The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas
The most celebrated extracanonical Gospel is the Gospel of Thomas, which survives in complete form in Coptic as the second tractate in Codex II of the Nag Hammadi library (NHC II,2) and partially in three Greek fragments in Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1, 654, and 655.3 P.Oxy. 654 preserves Gos. Thom. prologue and sayings §1–7 and a portion of saying §30. P.Oxy. 1 preserves Gos. Thom. sayings §26–33. P.Oxy. 655 preserves Gos. Thom. sayings §24, §36–39, and §77. Although the point has been disputed, it seems that most scholars contend that Thomas was originally composed in Greek and that the Oxyrhynchus Papyri stand closer to the original form of the tradition. The issue of the original language of Thomas will be taken up below.
Most of the codices that make up the Nag Hammadi library have been dated to the second half of the fourth century, though of course many of the writings within these old books date to earlier periods. The codex that contains the Gospel of Thomas may date to the first half of the fourth century. In the case of the Gospel of Thomas itself (whose explicit reads: peeuaggelion pekata thomas, “the Gospel according to Thomas”), we have the three Greek fragments from Oxyrhynchus, which date to the beginning and middle of the third century. One of the fragments may date as early as 200. Many scholars allow that Thomas was composed as early as the middle of the second century. How much earlier is hotly debated. I will argue that Thomas dates no earlier than the end of the second century.
A few scholars still argue that the Gospel of Thomas contains primitive, pre-Synoptic tradition.4 This is possible theoretically, but numerous difficulties attend efforts to cull from this collection of sayings or logia (114 in the apparently complete Coptic edition) material that can with confidence be judged primitive, independent of the New Testament Gospels, and even authentic. Quoting or alluding to more than half of the writings of the New Testament (i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 John, Revelation),5 Thomas could well be a collage of New Testament and apocryphal materials that have been interpreted, often allegorically, in such a way as to advance second- and third-century mystical or Gnostic ideas. Moreover, the traditions contained in Thomas hardly reflect a setting that predates the writings of the New Testament, which is why Dominic Crossan and others attempt to extract an early version (or early versions) of Thomas from the Coptic and Greek texts that are now extant. Attempts such as these strike me as special pleading—that is, if the extant evidence does not fit the theory, then appeal to hypothetical evidence. The problem here is that we do not know if there ever was an edition of the Gospel of Thomas substantially different from the Greek fragments of Oxyrhynchus or the later Coptic translation from Nag Hammadi. Positing an early form of Thomas, stripped of the embarrassing late and secondary features, is a gratuitous move. The presence of so much New Testament material in Thomas should give us pause before accepting theories of the antiquity and independence of this writing.
Another telling factor that should give us pause before assuming too quickly that the Gospel of Thomas offers early and independent tradition lies in the observation that features characteristic of Matthean and Lucan redaction are also found in Thomas. First, we may consider a few examples involving Matthew. Logia §40 and §57 reflect Matt 15:13 and 13:24–30, respectively. This Matthean material derives from M and gives evidence of Matthean redaction. Other sayings in Thomas that parallel the triple tradition agree with Matthew's wording (cf. Matt 15:11 = Gos. Thom. §34b; Matt 12:50 = Gos. Thom. §99), rather than with Mark's wording. Matthew's unique juxtaposition of alms, prayer, and fasting (Matt 6:1–18) appears to be echoed in Gos. Thom. §6 (= P.Oxy. 654 §6) and §14. In Thomas alms, prayer, and fasting are discussed in a negative light, probably reflecting Gnostic antipathy toward Jewish piety, which surely argues for viewing Thomas as secondary to Matthew. All of this suggests that Thomas has drawn upon the Gospel of Matthew.
