_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

¹ J. D. Crossan, Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon (New York: Harper & Row, 1985; repr. Sonoma: Polebridge, 1992).

² R. W. Funk, R. W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (Sonoma: Polebridge Press; New York: Macmillan, 1993).

³ For recent studies of the Gospel of Thomas, see M. W. Meyer, The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992); S. J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1993); E. Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (New York: Random House, 2003).

⁴ For a selection of studies by scholars who believe that the Gospel of Thomas contains primitive, pre-Synoptic tradition, see H. Koester, “Q and Its Relatives,” in J. E. Goehring et al. (eds.), Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings (J. M. Robinson Festschrift; Sonoma: Polebridge, 1990), 49–63, here 61–63; R. D. Cameron, “The Gospel of Thomas: A Forschungsbericht and Analysis,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.25.6 (1988) 4195–251. See also S. L. Davies, “Thomas: The Fourth Synoptic Gospel,” BA 46 (1983), 6–9, 12–14, who makes the astonishing claim that the Gospel of Thomas “may be our best source for Jesus's teachings” (p. 9).

⁵ For a synopsis of parallels between the New Testament writings and the Gospel of Thomas, see C. A. Evans, R. L. Webb, and R. A. Wiebe, Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible: A Synopsis and Index (New Testament Tools and Studies 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 88–144. Scholars who think Thomas is dependent on the New Testament writings include R. E. Brown, “The Gospel of Thomas and St John's Gospel,” New Testament Studies 9 (1962–63): 155–77; B. Dehandschutter, “Recent Research on the Gospel of Thomas,” in F. Van Segbroeck, et al. (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992 (F. Neirynck Festschrift; Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 100; Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 2257–62; and M. Fieger, Das Thomasevangelium: Einleitung, Kommentar und Systematik (Neuetestamentliche Abhandlungen 22; Münster: Aschendorff, 1991).

⁶ On Luke's influence on the Gospel of Thomas, see J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 136; C. M. Tuckett, “Thomas and the Synoptics,” Novum Testamentum 30 (1988): 132–57, esp. 146.

⁷ Several scholars have concluded that the Gospel of Thomas draws upon the New Testament Gospels. See R. M. Grant, The Secret Sayings of Jesus (Garden City: Doubleday, 1960), 113; B. Gäner, The Theology of the Gospel According to Thomas (New York: Harper, 1961), 26–27, 34, 42–43. Similar conclusions have been reached by H. K. McArthur, “The Dependence of the Gospel of Thomas on the Synoptics,” Expository Times 71 (1959–60): 286–87; W. R. Schoedel, “Parables in the Gospel of Thomas,” Concordia Theological Monthly 43 (1972): 548–60; K. R. Snodgrass, “The Gospel of Thomas: A Secondary Gospel,” Second Century 7 (1989–90): 19–38; Tuckett, “Thomas and the Synoptics,” 157; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 130–39. According to C. E. Carlston (The Parables of the Triple Tradition [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975], xiii), “Many readings of the Gospel of Thomas and a considerable amount of time spent with the secondary literature…have not yet convinced me that any of the parabolic material in Thomas is clearly independent of the Synoptic Gospels.”

⁸ On the apostle Thomas in Syrian Christian tradition, see H.-C. Puech, “The Gospel of Thomas,” in E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, eds., The New Testament Apocrypha. Gospels and Related Writings, vol. 1 (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 278–307; Crossan, Four Other Gospels, 9–11; Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 118–20; idem, “Understanding the Gospel of Thomas Today,” in S. J. Patterson, J. M. Robinson, and H. G. Bethge, The Fifth Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas Comes of Age (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998), 37–40.

⁹ On the proposal that the Gospel of Thomas dates to the first century, see S. L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained (Woodstock, VT: Skylight Paths, 2004), 146–47; J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1993), 427–30; Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 118–20; idem, “Understanding the Gospel of Thomas Today,” in Patterson, Robinson, and Bethge, The Fifth Gospel, 40–45. The editors of the Greek fragments of the Gospel of Thomas (i.e., P.Oxy. 1, 654, and 655) suggested that the original Greek text probably dated to AD 140, a date that Crossan, Patterson, and others find too late and based on untested and unwarranted assumptions.

