Introduction
1 B. P. Grenfell, “The Oldest Record of Christ’s Life: The First Complete Account of the Recent Finding of the ‘Sayings of Our Lord.’” McClure’s Magazine (October, 1897) 1027.
2 Grenfell, B. P., and Hunt, A. S., Logia Iesou: Sayings of Our Lord (Egypt Exploration Fund; London: Henry Frowde, 1897).
3 A. Guillaumont, H.-Ch. Puech, G. Quispel, W.C. Till, Abed al Masih, The Gospel According to Thomas: Coptic Text Established and Translated (Leiden/London/New York: Brill/Collins/Harper, 1959).
4 K. Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis. 15th edition, 3rd corrected printing; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001, 517–46: Evangelium Thomae Copticum.
5 Uwe-Karsten Plisch, The Gospel of Thomas: Original Text and Commentary. (Gesine Schenke Robinson, trans.; Stuttgart: Deutche Bibelgesellschaft 2008).
6 See note 4, above.
Chapter 1: Revised English Translation
1 Translation by the Berliner Arbeitskreis für Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften (Hans-Gebhard Bethge, Christina-Maria Franke, Judith Hartenstein, Uwe-Karsten Plisch, Hans-Martin Schenke, Jens Schröter) as modified by Stephen J. Patterson and James M. Robinson. It is taken from Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 15th edition, 3rd corrected printing, 2001, revised 2009.
2 The verb can also be expressed in its past tense. When sayings appear without a narrative framework, a translation in the present tense is preferable.
3 Cf. Saying. 14:1–3.
4 The Coptic text reads “before the face of heaven,” but this is probably a mistake. The emendation is proposed on the basis of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 654.38.
5 The phrase “and the lion will become human” could be a copyist’s error, which may have occurred already in the Greek text from which the Coptic translation was made. In this case it should be deleted. Others have emended the text to read “and the person will be the lion.” This produces a formal parallelism, but it is not unproblematic with regard to content.
6 Or: “I am protecting it (the world) until it blazes”.
7 Literally: “be great”.
8 Cf. Luke 7:24; 9:52. The text reads angelos, which may also be rendered “angel.”
9 Cf. Saying 6:1.
10 Literally: “in the countryside.”
11 Or: “there (in the countryside).”
12 Cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Dialogue of the Savior (Nag Hammadi Codex III, 5) p. 140,2f.
13 Or: “whom.”
14 The conjugational element is missing in the Coptic text due to haplography.
15 Or: “Slaves”. – The usual (literal) translation of šēre šēm as “little children” makes little sense in this passage; the translation given here takes šēre šēm to be a rendering of pais (meaning doulos, cf. Matt. 14:2 and 2Kings 11:24 LXX) in the Coptic translator’s Greek copy.
16 “Who are entrusted with a field”: possible also, “who have taken over a field.”
17 A literal translation of the Coptic. It is possible, however, that a pronoun has been accidentally omitted from the text; in this case the text would read: “But they strip it (i.e. the field) bare,” meaning they harvest the crop from the field.
18 The translation assumes that the antecedent for this pronoun, hbsw, or “clothing,” has been inadvertently omitted from the text.
19 The Coptic genitive is to be understood as an explicative genitive.
20 Alternative translation (cf. Saying 21:6f..): “For the possessions you are guarding they will find.”
21 Or: “suckled.” Literally: “receiving milk.”
22 Or: “suckled”.
23 It is also possible for the Coptic text here to mean “face”; cf. Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles (Nag Hammadi Codex VI, 1) p. 2,24.
24 Or: “it.”
25 Or: “it.”
26 Literally: “If you do not fast against the world.”
27 This interpretation comes from Peter Nagel (HBO 32, 2001, 507–517).
28 The Coptic text is probably corrupt. On the basis of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1, ln. 23, it should read: “Where there are three, they are godless.”
