A.D. Della, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (The Anchor Bible) (New York, 1986). 260 The sophia of Sirach, according to Collins (Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 46–49), is seen as a gift of God. 261 The author of Proverbs also depicts the method by which one obtains the Sophia of God: “if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures; then you will … find the Sophia of God. For the Lord gives Sophia” (LXX 2:4–6). 262 See also the injunction “rulers of the earth, think of the Lord with uprightness, and seek him with sincerity of heart; because he is found by those who do not put him to the test and manifests himself to those who do not distrust him” (1:1–2). Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 151–152. 263 Davies, The Gospel of Thomas, 38. 264 4Q 185 reads as a poem of sophia, and likewise contains “the ruling attitude” as the next step: “(they shall) … seek it (sophia) and find it (sophia), grasp it (sophia) and possess it (sophia)! With it is length of days.” See also 4Q 184. Vermes, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 395–396; Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 227–229; Davies, The Gospel of Thomas, 40–41. 265 Skehan and Della, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 290–291. 266 Sap. Sol. 6:17–20. Winston, Wisdom of Solomon, 152. 267 Ibid. 268 Meyer, Secret Gospels, 46–48; Davies, The Gospel of Thomas, 39. 269 Dunderberg, “From Thomas to Valentinus,” 233–237, esp, 234. 270 The manifestation of sophia is repeatedly found in Ecclus. 6:19: “my son, from your youth embrace discipline; thus you will gain sophia with graying hair. As though plowing and sowing, draw close to her, then await her bountiful crops, For in cultivating her you will labor but little, and soon you will eat of her fruits.” Skehan and Della, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 290. 271 DeConick, “The Yoke Saying in the Gospel of Thomas 90,” Virgiliae Christinae 44, no. 3 (1990): 281. 272 Funk et al., The Five Gospels, 520. The translation of the Anchor Bible is less clear on this point. Skehan and Della, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 573. 273 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls”: DeConick, “The Yoke Saying in the Gospel of Thomas 90”: 280–194. 274 “He who finds me (sophia), finds life” (Prv 8:35). 275 Skehan and Della, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 328. See also the Odes of Solomon 30:1 and 30:5: “fill ye water for yourselves from the living fountain of the Lord: For it has been opened to you”; “for it flows from the lips of the Lord, and from the hearts of the Lord is it name.” R. Harris, and A. Mingana (eds. And trans.), The Odes and Psalms of Solomon (Vol II) (Manchester, 1920), 366–369; Meyer, Secret Gospels, 28–30. 276 Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom, 41–44. 277 Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, 223. 278 R.B.Y. Scott, The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament (New York: MacMillan, 1971), 3. 279 “Does not sophia call out? Does not understanding raise her voice? On the heights along the way, where the paths meet, she takes her stand; beside the gates leading into the city, at the entrances, she cries aloud: ‘To you, O men, I call out; I raise my voice to all mankind. You who are simple, gain prudence; you who are foolish, gain understanding. Listen, for I have worthy things to say; I open my lips to speak what is right’” (Prv 8:1–6): Robinson, “Jesus as Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the Gospels,” 1–2; Wilken, “Wisdom and Philosophy in Early Christianity,” 143–168; DeConick, “Yoke Saying in the Gospel of Thomas”: 282–286. 280 “Who endowed the heart with sophia or gave understanding to the mind?” (Jb 38:36). “For God did not endow her with sophia or give her a share of good sense” (39:17). 281 Scott, The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament, 7. 282 Ibid. 283 Ibid., 11. 284 R.E.M. Carm, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes and Esther (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1983), 1–12; Scott, The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament, 21. 285 Meyer, “‘Be Passersby,’” 258–266. 286 See also Jer 8:8, “How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,’ when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”; and Ezr 7:14, “You are sent … to inquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to the Law of your God, which is in your hand.” 287 M. Gilbert, “Wisdom Literature.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. M.E. Stone (Assen, 1984), 288. 288 A.S.V.D. Woude, “Wisdom at Qumran.” In Wisdom in Ancient Israel, eds. J. Day et al. (Cambridge, 1995), 249–251; Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran, 81–92. G.J. Brook, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis, 2005), 217–234. 289 Skehan and Della, Wisdom of Ben Sira, 328. See also Barach 4:1; “She (sophia) is the book of the ‘commandments of God,’ and the law that endures forever”; E. Tov, The Book of Baruch (I Baruch) (Missoula, Mont., 1975s), 31; O.C. Whitehouse, “The Book of Baruch (1 Baruch).” In The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2: Pseudepigrapha, ed. R.H. Charles (Oxford, 1913), 591; Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 187–189; J. Cook, “Law and Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls with Reference to Hellenistic Judaism.” In Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. F.G. Martínez (Leuven: Peeters Publsihers, 2003), 323–342. 290 Davies, “Thomas: The Fourth Synoptic Gospel,” Biblical Archaeologist 46, no. 1 (1983): 12–13. 291 Therefore, it is right to define Thomas in the way that “the Gos. Thom. is principally a remnant of a type of Christianity that originated toward the Jewish sophia tradition.” Ibid. 292 The teaching of Thomas that “advocates the transformation of human ex­ istence from an inferior condition to a superior condition” seems to be not “a soteriology of what is given (i.e., a grace soteriology), but a soteriology of what is found (i.e., a wisdom soteriology)”: Idem, Gospel of Thomas, 45, 61. 293 While the text of P. Oxy. 655.ii.20–1 presents φρόνιμοι for “wise,” NHC Logion 39 uses ⲫⲣⲡⲛⲓⲙⲟⲥ and Logion 8 uses ⲣⲙⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧ` twice (which should be ⲣⲙⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧ` as in Logion 13). 294 According to Table 3.2, 20 out of 40 sayings are matched with Q. 1 For the historical controversy on the parable formulation (including the in­ terpretations of A. Jülicher, C.H. Dodd, R.W. Funk, H.-J. Klauck, H. Weder, W. Harnisch, J.D. Crossan, N. Perrin, C. Hedrick, N.A. Huffman, E. Jüngel, P.S. Hawkins, C.W. Hedrick, etc.), see J. Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus: Parable, Aphorism, and Metaphor in the Sayings Material Common to the Synoptic Tradition and the Gospel of Thomas (Berlin, 2001), 50–75; N. Perrin, “The Parables of Jesus as Parables, as Metaphors, and as Aesthetic Objects: A Review Article,” Journal of Religion 47, no. 4 (1967): 340–346; N.A. Huffman, “A Typical Feature in the Parables of Jesus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 97, no. 2 (1978): 207–220; P.S. Hawkins, “Parable as Metaphor,” Christian Scholars Review 12 (1983): 226–223; C.W. Hedrick, “Parables and the Kingdom: The Vision of Jesus in Fiction and Faith,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 26 (1987): 368–393. 2 Portions of this argument have been published as “Where Does It Fit?: The Unknown Parables in the Gospel of Thomas,” Biblica 94, no. 4 (2013): 585–595. 3 G.W. Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus: Words Attributed to Jesus Outside the Four Gospels (London, 1997), 20–21. 4 See H. Montefiore,“A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel According to Thomas and of the Synoptic Gospels.” In Thomas and the Evangelists, 40–78. 5 Logia 96 and 107 are closer to Q. Schoedel, “Parables in the Gospel of Thomas: Oral Tradition or Gnostic Exegesis?,” 548–560. 6 C.L. Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas.” In Gospel Perspectives, vol. 5: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, 177–205. 7 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 633–636. 8 Ibid., 633. 9 Ibid., 636. 10 See, R. Cameron, “Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of Thomas,” Foundations and Facets Forum 2, no. 2 (1986): 3–39. 11 W.D. Stroker, “Extracanonical Parables and the Historical Jesus,” Semeia 44 (1988): 95–120. 12 Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus. 62, 70–89. See also Hedrick, “Parables and the Kingdom,” 380–393, who agrees with Morrice on the total of 15 parabolic Logia but includes “a sprouting seed” (NHC II, 2.37:15–18) in place of the “owner of a house and thief” (NHC II, 2.37:06–37:15). 13 Stroker, “Extracanonical Parables and the Historical Jesus,” 95–120. 14 “And he said, ‘The man is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them the wise fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose the large fishwithout difficulty.Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear’” (NHC II, 2.33:28–34:03). 15 The last statement, “whoever has ears to hear, let him hear,” shows that the parable was spoken in the context of an admonition. This is a common tra­ dition of Thomasine Logia, as in 21, 24, 63, 65, and 94. 16 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish.When it was full, the fishermenpulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fishin baskets, but threw the bad away.” 17 T. Baarda, “‘Chose’ and ‘Collected’: Concerning an Aramaisim in Logion 8 of the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ and the Question of Independence,” Harvard Theological Review 84, no. 4 (1991): 373–389. 18 Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,” 191. 19 Ibid., 192. 20 Schoedel presumes the fishermanas “the inner man” or “the Primal Man.” See his “Parables in the Gospel of Thomas,” 552–553; G.W. Morrice, “The Parable of the Dragnet and the Gospel of Thomas,” Expository Times 95, no. 9 (1984): 269–273. 21 “This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 22 See Stroker, “Extracanonical Parables and the Historical Jesus,” 104–106. 23 Liebenberg, The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 258–275. See also S.J Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins: Essays on the Fifth Gospel (Leiden, 2013), 197–202. 24 “Jesus said, the kingdom of the [father] is like a certain woman who was carrying a [jar] full of meal. While she was walking [on the] road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her [on] the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty.” 25 ⲛⲉⲥⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲛⲉⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲥⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲉϩⲓⲥⲉ, “she did not realize it; she had noticed no accident.” 26 Lindemann draws a gnostic interpretation from Logion 97, “in which one finds oneself losing ‘the knowledge (gnosis) of the moment’ completely.” Thus A. Lindemann, “Zur Gleichnisinterpretation im Thomas-Evengelion,” Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 71 (1980): 222, 226; and see Stroker, “Extracanonical Parables and the Historical Jesus,” 100–101. 27 Montefiore, “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel According to Thomas and of the Synoptic Gospels,” New Testament Studies 7 (1961): 242–243 (this version of Montefiore’s article hereafter cited). See also, R. Doran, “A Complex of Parables: GTh 96–98,” Novum Testamentum 29, no. 4 (1987): 347–352. 28 B.B. Scott, “The Empty Jar,” Foundations and Facets Forum 3 (1987): 77–80; R. Ford, “Body Language: Jesus’ Parables of the Woman with the Yeast, the Woman with the Jar, and the Man with the Sword,” Interpretation 56, no. 3 (2002): 295–307. 29 E. Waller, “The Parable of the Leaven: A Sectarian Teaching and the Inclusion of Women,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 35, no. 1–2 (1979–1980): 103. 30 “Jesus said, ‘The kingdom of the father is like a certain man who wanted to kill a powerful man. In his own house he drew his sword and stuck it into the wall in order to find out whether his hand could carry through. Then he slew the powerful man.’” 31 Logion 35, which has a close relation with a Q saying (Q 11:21–2), employs a similar simile of overcoming a strong man, but the comparability ends there. The parable of Q relates that they do not know each other, and the scene of Thomas is about attacking or robbing a strong man’s house, not seeking re­ venge. See Mt 12:29 and Lk 11:21–22. See Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas, 104; Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 90. 32 Lindemann, “Zur Gleichnisinterpretation im Thomas-Evengelion,” 222 and 226; Doran, “A Complex of Parables: GTh 96–98,” 349–352. 33 Stroker, “Extracanonical Parables and the Historical Jesus,” 99. 34 Ibid., 99–100; A.J.B. Higgins, “Non-Gnostic Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas,” Novum Testamentum 4, no. 4 (1960): 304–305. 35 Ford, “Body Language,” 295–307. 36 Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 82. 37 “Jesus said, the kingdom is like a man who had a [hidden] treasure in his field without knowing it. And [after] he died, he left it to his [son]. The son [did] not know (about the treasure). He inherited the fieldand sold [it]. And the one who bought it went plowing and [found] the treasure. He began to lend money at interest to whomever he wished” (NHC II, 2. 50:31–51:03). 38 See J.W. Sider, “Interpreting the Hid Treasure,” Christian Scholar’s Review 13, no. 1 (1983–1984): 360–372. 39 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.” 40 T.E. Korson, “The Treasure Parable in Matthew and in the Gospel of Thomas,” Unitarian Universalist Christian 43 (1992): 17–28; Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,” 194–196. 41 Korson, “The Treasure Parable in Matthew and in the Gospel of Thomas,” 19. 42 Ibid.: 23. J.D. Crossan argues that Thomas purposely changed the Matthaean figure of the finder (tenant) to a moral person, in his Finding Is the First Act: Trove Folktales and Jesus’ Treasure Parable (Philadelphia, 1979), 102–117; idem., “Hidden Treasure Parables in Late Antiquity,” Society for Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, ed. G. MacRae (Missoula, MT, 1992), 359–379. 43 Here, Stroker suggests six differences, but two are not plausible. Stroker, “Extracanonical Parables and the Historical Jesus,” 107. 44 Hedrick’s view is shortly mentioned in Korson’s paper as an opposite view: Korson, “The Treasure Parable in Matthew and in the Gospel of Thomas,” 22. 45 C.W. Hedrick, “The Treasure Parable in Matthew and Thomas,” Foundations and Facets Forum 2, no. 2 (1986): 41–56. 46 The similarity of the Thomas treasure parable with a Rabbinic parable of Midrash Cant. Rabbah. 4.21.1 (Song of Songs) supports its independence from—and perhaps priority to—Matthew: “it (the kingdom) is like a man who inherited a piece of ground used as a dunghill. Being an indolent man he went and sold it for a trifling sum. The purchaser began working and digging it up and he found a treasure there out of which he built himself a fine palace. He began going about in public followed by a retinue of servants, all out of the treasure he found in it. When the seller saw it, he was ready to choke and exclaimed, Alas, what have I thrown away!” H. Freedman, and M. Simon, (trans. and eds.) Midrash Rabbah: Song of Songs (London, 1951), 219–220. 47 Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 243, 225–243; Hedrick, “The Treasure Parable in Matthew and Thomas,” 49. 48 “My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding, and if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.” 49 “It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing, concealed even from the birds of the air.” 50 “God understands the way to it and he alone knows where it dwells.” 51 “He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse the bribe, however great it is.” 52 See Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,” 186–197. 53 “For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father. And they will stand solitary.” 54 The last statement, “they will stand solitary,” shows the result of the family dissension: that they will go their own ways apart from each other. 55 The words ⲉⲩⲟ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟⲛⲁϫⲟⲥ, “they being solitary” or “being single ones,” re­ presents the separation of the young generation (youth and young adults) from the traditional beliefs of their parents in favor of the new religious belief they have found in the new Jewish-Christian community of Thomas. Chapter 2 has already provided details on the subject: see Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas, 82–84; A.G. Van Aarde, “Syncrisis as Literary Motif in the Story about the Grown-up Child Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:41–52 and the Thomas Tradition),” Hervormde Teologiese Studies; Pretoria 75, no. 3 (2019): DOI:10.4102/hts.v75i3.5258. 56 “For a son dishonors his father, a daughter rises up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies are the members of his own household.” 57 C. Tuckett, “Thomas and the Synoptics,” Novum Testamentum 30, no. 2 (1988): 146. 58 Ibid. 59 Ibid.: 147. 60 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 25–26. 61 Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 119. 62 “For I have come to divide son against father, and daughter against her mo­ ther, and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law”; see Robinson, The Sayings of Jesus: The Sayings Gospel Q, 22. 63 Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 119. 64 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 26. 65 Ibid. 66 “For there are fivetrees for you in Paradise which remain undisturbed summer and winter and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever becomes acquainted with them will not experience death” (NHC II, 2.36:17–25). 67 Evans, Webb and Wiebe, Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible, 101. 68 “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” 69 “And he said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.’” 70 “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” 71 C.R.C. Allberry, A Manichaean Psalm-Book II (Stuttgart, 1938), 161. For more of the five-trees tradition in Manichaeism, see the Kephalaia of the Teacher, chapters 48 (122.5: “they became masters over these five fleshes and fivetrees”) and 127 (288.7: “they will … beloved … every fruit that is on these five trees”): I. Gardner, The Kephalaia of the Teacher: The Edited Coptic Manichaean Texts in Translation with Commentary (Leiden, 1995), 129–130 and 289–290. 72 E.M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism (London, 1973), 89–90. H. Koester, “The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2),” in The Coptic Gnostic Library; Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7, 124–126. 73 “And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” 74 “But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Gen 2:17). 75 (C.D. Yonge, trans., 792). The text of the Odes of Solomon (11.16–24), written in the first century CE, describes a man who was taken into Paradise. He, in his testimonial confession, depicts the trees of paradise in terms of the original Jewish tradition. 76 “Some persons have said, when they fancied that the Paradise was a garden, that because the man who was created was endowed with senses, therefore he naturally and properly proceeded into a sensible place” (Yonge, trans., 792). 77 It corresponds with Q 12:39. See Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus, 102–104. 78 “Mary said to Jesus, Whom are your disciples like? He said, ‘They are like children who have settled in a field which is not theirs.’” Cameron, “Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of Thomas,” 31. 79 “He said, they are like children who have settled in a field which is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say, ‘Let us have back our field.’ They (will) undress in their presence in order to let them have back their field and give it back to them” (NHC II, 2.36: 35–37:06). 80 This similar scene of “undressing” is repeated in the teaching of Logion 37, where the attitude of undressing without being ashamed is the way to witness the “Son of Living One” without being afraid. See A.D. DeConick, and J. Fossum, “Stripped Before God, etc,” Vigiliae Christianae 45, no. 2 (1991): 123–150. 81 “For this, he says, is ‘the gate of heaven,’ and this is ‘[the] house of God,’ where the good God dwells alone, into which no one will enter, he says, who is unclean, psychical, or carnal, but it is reserved for the spiritual alone, where it is necessary for them, when they have come here, to cast off their clothing and all become bridegrooms, having been made through the virgin spirit” (using trans., J.H. Macmahon, “The Refutation of All Haereses,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, eds. A. Roberts et al. (Peabody, Mass., 1995), 56; And see Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas, 78. 82 Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 74–75. 83 Stroker, in Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus (29–30), not only recognizes the saying as part of the “apophthegms” but does not propose any source relevant to it as an independent saying of Jesus. 84 “Therefore I say, if the owner of a house knows that the thief is coming, he will begin his vigil before he comes and will not let him dig through into his house of his domain to carry away his goods. You (pl.), then, be on your guard against the world. Arm yourselves with great strength lest the robbers find a way to come to you, for the difficulty which you expect will (surely) materi­ alize. Let there be among you a man of understanding” (NHC II, 2. 37:06–37:17). 85 “In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.” 86 “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.” 87 “Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” See Montefiore, “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel,” 243–244. 88 “Therefore I say, if the owner of a house knows that the thief is coming” (NHC II, 2.37:06). 89 Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 74. 90 “When the grain ripened, he came quickly with his sickle in his hand and reaped it” (NHC II, 2.37:17–37:19). 91 “He also said, this is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. All by itself the soil produces grain—firstthe stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head. As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come.” 92 J.D. Crossan, “The Seed Parables of Jesus,” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973): 251–253; cf. J.P. Green, Sr, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich., 2000 edn.), 117–118. 93 Crossan, “The Seed Parables of Jesus,” 253. 94 See B.W. Henaut, “Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series 82 (1993): 242–251. 95 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 29. 96 Stroker categorises Logion 21c of Thomas as a sophia (wisdom) saying tra­ dition of Jesus, in Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus, 134. 97 “Jesus said, ‘Grapes are not harvested from thorns, nor are figs gathered from thistles, for they do not produce fruit.’” 