¹⁰ See Crossan, Four Other Gospels, 11–18.

¹¹ The Diatessaron (from Greek, meaning “through the four [Gospels]”) blends together the four New Testament Gospels. See W. L. Petersen, Tatian's Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance and History in Scholarship (Vigiliae Christianae Supplement 25; Leiden: Brill, 1994). In a comprehensive study G. Quispel observed that, in comparison with the Greek New Testament Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas and Tatian's Diatessaron share a large number of textual variants. Indeed, almost half of the sayings in Thomas give evidence of at least one such variant. See G. Quispel, Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas: Studies in the History of the Western Diatessaron (Leiden: Brill, 1975). Tatian (c. 120–180), a disciple of Justin Martyr (c. 100–165), composed the Diatessaron, probably in Syriac and probably in Syria, sometime between 172 and 174. The Diatessaron relies heavily on Matthew and may have been inspired by the earlier harmony of the Synoptic Gospels produced by Justin Martyr.

¹² On catchwords in the Gospel of Thomas and Syriac as the original language, see N. Perrin, Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron (Academia Biblica 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002); idem, “NHC II,2 and the Oxyrhynchus Fragments (P.Oxy 1, 654, 655): Overlooked Evidence for a Syriac Gospel of Thomas,” Vigiliae Christianae 58 (2004): 138–51.

¹³ On the argument that the sayings genre of the Gospel of Thomas is evidence of an early date, see J. M. Robinson, “LOGOI SOPHON: On the Gattung of Q,” in J. M. Robinson and H. Koester, Trajectories Through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 71–113; Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 113–18.

¹⁴ The ninth-century Akhmîm Gospel fragment was published five years after its discovery, in U. Bouriant, “Fragments du texte grec du livre d'Enoch et de quelques écits attribués à Saint Pierre,” in Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission archéologique française au Caire 9.1 (Paris: Libraire de la Société asiatique, 1892), 137–42. Edited and corrected editions of the text can also be found in J. A. Robinson and M. R. James, The Gospel According to Peter, and The Revelation of Peter (London: C. J. Clay, 1892); H. von Schubert, The Gospel of St. Peter (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1893); and more recently in M. G. Mara, Évangile de Pierre (Sources chrétiennes 201; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1973).

¹⁵ Those who argue that the newly discovered Akhmîm Gospel fragment depends on the Synoptic Gospels include T. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Petrus (Erlangen: Deichert, 1893); H. B. Swete, EUAGGELION KATA PETRON: The Akhmîm Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter (London and New York: Macmillan, 1893), xiii–xx. Robinson (Gospel According to Peter, 32–33) speaks of “the unmistakeable acquaintance of the author with our Four Evangelists.…He uses and misuses each in turn.” Those who argue that the fragment is independent of the Synoptic Gospels include A. Harnack, Bruchstücke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus (Texte und Untersuchungen 9; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893); A. Harnack and H. von Schubert, “Das Petrus-evangelium,” TLZ 19 (1894) 9–18; P. Gardner-Smith, “The Gospel of Peter,” Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1925–26): 255–71; idem, “The Date of the Gospel of Peter,” Journal of Theological Studies 27 (1925–26): 401–7.

¹⁶ For reconstruction of P.Oxy. 2949, see R. A. Coles, “Fragments of an Apocryphal Gospel (?),” in G. M. Browne et al. (eds.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (vol. 41; London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1972), 15–16 (+ pl. II). P.Oxy. 2949 may date as early as the late second century. The second fragment, P.Oxy. 4009, also probably dates to the second century. See D. Lührmann and P. J. Parsons, “4009. Gospel of Peter?” in Parsons et al., eds., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (vol. 60; London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1993), 1–5 (+ pl. I). For the proposal that the Fayyum Fragment also belongs to the Gospel of Peter, see D. Lührmann, with E. Schlarb, Fragmente apokryph gewordener Evangelien in griechischer und lateinischer Sprache (Marburger theologische Studien 59; Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 2000), 80–81.