29 The text probably reflects a scribal error in which the phrase “in your ear” was inadvertently copied twice (dittography). Nevertheless, there are two possibilities for understanding the text as it stands: “what you will hear in your ear, proclaim from your rooftops into someone else’s ear;” or: “what you will hear with your (one) ear (and) with (your) other ear proclaim” (as an idiomatic expression meaning “with both ears”).
30 Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 655.1.1–17 has much longer text of Saying 36: “(1) [Jesus says, Do not be anxious] from morning [to late nor] from evening [to] morning, neither [about] your [food], what [you will] eat, [nor] about [your clothing], what you [will] wear. (2) [You are far] better than the [lilies] which [do not] card nor [spin]. (3) Not having any garment, what [will you put on], you too? (4) Who might add to your stature? He will give you your garment.”
31 Or: “When you take off your shame.”
32 Cf. Sayings 59; 92.
33 Or: “took away the keys of knowledge and have hidden them.”
34 Literally: “his bad.”
35 It is possible that the text is corrupt. A final, rather than consecutive understanding of šina is also possible. In this case, a literal translation would be: “so that his eyes do not get broken,” or “so that his eyes do not fail.”
36 The Coptic auō is to be understood as an equivalent to an epexegetical kai (“that is”) and not as a copula (“and”).
37 Possibly emend to: “< Who> are you?”
38 The Coptic reads “repose,” but this seems to be a misunderstanding caused by the end of Saying 50:3. Cf. 2 Tim. 2:18.
39 Possible alternative translations are: “in you,”, or “of you,” or “about you.” It depends on which Greek preposition is expressed by the Coptic version.
40 Behind the Coptic expression there seems to be a Greek ingressive aorist. Literally: “you have spoken of the dead.”
41 Literally: “has found absolute profit (or use).”
42 The translation given here of the clause of apprehension beginning with mēpōs presupposes a conjecture: that je enahōle is to be seen as a corruption of an original je etetnahōle. But it is also possible that there is an ellipsis in the Coptic text, such that the following should be understood: “Lest you go (saying): ‘We will pull up the darnel’, (and) (then) pull up the wheat along with them”. Possible also is that the Coptic text is to be explained by assuming that a whole line has been omitted through homoioteleuton, for instance: “Lest you go <and say: ‘We want to go> in order to pull up the darnel’…”
43 Or: “visible.”
44 Or: “suffered.”
45 Or: “…struggled (and) has found life.”
46 Cf. Saying 38.
47 The present tense is here to be understood as praesens de conatu.
48 Literally: “That (person) is around the lamb.” Presumably mpkōte. corresponds to einai peri ti (“to be occupied with something”). The translation presupposes this understanding of the text.
49 The translation presumes an error in the Coptic translation. Originally the Greek text that lies behind our Coptic might have had hōs xenos (= hos šmmo), which sounds very similar to hōs ex henos (= hōs ebol hn oua).
50 The manuscript reads “If someone is destroyed, …”
51 The lacuna in the manuscript also allows the restoration of “[gracious (or: good)] person.”
52 Or: “servant” (also in 65:3, 5)
53 The manuscript reads “Perhaps he did not recognize them”; the text is presumably corrupt.
54 Literally: “know that he is.”
55 One should possibly emend to: “Whoever knows all but is lacking in himself, <he> is utterly lacking.”
56 Perhaps the text is corrupt and originally read, analogously to Matt. 5:8, “Blessed are the persecuted, <insofar as they are pure> in their hearts.”
57 The restoration of the lacuna is adopted from April de Conick; cf. Hans-Martin Schenke, “Bemerkungen zu #71 des Thomasevangeliums,” Enchoria 27 (2001) 120–126.
58 Or: “nobody.”
59 The manuscript erroneously reads “illness.”
60 Cf. Matt. 25:1–13.
61 Or: “powerful persons.”
62 Cf. Saying 56.
63 Or: “reject,” “refuse,” “deny.”
64 The manuscript reads “of.”
65 Other translations prefer “angels” to “messengers;” cf. the note to Saying 13:2.
66 Or: “easy”
67 Or: “right moment.”
68 Cf. Saying 38.
69 The manuscript erroneously uses the singular.
70 Alternative restorations are possible, for instance: “lest they [destroy] <them>” or “lest they break <them> [into pieces].”