98 Valantasis (Gospel of Thomas, 121–2) divides it into the three scenes of the fruits, good person, and bad person. 99 “A good man brings forth good from his storehouse; an evil man brings forth evil things from his evil storehouse, which is in his heart, and says evil things. For out of the abundance of the heart he brings forth evil things.” 100 “People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briars. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.” 101 “By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn­ bushes, or figs from thistles?” 102 “For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.” 103 “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit.” 104 Montefiore,who was an early Gnostic reader in the 1960s, often recognizes the independence of Thomas, including the present Logion. See his “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel,” 238–242. 105 “For from the fruit the tree is known. Are figs picked from thorns, or grapes from thistles? The good person from one’s good treasure casts up good things, and the evil person from the evil treasure casts up evil things. For from exu­ berance of heart one’s mouth speaks.” 106 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 38–40. 107 Stroker, in Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus (140), categorizes the parable among Sophia sayings of Jesus. 108 Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas, 88. 109 “Jesus said, It is impossible for a man to mount two horses or to stretch two bows. And it is impossible for a servant to serve two masters; otherwise he will honor the one and treat the other contemptuously.” 110 “No man drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine. And new wine is not put into old wineskins, lest they burst; nor is old wine put into a new wineskin, lest it spoil it. An old patch is not sewn into a new garment, because a tear would result.” 111 “They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.” 112 “Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. I will take away the chariots from Ephraim and the war-horses from Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be broken. He will proclaim peace to the nations. His rule will extend from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth” (Zec 9:9–10). For clues as to why Matthew concentrates only on the first part, see K. Stendahl, The School of Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis 20) (Uppsala, 1954), 200. 113 “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money” (Lk 16:13). 114 Robinson, The Sayings of Jesus, 27. 115 H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 90. 116 Ibid. 117 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.” 118 “He told them this parable: No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’” 119 Montefiore, “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel,” 238. 120 Ibid. 121 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 97. 122 Stroker, Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus, 141–142. 123 Depending on how one approaches Logion 47, which as we have seen can be divided into two or four parables. 124 See H. Koester, “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels,”, 175–177. 125 “Jesus said, Now the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered them. Some fell on the road; the birds came and gathered them up. Others fell on rock, did not take root in the soil, and did not produce ears. And others fell on thorns; they choked the seed(s) and worms ate them. And others fell on the good soil and it produced good fruit: it bore sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure.” 126 Montefiore, “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel,” 225. 127 Ibid., 229. 128 For the view of Montefiore, see Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,” 184–186. 129 “But if there is ignorance, and learning does not exist in the soul of man, (then) the incurable passions persist in it (the soul). And additional evil comes with them (the passions) in the form of an incurable sore. And the sore constantly gnaws at the soul, and through it the soul produces worms the evil and stink. But God is not the cause of these things, since he sent to men knowledge and learning.” See J. Brashler, P.A. Dirkse, and D.M. Parrot, “Asclepius 21–29.” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 232. 130 “This is the perfect number that is highly exalted”; see F.E. Williams, F. Wisse, and D.M. Parrott, “The Concept of Our Great Power.” In loc. cit., 315. 131 Crossan, “The Seed Parables of Jesus,” 244–251; idem, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. (Sonoma, 1992), 39–44. Liebenberg com­ ments (in Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 350–414) that Gos. Thom. shares constitutive elements and metaphoric mapping with Mark, but there is no evidence that it was written using Mark as a source. 132 For a slightly different perspective—that neither Gos. Thom. nor Mark is dependent on the other, but both used a common (Greek) written source—see J. Horman, “The Source of the Version of the Parable of the Sower in the Gospel of Thomas,” Novum Testamentum 21 (1979): 326–343; cf. Tuckett, “Thomas and the Synoptics,” 132–157. 133 The version of Luke is as short as the Logion of Thomas, but it is obvious that the character of simplicity originated redactionally from the Markan version; see Henaut, “Oral Tradition and the Gospels: the Problem of Mark 4,” 220–242. 134 See Cameron, “Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of Thomas,” 3–39. 135 “The sower went forth and cast each of the seeds into the earth and falling in the earth, parched and bare, they dissolve. Then from their dissolution the greatness of the providence of the master raises them up, and from one (grain) many grow and bring forth fruit.” 136 H. Koester, “Three Thomas Parables.” In The New Testament and Gnosis, eds., A.H.B. Logan et al. (Edinburgh, 1983), 195–197. 137 Ibid. 138 The idea of reporting an original story is repeatedly demonstrated by Meyer, in that the parable of Thomas is presented “without the allegorical amplifications of the [New Testament] versions.” He adds that the passages of the canonical texts were reconstructed with various allegorical figures which make the parable sensible for its readers: The Secret Teachings of Jesus, 99. 139 Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 72–73. 140 “For just as the farmer sows many seeds upon the ground and plants a mul­ titude of seedlings, and yet not all that have been sown will come up in due season, and not all that were planted will take root; so also those who have been sown in the world will not all be saved. I answered and said, If I have found favour before thee, let me speak. For if the farmer’s seed does not come up, because it has not received thy rain in due season, or if it has been ruined by too much rain, it perishes. But man, who has been formed by thy hands and is called thy own image because he is made like thee, and for whose sake thou hast formed all things—hast thou also made him like the farmer’s seed?” Trans. used in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayer, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo- Hellenistic Works (London, 1985), 543. 141 Very common in the region of Palestine. Jesus points out the external figure of the seeds in size: ⲥⲟⲃ̄ⲕ̄ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲛ̄ϭⲣⲟϭⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ, “it is the smallest of all seeds,” yet grows into ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲛⲟϭⲛ̄ⲁⲣ, “a great plant.” Finally, the practical function or influence of the mustard seed is depicted in becoming ⲛⲥⲕⲉⲡⲏⲛ̄ϩⲁⲗⲁⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲡⲉ, “a shelter for birds of the sky.” Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 62, 73–75. 142 Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 330–335. 143 For example, Lk 13:18–9 and Mt 13:31–2. 144 ⲁⲉ (Gos. Thom.); καί (Q); and καί ὅταν (Mark). 145 Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,” 186–197. 146 H. Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptic, and Thomas,” in Society of Biblical Literature, Seminar Papers 28 (1989): 216–236. Cf. Tuckett, “Thomas and the Synoptics,” 132–157. 147 Crossan, in concluding his comparison of the four seed parables (“The Seed Parables of Jesus,” 253–259), indicates the parable of Logion 20 as another form of the Q version (it can be called “a Thomasine-Q parable”). 148 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will take a shoot from the very top of a cedar and plant it; I will break off a tender sprig from its topmost shoots and plant it on a high and lofty mountain. On the mountain heights of Israel I will plant it; it will produce branches and bear fruit and become a splendid cedar. Birds of every kind will nest in it; they will find shelter in the shade of its branches” (Ez 17:22–3). “The tree you saw, which grew large and strong, with its top touching the sky, visible to the whole earth, with beautiful leaves and abundant fruit, providing food for all, giving shelter to the beasts of the field, and having nesting places in its branches for the birds of the air” (Dn 4:20–1). 149 H.K. McArthur, “The Parable of the Mustard Seed,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971): 198–201; cf. Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas, 78. For discussion, see also Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 221–222, fn. 26. 150 Crossan, In Parables, 44–49. 151 Cameron, “Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of Thomas,” 30–34; Henaut, “Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4,” 251–267; B.B. Scott, Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom (Philadelphia, 1981), 67–73; L. Marulli, “The Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:26–30): A Quest for Its Original Formulation,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 40, no. 2 (2010): 69–78; J. Pavelcik, “Parable of the Tares and the Wheat,” Studia Theologica 12, no. 1 (2010): 1–20. 152 According to the saying that “the man did not allow them (servants or helpers) to pull up the weeds,” the owner of the field seems to have recognized what happened. The good seed is identified as wheat, while the weeds remain un­ specified as to their kind. 153 Montefiore, “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel,” 228. Meier sup­ ports the view: J.P. Meier, “The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24–30): Is Thomas’s Version (Logion 57) Independent?,” Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 4 (2012): 715–732. 154 For further information on the notion of “abbreviation,” see Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,” 182–183; Crossan, “The Seed Parables of Jesus,” 259–261. 155 “This [the fleshly element] is named ‘weed’ which grows with the soul—the ‘good seed.’” Clement of Alexandria, The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria, trans. R.P. Casey (London, 1934), 162; F. Sagnard, Clement d’Alexandria: Extraits de Theodote (Paris, 1948), from Schoedel, “Parables in the Gospel of Thomas,” 550. 156 Ibid.: 548–560. Liebenberg (in Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 167–224) denies direct dependence on the Matthaean tradition, saying that if “GTh 57 is indeed dependent on Mt 13:24–30, it would be indirectly and probably via the oral tradition” and that “one cannot use the elliptical nature of GTh 57 to argue for its direct dependence on the synoptic tradition.” 157 For the allegorical view, see Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 75–76; Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas, 92. 158 Cameron, “Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of Thomas,” 31–34. 159 The characters outside the parables are “the old man” (Logion 4), “child and children” (4, 37, and 49), “child” (4), “fisherman” (9), “farmer” (9 and 57), “disciples” (12, 13, 22, 43, 55, 60, 61, 101, and 113), “master” (13), “land­ owner” (21), “robber” (21), “infant” (22), “mother” or “female servant” (55 and 97), “male and female (woman, mother)” (22, 46, 79, 101, 105, and 114), “brother (son)” (25, 55, 72, 86, and 109), “sister” (55), “prophet” (31 and 88), “Pharisees” (39 and 102), “scribes” (39), “father” (40, 50, 55, 61, 69, 72, 79, 83, 99, 101, 105, and 113), “passers” (42), “Jews” (43), “son” (44, 105, and 106), “prophets” (52), “Samaritan” (60), “bridegroom” (104), and “harlot” (105). 160 “I shall put my money to use so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouse with produce.” 161 Which has been also used in four other parable traditions of Thomas: Logia 8, 21, 65, and 96. 162 “And he told them this parable: The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops. Then he said, This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I’ll say to myself, You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry. But God said to him, You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?” 163 Montefiore, “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel,” 227. 164 Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,” 184. 165 “There is that waxeth rich by his wariness and pinching, and this is the portion of his reward: whereas he saith, I have found rest, and now will eat continually of my goods; and yet he knoweth not what time shall come upon him, and that he must leave those things to others, and die.” Using trans. by G.H. Box, and W.O.E. Oesterley, “Sirach.” In The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 1: Apocrypha, ed. R.H. Charles (Oxford, 1913), 355. 166 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 140–141; Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas, 94. Cf. B.B. Scott, “How to Mismanage a Miracle: Readers-Response Criticism,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 22 (1983): 439–449. 167 “Jesus said, ‘a man had received visitors. And when he had prepared the dinner, he sent his servant to invite the guests.’ He went to the firstone and said to him, ‘My master invites you.’ He said, ‘I have claims against some mer­ chants. They are coming to me this evening. I must go and give them my orders. I ask to be excused from the dinner.’ He went to another and said to him, ‘My master has invited you.’ He said to him, ‘I have just bought a house and am required for the day. I shall not have any spare time.’ He went to another and said to him, ‘My master invites you.’ He said to him, ‘My friend is going to get married, and I am to prepare the banquet. I shall not be able to come. I ask to be excused from the dinner’. He went to another and said to him, ‘My master invites you.’ He said to him, ‘I have just bought a farm, and I am on my way to collect the rent. I shall not be able to come. I ask to be excused.’ The servant returned and said to his master, ‘Those whom you invited to the dinner have asked to be excused.’ The master said to his servant, ‘Go outside to the streets and bring back those whom you happen to meet, so that they may dine.’ Businessmen and merchants [will] not enter the places of my father.” See S. Traini, “Umberto Eco’s Semiotics of the Text: Theoretical Observations and an Analysis of the Parable of the Banquet,” Semiotica 231 (2019): 87–103. 168 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’” 169 “Jesus replied: A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’ Another said, ‘I have just bought fiveyoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’ Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’ The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’ ‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’ Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’” 170 In addition, Scott presumes the second invitation in relation to the Gentile mission. Koester, “Three Thomas Parables,” 197; Higgins, “Non-Gnostic Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas,” 295–301; Scott, Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom, 32–39. 171 Koester, “Three Thomas Parables,” 197–198. 172 “J.P. Meier, “Is Luke’s Version of the Parable of the Rich Fool Reflectedin the Coptic Gospel of Thomas,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74, no. 3 (2012): 528–547. 173 Morrice points out that even if Thomas added one more phrase sending the servant (originally three times), any allegorizing detail that is similar to the canonical texts is avoided. Morrice suspects that Matthew is an allegorization of the Q tradition. Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 77–78; Koester, “Three Thomas Parables,” 197–198. 174 Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas, 94. 175 J.G. Williams, “Parable and Chreia: From Q to Narrative Gospel,” Semeia 43 (1988): 87. 176 “A certain person prepared a large dinner, and invited many. And he sent his slave at the time of the dinner to say to the invited: come, for it is now ready. (One declined because of his farm.) (Another declined because of his business.) … (And the slave, on coming, said) these things to his master. Then the householder, enraged, said to his slave: Go out on the roads, and whomever you find, invite, so that my house may be filled.” 177 Koester, “Three Thomas Parables,” 198; Cameron, “Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of Thomas,” 19. 178 “Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said. But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants? He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, they replied, and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at har­ vest time.” 179 “He then began to speak to them in parables: A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” 180 “He went on to tell the people this parable: A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.’ But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said. ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. When the people heard this, they said, May this never be!” 181 Thomas relates this as happening twice (yet is unclear about the actual number of the servants) before the son is sent; Mark says four times (a single servant each for the first three times, but many at the fourth) before the son is sent; Matthew says twice (first three servants and then more than three) before the son is sent; and Luke recounts three times (a single servant each time) before the son is sent. 182 For further details, see Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 142–143. 183 Morrice, “The Parable of the Tenants and the Gospel of Thomas,” Expository Times 98, no. 4 (1987): 104–107. M. Lowe assumes that the origin of the parable in a common source, called “a proto-Matthew,” presents John the Baptist as the son of the rich man; see his “From the Parable of the Vineyard to a Pre-Synoptic Source,” New Testament Studies 28 (1982): 257–263. 184 “I will sing for the one I love a song about his vineyard: My loved one had a vineyard on a fertile hillside. He dug it up and cleared it of stones and planted it with the choicest vines. He built a watchtower in it and cut out a winepress as well. Then he looked for a crop of good grapes, but it yielded only bad fruit. Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard. What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it? When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad? Now I will tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it will be destroyed; I will break down its wall, and it will be trampled. I will make it a wasteland, neither pruned nor cultivated, and briers and thorns will grow there. I will command the clouds not to rain on it. The vineyard of the LORD Almighty is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are the garden of his delight. And he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed; for righteousness, but heard cries of distress.” 185 J.E. and R.R. Newell, “The Parable of the Wicked Tenants,” Novum Testamentum 14, no. 3 (1972): 226–237. 186 Montefiore, “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel,” 230–248; Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,” 177–205. 187 Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction,” 189–190. 188 K.R. Snodgrass, “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen: Is the Gospel of Thomas Version the Original?,” New Testament Studies 21 (1974): 142–144. 189 Crossan, In Parables, 84–117. 190 J.D. Crossan, “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen,” Journal of Biblicval Literature 90, no. 4 (1971): 451–465. 191 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.” 192 Cameron, “Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of Thomas,” 25. 193 Blomberg connects this Logion of Thomas with the Hymn of the Pearl (of Acts Thom.), but there is no certain evidence to prove their closeness, even though both stories are constructed by the subject of the “pearl’s significance”; see his “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,” 193. 194 “But it always has value in the eyes of its owner. Compare the sons of God, wherever they may be. They still have value in the eyes of their father.” See W.W. Isenberg, “The Gospel of Philip,” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 147. 195 See D.M. Parrott, and R.McL. Wilson, “The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles.” In loc. cit., 290–291. 196 Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,” 193. 197 Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 244–257. 198 Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas, 154–155. 199 Hedrick, “The Treasure Parable in Matthew and Thomas,” 41–56. See also Montefiore, “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel,” 227. 200 Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 79–80; Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 142–143. 201 “You too, seek his unfailing and enduring treasure where no moth comes near to devour and no worm destroys” (NHC II, 2. 46:19–22). 202 Crossan, Finding is the First Act: Trove Folktales and Jesus’ Treasure Parable, 104–105. 203 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.” 204 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for finepearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.” 205 “He told them still another parable: The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flouruntil it worked all through the dough.” 206 “Again he asked, “What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough.” 207 For the view of Schrage, see B. Chilton, “The Gospel according to Thomas as a Source of Jesus’ Teachings.” In Gospel Perspectives, vol. 5, 155–175. Cf. Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,” 193–194. 208 Fleddermann, “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” 229–236. 209 Schoedel, “Parables in the Gospel of Thomas,” 557. 210 “And again: with what am I to compare the kingdom of God? It is like yeast, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour until it was fully fermented.” 211 Williams, “Parable and Chreia: From Q to Narrative Gospel,” 85–114; Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas, 103. 212 Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 80–81; Higgins, “Non-Gnostic Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas,” 301. 213 “Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. … So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. ‘Quick,’ he said, get three seahs of fine flour and knead it and bake some bread” (Gen 18:2 and 6). See also Jgs 6:19 and 2 Sm 1:24. 