There is also evidence that the Gospel of Thomas was influenced by the Gospel of Luke. The Lucan evangelist alters Mark's awkward “For there is nothing hidden except that it be revealed” (Mark 4:22) to “For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed” (Luke 8:17). This edited version is found in Gos. Thom. §5–6, with the Greek parallel preserved in P.Oxy. 654 §5 matching Luke's text exactly, which counters any claim that Luke's text only influenced the later Coptic translation.6
Elsewhere there are indications that Thomas has followed Luke (Gos. Thom. §10 influenced by Luke 12:49; Gos. Thom. §14 influenced by Luke 10:8–9; Gos. Thom. §16 influenced by Luke 12:51–53, as well as Matt 10:34–39; Gos. Thom. §55 and §101 influenced by Luke 14:26–27, as well as Matt 10:37; Gos. Thom. §73–§75 influenced by Luke 10:2). Given the evidence, it is not surprising that a number of respected scholars have concluded that Thomas has drawn upon the New Testament Gospels.7
And finally, not long after the publication of the Gospel of Thomas, it was noticed that the new Gospel shared several affinities with Eastern, or Syrian, Christianity especially as expressed in second-century traditions, including Tatian's harmony of the four New Testament Gospels, called the Diatessaron. This point is potentially significant, for the Diatessaron was the only form of New Testament Gospel tradition known to Syrian Christianity in the second century. We must carefully consider the implications of this evidence.
Proponents of the independence and first-century origin of the Gospel of Thomas are aware of at least some aspects of this writing's relationship to Syrian Christianity. Crossan and Stephen Patterson rightly acknowledge Edessa, eastern Syria, as the original provenance of Thomas. They point out, among other things, that the name “Judas Thomas” is found in other works of Syrian provenance, such as the Book of Thomas the Contender (NHC II,7), which begins in a manner reminiscent of the Gospel of Thomas: “The secret words that the Savior spoke to Judas Thomas, which I, even I Mathaias, wrote down” (138.1–3; cf. 142.7: “Judas—the one called Thomas”), and the Acts of Thomas, in which the apostle is called “Judas Thomas, who is also (called) Didymus” (§1; cf. §11: “Judas who is also Thomas”). The longer form of the name in the Acts of Thomas agrees with the prologue of the Gospel of Thomas, where the apostle is identified as “Didymus Judas Thomas.” In the Syriac version of John 14:22, “Judas (not Iscariot)” is identified as “Judas Thomas.” This nomenclature continues on into later Syrian Christian traditions.8
Despite these affinities with Syrian tradition, whose distinctive characteristics, so far as we can trace them, emerged in the second century, Crossan and Patterson (and others) are confident that the Gospel of Thomas in fact originated early. Patterson thinks Thomas must have existed before the end of the first century (though he allows for later editing). Crossan believes that the first edition of Thomas emerged in the 50s and the later edition, essentially the extant text, emerged in the 60s or 70s. In other words, the Gospel of Thomas in its first edition is earlier than any of the New Testament Gospels. Indeed, even the later edition of Thomas may be earlier than the New Testament Gospels.9
Scholars have weighed in on both sides of this question, with many arguing that the Gospel of Thomas dates to the second century (e.g., early to mid) and with almost as many (several of whom are numbered among the members of the Jesus Seminar) arguing that Thomas dates to the first century. The latter usually date Thomas to the end of the first century but believe they can identify independent tradition that in some cases should be preferred to its parallel forms in the Synoptic Gospels.
This important question cannot be settled by taking a poll. We need to take a hard look at the Gospel of Thomas, especially as it relates to Syrian tradition. This text probably should not be dated before the middle of the second century. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Thomas was probably composed in the last quarter of the second century. Probably nothing in Thomas can be independently traced back to the first century. Let us consider the evidence.
In print and in public lectures, Crossan has defended the antiquity and independence of the Gospel of Thomas principally on two grounds: (1) He can find “no overall compositional design” in the Gospel, apart from a few clusters of sayings linked by catchwords; and (2) he finds several differences in the parallels with the New Testament Gospels that he believes cannot be explained in terms of Thomasine redaction. Patterson's arguments are similar.10 As it turns out, the Syrian evidence answers both points.