71 Or: “to the one from whom you will not get it (the interest).”
72 Perhaps the text in 97:3 is corrupt and to emend: “she had not noticed anything <whileshe> toiled.”
73 Or: “noble.”
74 The lacuna can be filled as follows: “For my mother, who has [given birth to me, has destroyed me]”. Another possibility: “For my mother has [deceived me].”
75 Or: “lying.”
76 Or: “at what part (of the night).”
77 Cf. Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi Codex II,3, p. 52,21–24). As the text has been transmitted, an original negation may have been left out, so that we can understand the text as follows: “Whoever will not know Father and mother…”
78 Or: “children of humanity.”
79 Possibly: “The one who <will> find the world (and) become wealthy.”
80 Or: “deny,” “reject,” “refuse.”
81 We find here an ellipsis; perhaps we can assume the following Greek text: (ē) ouk (oidate) hoti “ (or do you) not (know) that…”
82 With regard to n?hoout, we understand the n- to function in an attributive sense belonging to oupna. It should not be understood as a particle of identity.
83 Most of the translations and editions understand the je in a causal sense. But we are convinced that here it is used to introduce direct speech without an antecedent, presented in an ellipitical form. We presuppose an imaginary tijō de m?mos nētn? (“but I say to you”).
Chapter 2: Understanding the Gospel of Thomas Today
1 The complete story of this discovery was not told until James M. Robinson investigated the circumstances in the 1970s and published his account in “The Discovery of the Nag Hammadi Codices,” Biblical Archaeologist 42,4 (1979) 206–24 and “Getting the Nag Hammadi Library into English,” Biblical Archaeologist 42,4 (1979) 239–48. Robinson’s essay in the present volume offers an updated version.
2 These fragmentary Oxyrhynchus papyri identified today as parts of the Gospel of Thomas are known by their publication numbers, POxy 1, POxy 654, and POxy 655. Grenfell and Hunt originally published POxy 1 in a pamphlet entitled: Logia Iesou: Sayings of Our Lord (Egypt Exploration Fund; London: Henry Frowde, 1897). They published POxy 654 and 655 as New Sayings of Jesus and Fragment of a Lost Gospel from Oxyrhynchus (Egypt Exploration Fund; London: Henry Frowde/New York: Oxford University Press, 1904). These three fragmentary papyri, each of which comes from a different hand, were also published as part of the larger Oxyrhynchus find. POxy 1 appeared in Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1898) pp. 1–3; POxy 654 and 655 appeared in Oxyphynchus Papyri 4 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1904) pp. 1–28.
3 It was the French scholar, Henri-Ch. Puech, who made the connection that would pull these ancient fragments back into the limelight. Puech noticed that the sayings of P. Oxy 654 actually corresponded to the Prologue and first seven sayings of the newly discovered Coptic Gospel of Thomas, the six sayings of P. Oxy 1 to Sayings 28–33 (+77b), and the fragmentary sayings of P. Oxy 655 to Sayings 24 and 36–39. See his “Une collection des paroles de Jésus récemment retrouvée: L’ Evangile selon Thomas,” in Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres, Compte rendus des séances de l’ année 1957 (1958) 146–166; see also “The Gospel of Thomas,” in E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, Vol I: Gospels and Related Writings (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 278–307.
4 This little phrase has been surprisingly difficult to translate. Most translations render it as a simple past: “Jesus said.” But the Coptic phrasing could, under certain circumstances, be rendered as a present. Since the Greek fragments have an unambiguous present-tense version, the Berlin Working Group has chosen to render the Coptic as a present as well, unless the context suggests a past tense as more appropriate. Others, meanwhile, still translate the phrase using the simple past, and the debate continues.