214 Scott, Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom, 73–77. 215 Waller, “The Parable of the Leaven,” 99–111; Ford, “Body Language,” 295–307. 216 Doran, “A Complex of Parables: GTh 96–98,” 347–352. 217 “Jesus said, the kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine and sought the one until he found it. After he had gone to this trouble, he said to the sheep, ‘I love you more than the ninety-nine.’” 218 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” 219 “What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off? And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off. In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.” 220 Chilton, “The Gospel according to Thomas,” 158–159. 221 Schoedel, “Parables in the Gospel of Thomas,” 555–557. The Gos. Truth also contains such an application of the parable: “He is the shepherd who left behind the ninety-nine sheep which were not lost. He went searching for the one which had gone astray. He rejoiced when he found it, for ninety-nine is a number” (Gos. Truth 31.35–32.4). H.W. Attridge and G.W. MacRae, The Nag Hammadi Library in English (Leiden, 1996), 46. 222 Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction,” 190–191. 223 “Which person is there among you who has a hundred sheep, on losing one of them, will not leave the ninety-nine in the mountains and go hunt for the lost one? And if it should happen that he findsit, I say to you that he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray.” 224 Morrice, Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 83. 225 Ibid. 226 W.L. Petersen, “The Parable of the Lost Sheep in the Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics,” Novum Testamentum 23 (1981): 128–147. 227 The content of this section was the subject of a presentation to the Supra Connect Conference, held by the University of Sydney in Sept., 2007. 228 The term canonical in this part is used in reference a literal process, in which a material is publicly recognized as the textual standard of a religious group. 229 See G.E. Ladd, The Pattern of New Testament Truth (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1968), 41–63; Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 5–40. D.W. Kim, “The Kingdom of Heaven in the Gospel of Matthew” (Master’s dissert., the University of Queensland, 2003), 22–36. 230 J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesus vom Reiche Gottes (Göttingen, 1892). 231 A. Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede (later translated as: The Quest of the Historical Jesus) (Tubingen, 1906). 232 N. Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom (London, 1976), 58–78. For some readers, the view of eschatology in the Thomas text is “realized” and “spiritualized.” No real future eschatological experience is suggested in the Gospel: DeConick and Fossum, “Stripped Before God: A New Interpretation of Logion 37 in the Gospel of Thomas,” 123–150; G.J. Riley, “Thomas Tradition and the Acts of Thomas,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 30 (1991): 533–542; R. Uro, “Asceticism and Anti-Familial Language in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Constructing Early Christian Families, 216–234. 233 C.H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (New York, 1935), 34. 234 The parables of Jesus in Matthew 13 support this demonstration for a growing Kingdom view: A.M. Hunter, Introducing the New Testament Theology (London, 1969), 30. 235 R. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, trans. L.P. Smith and E.H. Latero (New York, 1958). See also Perrin, Jesus and the Language, 112–129. 236 Norman Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (London, 1963); Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York, 1967); Norman Perrin, Jesus and the Language (Philadelphia, 1976), 32–33; J. Goss, “Eschatology, Autonomy, and Individuation: The Evocative Power of the Kingdom,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 49, no. 3 (1981): 366. 237 “But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.” 238 “Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, ‘The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, “Here it is,” or “There it is,” because the kingdom of God is within you.’” 239 “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it.” 240 See a descriptive criticism of Perrin’s Kingdom by E. Breech, “Kingdom of God and the Parables of Jesus,” Semeia 12 (1978): 15–40. 241 D.O. Via, “Kingdom and Parable: The Search for a New Grasp of Symbol, Metaphor, and Myth,” Interpretation 31 (1977): 181–183. 242 For the statement of Via, see Goss, “Eschatology, Autonomy, and Individuation: The Evocative Power of the Kingdom,” 367; Scott, Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom, 5–22; Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 154–163. 243 Via, “Kingdom and Parable,” 184; D.C. Duling, “Norman Perrin and the Kingdom of God: Review and Response,” Journal of Religion 64 (1984): 468–483. 244 P. Oxy. 654.15 quotes τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, “the Kingdom of God,” instead of simply ⲧⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲟ, “the Kingdom,” of The Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2.32:25; see Koester, “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels,” 172. 245 See Table 4.1. 246 Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 442–448. 247 For the present, “people can talk about the kingdom, and people can seek to prepare to enter the kingdom by taking its yoke upon themselves now.” J.C. O’Neil, “The Kingdom of God,” Novum Testamentum 35, no. 2 (1993): 130–141. 248 Via, “Kingdom and Parable,” 181–183. 249 K. King, “Kingdom in the Gospel of Thomas,” Foundations and Facets Forum 3 (1987): 48–97. Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 480–485. 250 King, “Kingdom in the Gospel of Thomas,” 53. 251 Ibid., 59. 252 Ibid., 67. 253 Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom, 136. 254 King, “Kingdom in the Gospel of Thomas,” 69. 255 See 1 Cor 6–8; 2 Cor 6, 8, and Gal 3–4. 256 The conflictbetween insiders and outsiders of the Thomas community is found not only in the parables but throughout the whole text. For more details, see Chapter 2. 257 King, “Kingdom in the Gospel of Thomas,” 69. 258 See C.W. Hedrick, “Kingdom Sayings and Parables of Jesus in the Apocryphon of James: Tradition and Redaction,” New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 1–24. 259 Perkins, “The Rejected Jesus and the Kingdom Sayings,” Semeia 44 (1988): 82. 260 Even if “the ingenuity of interpretation was applied by the community” au­ thorities. Ibid. 261 Ibid., 84. 262 Ibid. 263 Perkins, “The Rejected Jesus and the Kingdom Sayings,” 85. See also J.-É. Ménard, L’ Évangile selon Thomas (Nag Hammadi Studies 5) (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 183. 264 J.D. Crossan, “Kingdom and Children: A Study in the Aphoristic Tradition,” Semeia 29 (1983): 90–93. 265 See V.K. Robbins, “Pronouncement Stories and Jesus’ Blessing of the Children: A Rhetorical Approach,” Semeia 29 (1983): 70–74. 266 Robinson, The Sayings of Jesus, 10. 267 If the third-person pronoun (“it”) of Logion 77 means ‘Kingdom,’ the Logion clearly proves that the Kingdom of Thomas is “Jesus Himself”: “it (Kingdom) is I who am the Light. … It (Kingdom) is I who am the all. From me did all come forth, and unto me did the all extend.” See E.K. Brodhead, “An Authentic Saying of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas?,” New Testament Studies 46, no. 1 (2000): 132–149. 268 The spiritualized theme of Kingdom is “timeless” and “spaceless,” but “whenever the Kingdom is found.” B.F. Miller, “A Study of the Theme of “Kingdom,” The Gospel According to Thomas: Logion 18,” Novum Testamentum 9, no. 1 (1967): 52–53. 269 Ibid., 54–60. 270 The presence of Kingdom is seen in the expression “what you look for has come, but you do not know it” (Logion 51). Brodhead, “An Authentic Saying of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas?” 141–142. 271 Several other sayings develop the same point: “it will not come by waiting for it,” “it will not be a matter of saying ‘here it is’ or ‘there it is’” (Logion 113); “the Kingdom of heaven is like” (20); “enter (know) the Kingdom” (22); “find the Kingdom” (27 and 49); “you are from it” and “to it you will return” (49); “for yours is the Kingdom of heaven” (54); “the Kingdom of the Father is like” (57, 76, and 96–8); “will enter (know) the Kingdom of My Father” (99); “the Kingdom is like” (107 and 109); and “enter (know) the Kingdom of heaven” (114). 272 See H.C. Kee, “‘Becoming a Child’ in the Gospel of Thomas,” Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963): 307–314; D. Patte, “Entering the Kingdom like Children: A Structural Exegesis,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 21 (1982): 376–396. 273 H. Koester, “The Structure and Criteria of Early Christian Beliefs.” In Trajectories through Early Christianity, 172–174; Miller, “A Study of the Theme of “Kingdom,” 52–53. 274 Like “living Father” (Logia 3, 37, and 50). 275 Compare “the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke” (Prologue) and “the one who lives from the living One will not see death” (Logion 111). 276 Koester uses Logion 28 to explain the fact that Jesus himself is Sophia, “having come into the world and having been rejected,” “I took my place in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh.I found all of them intoxicated; I found none of them thirsty. And my soul became afflictedfor the sons of men.” Koester, “The Structure and Criteria of Early Christian Beliefs,” 219–223; and see E.S. Fiorenza, “Wisdom Mythology and the Christological Hymns of the New Testament.” In Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, 17. 277 This figure was developed from the view of Patterson. Mt 7:16a is the same as Mt 7:20: see Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 38. 1 An earlier version of this section was presented at the New Zealand Association for the Study of Religions International Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand (July, 2008) and published as “A Glimpse of Gender Egalitarianism: The Salome Tradition in the Nag Hammadi Thomas,” Religion and Culture 25, no. 2 (2013): 215–236. 2 The modern terms “feminism” and “feminist” could cover various meanings or concepts of the socio-philosophical issues, but in this chapter the “feminine perspective” primarily conveys an early Christian attitude that the socio- religious position of women in the Thomasine Christianity was equivalent with that of men—or could even be more than that, as can be seen in the case of the Thomasine Mary. 3 Logia 72 (“a man said to him”) and 79 (“a woman from the crowd said to him”) are unusual cases; however, these unknown people can be assumed as his followers. See D.H. Tripp, “The Aim of the ‘Gospel of Thomas,’” Expository Times 92 (1980): 41–44. 4 “Mary said to Jesus” (Logion 21) and “Simon Peter said to him” (114). 5 “Jesus said, … If you become my disciples and listen to my words…” 6 Meyer presumes the origin of the phrase (“these stones”) as a Q tradition (Mt 3:9 and Lk 3:8); see his The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus, 77–78. 7 “Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me” (Logion 55). This part, in terms of crossing a new community boundary (becoming a member of the Thomasine Jewish- Christian community from traditional Judaism) has been touched on in 2, and see D.W. Kim, “What Shall We do?: The Community Rules of Thomas in the ‘Fifth Gospel,’” Biblica 88, no. 3 (2007): 395–399. 8 “We know that You will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?” 9 “Tell us how our end will be.” 10 “Whom are your disciples like?” 11 “Show us the place where you are.” 12 “When will you become revealed to us and when shall we see you?” 13 “When will the new world come?” 14 “Twenty-four prophets spoke in Israel, and all of them spoke in You.” 15 For example, “kingdom” (“tell us what the kingdom of heaven is like,” Logion 20; “when will the Kingdom come?,” 113); “the mystical sayings of Jesus” (“who are you, that you should say these things to us?,” 43); “circumcision” (“is circumcision beneficialor not?,” 53); “subjects of being blessed” (“blessed are the womb which bore you and the breasts which nourished you,” 79); “Jesus’ identity” (“tell us who you are so that we may believe in you,” 91); “the spiritual family” (“those here who do the will of My Father are My brothers and My mother,” 99); “taxes” (“Caesar’s men demand taxes from us,” 100); “prayer and fasting” (“come, let us pray today and let us fast,” 104); and “the value of women” (“let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life,” 114). 16 “Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like.’ Simon Peter said to him, ‘You are like a righteous angel.’ Matthew said to him, ‘You are like a wise philosopher.’ Thomas said to him, ‘Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like.’ Jesus said, ‘I am not your (sg.) Master. Because you (sg.) have drunk, you (sg.) have become in­ toxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out.’ And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, ‘What did Jesus say to you?’ Thomas said to them, ‘If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up.’” T.A. Wayment, “Christian Teachers in Matthew and Thomas: the Possibility of Becoming a ‘Master,’” Journal of Early Christian Studies 12, no. 3 (2004): 295–311. 17 See I. Dunderberg, “Thomas and the Beloved Disciple,” in Thomas at the Crossroads, 65–88; P.J. Hartin, “The Role and Significanceof the Character of Thomas in the Acts of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity, 239–253. 18 “These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.” The passage of P. Oxy. 654.1–3 is less clear without the Greek name (Didymos): καὶ ἔγραψεν Ἰούδα ὁ καὶ Θωμα, “and Judas who is also Thomas recorded”: H.W. Attridge, “Appendix: The Greek Fragments,” in The Coptic Gnostic Library; Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7, etc., 96–128. 19 E.S. Fiorenza, “Word, Spirit and Power: Women in Early Christian Communities,” in Women of Spirit: Female Leadership in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, eds. R. Ruether and E. McLaughlin (New York, 1979), 30. 20 See M.R. D’Angelo, “(Re)Presentations of Women in the Gospels.” In Women and Christian Origins, eds. R.S. Kraemer and D’Angelo (New York, 1999), 129–149, with her “(Re)Presentations of Women in the Gospels of Mathew and Luke-Acts.” In loc cit., 171–195. 21 Stegemann, from textual analysis of the canonical texts, argues that the three women called “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses and Salome” were the definite followers of Jesus from Galilee. E.W. Stegemann, and W. Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century (trans. O.C. Dean, Jr.) (Minneapolis, 1989), 381–388; E.S. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (London, 1983), 138–140. 22 B. Witherington III, Women in the Earliest Churches (Cambridge, 1988), 130–182. 23 “Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.” 24 “When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome brought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.” 25 See Bjorndahl, “Thomas 61–78: A Chreia Elaboration” (Major Paper, the Claremont Graduate School), quoted from K. E. Corley, “Salome and Jesus at Table in the Gospel of Thomas,” Semeia 86 (1999): 86. 26 Funk sees the sudden appearance of Jesus at the “dinner party” or “sympo­ sium” as his being “an intruder” into the social fellowship meeting: R.W. Funk, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (R.W. Funk, et al) (New York, 1993), 507. 27 This is not the only place where the Logiographer has missed the initial words. There are many instances in the Coptic text, especially Logia 27, 60, 93, and 101. This literary phenomenon can be viewed in two ways: either the copyist of the Coptic text made a mistake or it was purposely omitted because the phrase still made sense without the usual terms or grammatical conjunctions. In the case of Logion 61 it is uncertain, because the Greek Oxyrhynchus Papyrus does not include this part of the gospel, but it seems that the copyist of the Coptic text intentionally skipped the initial words—such as “Salome said” and “Jesus additionally said”—since without those imagined quotations of the speakers, the phrases still delivered the content of the entire Logion. 28 A. Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved: Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 41. 29 Ibid., with “Women Disciples in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomas at the Crossroads, 92. 30 T. Ilan, “Notes on the Distribution of Jewish Women’s Names in Palestine in the Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods,” Journal of Jewish Studies 40 (1989): 86–200, quoted from R. Bauckham, “Salome the Sister of Jesus, Salome the Disciple of Jesus, and the Secret Gospel of Mark,” Novum Testamentum 33, no. 3 (1991): 253. 31 See G. Mayer, Die jüdische Frau in der hellenistisch-römischen Antike (Stuttgart, 1989), 104–106, quoted from Bauckham, loc. cit.: 254. 32 M. Smith, “Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark: The Score at the End of the First Decade,” Harvard Theological Review 75 (1982): 449–461. 33 Idem, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), 166, 189, 270. 34 Bauckham, “Salome the Sister of Jesus, Salome the Disciple of Jesus, and the Secret Gospel of Mark,” 254–275. 35 Bauckham personally assumes (ibid.: 263) that “two expanded forms of Mark’s Gospel (the Secret Gospel as used by the orthodox and by the Carpocratians) were known, in both of which at least one other reference to Salome was added to canonical Mark’s two.” 36 “Salome built a tower upon the rock of truth and mercy. … Salome gave a parapet to the tower, she took an anesh of storax to purify it. … She went into it, she called my Lord Jesus, saying … mayest thou answer me, Jesus, mayest thou hear me, for I am not double-minded, one is my heart and one my in­ tention, there is no thought in my heart that is split or divided”: C.R.C. Allberry, A Manichaean Psalm-Book Part II (Stuttgart, 1938), 222–223. 37 Corley, “Salome and Jesus at Table in the Gospel of Thomas”: 88. 38 Ibid. 86. 39 “When you speak these words of this [perception], encourage these [four]: Salome and Mariam [and Martha and Arsinoe …]” (40:22–27): W.R. Schoedel, and D.M. Parrott, “The (First) Apocalypse of James.” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 4th revised ed., 267. 40 J. Cooper, and A.J. Maclean, The Testament of Our Lord: Translated into English from the Syriac (Edinburgh, 1902). 41 Corley, “Salome and Jesus at Table in the Gospel of Thomas”: 93. 42 Reinhartz, “Reflectionson Table Fellowship and Community Identity,” Semeia 86 (1999): 227–233. 43 “Therefore I say, if he is destroyed he will be filled with light, but if he is divided, he will be filled with darkness.” 44 “Jesus said to her, ‘I am he who exists from the undivided. I was given some of the things of my father.’” 45 “The Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Jesus gave them this answer: ‘…the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. … The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.’” 46 R. Brown, “The Gospel of Thomas and St. John’s Gospel,” New Testament Studies 9 (1963): 155–177. 47 J. Sell, “Johannine Traditions in Logion 61 of the Gospel of Thomas,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 7 (1980): 25. 48 “Jesus said to her, ‘I am he who exists from the undivided (equal). I was given some of the things of my father.’” 49 “But He was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” Sell also insists (“Johannine Traditions,” 30–2) that Jesus’ statements of Jn 5:19–23 are closely related to those words of Jn 5:17. 50 Chapter 2 mentions the Johannine ego eimi tradition. 51 “But He was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” 52 “Jesus said to her, ‘I am he who exists from the undivided (equal). I was given some of the things of my father.’” 53 The “Coptic deal” is a pre-conception of contemporary readers, meaning that on reading a Coptic text, one naturally recognizes it as post-canonical or gnostic. 54 C.N. Jefford, “The Dangers of Lying in Bed: Luke 17: 34–35 and Parallels,” Foundations and Facets Forum 5, no. 1 (1989): 106–110. 55 See Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas, 93–94. 56 Funk et al., The Five Gospels, 507. 57 “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work: If one falls down, his friend can help him up. … Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.” 58 The brief collection of aphorisms insinuates that “one co-worker assists an­ other in their toil. … United defenders repel an attacker.” Jefford, “The Dangers of Lying in Bed,” 110. 59 “Salome said, ‘Who are you, man, that you have come up on my couch and eaten from my table?’” 60 < … > “I am your disciple.” 61 For the Thomasine theme of “light,” see Chapter 3. 62 There are additional Salome traditions in Pis. Soph. (I.54, I.58, and 3.132), Excerpta ex Theodoti 67, and 1 Apoc. Jas. 40, 9–26, but without further analysis these cannot be assumed to be part of the pre-Thomasine traditions rather than post-Thomasine Gnostic developments. 63 This section has been presented at the CASS International Conference, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom, and was published as “Who Authorised You? Mary and Her Public Actions in Thomas,” in Perspectives on Power: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Newcastle, UK, 2010), 189–202. 64 The Jewish-Christian character of James the Righteous, who is placed in the next highest position after Jesus, is evidence that the Thomasine community is not a Gnostic group but a strong Jewish-Christian community: Wayment, “Christian Teachers in Matthew and Thomas,” 295–311; Uro, Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context, 80–105; W.H. Wachob and L.T. Johnson, “The Sayings of Jesus in the Letter of James.” In Authenticating the Words of Jesus, eds. B. Chilton and C.A. Evans (Boston, 2002), 431–450. 65 “Jesus said, ‘Among those born of women, from Adam until John the Baptist, there is no one so superior to John the Baptist that his eyes should not be lowered (before him). Yet I have said, whichever one of you comes to be a child will be acquainted with the kingdom and will become superior to John.’” 66 R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, 2006), 56–66; C. Setzer, “Excellent Women: Female Witness to the Resurrection,” Journal of Biblical Literature 116, no. 2 (1997): 259–272. For the Mary Magdalene of John, see D’Angelo, “Reconstructing ‘Real’ Women from Gospel Literature,” 110–112; D.A. Lee, “Partnership in Easter Faith: The Role of Mary Magdalene and Thomas in John 20,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 58 (1995): 37–49. 67 D’Angelo, “(Re)Presentations of Women in the Gospels,” 112–118. 68 “Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.” 69 “Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.” 70 “In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.” 71 “To a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.” 