¹⁷ On recent scholarly support of the antiquity of the Gospel of Peter, see H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1982), 163; cf. R. D. Cameron, The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 78.

¹⁸ On the theory that an early form of the Gospel of Peter lies behind the Passion narratives of the New Testament Gospels, see J. D. Crossan, The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), esp. 404.

¹⁹ On the late and secondary nature of the Akhmîm Gospel fragment (or Gospel of Peter), see T. W. Manson, “The Life of Jesus: A Study of the Available Materials,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 27 (1942–43): 323–37; C. H. Dodd, “A New Gospel,” in Dodd, New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University, 1953), 12–52; and É. Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus, ed. A. J. Bellinzoni (3 vols., New Gospel Studies 5.1–3; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1990–93), 2.202–14. Dodd (p. 46) concludes that the Akhmîm fragment (which he accepts as the Gospel of Peter) “depends on all four canonical Gospels, and probably not on any independent tradition.”

²⁰ Crossan and others have not sufficiently probed the significance of the fantastic elements in the Akhmîm Gospel fragment. The fragment describes the risen Jesus as so tall that his head extended above the heavens and that the cross on which Jesus had been crucified exited the tomb with him. These are the details of late not early tradition. On the great height of Jesus, see Shepherd of Hermas 83.1 (“a man so tall that he rose above the tower”). The Shepherd of Hermas was composed sometime between AD 110 and 140. The mid-second century addition to 4 Ezra (i.e., 2 Esdras 1–2) describes the “Son of God” as possessing “great stature, taller than any of the others” (2:43–47). The Akhmîm Gospel fragment's description of Jesus' head extending above the heavens probably represents a further and much later embellishment of these traditions. The Akhmîm Gospel fragment's description of the cross that exits the tomb with the risen Jesus, accompanied by angels, parallels late Ethiopic tradition, attested in two works, whose original Greek compositions probably dated no earlier than the middle of the second century. According to the Epistula Apostolorum (or Letter of the Apostles) §16, Jesus assures His disciples: “I will come as the sun which bursts forth; thus will I, shining seven times brighter than it in glory, while I am carried on the wings of the clouds in splendor with my cross going on before me, then to earth to judge the living and the dead” (J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament [New York: Oxford University Press, 1993], 566). This tradition, with some variation, is repeated in the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter §1: “With my cross going before my face will I come in my majesty; shining seven times brighter than the sun will I come in my majesty with all my saints, my angels” (Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, 600).

²¹ There are serious questions about the alleged Docetism in the Akhmîm Gospel fragment. In 4.10 it says that Jesus “himself was silent, as having no pain.” This does not say that Jesus in fact felt no pain; it implies that He was silent, even though the experience was indeed painful. Also, the cry from the cross, “My power, [my] power, you have abandoned me!” (5.19), is taken by some to indicate Docetism. But what we have here is probably no more than influence from a variant form of Ps 22:1, where one of the Greek recensions reads “strength” (or “power”), instead of “God.” For further discussion on this issue, see J. W. McCant, The Gospel of Peter: The Docetic Question Re-examined (Atlanta: Emory University Press, 1978). There really is no compelling basis for seeing Docetic tendencies in the Akhmîm Gospel fragment.

²² On the problem of identifying the early Greek fragments with the Akhmîm Gospel fragment, see P. Foster, “Are There Any Early Fragments of the So-Called Gospel of Peter?” New Testament Studies 52 (2006): 1–28. Foster shows that it is far from certain that the small Greek fragments P.Oxy. 2949, P.Oxy. 4009, and P.Vindob. G 2325 are from the Gospel of Peter mentioned by Bishop Serapion.

²³ For the Greek text of the London fragments of Egerton Papyrus 2, see H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat, Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri (London: British Museum, 1935), 8–15, 26; idem, The New Gospel Fragments (London: British Museum, 1951), 29–33. The superscript numbers in the English translation indicate approximately the line breaks.