Almost from the beginning a few scholars with Syriac expertise recognized the Semitic, especially Syriac, style of the Gospel of Thomas. This was, of course, consistent with what has already been said about the form of the name of the apostle. It was further noticed that at points distinctive readings in Thomas agree with the Syriac version of the New Testament or with the earlier Diatessaron by Tatian.11 It was also wondered if perhaps portions of Thomas originated in the Syriac language, instead of the Greek language, as was widely assumed.
In a recent study Nicholas Perrin has put this question to the test. He has analyzed the entire text of Thomas, retroverting the Coptic into Syriac and Greek. The results of his investigation are impressive. On the assumption that the Gospel of Thomas was originally written not in Greek or Coptic but in Syriac, which is not implausible given its Syrian provenance, more than five hundred catchwords can be identified linking almost all of the 114 sayings that make up this work. In fact, Perrin could find no linking catchwords for only three couplets (§56 and §57, §88 and §89, and §104 and §105). These exceptions are hardly fatal to Perrin's analysis, for the original Syriac catchwords could easily have been lost in transmission or in translation into Coptic.12
Moreover, Perrin is not only able to explain the order of the whole of Thomas in reference to catchwords; he is able to show in places the Gospel's acquaintance with the order and arrangement of material in Tatian's Diatessaron. The mystery of the order of the sayings that make up the Gospel of Thomas appears to have been resolved. Perrin concludes that the Gospel of Thomas is indeed dependent on the New Testament Gospels but not directly. Thomas depends on the New Testament Gospels as they existed in the Diatessaron, in Syriac.
The principal argument that Crossan and others have advanced in support of the literary independence of the Gospel of Thomas from the New Testament Gospels has been dealt a crippling blow. It is no longer justified to say that there is no discernible framework or organizing principle lying behind the composition of Thomas. There clearly is, if this writing of acknowledged Syrian provenance is studied in the light of the Syriac language.
Just as impressive is the number of specific contacts between the Gospel of Thomas and Syrian Gospel traditions and other Syrian religious traditions. Again and again we see where Thomas differs from the New Testament Gospels and where Thomas agrees with Syrian tradition. This point has not been sufficiently appreciated by Crossan and others.
Before concluding the discussion of the Gospel of Thomas, one other issue needs to be addressed. Stephen Patterson, James Robinson, and others have argued that the genre of the Gospel of Thomas supports an early date. Because Thomas is like Q, the sayings source on which Matthew and Luke drew, then Thomas in its earliest form may approximate the age of Q.13 This argument is wholly specious not only because it does not take into account the extensive coherence with late second-century Syrian tradition, which has been reviewed above, or the lack of coherence with pre-70 Jewish Palestine; it fails to take into account the fact that other sayings collections, some in Syria, emerged in the second and third centuries. Among these is the rabbinic collection that became known as the Pirqe 'Abot (“Chapters of the Fathers”) and the Sentences of Sextus. The latter is particularly significant because it originated in Syria in the second century, the approximate time and place of the emergence of the Gospel of Thomas. The evidence suggests that the Gospel of Thomas is another second-century collection that emerged in Syria.
The evidence strongly points to a late origin of the Gospel of Thomas. The association of the work with Judas Thomas, the arrangement and order of the sayings explained by hundreds of Syriac catchwords that link the sayings, and the coherence of the readings in Thomas that differ from the Greek New Testament Gospels with the readings either in the Diatessaron or other Christian Syriac works from this period compellingly argue for a late second-century Syrian origin of the Gospel of Thomas. In short, the flood of factors point to the Eastern, Syriac-speaking church, a church that knows the New Testament Gospels primarily, perhaps exclusively, through Tatian's Diatessareon, a work not composed before AD 170, that persuades me that the Gospel of Thomas does not offer students of the Gospels early, independent material that can be used for critical research into the life and teaching of Jesus.