72 “And also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” 73 “She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, ‘Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!’” For the Mary and Martha tradition, see J.A. Cerrato, Hippolytus Between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus (Oxford, 2002), 173–200. 74 “And Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” 75 “When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, … many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” 76 The presence of Mary Magdalene, for Luke, is only in the scene of Jesus’ empty tomb; E.A. De Boer, The Gospel of Mary: Listening to the Beloved Disciple (London, 2006), 101–190. 77 For the various views of Luchessi, Marjanen, Shoemaker, and Brock, see Ibid., 17–18. 78 B. Witherington III, “On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna, and Other Disciples-Luke 8: 1–3,” Zeitschrift für Neutestamentiche Wissenschaft 70 (1979), 243–248, quoted from P. Thimmes, “Memory and Re-Vision: Mary Magdalene Research Since 1975,” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 6 (1988): 227–259. 79 D.C. Sim, “The Women Followers of Jesus: The Implications of Luke 8: 1–3,” Heythrop Journal 30, no. 1 (1989), 51–62, quoted from Ibid. 80 Schüssler-Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 304–309. 81 The character of Mary the mother of Jesus is rather negatively illustrated in Logion 79, where ⲟⲩⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ, “a woman,” from the crowd cries to Jesus, “Blessed are the womb which bore you and the breasts which nourished you.” In his response, Jesus seems somewhat oppositional, announcing instead that maria (Mary the mother of Jesus) was seen not to be the one ⲛⲉⲉⲓⲁⲧ, “blessed,” because the focus of the Teacher (Jesus) was to be on “those who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it.” By way of contrast, P.J. Bearsley argues that according to the canonical traditions, it is Mary the mother of Jesus, not any of the other Marys, who is the “perfect (female) disciple” of Jesus: P.J. Bearsley, “Mary the Perfect Disciple: A Paradigm for Mariology,” Theological Studies 41 (1980): 461–504. Cf. J.C. Anderson, “Mary’s Difference: Gender and Patriarchy in the Birth Narratives,” Journal of Religion 67, no. 2 (1987):183–202. 82 L. Griffith, Gospel Characters: The Personalities Around Jesus (London, 1976), 184. 83 Such as the Gos. Mary (Magdalene), Pis. Soph., Gos. Phil., Epistula Apostolorum, Gos. Peter, Dial. Sav., Sophia of Jesus Christ, 1 Apoc. Jas., Great Questions of Mary, and MPB. See Thimmes, “Memory and Re-Vision: Mary Magdalene Research Since 1975,” 205–226. For the Mary Magdalene of the Gos. Mary and the Gos. Phil., see A. Marjanen, “Mary Magdalene a Beloved Disciple.” In Mariam, the Magdalen, and the Mother (ed D. Good) (Bloomington, 2005), 49–61. For the Marys of Manichaeism, see J.K. Coyle, “12 Years Later: Revisiting the ‘Marys’ of Manichaeism.” In loc. cit., 197–211. 84 Malvern (1975), quoted from Marjanen “Mary Magdalene a Beloved Disciple,” 6–8. Cf. See G.R.S. Mead, Pistis Sophia: A Gnostic Miscellany (London, 1921 and Blauvelt, 1984). 85 Malvern (1975), quoted from Marjanen, “Mary Magdalene a Beloved Disciple,” 7. 86 Pagels (1981), 77, quoted from Marjanen, “Mary Magdalene a Beloved Disciple,” 8. 87 Price (in 1990 and 57), quoted in ibid., 11. 88 See ibid., 21–31. 89 “You (pl.), then, be on your guard against the world. Arm yourselves with great strength lest the robbers find a way to come to you, for the difficulty which you expect will (surely) materialize. Let there be among you a man of understanding.” 90 See Marjanen, “Women Disciples in the Gospel of Thomas,” 89–105; idem, “Mary Magdalene a Beloved Disciple,” 32–55; A. McGuire, “Women, Gender, and Gnosis in Gnostic Texts and Traditions.” In Women and Christian Origins, 277–282; M.W. Meyer, “Making Mary Male: The Categories ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ in the Gospel of Thomas,” New Testament Studies 31, no. 4 (1985): 562–570. 91 See 131, 5–12, with J.N. Sieber, “Zostrianos.” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 4th ed., 430. 92 See 144, 15–23, with H. Koester, Pagels, and S. Emmel, “the Dialogue of the Saviour.” In loc cit., 254. 93 See 24:25–29; and 41:15–19: Schoedel and Parrott, “The (First) Apocalypse of James.” In loc cit., 262, 267. 94 Attridge, Pagels, and Mueller, “The Tripartite Tractate.” In loc cit., 60–103. 95 See 144:8–10: Turner, “The Book of Thomas the Contender.” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 206. 96 F. Wisse, “Flee Femininity: Antifemininity in Gnostic Texts and the Question of Social Milieu.” In Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, ed. K.L. King (Philadelphia, 1988), 39–53. Cf. J.J. Buckley, “An Interpretation of Logion 114 in the Gospel of Thomas,” Novum Testamentum 27, no. 3 (1985): 248. 97 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 153–155. 98 D’Angelo, “(Re)Presentations of Women in the Gospels,” 119. 99 Ibid. 100 Schüssler-Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 304–307. Cf. Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 3–27; J. Lagrand, “How was the Virgin Mary Like A Man?: A Note on Mt. i 18b and Related Syriac Christian Texts,” Novum Testamentum 22, no. 2 (1980): 97–107. 101 “And again: With what am I to compare the kingdom of God? It is like yeast, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour until it was fully fermented.” Even if it is not the same, the passage can be related to Logion 96 of Thomas: “The kingdom of the father is like a certain woman. She took a little leaven, concealed it in some dough, and made it into large loaves”: J.M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann, and J.S. Kloppenborg, The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English (Minneapolis, 2002), 131. 102 “Two will be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left”: see ibid. 149. 103 Mack, The Lost Gospel, 9. 104 A. Batten, “More Queries for Q: Women and Christian Origins,” Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture 24, no. 2 (1994): 4, quoted from A. Levine, “Women in the Q Communit(ies) and Traditions.” In Women and Christian Origins, 151. 105 Ibid. 1 J.S. Kloppenborg, one of the major Q readers, does not argue that Thomas is the traditional Q but also does not ignore the affinity between the two. Each Logion of Q is scaled with the sources of Jesus tradition, including Thomas. See his Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, and Concordance (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1988). 2 A.-J. Levine, “Women in the Q Communit(ies) and Traditions.” In Women and Christian Origins, eds. R.S. Kraemer and M.R. D’Angelo (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 150–162. 3 The case of Logion 9 is the most obvious instance. 4 For example, as reflected in the tradition here of events accepted as not wit­ nessed by disciples themselves: “there was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.” 5 “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilledamong us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the firstwere eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” 6 “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” 7 Further, the redactional theory of the text of Thomas in terms of Q tradition is initially argued by A. DeConick, who assumes that the Kernel Gospel of Thomas was composed between 30 and 50. See her The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation. 8 This is supported by other Thomasine texts, such as the Acts of Thomas, Nag Hammadi’s Thomas the Contender, and (on the assumption of Perrin) within the Diatessaron of Tatian. 9 This was re-arranged into the two Logia (30 and 77) of the Nag Hammadi text. P. Oxy. 1.23–30. 10 The Thomasine community was not the only Christian group in Jerusalem, but one of the early Christian groups. 11 See our “What Shall We Do? The Community Rules of Thomas in the ‘Fifth Gospel,’” Biblica 88, no. 3 (2007): 393–414. 12 The Thomasine characteristics of independence and creativity are theosophi­ cally rooted as “a piece of literature reminiscent of Hellenistic philosophical texts in the tradition of sophia literature.” J.M. Asgeirsson, “Conflicting Epic Worlds.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity, 155. 13 The Coptic term for knowledge is ⲅⲛⲱⲥⲓⲥ (Logion 39). 14 For more details, see D.W. Kim, “Where Does It Fit? The Unknown Parables in the Gospel of Thomas,” 585–595. 15 See D.W. Kim, “Is the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic?” In The Gnostic World, eds. G.W. Trompf, G.B. Mikkelsen, and J. Johnston) (New York: Routledge, 2019), 170–179. 16 There is no such scene between Salome and Jesus in the canonical tradition. 17 Even though Thomas’ Jesus seems to speak to both female and male disciples. 18 S. Schneiders also argues that “Mary Magdalene’s claim to apostleship (the leadership of the discipleship) is equal in every respect to Peter’s”: her “Women in the Fourth Gospel and the Role of Women in the Contemporary Church,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 12: 35–45; cf. P. Thimmes, “Memory and Re- Vision: Mary Magdalene Research Since 1975,” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 6 (1988): 227–259. 19 See J. Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics: An Introduction to the Gnostic Coptic Manuscripts Discovered at Chenboskion (London: Mjf Books, 1960). U. Bianchi, The Origins of Gnosticism: Colloquium of Messina 13–18 April 1966 (Leiden: Brill, 1970). 20 It would be logical to conclude that any relevant gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi Library should be treated as parts of the post-Thomasine writings, rather than pre-Thomasine materials.

References

Primary sources (editions and translations used) Africanus, J. 1980. “Chronicles.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, edited by A. Roberts et al. and trans. S.D.F. Salmond, 130–138. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Allberry, C.R.C., ed. 1938. A Manichaean Psalm-Book Part II. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Amélineau, E. 1975 Pistis-Sophia. Milan: Arché. Attridge, H.W. 1989. “Appendix: The Greek Fragments.” In The Coptic Gnostic Library; Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7 (with XII,2, BRIT. LIB. OR. 4926(1), and P.OXY. 1, 654, 655) vol. 1: Gospel according to Thomas, Gospel according to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons, and Indexes, edited by B. Layton, 95–128. Leiden, NewYork, København, and Köln: Brill. Barrett, C.K., ed. 1987. The New Testament Background: Selected Documents. London: SPCK Press. Bettenson, H., ed. 1969. The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius. London: Oxford University Press. Blatz, B. 1991. “The Coptic Gospel of Thomas.” In New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, Gospels and Related Writings, edited by W. Schneemelcher and translated by R.McL. Wilson, 110–133. Cambridge, Louisville and Kentucky: James Clarke & Co., Westminster and John Knox Press. Box, G.H. and W.O.E. Oesterley, trans. 1913. “Sirach.” In the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol. 1, edited by R.H. Charles, 268–517. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Burton, E., trans. and ed. 1889. The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2: The Epistles of St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp; vol. 3: The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. London: and Sydney: Griffith, Farran, Okeden & Walsh. Cameron, R., ed. 1982. The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. Cartlidge, D.R. and D.L. Dungan, eds. 1980. Documents for the Study of the Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Cary, E., trans. and ed. 1961. Dio’s Roman History VIII. London and Cambridge: William Heinemann Ltd. and Harvard University Press. Charles, R.H., ed. 1900. The Ascension of Isaiah. London: Adam and Charles Black. Charles, R.H., ed. 1913. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vols 1 and 2. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Charlesworth, J.H., ed. 1985. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayer, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Clement I [Pope]. 1946. The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch. Westminster: Newman Press. Clement of Alexandria. 1934. The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria. Translated by R.P. Casey. London: Christophers. Clement of Alexandria. 1970. Extraits de Théodote translated, edited, and in­ troduction by F. Sagnard. Paris: Les Éditions Du Cerf. Cooper, J. and A.J. Maclean. 1902. The Testament of Our Lord: Translated into English from the Syriac. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Eccles, L. 1991. Introductory Coptic Reader: Sections from the Gospel of Thomas with Full Grammatical Explanations. Kensington: Dunwoody Press. Elliott, J.K., ed. 1993. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Based on M. R. James. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Epiphanius of Salamis. 2009. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Book I (Sects 1–46), (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 63). Translated by F. Williams. Leiden and New York: Brill. Eusebius Pamphilus. 1998. Ecclesiastical History. Translated by C.F. Cruse. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers. Ferguson, J., trans. 1991. Clement of Alexandria: Stromateis: Books One to Three. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press. Ferreira, J., trans., ed. and introd. 2002. The Hymn of the Pearl: the Syriac and Greek Texts. Sydney : St. Pauls Publishers. Freedman, H. and M. Simon, trans. and eds. 1951. Midrash Rabbah: Song of Songs. London: Soncino Press. Funk, R.W. et al., trans. and comm. 1993. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan. Gallop, D., trans. 1975. Plato, Phaedo. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gardner, I., ed., trans., and comm. 1995. The Kephalaia of the Teacher: The Edited Coptic Manichaean Texts in Translation with Commentary. Leiden, New York, and Köln: Brill. Gardner, I. and S.N.C. Lieu, eds. and trans. 2004. Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Green, Sr, J.P. 2000 Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books. Grenfell, B.P. and A.S. Hunt, eds. and comm. 1897. Logia Iesou: Sayings of Our Lord from an Early Greek Papyrus. London: Henry Frowde. Grenfell, B.P. and A.S. Hunt, eds. and comm. 1904. New Sayings of Jesus and Fragment of a Lost Gospel from Oxyrhynchus. London: Henry Frowde. Grobel, K., trans. and comm. 1960. The Gospel of Truth: A Valentinian Meditation on the Gospel Translation from the Coptic and Commentary. London: Adam & Charles Black. Guillaumont, A., H.-Ch. Puech, G. Quispel, W. Till, and Y. ‘Abd Al Masih, eds. and trans. 1959. The Gospel according to Thomas: Coptic Text. Leiden and London: Brill and Collins. Harris, J.R. trans. and ed. 1887. The Teaching of the Apostles. London: and Baltimore: C. J. Clay and Sons, and Publication Agency of the John’s Hopkins University. Harris, J.R. and A. Mingana, trans. 1920. The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, vol. 2: The Translation. Manchester, London, New York, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras: At the University Press, Longmans, Green and Company and Bernard Quaritch. Hemphill, S., ed. 1888. The Diatessaron of Tatian: A Harmony of the Four Holy Gospels Complied in the Third Quarter of the Second Century. London and Dublin: Hodder & Stoughton and William McGee. Hennecke, E. 1992. New Testament Apocrypha, edited by W. Schneemelcher and translated by R.M. Wilson. London: SCM Press. Hoffmann, R.J. 1996. The Secret Gospels: A Harmony of Apocryphal Jesus Traditions. New York: Prometheus Books. Hogg, H.W. 1995. “The Diatessaron of Tatian.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 9, edited by A. Menzies, 42–138. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers. Holmes, M.W. 1999. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon. 1965–1982. Adversus Haereses. Paris, les Editions du Cerf.: Polyglot. James, M.R., ed. 1924. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. James, R.L. ed. 1933. A Roman Friendship: Cicero and Sulpicius: The IXth Philippic and Ad Fam. XIII. 17, IV. 1, 5, 6, and 12. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Jansma, T. 1952. A Selection from the Acts of Judas Thomas. Leiden: Brill. Jobes, K. and M. Silva, comp. 2001. Invitation to the Septuagint. Cumbria: Paternoster Press. Kim, H.C., trans. 1973. The Gospel of Nicodemus (Toronto Medieval Latin Texts 2). Toronto: The Hunter Rose Company. Kleist, J.A., trans. 1946. The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch. Westminster: The Newman Bookshop. Klijn, A.E., ed. and trans. 1962. The Acts of Thomas. Leiden: Brill. Kloppenborg, J.S., ed. 1988. Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, and Concordance. Sonoma: Polebridge. Labubna, B.S. 1981. The Teaching of Addai. Translated by G. Howard. Chico, California: Scholars Press. Lake, K., trans. 1912–1913. The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2. Cambridge, MT. and London: Harvard University Press and W. Heinemann. Lambdin, T.O., texts comp. 1983. Introduction to Sahidic Coptic. Macon: Mercer University. Lambdin, T.O., texts comp. 1996. “The Gospel of Thomas (II, 2).” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, edited by J.M. Robinson, 124–138. Leiden New York, and Köln: Brill. Layton, B., ed. and trans. 1987. The Gnostic Scriptures. London: SCM Press. Layton, B., ed. and trans. 1989. The Coptic Gnostic Library; Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7 (with XII,2, BRIT. LIB. OR. 4926(1), and P.OXY. 1, 654, 655), vol. 1: Gospel according to Thomas, Gospel according to Philip Hypostasis of the Archons, and Indexes. Leiden New York, København, and Köln: Brill. Layton, B., ed. and trans. 2000. A Coptic Grammar with Chrestomathy and Glossary: Sahidic Dialect. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Mack, B.L., ed. and comp. 1994. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. Macmahon, J.H., trans. 1995. “‘Hippolytus,’ ‘The Refutation of All Haereses.’” In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, edited by A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, and A.C. Coxe, 47–73. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. Marcorich, M., ed. 1986. “Hippolytus.” In Refutatio Omnium Haeresium. Berlin and New York: Water De Gruyter. Marcus, R., trans. 1929–1962. Philo Judaeus: Questions and Answers on Exodus (Philo Supplement II). London and Cambridge: William Heinemann Ltd. and Harvard University Press. Mead, G.R.S., trans. 1984. Pistis Sophia: A Gnostic Miscellany. Blauvelt, NY.: Spiritual Science Library. Meyer, M., trans. and ed. 1986. The Secret Teachings of Jesus: Four Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books, A Division of Random House. Meyer, M., trans. 1992. The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus. New York : HarperSanFrancisco. Milavec, A., trans. and ed. 2003. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary. Collegeville, MN.: Liturgical Press. Miller, N. P., trans. 1973. Tacitus, Annals 15. Basingstoke and London: St. Martin’s Press. Murray, M.A. (with text comp.). 1911. Elementary Coptic (Sahidic) Grammar. London: Bernard Quaritch. Nasoraia, B.S. and G.W. Trompf. 2010. “Mandaean Macrohistory.” Aram 22: 391–425. Partten, B.P. 1995. “The Teaching of Addaeus the Apostle.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8 edited by A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, and A.C. Coxe, 657–666. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. Patterson, S.J., J.M. Robinson, with H.-G. Bethge et al. (the latter as transl.). 1998. The Fifth Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas Comes of Age. Harrisburg, PA.: Trinity Press International. Phillips, G., ed. 1876. The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle. London: Trubner. Pliny the Younger. 1936. The Letters of Pliny, edited by H.H. Tanzer. New York Leipzig, London, Paris: G. E. Stechert & Co. Rehm, B., ed. 1992. Die Pseudoklementinen (II). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Rehm, B. and Strecker, G., eds. 1989. Die Pseudoklementinen (I). Berlin: Akademie- Verlag. Roberts, A., J. Donaldson, and A.C. Coxe, eds. 1995. Irenaeus of Lyon, “Adversus Haereses.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, 345–355. Peabody, Massachusetts: Cosimo Classics. Robinson, J.M. 1986.“On Bridging The Gulf from Q to the Gospel of Thomas (Or Vice Versa).” In Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, edited by C.W. Hedrick, 127–175. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers. Robinson, J.M., ed. 1996. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Leiden New York and Köln: Brill. Robinson, J.M., ed. 2002. The Sayings of Jesus: The Sayings Gospel Q in English. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Robinson, J.M., and the Department of Antiquities of the Arab Republic of Egypt, eds. 1974. The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices: Codex II. Leiden: Brill. Robinson, J.M., P. Hoffmann, and J.S. Kloppenborg, eds. and trans. 2002. The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Schenke, H.-M., trans. 1989. Das Thomas-Buch: Nag-Hammadi-Codex II, 7. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. Schneemelcher, W., ed. 1963 and 1991. New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings. Trans. R.M. Wilson. London: Westminster John Knox Press. Schneemelcher, W. and F. Scheidweiler, 1991. “The Gospel of Bartholomew.” In New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings, edited by W. Schneemelcher, translated by R.M. Wilson, 537–557. London: Westminster John Knox Press. Sherwin-White, A.N., ed. 1969. Fifty Letters of Pliny. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shisha-Halevy, A., comp. 1988. Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy: A Course for Academic and Private Study. Leuven: Peeters Press. Skehan, P.W., and A. di Lella, trans., ed., and comm. 1986. The Wisdom of Ben Sira (The Anchor Bible). New York: London, Toronto, Sydney and Auckland: Doubleday. Smith, M., with trans. 1973. Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Stählin, O. and L. Früchtel, 1960. Clemens Alexandrinus Zweiter Band Stromata Buch I-VI. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Strecker, G., ed. 1994. Die Pseudoklementinen (III). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Suetonius, C. 1826. Suetonii Tranquilli. London: Curante Et Imprimente A. J. Valpy, A. M. Tacitus, P.C. 1988. The Annals and the Histories. Translated by J.M. Hutchins. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Taylor, A.E., trans. and comm. 1962. A Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Taylor, C., ed. 1899. The Oxyrhynchus Logia and the Apocryphal Gospels. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Taylor, C., ed. 1905. The Oxyrhynchus Sayings of Jesus Found in 1903 with The Sayings Called “Logia” Found in 1897. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Taylor, T., trans. with copious notes. 1986. The Works of Plato II. London: Chancery-Lane. Telfer, W., trans. 1955. Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa (Library of Christian Classics 4). London: SCM Press. Thayer, J.H. 1996 Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. Tov, E., trans. and ed. 1975. The Book of Baruch (I Baruch). Missoula, MT.: Scholars Press. Turner, J.D., trans. 