²⁴ Lines 22a and 23a, which are based on Papyrus Köln 255, are so designated, in order to distinguish them from lines 22 and 23 of Papyrus Egerton 2, fragment 1 recto. The same is done with lines 42a–44a, which also are based on Papyrus Köln 255, at the end of the same fragment, in order to distinguish them from lines 42–44 of Papyrus Egerton 2, fragment 2 recto.

²⁵ On claims that the Egerton Papyrus is early and independent of the New Testament Gospels, see Crossan, Four Other Gospels, 183. H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1992), 207, 215; cf. idem, “Überlieferung und Geschichte,” 1488–90, 1522. Jeremias, “Papyrus Egerton 2,” in Schneemelcher (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha, 96. Crossan (Four Other Gospels, 86) argues that Mark is actually “directly dependent on the [Egerton] papyrus text.”

²⁶ The Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have originated as early as the late second century. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas should not be confused with the Gospel of Thomas, found complete at Nag Hammadi and in three fragments at Oxyrhynchus.

²⁷ For a sampling of scholarship concerned with the Secret Gospel of Mark, see M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973); idem, The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark (New York: Harper & Row, 1973); F. F. Bruce, The Secret Gospel of Mark (Ethel M. Wood Lecture; London: Athlone, 1974); M. W. Meyer, Secret Gospels: Essays on Thomas and the Secret Gospel of Mark (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003). An early and outstanding critical review of Smith's books was written by Q. Quesnell, “The Mar Saba Clementine: A Question of Evidence,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37 (1975), 48–67. Quesnell's probing review raised many troubling questions about the authenticity of the Clementine letter.

²⁸ For good quality color photographs of the Clementine letter, see C. W. Hedrick, “Secret Mark: New Photographs, New Witnesses,” The Fourth R 13/5 (2000): 3–16. Hedrick thought that his photographs supplied evidence supporting the authenticity of the Clementine letter. As it turns out, they had the opposite effect.

²⁹ For convincing evidence that the Clementine letter that contains quotations and discussion of Secret Mark is a hoax, see S. C. Carlson, The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2005); P. Jeffrey, The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007). In his recent essay, “The Question of Motive in the Case against Morton Smith,” Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006): 351–83, Scott Brown attempts to cast doubt on Carlson's proposals, particularly with regard to Smith's motives. The question of motive, apart from the discovery of a confession, will remain the most uncertain feature of this strange case. But the handwriting evidence, along with several other pieces of circumstantial evidence, admits to much less doubt.

³⁰ Prior to the “discovery” of the letter of Clement and its quotations of Secret Mark, Smith linked the idea of a secret Christian doctrine, which he thinks is alluded to in Mark 4:11 (“To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God”), to t. Hag. 2.1, which discusses forbidden sexual relationships in Leviticus 18. See M. Smith, Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels (Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 6; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1951), 155–56. Just prior to his visit to the Mar Saba Monastery in 1958, Smith published an article, in which he again makes mention of t. Hag. 2.1, only this time linking it to Clement of Alexandria. See M. Smith, “The Image of God: Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism, with Especial Reference to Goodenough's Work on Jewish Symbols,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 40 (1958): 473–512, here 507. This distinctive combination—the “secret of the kingdom of God,” t. Hag. 2.1, a rabbinic passage that discusses forbidden sexual relationships, and Clement of Alexandria—is found only in Morton Smith's writings. The combination is also found in the Mar Saba letter, supposedly written by Clement of Alexander, in which the “secret of the kingdom of God” (a phrase from Mark 4:11) is taught to a young man clothed with only a linen cloth over his “naked” body, followed by mention of “naked [man] with naked [man],” which of course is one form of the forbidden sexual relationships.

³¹ J. H. Hunter, The Mystery of Mar Saba (New York and Toronto: Evangelical Publishers, 1940, and reprinted many times).

↑ Back to top