1990. “The Book of Thomas the Contender (II, 7).” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, edited by J.M. Robinson, 199–207. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. Vermes, G., trans. and ed. 1998. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin Books. Whiston, W., trans. 1999. The Complete Works of Josephus. Grand Rapids, MI.: Kregel Publications. Whitehouse, O.C. 1913 “The Book of Baruch (1 Baruch).” In The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol. 1: Apocrypha, edited by R.H. Charles, 569–595. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Williams, F.E., trans. 1996. “The Apocryphon of John.” In The Nag Hammadi Library in English, edited by J.M. Robinson, 29–37. Leiden New York, and Köln: Brill. Wilson, E.J., ed. and comp. 2002. The Old Syriac Gospels: Studies and Comparative Translations, vol. 2: Luke and John. Louaize and Piscataway: Notre Dame University and Gorgias Press. Winston, D., trans. 1982. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible). New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. Walters, C.C., comp. 1972. An Elementary Coptic Grammar of the Sahidic Dialect. Oxford: B. H. Blackwell and M. CM LXXII. Yonge, C. D., trans. 1993. The Works of Philo. Peabody, Mass.Hendrickson Publishers.,Secondary sources Aasgaard, R. 2009. “From Boy to Man in Antiquity: Jesus in the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies 3 (1): 3–20. Aasgaard, R. 2011. The Childhood of Jesus: Decoding the Apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aitken, E.B. 2006. “Tradition in the Mouth of the Hero: Jesus as an Interpreter of Scripture.” In Performing the Gospel, edited by R.A. Horsley et al., 97–103. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Akagi, T. 1965. ‘The Literary Development of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas’ (PhD. Dissertation, Western Reserve University), Cleveland, OH: Book Microfilm. Aland, K. and B. Aland. 1989. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Leiden and Grand Rapids, Michigan: E. J. Brill and William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Albanese, C.L. 2020. “The Gnostic in Us All: Thinking from the Macrobiotics of Michio Kushi.” Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 5 (1): 1–21. Alexander, P.S. 1991. “Orality in Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism at the Turn of the Eras.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64), edited by H. Wansbrough. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 159–184. Andersen, Ø. 1991. “Oral Tradition.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64), edited by H. Wansbrough. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 17–58. Anderson, J.C. 1987. “Mary’s Difference: Gender and Patriarchy in the Birth Narratives.” Journal of Religion 67 (2) 183–202. Anon, 1864. “The Chronicle of Edessa.” Journal of Sacred Literature, New Series [=Series 4], 5: 28–45. Arnold, C.E. 1996. The Colossian Syncretism: the Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Arnold, K. 2002. “The Circle of the Way: Reading the Gospel of Thomas as a Christ Zen Text.” Cross Currents 51 (4): 459–471. Arnold, W.E. 1995. “The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings Gospels.” The Harvard Theological Review 88 (4): 471–494. Asgeirsson, J.M. 1997. “Arguments and Audience(s) in the Gospel of Thomas (Part I).” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 36: 47–85. Asgeirsson, J.M. 2006. “Conflicting Epic Worlds.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson, 155–174. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Assmann, J. 2006. “Form as a Mnemonic Device: Cultural Texts and Cultural Memory.” In Performing the Gospel, edited by R.A. Horsley et al., 67–82. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Attridge, H.W. 1992. “Reflections on Research into Q.” Semeia 55: 223–234. Attridge, H.W. 1994. “On Becoming an Angel: Rival Baptismal Theologies at Colossae.” In Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World¸edited by L. Bormann et al., 517–525. Leiden and Köln: Brill. Attridge, H.W. 2000. “‘Seeking’ and ‘Asking’ in Q, Thomas, and John.” In From Quest to Q, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al., 295–302. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Uitgeverij Peeters. Aune, D.E. 1983 Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids, MI.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Aune, D.E. 1991a. “Oral Tradition and the Aphorisms of Jesus.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64), edited by H. Wansbrough, 211–265. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Aune, D.E. 1991b. “Prolegomena to the Study of Oral Tradition in the Hellenistic World.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64), edited by H. Wansbrough, 59–106. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Ayer, J.C. 1913. A Source Book for Ancient Church History: From the Apostolic Age to the Close of the Conciliar Period. New York: Ams Press. Baarda, T. 1965. “The ‘Gospel of Thomas’ and the Syriac ‘Liber Graduum,’” New Testament Studies 12: 49–55. Baarda, T. 1983. “The Syriac Versions of the New Testament.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, edited by B.D. Ehrman et al., 97–109. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Baarda, T. 1988. “‘If You not Sabbatize the Sabbath …’ The Sabbath as God or World in Gnostic Understanding (EV. THOM., LOG. 27).” In Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World, edited by R. van den Broek et al., 178–201. Leiden New York, København, and Köln: Brill. Baarda, T. 1989. “ΔΙΑΦΩΝΙΑ–ΣΥΜΦΩΝΙΑ: Factors in the Harmonization of the Gospels, Especially in the Diatessaron of Tatian.” In Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Texts and Transmission, edited by W.L. Petersen, 133–154. Notre Dame, IN. and London: University of Notre Dame Press. Baarda, T. 1991. “‘Chose’ and ‘Collected’: Concerning an Aramaisim in Logion 8 of the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ and the Question of Independence.” Harvard Theological Review 84 (4): 373–389. Baarda, T. 1995. “‘The Cornerstone’ An Aramaism in the Diatessaron and the Gospel of Thomas?” Novum Testamentum 37 (3): 285–300. Baker, D.A. 1964. “Pseudo-Macarius and the Gospel of Thomas.” Vigiliae Christianae 18: 215–225. Baker, D.A. 1965. “The Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron.” Journal of Theological Studies 16: 449–454. Balabanski, V. 1997. Eschatology in the Marking: Mark, Matthew and the Didache. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ballmes, V. 2012. “Gospel of Thomas.” In Encyclopedia of Global Religion, vol. 1. London, 480–481. Barclay, J.M.G. 1997. “The Family as the Bearer of Religion in Judaism and Early Christianity.” In Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor, edited by H. Moxnes, 66–80. London and New York: Routledge. Barclay, J.M.G. 2007. “There Is Neither Old Nor Young? Early Christianity and Ancient Ideologies of Age.” New Testament Studies 53: 225–241. Barnes, A.S. 1900. St. Peter in Rome and His Tomb on the Vatican Hill. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., Lim. Barnett, P. 1998. The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Barnett, P. 1999. Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Barrera, J.T. 1998. The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible. Translated by W.G.E. Watson. Leiden, New York, and Köln, Brill and Grand Rapids, Michigan and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Barton, S.C. 2001. “Many Gospels, One Jesus?” In The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, edited by M. Bockmuehl, 170–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauckham, R. 1991 “Salome the Sister of Jesus, Salome the Disciple of Jesus, and the Secret Gospel of Mark.” Novum Testamentum 33 (3): 245–275. Bauckham, R. 2006. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Bearsley, P.J., 1980. “Mary the Perfect Disciple: A Paradigm for Mariology.” Theological Studies 41: 461–504. Bellinzoni, A.J. 1967. The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of Justin Martyr. Leiden: Brill. Bernhard, A. 2015. “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: Textual Evidence of Modern Forgery.” New Testament Studies 61 (3): 335–355. Bernhard, A. 2017. “Postscript: A Final Note about the Origin of the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.” New Testament Studies 63 (2): 305–317. Betlyon, J.W. 2003. “Pella in Jordan 1970–1990: the Coins.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 329: 97. Betz, O., and R. Riesner. 1994. Jesus, Qumran and the Vatican. London: SCM Press. Bewer, J.A. 1900 The History of the New Testament Canon in the Syrian Church. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Beyer, K. 1986 The Aramaic Language. Translated by J.F. Healey. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bianchi, U., ed. 1970. The Origins of Gnosticism: Colloquium of Messina 13–18 April 1966. Leiden: Brill. Birdsall, J. N. 1962 “Luke 12: 16 and The Gospel of Thomas.” Journal of Theological Studies 13: 332–336. Birdsall, J. N. 1989. “The Western Text in the Second Century.” In Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Texts and Transmission, edited by W.L. Petersen, 3–17. Notre Dame, IN and London: University of Notre Dame Press. Blomberg, C.L. 1985. “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas.” In Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels, vol. 5, edited by D. Wenham, 177–205. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Blomberg, C.L. 1992. “Form Criticism.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by J.B. Green et al., 243–250. Westmont, IL and Leicester: Intervarsity Press. Bock, D.L. 2005. Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods. Grand Rapids, MI: Barker Academic. Boring, M.E. 1988. “The Historical-Critical Method’s ‘Criteria of Authenticity’: The Beatitudes in Q and Thomas as a Test Case.” Semeia 44: 9–44. Bornkamm, G. 1974 The New Testament: A Guide to Its Writings. Translated by R.H. Fuller and I. Fuller. London: SPCK. Botha, P.J.J. 2004 “Cognition, Orality-Literacy, and Approaches to First-Century Writings.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity (Semeia Studies 47), edited by J.A. Draper, 37–63. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Bovon, F. 1997 “Apocalyptic Traditions in the Lukan Special Material: Reading Luke 18: 1–8.” Harvard Theological Review 90 (4): 383–392. Bowman, A.K. and G. Woolf 1994. “Literary and Power in the Ancient World.” In Literary and Power in the Ancient World, edited by A.K. Bowman et al., 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bradley, K.R. 1978 Suetonius’ Life of Nero: An Historical Commentary. Brussels: Latomus. Brandon, S.G.F. 1978 The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity. London: SPCK. Breech, E. 1978 “Kingdom of God and the Parables of Jesus.” Semeia 12: 15–40. British Museum. 1951. The New Gospel Fragments with One Plate. London: Cambridge University Press. Brock, S.P. 1984 Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity. London: Variorum Reprints. Brock, S.P. 1989 “The Lost Old Syriac at Luke 1: 35 and the Earliest Syriac Terms for the Incarnation.” In Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Texts and Transmission, edited by W.L. Petersen, 117–131. Notre Dame, IN. and London: University of Notre Dame Press. Brock, S.P. 1994. “Greek and Syriac in Latin Antique Syria.” In Literary and Power in the Ancient World, edited by A.K. Bowman et al., 149–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brodhead, E.K. 2000 “An Authentic Saying of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas?” New Testament Studies 46 (1): 132–149. Brook, G.J. 2005 The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Brown, I.P. 2019 “Where Indeed Was the Gospel of Thomas Written? Thomas in Alexandria.” Journal of Biblical Literature 138 (2): 451–472. Brown, I.P. 2020. The Pepaideumenoi and Jesus: Ancient Education and Marginal Intellectuals in Paul’s Corinth and the Gospel of Thomas. (PhD diss., University of Toronto), Toronto. Brown, P. 1992 “The Sabbath and the Week in Thomas 27.” Novum Testamentum 34 (2): 193. Brown, R.E. 1963 “The Gospel of Thomas and St. John’s Gospel.” New Testament Studies 9: 155–177. Brown, R.E., and J.P. Meier. 1983. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: and Ramsey: Paulist Press. Brown, S. 1984 The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Bruce, F.F. 1969 New Testament History. London: Oliphants. Bruce, F.F. 1974 Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Buckley, J.J. 1983. “Mani’s Opposition to the Elchasaites: a Question of Ritual.” In Traditions in Contact and Change. Waterloo, 323–336. Buckley, J.J. 1985. “An Interpretation of Logion 114 in the Gospel of Thomas.” Novum Testamentum 27 (3): 245–273. Buckley, J.J. 2002. The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bull, N.J. 1967. The Rise of the Church. London: Heinemann. Bultmann, R. 1958. Jesus and the Word. Translated by L.P. Smith and E.H. Latero. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Burkett, D. 2002. An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burkitt, F.C. 2002. Early Christianity outside the Roman Empire. Piscataway: Gorgias Press. Callahan, A. 1997. “‘No Rhyme or Reason’: The Hidden Logia of the Gospel of Thomas.” Harvard Theological Review 90 (4): 411–427. Cameron, R. 1986. “Parable and Interpretation in the Gospel of Thomas.” Foundations and Facts Forum 2: 3–39. Cameron, R. 1991. “The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins.” In The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, edited by B.A. Pearson, 381–392. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Cameron, R. 1999. “Ancient Myths and Modern Theories of the Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins.” Journal of the North American Association for the Study of Religion 11 (3): 236–257. Cameron, R. 2003. “On Comparing Q and the Gospel of Thomas.” In Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions, and Symbols, edited by D.H. Warren et al., 59–69. Boston and Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc. Campbell, J. 2000. “The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rules.” Journal of Theological Studies 51 (2): 628–631. Carone, G.R. 2005. Plato’s Cosmology and Its Ethical Dimensions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Casey, M. 1998. Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Catchpole, D.R. 1977. “Tradition History.” In New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, edited by I.H. Marshall, 165–179. Exeter: The PaternosterPress. Cerrato, J.A. 2002. Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chilton, B. 1985. “The Gospel according to Thomas as a Source of Jesus’ Teachings.” In Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels, vol. 5, edited by D. Wenham, 155–175. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Cho, J.H. 2020. “Thomas in John’s Gospel and the Controversy on the Resurrection of the Body.” Korean Journal of Christian Studies 116: 105–132. Church, F.F. 1981 “The Secret to the Gospel of Thomas.” Harvard Theological Review 74: 398. Clark, F. 1974. The Rise of Christianity. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press. Collins, J.J. 1997. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Edinburgh: T &T Clark. Conzelmann, H. 1965–1966. “Paulus und die Weisheit.” New Testament Studies 12: 231–244. Conzelmann, H. 1969. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. London: SCM Press. Conzelmann, H. 1979. History of Primitive Christianity. Translated by J.E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon. Cook, J. 2003. “Law and Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls with Reference to Hellenistic Judaism.” In Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, edited by F.G. Martĭnez, 323–342. Leuven: Paris and Dudley, MA: Leuven University Press and Uitgeverij Peeters. Cook, J.G. 2000. The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Corley, K.E. 1999. “Salome and Jesus at Table in the Gospel of Thomas.” Semeia, 86: 85–97. Cornfeld, G. 1982. The Historical Jesus: A Scholarly View of the Man and His World. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Counet, P.C. 2000. John, A Post-Modern Gospel: Introduction to Deconstructive Exegesis Applied to the Fourth Gospel. Leiden, Boston, and Köln: Brill. Courtenay, W.J. 1987. Schools and Scholars in Fourteenth-Century English. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Coyle, J.K. 2005.“Twelve Years Later: Revisiting the ‘Marys’ of Manichaeism.” In Mariam, the Magdalen, and the Mother, edited by D. Good, 197–211. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Crenshaw, J.L. 1981. Old Testament Wisdom. London: SCM Press. Crossan, J.D. 1971. “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen.” Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (4): 451–465. Crossan, J.D. 1973. “The Seed Parables of Jesus.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92: 244–266. Crossan, J.D. 1979. Finding Is the First Act: Trove Folktales and Jesus’ Treasure Parable. Philadelphia and Missoula: Fortress Press and Scholars Press. Crossan, J.D. 1983. “Kingdom and Children: A Study in the Aphoristic Tradition.” Semeia 29: 75–95. Crossan, J.D. 1985. Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon. Winston Press: Minneapolis, Chicago, and New York. Crossan, J.D. 1986. Sayings Parallels: A Workbook for the Jesus Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Crossan, J.D. 1990. “‘What Have You Come Out To See?’ Characterizations of John and Jesus in the Gospels.” Semeia 49: 3–69. Crossan, J.D. 1991. “Lists in Early Christianity: A Response to Early Christianity, Q and Jesus.” Semeia 55: 235–243. Crossan, J.D. 1992a. “Hidden Treasure Parables in Late Antiquity.” In Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, edited by G. MacRae. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 359–379. Crossan, J.D. 1992b. In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. Sonoma, California: Polebridge Press. Cullmann, O. 1962. “The Gospel of Thomas and the Problem of the Age of the Tradition Contained Therein.” Interpretation 16: 418–438. Cupitt, D. 1972. “One Jesus, Many Christs?” In Christ Faith and History: Cambridge Studies in Christology, edited by S.W. Sykes et al., 131–144. Cambridge: At the UniversityPress. D’Angelo, M.R. 1999a. “(Re)Presentations of Women in the Gospels.” In Women and Christian Origins, edited by R.S. Kraemer et al., 129–149. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. D’Angelo, M.R. 1999b. “Reconstructing ‘Real’ Women from Gospel Literature.” In Women and Christian Origins, edited by R.S. Kraemer et al., 105–128. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. D’Angelo, M.R. 1999c. “(Re)Presentations of Women in the Gospels of Mathew and Luke-Acts.” In Women and Christian Origins, edited by R.S. Kraemer et al., 171–195. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dart, J. and R. Riegert 2000. The Gospel of Thomas: Unearthing the Lost Words of Jesus. Berkeley, California: Seastone. Davids, P.H. 1992. “Tradition Criticism.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by J.B. Green et al., 831–834. Downers Grove, IL and Leicester: Intervarsity Press. Davidson, I.J. 2005. The Birth of the Church: From Jesus to Constantine AD 30–312. Oxford and Grand Rapids, Michigan: Monarch Books. Davies, J.A. 1984. Wisdom and Spirit: An Investigation of 1 Corinthians 1: 18–3: 20 Against the Background of Jewish Sapiential Traditions in the Greco-Roman Period. Lanham, MD. New York, and London: University Press of America. Davies, M. 1998. “The Gospel of Thomas.” Expository Times 109 (11): 346. Davies, S.L. 1983a. “A Cycle of Jesus’ Parables.” Biblical Archaeologist 46 (1): 15–17. Davies, S.L. 1983b. The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom. New York: The Seabury Press. Davies, S.L. 1983c. “Thomas: The Fourth Synoptic Gospel.” Biblical Archaeologist 46 (1): 6–14. Davies, S.L. 1992. “The Christology and Protology of the Gospel of Thomas.” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (4): 663–682. Davies, S.L. 1996. “Mark’s Use of the Gospel of Thomas.” Journal of the New Testament Society of South Africa 30 (2): 307–334. Davies, S.L. 2003. The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained. London: Darton, Longman and Todd. Davies, S.L. and J. Fossum. 1991. “Stripped before God: A New Interpretation of Logion 37 in the Gospel of Thomas.” Vigiliae Christianae 45 (2): 123–150. Davies, S.L. and J. Fossum. 1996. Seek To See Him; Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas. Leiden, New York, and Köln: Brill. Davies, S.L. and J. Fossum. 2001a. “John Rivals Thomas from Community Conflict to Gospel Narrative.” In Jesus in Johannine Tradition, edited by R.T. Fortna et al., 303–311. Louisville, London, and Leiden: Westminster John Know Press. Davies, S.L. and J. Fossum. 2001b. Voice of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospel of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 157). London and New York: Sheffield Academic Press. Davies, S.L. and J. Fossum. 2002. “The Original Gospel of Thomas.” Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2): 167–199. Davies, S.L. and J. Fossum. 2005. Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth. (Library of New Testament Studies 286). London: T & T Clark. Davies, S.L. and J. Fossum. 2006a. “On the Brink of the Apocalypse: A Preliminary Examination of the Earliest Speeches in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al., 93–118. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Davies, S.L. and J. Fossum. 2006b. The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation: With a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel (Library of New Testament Studies 287). London: T& T Clark. De Boer, E.A. 2006. The Gospel of Mary: Listening to the Beloved Disciple. London: Continuum. De Kornitz, B.H. 1953. Salome: Virgin or Prostitute? New York: Pageant Press. De Ste Croix, G.E.M. 1975. “Early Christian Attitudes to Property and Slavery.” In Church, Society and Politics: Papers Read at the Thirteenth Summer Meeting and the Fourteenth Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, edited by D. Baker, 1–38. Basil Blackwell and Oxford: The Ecclesiastical History Society. DeConick, A.D. 1990. “The York Saying in the Gospel of Thomas 90.” Vigiliae Christianae 44 (3): 280–294. Delobel, J. 1989. “Extra-Canonical Sayings of Jesus: Marcion and Some ‘Non- received’ Logia.” In Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Texts and Transmission, edited by W.L. Petersen, 105–116. Notre Dame, IN and London: University of Notre Dame Press. Desjardins, M. 1992. “Where was the Gospel of Thomas Written?” Toronto Journal of Theology 8: 126. Dibelius, M. 1936. A Fresh Approach to the New Testament and Early Christian Literature. Great Britain: Ivor Nicholson and Watson. Van Diema, D. and Armstrong, K. 2001. “Jerusalem at the Time of Jesus.” Time: 46–56. Dihle, A. 1998. “Early Christianity in India.” In Ancient History in a Modern University, vol. 2: Early Christianity, Late Antiquity and Beyond, edited by T.W. Hillard et al., 305–316. Sydney, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Dines, J.M. 2004. The Septuagint, edited by M.A. Knibb. London: T & T Clark. Donfried, K.P. 1974. The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity. Leiden: Brill. Doran, R. 1987. “A Complex of Parables: GTh 96–98.” Novum Testamentum 29 (4): 347–352. Doran, R. 1991. “The Divinization of Disorder: The Trajectory of Matt 8: 20// Luke 9: 58// Gos. Thom. 86.” In The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, edited by B.A. Pearson, 210–219. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Doresse, J. 1960. The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics: An Introduction to the Gnostic Coptic Manuscripts Discovered at Chenboskion. London: Hollis & Carter. Drane, J.W. 1977. “The Religious Background.” In New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, edited by I.H. Marshall, 117–125. Exeter: The Paternoster Press. Draper, J.A. 1985. “The Jesus Tradition in the Didache.” In Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels, vol. 5, edited by D. Wenham, 269–287. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Draper, J.A. 1995. “Social Ambiguity and the Production of Text: Prophets, Teachers, Bishops, and Deacons and the Development of the Jesus Tradition in the Community of the Didache.” In The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Texts, History and Transmission, edited by C.N. Jefford, 284–312. Leiden New York and Köln: Brill. Draper, J.A. 2002. “‘Less Literate are Safer’: The Politics of Orality and Literacy in Biblical Interpretation.” Anglican Theological Review 84: 303–318. Draper, J.A. 2004. “Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity.” In Semeia Studies 47, edited by J.A. Draper, 1–6. Atlanta, GA.: Society of Biblical Literature. Draper, J.A. 2004. “Practicing the Presence of God in John: Ritual Use of Scripture and the Eidos Theou in John 5: 37.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity (Semeia Studies 47), edited by J.A. Draper, 155–158. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Drijvers, H.J.W. 1982. “Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 2 (3): 157–175. Drijvers, H.J.W. 1984a. “I: East of Antioch: Forces and Structures in the Development of Early Syriac Theology.” In East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity, edited by H.J.W. Drijvers, 1–18. London: Variorum Reprints. Drijvers, H.J.W. 1984b. “IV: Hellenistic and Oriental Origins.” In East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity, edited by H.J.W. Drijvers, 25–33. London: Variorum Reprints. Drijvers, H.J.W. 1984c. “VI: Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity.” In East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity, edited by H.J.W. Drijvers, 157–175. London: Variorum Reprints. Duling, D.C. 1984. “Norman Perrin and the Kingdom of God: Review and Response.” Journal of Religion 64 (4): 468–483. Dunderberg, I. 1998a. “Thomas and the Beloved Disciple.” In Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, edited by R. Uro, 65–88. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Dunderberg, I. 1998b. “Thomas” I-Sayings and the Gospel of John.” In Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, edited byR. Uro, 33–64. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Dunderberg, I. 2006. “From Thomas to Valentinus: Genesis Exegesis in Fragment 4 of Valentinus and Its Relationship to the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al., 221–237. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Dunn, J.D.G. 1978. “Prophetic ‘I’-Sayings and The Jesus Tradition: The Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances within Early Christianity.” New Testament Studies 24: 175–198. Dunn, J.D.G. . 1991. “John and the Oral Gospel Tradition.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64), edited by H. Wansbrough, 351–379. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Dunn, J.D.G. 2005. “Q as Oral Tradition.” In The Written Gospel, edited by M. Bockmuehl et al., 45–69. New York: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, D.L. 1998. Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years. London: Cassell. Ehrman, B.D. 2003. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ehrman, B.D., and Zlatko P. 2013. The Other Gospels: Accounts of Jesus from outside the New Testament. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Eisele, W. 2014. “The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas.” Biblische Zeitschrift 58: 301–303. Eisenman, R. 2002. James the Brother of Jesus. London: Watkins Publishing. Elliott, J.K. 1996. The Apocryphal Jesus; Legends of the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elliott, J.K. 1999a. “The Gospel of Thomas” Novum Testamentum 41 (2): 199–200. Elliott, J.K. 1999b.“Hidden Sayings of Jesus: Words Attributed to Jesus outside the Four Gospels.” Novum Testamentum 41 (2): 200–202. Elliott-Binns, L.E. 1948. The Beginnings of Western Christendom. London and Redhill: Lutterworth Press. Ellis, E.E. 1990. The Making of the New Testament Documents. Leiden, Boston, and Köln: Brill. Ellis, E.E. 1991. “The Making of Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64) edited by H. Wansbrough, 380–393. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Ellis, E.E. 1998. “New Directions in the History of Early Christianity.” In Ancient History in a Modern University, vol. 2: Early Christianity, Late Antiquity and Beyond, edited by T.W. Hillard et al., 71–92. Sydney, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Elman, Y. and I. Gershoni. 2000. Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality, and Cultural Diffusion. New Haven: Yale University Press. Englezakis, B. 1979. “Thomas, Logion 30.” New Testament Studies 25: 262–272. Epp, E.J. 1989. “The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission.” In Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Texts and Transmission, edited by W.L. Petersen, 71–103. Notre Dame, IN and London:University of Notre Dame Press. Epp, E.J. 1997. “The New Testament Papyri at Oxyrhynchus in Their Social and Intellectual Context.” In Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical Essays in Honour of Tjize Baarda, edited by W.L. Petersen et al., 47–68. Leiden, New York, and Köln: Brill. Esler, F.P. 1994. The First Christians in their Social Worlds: Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation. London and New York: Routledge. Evans, C.A. 1992. Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Evans, C.A., Webb, R.L., and R.A. Wiebe. 1993. Hag Hammadi Texts & the Bible: A Synopsis & Index. Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill. Evans, C.A. and Peter W. Flint, eds. 1997. Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Everitt, C. et al. 1985. The Christian Testament Since the Bible: Part III. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books. Farkasfalvy, D. 1997. “The Papias Fragments on Mark and Matthew and Their Relationship to Luke”s Prologue: An Essay On the Pre-History of the Synoptic Problem.” In The Early Church in Its Context: Essays in Honor of Everett Ferguson, edited by A.J. Malherbe et al., 47–68. Leiden Boston, and Köln: Brill. Ferguson, E. 2003. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Filoramo, G. 1990. A History of Gnosticism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Finegan, J. 1969. Hidden Records of the Life of Jesus. Philadelphia and Boston: Pilgrim Press. Finegan, J. 1975. Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism. London:SPCK. Fitzmyer, J.A. 1971. Essays On the Semitic Background of the New Testament. London: Geoffrey Chapman. Finn, T.M. 1997a. “The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History, and Transmission.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59 (4): 806–807. Finn, T.M. 1997b. From Death to Rebirth: Ritual and Conversion in Antiquity. New York and Mahwah: Paulist Press. Fiorenza, E.S. 1975. “Wisdom Mythology and the Christological Hymns of the New Testament.” In Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by R.L. Wilken, 17–41. Notre Dame, IN and London: University of Notre Dame Press. Fiorenza, E.S. 1979. “Word, Spirit and Power: Women in Early Christian Communities.” In Women of Spirit: Female Leadership in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, edited by R. Ruether et al., 30–70. New York: Simon and Schuster. Fiorenza, E.S. 1983. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. London: SCM Press. Fleddermann, H. 1989. “The Mustard Seed and the Leaven in Q, the Synoptics, and Thomas.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 28: 216–236. Foerster, W. 1974. Gnosis. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Foley, J.M. 1994. “Words in Tradition, Words in Texts.” Semeia 65: 169–180. Foley, J.M. 2004. “Indigenous Poems, Colonialist Texts.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity (Semeia Studies 47), edited by J.A. Draper, 9–36. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Foley, J.M. 2006. “Memory in Oral Tradition.” In Performing the Gospel, edited by R.A. Horsley et al., 83–96. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Ford, R.Q. 2002. “Body Language: Jesus’ Parables of the Woman with the Yeast, the Woman with the Jar, and the Man with the Sword.” Interpretation 56 (3): 295–307. Fowler, K.A. 2018. “Reading Gospel of Thomas 100 in the Fourth Century: From Roman Imperialism to Pachomian Concern over Wealth.” Vigiliae Christianae 72 (4): 421–446. Fox, R.L. 1994. “Literacy and Power in Early Christianity.” In Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, edited by A.K. Bowman et al., 126–148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. France, R.T. 1986. The Evidence for Jesus. London, Sydney, Auckland, and Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton. Franzmann, M. 2005. “A Complete History of Early Christianity: Taking the ‘Heretics’ Seriously.” Journal of Religious History 29 (2): 117–128. Fredriksen, P. 1988. From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Freeman, C. 1998. Egypt, Greece and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frend, W.H.C. 1967. “The Gospel of Thomas: Is Rehabilitation Possible?” Journal of Theological Studies 18: 13–26. Frend, W.H.C. 1979. “Town and Countryside in Early Christianity.” In The Church in Town and Countryside, edited by D. Barker, 25–42. Oxford: Basil Balckwell and The Ecclesiastical History Society. Frend, W.H.C. 1980a. “The Archaeologist and Church History.” In Town and Country in the Early Christian Centuries, edited by W.H.C. Frend, 259–265. London: Variorum Reprints. Frend, W.H.C. 1980b. “The Ecology of the Early Christianities.” In Town and Country in the Early Christian Centuries, edited by W.H.C. Frend, 17–28. London: Variorum Reprints. Frend, W.H.C. 1998. “The Gospel of Thomas.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 49 (3): 502–503. Frilingos, C.A. 2009. “No Child Left Behind: Knowledge and Violence in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 17 (1): 27–54. Funk, R.W., R.W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar 1993. The Five Gospels: the Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan. Gärtner, B. 1961. The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas. Translated by E.J. Sharpe. London: SCM Press. Gathercole, S. 2011. “Luke in the Gospel of Thomas.” New Testament Studies 57 (1): 114–144. Gathercole, S. 2012a. The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences(Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gathercole, S. 2012b. “Named Testimonia to the Gospel of Thomas: An Expanded Inventory and Analysis.” Harvard Theological Review 105 (1): 53–89. Gathercole, S. 2015. “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: Constructing a Context.” New Testament Studies 61 (3): 292–313. Gerhardsson, B. 1961. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity. Translated by E. J. Sharpe. Lund and Copenhagen: C.W.K. Gleerup and Ejnar Munksgaard. Gerhardsson, B. 1964. Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity. Translated by E.J. Sharpe. Lund and Copenhagen: C.W.K. Gleerup and Ejnar Munksgaard. Gerhardsson, B. 1991. “Illuminating the Kingdom: Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64), edited by H. Wansbrough, 266–309. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Gilbert, M. 1984. “Wisdom Literature.” In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, edited by M.E. Stone, 283–323. Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum and Fortress Press. Given, J.G. 2017. “Finding the Gospel of Thomas in Edessa.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 25 (4): 501–530. Glasson, T.F. 1967. “The Gospel of Thomas, Saying 3, and Deuteronomy XXX. 11–14.” Expository Times 78 (5): 151–152. Goodman, M.D. 1994. “Texts, Scribes and Power in Roman Judaea.” In Literary and Power in the Ancient World, edited by A.K. Bowman et al., 99–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodman, M. 2008. Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations. London: Penguin Books. Goodman, M. 2012. Thomas and the Gospels. Grand Rapids Mi: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Goss, J. 1981. “Eschatology, Autonomy, and Individuation: The Evocative Power of the Kingdom.” The Journal of the American Academy of Religion 49 (3): 363–381. Grant, R.M. 1980.“The Social Setting of Second-Century Christianity.” In Jewish and Christian Self-Definition: vol. 1: The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries, edited by E.P. Sanders, 16–29. London: SCM Press. Grant, R.M. and D.N. Freedman. 1960. The Secret Sayings of Jesus: According to the Gospel of Thomas. London and Glasgow: Collins. Grant, R.M. and D.N. Freedman. 1971. A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. London: Collins. Green, J.B., and S. McKnight. 1992. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL and Leicester: Intervarsity Press. Greenlee, J.H. 1995. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Greenspoon, L.J. 1998. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek Bible.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment, vol. 1, edited by P.W. Flint et al., 101–125. Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill. Gregory, T.E. 1979. VOX POPULI: Popular Opinion and Violence in the Religious Controversies of the First Century A.D. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Griffinhoofe, C.G. 1903. The Unwritten Sayings of Christ. Cambridge and London: W. Heffer & Sons and Edward Arnold. Griffith, L. 1976. Gospel Characters: The Personalities Around Jesus. London Sydney, Auckland and Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton. Grobel, K. 1962. “How Gnostic Is the Gospel of Thomas?” New Testament Studies 8: 367–373. Grosso, M. 2011. “A New Link between Origen and the Gospel of Thomas: Commentary on Matthew 14:14.” Vigiliae Christianae 65 (3): 249–256. Guijarro, S. 1997. “The Family in First-Century Galilee.” In Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor, edited by H. Moxnes, 42–65. London and New York: Routledge. Guy, L. 2004. Introducing Early Christianity: A Topical Survey of Its Life, Belief and Practices. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Gwatkin, H.M. 1912. Early Church History to A. D. 313, vol. 2. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited. Habas, R. 1994. “The Jewish Origin of Julius Africanus.” Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1): 86–91. Habel, N.C. 1971. Literary Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Harding, M. 1998. “Making Old Thongs New: Prayers Texts in Josephus’ Antiquities, 1–11; A Study in the Transmission of Tradition.” In Ancient History in a Modern University, vol. 2: Early Christianity, Late Antiquity and Beyond, edited by T.W. Hillard et al., 1–4. Sydney, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Harrington, D.S.J. 1991. The Gospel of Thomas (Sacra Pagina Series 1). Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press. Harrington, D.S.J. 1996. Wisdom Texts from Qumran. London and New York: Routledge. Harrington, W.J. 1999. John: Spiritual Theologian (The Jesus of John). Dublin: The Columba Press. Hartin, P.J. 1993. James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 47). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Hartin, P.J. 2006. “The Role and Significance of the Character of Thomas in the Acts of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al., 239–253. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Hawkins, P.S. 1989. “Parable as Metaphor.” Christian Scholar’s Review 12 (3): 226–236. Hearon, H.E. 2006. “The Implications of Orality for Studies of the Biblical Text.” In Performing the Gospel, edited by R.A. Horsley et al., 3–20. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Hedrick, C.W. 1983. “Kingdom Sayings and Parables of Jesus in the Apocryphon of James: Tradition and Redaction.” New Testament Studies 29: 1–24. Hedrick, C.W. 1986. “The Treasure Parable in Matthew and Thomas.” Foundations and Facets Forum 2 (2): 41–56. Hedrick, C.W. and R. Hodgson, Jr. 1986. Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Hedrick, C.W. and R. Hodgson, Jr. 1987. “Parables and the Kingdom: The Vision of Jesus in Fiction and Faith.” In Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 26, edited by Society of Biblical Literature, 368–393. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press. Helms, R.M. 1997. Who Wrote the Gospels? Altadena: Millennium Press. Henaut, B.W. 1993. Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4 (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 82). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Hengel, M. 1986. Earliest Christianity: Containing Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, and Property and Riches in the Early Church. London: SCM Press. Hengel, M. 2005. “Eye-witness memory and the writing of the Gospels.” In The Written Gospel, edited by M. Bockmuehl et al., 70–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hervieux, J. 1960. What Are Apocryphal Gospels? London: Burns & Oates. Higgins, A.J.B. 1960. “Non-Gnostic Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas.” Novum Testamentum 4 (4): 292–306. Hill, D. 1979. New Testament Prophecy. London: Marshall, Margan & Scott. Hoberman, B. 1983. “How Did the Gospel of Thomas Get Its Name?” Biblical Archaeologist, 46 (1): 10–11. Holtz, T. 1991. “Paul and the Oral Gospel Tradition.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64), edited by H. Wansbrough, 380–393. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Horman, J. 1979. “The Source of the Version of the Parable of the Sower in the Gospel of Thomas.” Novum Testamentum 21: 326–343. Horman, J. 2011. A Common Written Greek Source for Mark and Thomas. Studies in Christianity and Judaism. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Horsley, R.A. 1991. “Logoi Propheton? Reflections on the Genre of Q.” In The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, edited by B.A. Pearson, 195–211. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Horsley, R.A. 2004.“The Origins of the Hebrew Scriptures in Imperial Relations.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity (Semeia Studies 47), edited by J.A. Draper, 107–134. Atlanta, GA:Society of Biblical Literature. Horsley, R.A. 2006. “A Prophet Like Moses and Elijah: Popular Memory and Cultural Patterns in Mark.” In Performing the Gospel, edited by R.A. Horsley et al. 166–190. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Huffman, N.A. 1978. “Atypical Feature in the Parables of Jesus.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (2): 207–220. Hunter, A.M. 1969. Introducing the New Testament Theology. London: SCM Press Ltd. Hurtado, L.W. 2003. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Ilan, T. 1989. “Notes on the Distribution of Jewish Women’s Names in Palestine in the Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods.” Journal of Jewish Studies 40: 86–200. Iribarren, I. 2001. “‘Responsio secundum Thomam’ and the Study for an Early Thomistic School.” Vivarium 39 (2): 255–296. Jackson, B. 1900. Twenty-Five Agrapha or Extra-Canonical Sayings of Our Lord. London and New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and E. & J. B. Yong & Co. Jacobson, A.D. 2000. “Jesus Against the Family: The Dissolution of Family Ties in the Gospel Tradition.” In From Quest to Q, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al., 189–218. Leuven Leuven University Press and Uitgeverij Peeters. Jaffee, M.S. 2004. “Rabbinic Oral Tradition in Late Byzantine Galilee: Christian Empire and Rabbinic Ideological Resistance.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity (Semeia Studies 47), edited by J.A. Draper, 171–191. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Jaffee, M.S. 2006. “Gender and Otherness in Rabbinic Oral Culture: On Gentiles, Undisciplined Jew, and Their Women.” In Performing the Gospel, edited by R.A. Horsley et al., 21–43. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Jefford, C.N. 1989a. “The Dangers of Lying in Bed: Luke 17: 34–35 and Parallels.” Foundations and Facets Forum 5 (1): 106–110. Jefford, C.N. 1989b. The Sayings of Jesus in the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles. Leiden, New York, København, and Köln: Brill. Jefford, C.N. 2004. Review of M. Aaron, “The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (4): 662–664. Jenkins, P. 2001. Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jeremias, J. 1964. Unknown Sayings of Jesus. Translated by R.H. Fuller. London: SPCK. Johnson, L.T. with T.C. Penner. 1999. The Writings of the New Testament. London: SCM Press. Johnson, S.R. 2002. “The Hidden/ Revealed Saying in the Greek and Coptic Versions of Gos. Thom. 5 & 6.” Novum Testamentum 44 (2): 176–185. Johnson, S.R. 2010. “Hippolytus’ Refutatio and the Gospel of Thomas.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 18 (2): 305–326. Jolly, K.L. 1997. Tradition and Diversity: Christianity in a World Context to 1500. New York and London: M. E. Sharpe. Jones, C.P. 2005. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana/ Philostratus. Cambridge: Harvey University Press. Kampen, J. 2000. “Aspects of Wisdom in the Gospel of Matthew in Light of the New Qumran Evidence.” In Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran, edited by D.K. Falk et al., 227–239. Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill. Kee, H.C. 1963. “‘Becoming A Child” in the Gospel of Thomas.” Journal of Biblical Literature 82: 307–314. Kee, H.C. 1990. What Can We Know About Jesus? Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Kelber, H.W. 1997. The Oral and the Written Gospels: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Kelber, H.W. 2004. “Roman Imperialism and Early Christian Scribality.” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity (Semeia Studies 47), edited by J.A. Draper, 135–153. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Kelhoffer, J.A. 2018. “Eschatology, Androgynous Thinking, Encratism, and the Question of Thomas.” Vigiliae Christianae 72 (2): 142–164. Kilpatrick, G.D. 1976. “Literary Fashions and the Transmission of Texts in the Graeco-Roman World.” In The Centre for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, edited by W. Wuellner, 1–8. Berkeley: the Centre for Hermeneutical Studies. Kim, D.W. 2006a. Revival Awaken Generations: A History of Church Revival. Sydney: DKM Press. Kim, D.W. 2006b.“Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James.”, Journal of Religious History 30 (2): 225–227. Kim, D.W. 2006c. “The Wind-Blowing Desert: Thomasine Scholarship.” Journal of Coptic Studies 8: 87–101. Kim, D.W. 2007. “What Shall We do? The Community Rules of Thomas in the ‘Fifth Gospel.’” Biblica 88 (3): 393–414. Kim, D.W. 2013. “Where Does It Fit? The Unknown Parables in the Gospel of Thomas.” Biblica 94 (4): 585–595. Kim, D.W. 2015. “Reconsidering the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: An Imperfect Forgery or Another Polemical Gnostic Fragment.” Religious Studies and Theology 34 (1): 19–40. Kim, D.W. 2019. “Is the Gospel of Thomas Gnostic?” In The Gnostic World, edited by G.W. Trompf, G.B. Mikkelsen and J. Johnston, 170–179. New York and London: Routledge. Kim, Y.O. 1983. Study of the Gospel of Thomas. Seoul: Korean Christian Literature Crusade. King, J.T. 2019.“Sabbath Keeping as Metaphor in the Gospel of Thomas.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 81 (4): 641–656. King, K. 1987. “Kingdom in the Gospel of Thomas.” Foundations and Facets Forum 3 (1): 48–97. Kistemaker, S. 1972. The Gospels in Current Study. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. Klauck, H.-J. 2000. The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-Roman Religions. Translated by B. McNeil. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Klauck, H.-J. 2003. Apocryphal Gospels. Translated by B. McNeil. London: and New York: T & T Clark International (A Continuum Imprint). Klijn, A.F.J. 1962. “The ‘Single One’ in the Gospel of Thomas.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81: 271–278. Klijn, A.F.J. 1972. “Christianity in Edessa and the Gospel of Thomas: On Barbara Ehlers, Kann Das Thomasevangelium Aus Edessa Stammen?” Novum Testamentum 14 (1): 70–77. Klijn, A.F.J. 1979. “Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian and Aramaic Gospel Tradition.” In Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black, edited by E. Best et al., 169–177. Cambridge, London, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Klijn, A.F.J. 1992. Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition. Leiden, New York, København, and Köln: Brill. Kloppenborg, J.S. 1987. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Kloppenborg, J.S. 2014. “A New Synoptic Problem: Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole on Thomas.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36 (3): 199–239. Knight, J. 1995. The Ascension of Isaiah. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Koenen, L. 1981. “From Baptism to the Gnosis of Manichaeism.” In Rediscovery of Gnosticism, vol. 2, edited by, 734–756. Leiden, New York, København, and Köln: Brill B. Layton. Koester, H. 1965. “GNOMAI DIAPHOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversificationin the History of Early Christianity.” Harvard Theological Review 58: 279–318. Koester, H. 1971a. “GNOMAI DIAPHOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity.” In Trajectories Through Early Christianity, edited by J.M. Robinson et al., 114–157. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Koester, H. 1971b. “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels.” In Trajectories Through Early Christianity, edited by J.M. Robinson et al., 158–204. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Koester, H. 1971c. “The Structure and Criteria of Early Christian Beliefs.” In Trajectories Through Early Christianity, edited by J.M. Robinson et al., 205–231. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Koester, H. 1983. “Three Thomas Parables.” In The New Testament and Gnosis, edited by A.H.B. Logan et al., 195–203. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Limited. Koester, H. 1989. “The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century.” In Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Texts and Transmission, edited by W.L. Petersen, 19–37. Notre Dame, IN and London: University of Notre Dame Press. Koester, H. 1990. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. London: SCM Press. Koester, H. 1994. “Written Gospels or Oral Tradition?” Journal of Biblical Literature 113 (2): 293–297. Koester, H. 1997. “The Sayings of Q and Their Image of Jesus.” In Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical Essays in Honour of Tjize Baarda, edited by W.L. Petersen et al., 137–154. Leiden, New York, København, and Köln: Brill. Koester, H. 2000. Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of Early Christianity, vol. 2. New York and Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. Koester, H. 2003. “The Synoptic Sayings Gospel Q in the Early Communities of Jesus’ Followers.” In Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions, and Symbols, edited by D.H. Warren et al., 46–58. Boston and Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc. Korson, T.E. 1992. “The Treasure Parable in Matthew and in the Gospel of Thomas.” Unitarian Universalist Christian 43: 17–28. Kraft, R.A. 1961. “Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 655 Reconsidered.” Harvard Theological Review 54: 253–262. Kuhn, H.-W. 2000. “The Wisdom Passage in 1 Corinthians 2: 2–16 between Qumran and Proto-Gnosticism.” In Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meetings of the International Organization for Qumran Studies Oslo 1998, edited by D.K. Falk et al., 250–530. Leiden Boston, and Köln: Brill. Kümmel, W.G. 1974. The Theology of the New Testament according to Its Major Witnesses: Jesus-Paul-John. London: SCM Press. Ladd, G.E. 1967. The New Testament and Criticism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company. Ladd, G.E. 1968. The Pattern of New Testament Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Lagrand, J. 1980. “How Was the Virgin Mary Like A Man? A Note on Mt i 18b and Related Syriac Christian Texts.” Novum Testamentum 22 (2): 97–107. Lambdin, T.O. 1988. Introduction to Sahidic Coptic. Macon: Mercer University Press. Lapham, F. 2003. An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha. London and New York: T & T Clark. Laporta, J. 1975.“Philo in the Tradition of Biblical Wisdom Literature.” In Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by R.L. Wilken, 103–141. Notre Dame, IN and London: University of Notre Dame Press. Lee, D.A. 1995. “Partnership in Easter Faith: The Role of Mary Magdalene and Thomas in John 20.” Journal for the Study of New Testament 58: 37–49. Levine, A-J. 1999. “Women in the Q Communit(ies) and Traditions.” In Women & Christian Origins, edited by R.S. Kraemer et al., 150–170. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lewis, N.D. 2005. “No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67 (3): 542–543. Lewis, N.D. 2014. “A New Gnosticism: Why Simon Gathercole and Mark Goodacre on the Gospel of Thomas Change the Field.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36 (3): 240–250. Liebenberg, J. 2001. The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus: Parable, Aphorism, and Metaphor in the Sayings Material Common to the Synoptic Tradition and the Gospel of Thomas. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Liebeschuetz, W. 1979. “Problems Arising from the Conversion of Syria.” In The Church in Town and Countryside, edited by D. Baker, 17–24. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Lincoln, B. 1977. “Thomas-Gospel and Thomas-Community: A New Approach to a Familiar Text.” Novum Testamentum 4: 65–76. Lindemann, A. 1980. “Zur Gleichnisinterpretation im Thomas-Evengelion.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 71 (3–4): 214–243. Linjamaa, P.2016. “Savoring Life with an Unsympathetic World View: Sabbath as Rest and Contemplation in Gospel of Thomas Logion 27.” Numen 63 (5–6): 461–482. Lingad, C.G., Jr., and G. Celestino. 2001 The Problems of Jewish Christians in the Johannine Community. Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana. Litwa, M.D. 2015. “I Will Become Him”: Homology and Deification in the Gospel of Thomas.” Journal of Biblical Literature 134 (2): 427–447. Lock, W. and W. Sanday. 1897. Sayings of Jesus. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Lohse, E. 1981. The Formation of the New Testament. Translated from the third German edn. by M.E. Boring. Nashville: Abingdon. Lord, A.B. 1991. Epic Singers and Oral Tradition. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University Press. Lowe, M. 1982. “From the Parable of the Vineyard to a Pre-Synoptic Source.” New Testament Studies 28: 257–263. Lowrie, W. 1940. St. Peter and Paul in Rome: An Archaeological Rhapsody. London: New York and Toronto: Oxford University Press. Lüdemann, G. 1980. “The Successors of Pre-70 Jerusalem Christianity: A Critical Evaluation of the Pella-Tradition.” In Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 1: The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries, edited by E.P. Sanders, 161–173. London: SCM Press. Lüdemann, G. 2000. Jesus after 2000 Years: What He Really Said and Did. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM Press. Lührmann, D. 1995. “Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia?” In The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, edited by R.A. Piper, 97–116. Leiden, New York and Köln: Brill. Luomanen, P. 2006. “‘Let Him Who Seek, Continue Seeking’: The Relationship between the Jewish-Christian Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al. 119–153. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Mack, B.L. 1989. Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth. New York: Harper San Francisco. MacRae, G.W. 1978. “Nag Hammadi and the New Testament.” In Gnosis, edited by F.H. Jonas, 144–157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Marcovich, M. 1969. “Textual Criticism on the Gospel of Thomas.” Journal of Theological Studies 20: 53–74. Marjanen, A. 1996. The Woman Jesus Loved: Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents. Leiden, New York and Köln: Brill. Marjanen, A. 1998a. “Is Thomas a Gnostic Gospel?” In Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, edited by R. Uro, 107–139. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Marjanen, A. 1998b. “Thomas and Jewish Religious Practices.” In Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, edited by R. Uro, 163–182. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Marjanen, A. 1998c. “Women Disciples in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, edited by R. Uro, 89–106. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Marjanen, A. 2005. “Mary Magdalene a Beloved Disciple.” In Mariam, the Magdalene, and the Mother, edited by D. Good, 49–61. Bloomington, IN and Indianapolis: Indiana UniversityPress. Marjanen, A. 2006. “The Portrait of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al., 209–219. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Marshall, I.H. 1977. “Historical Criticism.” In New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, edited by I.H. Marshall, 126–137. Exeter: The Paternoster Press. Martin, R.P. 1975. New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students, vol. 1: The Four Gospels. Exeter: The Paternoster Press. Martin, R.P. 1978. New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students, vol. 2: Acts- Revelation. Exeter: The Paternoster Press. Martĭnez, F.G., and J.T. Barrera. 1995. The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Translated by W.G.E. Watson. Leiden, New York and Cologne: Brill. Marulli, L. 2010. “The Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13:26–30): A Quest for its Original Formulation.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 40 (2): 69–78. McArthur, H.K. 1960. “The Dependence of the Gospel of Thomas on the Synoptics.” Expository Times 71 (9): 286–287. McCaughey, J.D. 1960. “Two Synoptic Parables in the Gospel of Thomas.” Australian Biblical Review 8 (1): 24–28. McCullough, W.S. 1982. A Short History of Syriac Christianity to the Rise of Islam. Chico, California: Scholars Press. McGuire, A. 1999. “Women, Gender, and Gnosis in Gnostic Texts and Traditions.” In Women and Christian Origins, edited by R.S. Kraemer et al., 257–299. New York, and Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKechnie, P. 2001. The First Christian Centuries: Perspectives on the Early Church. Leicester: Apollos. McLaren, J.S. 1998. “Christians and the Jewish Revolt, 66–70 CE.” In Ancient History in a Modern University, vol. 2: Early Christianity, Late Antiquity and Beyond, edited by T.W. Hillard, et al., 53–60. Sydney, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. McLean, B.H. 1995. “On the Gospel of Thomas and Q.” In The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, edited by R.A. Piper, 321–345. Leiden and Köln: Brill. Mead, G.R.S. 1966. Apollonius of Tyana: The Philosopher-Reformer of the First Century A.D. New Hyde Park, NY: University Books. Meade, D.G. 1986. Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Meier J.P. 2012a. “Is Luke’s Version of the Parable of the Rich Fool Reflectedin the Coptic Gospel of Thomas.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74 (3): 528–547. Meier J.P. 2012b. “The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24–30): Is Thomas’s Version (Logion 57) Independent?” Journal of Biblical Literature 131 (4): 715–732. Ménard, J.-É., ed. 1975. Les Textes De Nag Hammadi (Colloque du Centre d’Histoire des Religions [Strassbourg, 23–25 octobre 1974]) (Nag Hammadi Series 7), edited by J.M. Robinson et al., 3–40. Leiden: Brill. Ménard, J.-É. 1975. L’Évangile selon Thomas (Nag Hammadi Series 5). Leiden: Brill. Merrill, E.T. 1924. Essays in Early Christian History. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited. Metzger, B.M. 1961. Lists of Words Occuring Frequently in the Coptic New Testament (Sahidic Dialect). Leiden: Brill. Metzger, B.M. 1977 and 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Metzger, B.M. 1987. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Meyer, B.F. 1991. “Some Consequences of Birger Gerhardsson’s Account of the Origins of the Gospel Tradition.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64), edited by H. Wansbrough, 424–440. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Meyer, M.W. 1985. “Making Mary Male: The Categories ‘Male’ and ‘Female in the Gospel of Thomas.” New Testament Studies 31 (4): 554–570. Meyer, M.W. 1991. “The Beginning of the Gospel of Thomas.” Semeia 52: 161–173. Meyer, M.W. 1998. “Seeing or Coming to the Child of the Living One? More on Gospel of Thomas Saying 37.” Harvard Theological Review 91 (4): 413–416. Meyer, M.W. 2003. Secret Gospels: Essays on Thomas and the Secret Gospel of Mark. Harrisburg, London and New York: Trinity Press International (A ContinuumIm print). Meyer, M.W. 2006. “‘Be Passersby’: Gospel of Thomas 42, Jesus Traditions, and Islamic Literature.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al., 255–271. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Millard, A. 2001. Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Miller, B.F. 1967. “A Study of the Theme of ‘Kingdom’: The Gospel according to Thomas: Logion 18.” Novum Testamentum 9 (1): 52–60. Miller, R.L. 1992. The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press. Miroshnikov, I. 2018. The Gospel of Thomas and Plato: A Study of the Impact of Platonism on the Fifth Gospel. Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill. Mitchell, N. 1995. “Baptism in the Didache.” In The Didache in Context, edited C.N. Jefford, 226–229. Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill. Montefiore, H. 1961. “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel according to Thomas and of the Synoptic Gospels.” New Testament Studies 7: 220–248. Montefiore, H. 1962. “A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel according to Thomas and of the Synoptic Gospels.” In Thomas and the Evangelists (Studies in Biblical Theology 35), edited by H. Montefioreet al., 40–78. London: SCM Press. Montefiore, H. 1976. Apocalypse: What Does God Say? London: Southwark Cathedral Publications. Moreland, M. 2006. “The Twenty-Four Prophets of Israel Are Dead: Gospel of Thomas 52 as a Critique of Early Christian Hermeneutics.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al., 75–91. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Morrice, G.W. 1984. “The Parable of the Dragnet and the Gospel of Thomas.” Expository Times 95 (9): 269–273. Morrice, G.W. 1987. “The Parable of the Tenants and the Gospel of Thomas.” Expository Times 98 (4): 104–107. Morrice, G.W. 1997. Hidden Sayings of Jesus: Words Attributed to Jesus outside the Four Gospels. London: SPCK. Moule, C.F.D. 1962. The Birth of the New Testament. London: Adam & Charles Black. Mueller, D. 1973. “Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God?” Vigiliae Christianae 27: 266–276. Murphy, R.E. 1983. Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes and Esther. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Newell, J. and R. Newell. 1972. “The Parable of the Wicked Tenants.” Novum Testamentum 14 (3): 226–237. Nicklas, T. 2016. “The Gospel of Thomas.” Biblische Zeitschrift 60 (1): 147–149. Nock, A.D. 1964. Early Gentile Christianity and Its Hellenistic Background. New York, Evanston and London: Harper Torchbooks. O’Connor, D.W. 1969. Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical and Archeological Evidence. New York and London: Columbia University Press. O’Grady, J.F. 1999. According to John: The Witness of the Beloved Disciple. New York and Mahwah: Paulist Press. O’Neil, J.C. 1993. “The Kingdom of God.” Novum Testamentum 35 (2): 130–141. Ong, W.J. 1987. “Orality-Literacy Studies and the Unity of the Human Race.” Oral Tradition 2: 371–382. Pagels, E.H. 1999. “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (3): 477–496. Pagels, E.H. 2000. “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospel of Thomas and John.” In For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by R.A. Argall et al., 198–215. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press. Pagels, E.H. 2003. Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. New York: Random House. Painter, J. 1975. John: Witness and Theologian. London: SPCK. Palmer, H. 1976. “Just Married, Cannot Come.” Novum Testamentum 18 (4): 241–257. Parkin, T.G. 2003. Old Age in the Roman World: A Cultural and Social History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Parrott, D.M. 1987. “Gnosticism and Egyptian Religion.” Novum Testamentum 29 (1): 73–93. Patte, D. 1982. “Entering the Kingdom like Children: A Structural Exegesis.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 21: 376–396. Patterson, S.J. 1990. “The Gospel of Thomas and the Historical Jesus: Retrospectus and Prospectus.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 29: 614–636. Patterson, S.J. 1991. “Paul and the Jesus Tradition: It Is Time for Another Look.” Harvard Theological Review 84 (1): 23–42. Patterson, S.J. 1993. “Wisdom in Q and Thomas.” In Search of Wisdom, edited by L.G. Perdue et al., 187–221. Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press. Patterson, S.J. 1993 The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. Sonoma: Polebridge Press. Patterson, S.J. 1995.“Didache 11–13: The Legacy of Radical Itinerancy in Early Christianity.” In The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Texts, History and Transmission, edited by C.N. Jefford, 313–329. Leiden, New York and Köln: Brill. Patterson, S.J. 2006. “The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Beginnings.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al., 1–17. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Patterson, S.J. 2011a. “Apocalypticism or Prophecy and the Problem of Polyvalence: Lessons from the ‘Gospel of Thomas.’” Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (4): 795–817. Patterson, S.J. 2011b. “The View from across the Euphrates.” Harvard Theological Review 104 (4): 411–431. Patterson, S.J. 2013. The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins: Essays on the Fifth Gospel. Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill. Patterson, S.J. 2014. “Twice More—Thomas and the Synoptics: A Reply to Simon Gathercole, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas, and Mark Goodacre, Thomas and the Gospels.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36 (3): 251–261. Pavelcik, J. 2010. “Parable of the Tares and the Wheat.” Studia Theologica 12 (1): 1–20. Pearson, B.A. 1975. “Hellenistic-Jewish Wisdom Speculation and Paul.” In Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by R.L. Wilken, 43–66. Notre Dame, IN and London: University of Notre Dame Press. Pearson, B.A. 1991. The Future of Early Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Perkins, P. 1981. “Pronouncement Stories in the Gospel of Thomas.” Semeia 20: 121–132. Perkins, P. 1988. “The Rejected Jesus and the Kingdom Sayings.” Semeia 44: 79–94. Perrin, N. 1963. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. London: SCM Press. Perrin, N. 1967a. “The Parables of Jesus as Parables, as Metaphors, and as Aesthetic Objects: A Review Article.” The Journal of Religion 47 (4): 340–346. Perrin, N. 1967b. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. New York: Harper and Row. Perrin, N. 1976. Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom. London/ Philadelphia: SCM Press/ Fortress Press. Perrin, N. 2002. Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron. Leiden, Boston and Köln: Brill. Perrin, N. 2004. “NHC II, 2 and the Oxyrhynchus Fragments (P. OXY 1, 654, 655): Overlooked Evidence for A Syriac Gospel of Thomas.” Vigiliae Christianae 8 (2): 138–151. Perrin, N. and C.W. Skinner. 2012. “Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research (1989–2011). Part II: Genre, Theology and Relationship to the Gospel of Thomas.” Currents in Biblical Research 11 (1): 65–86. Petersen, W.L. 1981. “The Parable of the Lost Sheep in the Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics.” Novum Testamentum 23: 128–147. Petersen, W.L. 1995. “The Diatessaron of Tatian.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Questions, edited by B.D. Ehrman et al., 77–79. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Pfeiffer, R.H. 1963. History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha. London: Adam and Charles Black. Plummer, A. 1890. The Church of the Early Fathers: External History. London and New York: Longmans, Green, and Co. Pokorný, P. 2011. Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas: From Interpretations to the Interpreted. London: T & T Clark International. Pritz, R.A. 1988. Nazarene Jewish Christianity. Jerusalem and Leiden: the Magnes Press and E. J. Brill. Puech, H.-C. 1954. “Un logion de Jésus sur bandelette funéraire.” Bulletin de la société Ernest Renan 3: 126–129. Quispel, G. 1959. “Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas.” New Testament Studies 5 (4): 276–290. Quispel, G. 1964. “The Syrian Thomas and the Syrian Macarius.” Vigiliae Christianae 18: 226–235. Quispel, G. 1966. “‘The Gospel of Thomas’ and ‘Gospel of the Hebrews.’” New Testament Studies 12 (4): 371–382. Quispel, G. 1969. “The Latin Tatian or the Gospel of Thomas in Limburg.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88: 321–330. Quispel, G. 1975. Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas: Studies in the History of the Western Diatessaron. Leiden: Brill. Quispel, G. 1988. “The Gospel of Thomas and the Trial of Jesus.” In Text and Testimony: Essays on New Testament and Apocryphal Literature in Honour of A. F. J. Klijn, edited by T. Baarda et al., 193–199. Kampen: Uitgeversmaats- chappij J. H. Kok. Reed, J. 1995. “The Hebrew Epic and the Didache.” In The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Texts, History and Transmission, edited by C.N. Jefford, 215–225. Leiden, New York and Köln: Brill. Richards, E.R. 2004. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Richardson, C. 1973. “The Gospel of Thomas: Gnostic or Encratite?” In The Heritage of the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Georges Florousky, edited by D. Neiman et al., 65–76. Rome: Ponti. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium. Richardson, P. 1969. Israel in the Apostolic Church. Cambridge: At the University Press. Richardson, P. and P. Gooch. 1985. “Logia of Jesus in 1 Corinthians.” In Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels, vol. 5, edited by D. Wenham, 39–57. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Riesner, R. 1991. “Jesus as Preacher and Teacher.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64), edited by H. Wansbrough, 394–423. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Riley, G.J. 1991. “Thomas Tradition and the Acts of Thomas.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 30: 533–542. Riley, G.J. 1995a. “Influence of Thomas Christianity on Luke 12: 14 and 5: 39.” Harvard Theological Review 88 (2): 229–235. Riley, G.J. 1995b. “A Note on the Text of Gospel of Thomas 37.” Harvard Theological Review 88 (1): 179–181. Riley, G.J. 1995c. Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Riley, G.J. 1996. “Review of S.J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus.” Journal of Religion 76 (1): 108. Robbins, V.K. 1983. “Pronouncement Stories and Jesus’ Blessing of the Children: A Rhetorical Approach.” Semeia 29: 43–74. Robbins, V.K. 2006a. “Enthymeme and Picture in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al. 175–207. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Robbins, V.K. 2006b. “Interfaces of Orality and Literature in the Gospel of Mark.” In Performing the Gospel, edited by R.A. Horsley et al., 125–146. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Roberts, A. 1888. Greek: The Language of Christ and His Apostles. London and New York: Longmans, Green, and Co. Roberts, C.H. 1970. “The Gospel of Thomas: Logion 30 A.” Journal of Theological Studies 21: 91–92. Robinson, J.M. 1975. “Jesus as Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the Gospels.” In Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by R.L. Wilken, 1–16. Notre Dame, IN: and London: University of Notre Dame Press. Robinson, J.M. 1978a. “The Future of Papyrus Codicology.” In the Future of Coptic Studies, edited by R.McL. Wilson, 23–70. Leiden: Brill. Robinson, J.M. 1978b. “Gnosticism and the New Testament.” In Gnosis, edited by F.H. Jonas, 125–143. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Robinson, J.M. 1986. “On Bridging the Gulf from Q to the Gospel of Thomas (or Vice Verse).” In Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, edited by C.W. Hedrick et al., 128–135. Peabody, MA : Hendrickson Publishers. Robinson, J.M. 1988.“The Study of the Historical Jesus after Hag Hammadi.” Semeia, 44: 45–55. Robinson, J.M. and H. Koester. 1971. Trajectories through Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Robinson, J.M., P. Hoffmann, and J.S. Kloppenborg, eds. 2000. The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis including the Gospel of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Leuven: The International Q Project. Robinson, J.A. 1976. Reading the New Testament. London. Rordorf, W. 1991. “Does the Didache Contain Jesus Tradition Independently of the Synoptic Gospels?” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64), edited by H. Wansbrough, 394–423. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Ross, H.McG. 1990. Thirty Essays on the Gospel of Thomas. Dorset: Element Books. Rost, L. 1976. Judaism outside the Hebrew Cannon: An Introduction to the Documents. Translated by D.E. Green. Nashville: Abingdon. Rudolph K. 1975. “Coptica-Mandaica: zu einigen Übereinstimmungen zwischen Koptisch-Gnostischen und Mandäischen Texten.” In Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts, edited by Martin Krause, 191–216. Leiden: Brill. Rudolph K. 1983a. “‘GNOSIS’ AND ‘GNOSTICISM’ – The Problems of their Definitionand their Relation to the Writings of the New Testament.” In The New Testament and Gnosis, edited by R.McL. Wilson, 21–37. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Limited. Rudolph K. 1983b. Gnosis: The Nature and History of an Ancient Religion. Translated by R.M. Wilson. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Limited. Ryen, J.O. 2009. “Baptism in Jordan – for Christians and Gnostics: Remarkable Similarities between Old Syrian Baptismal Liturgies and the Mandaean Masbuta.” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 13 (2): 282–315. Saller, R.T. 1994. Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schenke, H.-M. 1994. “On the Compositional History of the Gospel of Thomas.” Foundations and Facts Forum 19: 1–28. Schoedel, W.R. 1972. “Parables in the Gospel of Thomas: Oral Tradition or Gnostic Exegesis?” Concordia Theological Monthly 43: 548–560. Schoedel, W.R. 1975. “Jewish Wisdom and the Formation of the Christian Ascetic.” In Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by R.L. Wilken, 169–199. Notre Dame, IN.: and London: University of Notre Dame Press. Scholer, D.M. 1971. Nag Hammadi Bibliography: 1948–1969. Leiden: Brill. Scholer, D.M. 1997. Nag Hammadi Bibliography: 1970–1994. Leiden, New York and Köln: Brill. Scholer, D.M. 2008. Nag Hammadi Bibliography: 1995–2006. Leiden, New York and Köln: Brill. Schröter, J. 2006. “Jesus and the Canon: The Early Jesus Traditions in the Context of the Origins of the New Testament Canon.” In Performing the Gospel, edited by R.A. Horsley et al., 104–122. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Schröter, J. 2018. “The Contribution of Non-Canonical Gospels to the Memory of Jesus: The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter as Test Cases.” New Testament Studies 64 (4): 435–454. Scott, B.B. 1981. Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Scott, B.B. 1983. “How to Mismanage a Miracle: Readers-Response Criticism.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 22: 439–449. Scott, B.B. 1987. “The Empty Jar.” Foundations & Facts Forum 3 (2): 77–80. Scott, R.B.Y. 1971. The Way of Wisdom in the Old Testament. New York and London: Macmillan Company. Segal, J.B. 1970. Edessa: the Blessed City. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Segal, R.A. 1995. “Gnosticism, Ancient and Modern.” The Christian Century 112 (32): 1053–1056. Sell, J. 1980. “Johannine Traditions in Logion 61 of the Gospel of Thomas.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 7: 24–37. Sellew, P. 1987. “Reconstruction of Q 12: 33–59.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 26: 617–668. Sellew, P. 2006. “Jesus and the Voice from Beyond the Grave: Gospel of Thomas 42 in the Context of Funerary Epigraphy.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al., 39–73. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Setzer, C. 1997. “Excellent Women: Female Witness to the Resurrection.” Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (2): 259–272. Shedinger, R.F. 2003. “Review of N. Perrin, Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2): 387–389. Shiner, W. 2006. “Memory Technology and the Composition of Mark.” In Performing the Gospel, edited by R.A. Horsley et al., 147–165. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Sider, J.W. 1983–1984. “Interpreting the Hid Treasure.” Christian Scholar’s Review 13 (1): 360–372. Siverstev, A. 2000. “The Gospel of Thomas and Early Stages in the Development of the Christian Wisdom Literature.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8 (3): 319–340. Skineer, C. 2012. What Are They Saying about the Gospel of Thomas? Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. Slee, M. 2003. The Church in Antioch in the First Century C.E.: Community and Conflict (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 244). London and New York: Sheffield Academic Press. Smalley, S.S. 1998. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press. Smith, J.Z. 1982. Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith, M. 1982. “Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark: the Score at the End of the First Decade” Harvard Theological Review 75: 449–461. Snodgrass, K.R. 1992. “Parable.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by J.B. Green et al., 591–601. Downers Grove, IL and Leicester: Intervarsity Press. Soards, M.L. 1994. “Oral Tradition before, In, and outside the Canonical Passion Narratives.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64), edited by H. Wansbrough, 334–350. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Solère, J.-L. 2004. “Why Did Plato Write?” In Orality, Literacy, and Colonialism in Antiquity (Semeia Studies 47), edited by J.A. Draper, 83–92. Atlanta, GA. Sondgrass, K.R. 1974. “The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen: Is the Gospel of Thomas Version the Original?” New Testament Studies 21: 142–144. Spence, H.D.M. 2002. Early Christianity and Paganism: A.D. 64 to the Peace of the Church in the Fourth Century. London, Paris, New York and Melbourne: Cassell and Company, Limited. Spivey, R.A. and D.M. Smith, Jr. 1974. Anatomy of the New Testament: A Guide to its Structure and Meaning. New York and London: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. and Collier Macmillan Publishers. Stancliff, C. 1983. St. Martin and His Hagiographer: History and Miracle in Sulpicius Serverus. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Stanton, G. 2002. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stegemann, E.W. and W. Stegemann. 1989. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century. Translated by O.C. Dean, Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Stewart, E. 2015. “Sending a Boy to do a Man’s Job: Hegemonic Masculinity and the ‘Boy’ Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” Theological Studies 71 (1): 1–9. Strickert, F. 2000. “Jesus’ True Family: The Synoptic Tradition and Thomas.” In For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by R.A. Argall et al., 246–257. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press. Stroker, W.D. 1988. “Extracanonical Parables and the Historical Jesus.” Semeia 44: 95–120. Stroker, W.D. 1989. Extracanonical Sayings of Jesus. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Symes, J.E. 1921. The Evolution of the New Testament. London: John Murray. Talmon, S. 1991. “Oral tradition and Written Transmission, or the Heard and the Seen Word in Judaism of the Second Temple Period.” In Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 64), edited by H. Wansbrough, 121–158. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Thee, F.C.R. 1984. Julius Africanus and the Early Christian View of Magic. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Theissen, G. 1999. “The Wandering Radicals: Light Shed by the Sociology of Literature on the Early Transmission of Jesus Sayings.” In Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation, edited by D.G. Horrell, 93–121. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Theissen, G. 2003. Fortress Introduction to the New Testament. tran. J. Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Thiede, C.P. 1992. The Earliest Gospel Manuscript? The Qumran Papyrus 7Q5 and its Significance for New Testament Studies. Exeter: The Paternoster Press. Thimmes, P. 1988. “Memory and Re-Vision: Mary Magdalene Research Since 1975.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 6: 227–259. Tobin, T.H. 1992. “Interpretations of the Creation of the World in Philo of Alexandria.” In Creation in the Biblical Traditions (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 24), edited by R.J. Clifford et al., 108–128. Washington, DC: The CatholicBiblical Association of America. Tompkins, J.P. 1980. “An Introduction to Reader-Response Criticism.” In Reader- Response Criticism, edited by J.P. Tompkins, ix–xxvi. Baltimore. Tompkins, J.P., ed. 1980. Reader-Response Criticism. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Traini, S. 2019. “Umberto Eco’s Semiotics of the Text: Theoretical Observations and an Analysis of the Parable of the Banquet.” Semiotica 231: 87–103. Tripp, D.H. 1980. “The Aim of the “Gospel of Thomas.” Expository Times 92: 41–44. Trompf, G.W. 1989. “Macrohistory and Acculturation: Between Myth and History between Modern Melanesian Adjustments and Ancient Gnosticism.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 31 (4): 621–648. Trompf, G.W. 1992. “The Crippling Weakness of the Faddish Jesus.” Sydney Morning Herald, December 24: 11. Trompf, G.W. 2000. Early Christian Historiography: Narratives of Retributive Justice. London and New York: Continuum. Trompf, G.W. 2010. “The Epistle of Jude, Irenaeus, and the Gospel of Judas.” Biblica 91 (4): 555–582. Trompf, G.W. 2013. “Theosophical Macrohistory.” In Handbook of the Theosophical Current, edited by O. Hammer et al., 375–403. Leiden, NewYork, København, and Köln: Brill. Tuckett, C. 1988. “Thomas and the Synoptics.” Novum Testamentum 30 (2): 132–157. Tuckett, C. 2001. “Source and Methods.” In The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, edited by M. Bockmuehl, 121–137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tuckett, C. 2013. “The Gospel of Thomas: Gathercole and Goodacre.” Scottish Journal of Theology 66 (2): 221–229. Turner, H.E.W. 1961. “Review of R.McL. Wilson: Studies in the Gospel of Thomas.” New Testament Studies 7: 271–274. Turner, H.E.W. 1962a. “The Gospel of Thomas: Its History, Transmission and Sources.” In Thomas and the Evangelists (Studies in Biblical Theology 35), edited by H. Montefiore et al., 11–39. London: SCM Press. Turner, H.E.W. 1962b. “The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomas and the Evangelists (Studies in Biblical Theology 35), edited by H. Montefiore et al. 79–116. London: SCM Press. Turner, J.D. 1986. “Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History.” In Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, edited by C.W. Hedrick et al., 55–86. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Turner, J.D. 1992. “The Book of Thomas the Contender.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by D.N. Freedman, 529–530. New York: Doubleday. Turner, M.L. 1996. The Gospel according to Philip: The Sources and Coherence of an Early Christian Collection. Leiden NewYork, København, and Köln: Brill. Twelftree, G. 1985. “Jesus in Jewish Traditions.” In Gospel Perspectives: The Jesus Tradition outside the Gospels, vol. 5, edited by D. Wenham, 289–341. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Uro, R. 1997. “Asceticism and Anti-Familial Language in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor, edited by H. Moxnes, 216–234. London and New York: Routledge. Uro, R. 1998a. “Is Thomas an Encratite Gospel?” In Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, edited by R. Uro, 140–162. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Uro, R. 1998b. Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Uro, R. 1998c. “Thomas and Oral Gospel Tradition.” In Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, edited by R. Uro, 8–32. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Uro, R. 2000. “Washing the outside of the Cup.” In From Quest to Q, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al., 303–322. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Uitgeverij Peeters. Uro, R. 2003. Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas. London and New York: T & T Clark. Uro, R. 2006. “The Social World of the Gospel of Thomas.” In Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas, edited by J.M. Asgeirsson et al., 19–38. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Valantasis, R. 1997. The Gospel of Thomas. London and NewYork: Routledge. Valantasis, R. 1999. “Is the Gospel of Thomas Ascetical?: Revisiting An Old Problem with A New Theory.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (1): 55–81. Van Aarde, A.G. 2019. “Syncrisis as Literary Motif in the Story about the Grown- up Child Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:41–52 and the Thomas Tradition).” Hervormde Teologiese Studies; Pretoria 75 (3): DOI:10.4102/hts.v75i3.5258. van Andel, G.K. 1976. The Christian Concept of History in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus. Amsterdam: Adolf M Hakkert. van Der Woude, A.S. 1995. “Wisdom at Qumran.” In Wisdom in Ancient Israel, edited by J. Day et al., 244–256. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Groningen, G. 1967. First Century Gnosticism. Leiden: Brill. Van Voorst, R.E. 2000. Jesus outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Via, D.O. 1977. “Kingdom and Parable: The Search for a New Grasp of Symbol, Metaphor, and Myth.” Interpretation 31: 181–183. Vivian, T. 2005. “Review of M. Aaron, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 CE.” Anglican Theological Review 87 (1): 154–155. von Stuckrad, K. 2004. Was ist Esoterik? Kleine Geschichte des geheimen Wissens. Bielefeld: C.H. Beck. Vööbus, A. 1954. Early Versions of the New Testament: Manuscript Studies. Stockholm: Estonian Theological Society in Exile. Wachob, W.H., and L.T. Johnson. 2002. “The Sayings of Jesus in the Letter of James.” In Authenticating the Words of Jesus, edited by B. Chilton et al., 431–450. Boston and Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers. Wall, R.W. and E.E. Lemcio. 1992a. The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Wall, R.W. and E.E. Lemcio. 1992b. The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism. (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 76). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Waller, E. 1979–1980. “The Parable of the Leaven: A Sectarian Teaching and the Inclusion of Women.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 35 (1–2): 99–111. Walls, A.F. 1961. “The References to Apostles in the Gospel of Thomas.” New Testament Studies, 7: 266–270. Wayment, T.A. 2004. “Christian Teachers in Matthew and Thomas: the Possibility of Becoming a ‘Mater.’” Journal of Early Christian Studies 12 (3): 289–311. Weima, J.A.D. 1990. “The Second Tense in the Gospel of Thomas: The ‘Sleeping Beauty’ of the Coptic Verbal System.” Orientalia 59 (4): 491–510. Wendland, P. 1987. “Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies.” In Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy: Hippolytus of Rome and the Presocratics, ed. C. Osborne, 230–357. London: Gerald Dockworth. White, H.G.E. 1920. The Sayings of Jesus from Oxyrhynchus. Cambridge: At the University Press. Whitenton, M.R. 2015. “The Moral Character Development of the Boy Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38 (2): 219–240. Wilken, R.L. 1975. “Wisdom and Philosophy in Early Christianity.” In Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by R.L. Wilken, 143–168. Notre Dame, IN and London: University of Notre Dame Press. Wilken, R.L. 1984. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Heaven: Yale University Press. Williams, Catrin H. 2001. “‘I AM’ or ‘I AM He’?: Self-Declaratory Pronouncements in the Fourth Gospel and Rabbinic Tradition.” In Jesus in Johannine Tradition, edited by R.T. Fortna et al., 343–352. Louisville, KY and London, and Leiden: Westminster John Know Press. Williams, J.G. 1988. “Parable and Chreia: From Q to Narrative Gospel.” Semeia 43: 85–114. Williams, M.A. 1996. Rethinking Gnosticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Williams, M.A. 2019. “On Ancient Gnosticism as a Problematic Category.” In The Gnostic World, edited by G.W. Trompf, with G.B. Mikkelsen and J. Johnston, 100–117. London and New York: Routledge. Williams, N. 1976. Chronology of the Ancient World: 10,000 B.C. to A.D. 799. London: Barrie & Jenkins. Williams, P.J. 2009. “Alleged Syriac Catchwords in the Gospel of Thomas.” Vigiliae Christianae 63 (1): 71–82. Wilson, I. 1984. Jesus: The Evidence. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers. Wilson, I. 1990. Are These the Words of Jesus? Dramatic Evidence from beyond the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, R.McL. 1959a. “The Coptic Gospel of Thomas.” New Testament Studies 5: 273–276. Wilson, R.McL. 1959b. “The Gospel of Thomas.” Expository Times 70 (11): 324–325. Wilson, R.McL. 1960a. “Light on Sayings of Jesus: Interpreting the ‘Gospel of Thomas.” The Bible Translator 11 (3): 132–135. Wilson, R.McL. 1960b. Studies in the Gospel of Thomas. London: A. R. Mowbray & Co. Limited. Wilson, R.McL. 1960c. “‘Thomas’ and the Growth of the Gospels.” Harvard Theological Review 53: 231–250. Wilson, R.McL. 1960d. “Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels.” Expository Times 72 (2): 36–39. Wilson, R.McL. 1963. New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 1: Gospels and Related Writings. London: Lutterworth Press. Wilson, R.McL. 1966. “Second Thoughts: The Gnostic Gospels from Nag Hammadi.” Expository Times 78 (1): 36–41. Wilson, R.McL. 1994. “Review of S.J. Patterson: The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus.” Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1): 262–267. Wisse, F. 1989. “The Nature and Purpose of Redactional Changes in Early Christian Texts: The Canonical Gospels.” In Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Texts and Transmission, ed. W.L. Petersen, 39–53. Notre Dame, IN and London: University of Notre Dame Press. Wisse, F. 1998. “Flee Femininity: Antifemininity in Gnostic Texts and the Question of Social Milieu.” In Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, edited by K.L. King, 39–53. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Witetschek, S. 2010. “Going Hungry for a Purpose: On Gos. Thom. 69.2 and a Neglected Parallel in Origen.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (4): 379–393. Witherington III, B. 1988. Women in the Earliest Churches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Witherington III, B. 2001. New Testament History: A Narrative Account. Grand Rapids, MI: Barker Academic. Woodward, T.B. 2003. “Re-Imagine the World: An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus.” Sewanee Theological Review 46 (3): 407. Wright, L.E. 1952. Alterations of the Words of Jesus as Quoted in the Literature of the Second Century. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Wright, N.T. 1996. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Wright, N.T. 1999. “A Return to Origins (Again).” Bible Review 15 (6): 10–11. Yamaguchi, S. 2003. “‘I AM’ Sayings and Women in Context.” In A Feminist Companion to John Volume II, edited by A.-J. Levine, 34–63. London and New York: Sheffield Academic Press. Yamauchi, E.M. 1973. Pre-Christian Gnosticism. London: Tyndale Press. Zetterholm, M. 2003. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity. London and New York: Routledge. Zöckler, T. 2001. “Light within the Human Person: A Comparison of Matthew 6: 22–23 and Gospel of Thomas 24.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120 (3): 487–499.