5 Grenfell and Hunt dated it thus on the basis of the script and the level at which it was discovered at Oxyrhynchus (see Logia Iesou, p. 6). Harold Attridge dates it to “shortly after A.D. 200” in his “Introduction” to the Greek fragments of Thomas in B. Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 together 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 (Nag Hammadi Studies XX; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 97.
6 The Nag Hammadi Codices are dated on the basis of the cartonnage used in the manufacture of their bindings; see James M. Robinson, “Introduction,” in James M. Robinson and Richard Smith, eds., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper & Row / Leiden: Brill, 1988) p. 16. Nag Hammadi Codex II has been dated by Søren Giversen: “An absolute dating places it as contemporary with Br. M. Pap. 1920 and therefore from 330 to 340, or more loosely from the first half of the fourth century” (Apocryphon Johannis [Acta Theologica Danica 5; Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1963] p. 40). The Coptic dialect of our copy of the Gospel of Thomas, and its implications for the history of the text, is discussed by Bentley Layton in his “Introduction” to Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 (see note 5), p. 7.
7 The location of the Gospel of Thomas within the genre LOGOI SOPHON, or “sayings of the wise,” was the contribution of James M. Robinson in his article, “LOGOI SOPHON : Zur Gattung der Spruchquelle,” pp. 77–96 in E. Dinkler, ed., Zeit und Geschichte. Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1964); revised ET: “LOGOI SOPHON : On the Gattung of Q,” pp. 71–113 in idem and H. Koester, Trajectories Through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). Robinson’s thesis was extended and explored more thoroughly by John S. Kloppenborg in The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).
8 Hist eccles 1.13.11.
9 Itinerarium Egeriae 17.1; 19.2.
10 Acts Thom 170.
11 The Acts of Thomas have been a never-ending source of confusion on this score, but the matter is clarified by A. F. J. Klijn in “John XIV 22 and the Name Judas Thomas,” pp. 88–96 in Studies in John Presented to Prof. J. N. Sevenster on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (NovTSup 23; Leiden: Brill, 1970), and in his recent edition of the Acts of Thomas (Second Revised Edition; NovTSup 108; Leiden: Brill, 2003). In the earliest Syriac manuscript (Sinai 30), the protagonist of the story is simply called “Judas,” and it is clear that this is “Judas of James,” who is listed last in the opening apostolic list. But in the later Greek manuscripts used by Bonnet to reconstruct a Greek version, upon which most translations of the Acts of Thomas were based (Acta Apostolorum II.2 [1903]), one may find him referred to as Judas Thomas, or simply Thomas –thus the title, the Acts of Thomas. Klijn summarizes: “It seems we are dealing with a textual tradition in which Judas has been corrected into Thomas” (Acts of Thomas, 6). This has contributed to the erroneous idea that the Syrian church conflated these two apostles, Judas and Thomas – an idea entertained in the last edition of this work and widely shared in the literature.
12 Helmut Koester suggests this in his ““Introduction (to the Gospel of Thomas),” in B. Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7, vol. 1, p. 39.
13 Again, it was Puech who made the initial connection to Syria. See “The Gospel of Thomas,” 287. In spite of problems with Puech’s original suggestion, this has become the consensus. See Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1993) pp. 118–20, for a summary of the issues.
14 Hist eccles 1.13.11.
15 Koester, “Introduction,” 40–41.
16 Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter/Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), p. 310.
17 Koester, “Introduction,” 40.
18 This term occurs in Thom. 86, and is here probably not to be taken in the titular sense, but as the Semitic circumlocution for “human being.”
19 This term occurs in Thom. 74, but it is not clear that it should be taken as referring to Jesus, or that it should be understood as titular in any sense.
20 This is the hypothesis of Howard Jackson, whose study, The Lion Becomes Man: The Gnostic Leontomorphic Creator and the Platonic Tradition; SBL Dissertation Series 81 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), has thus far proven to be definitive for this saying.
21 For more on the problem of Thom. 65 and 66 see Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, pp. 48–51; for a general treatment of the relationship between Thomas and the synoptics see pp. 17–93.
22 It would be wrong to state that there is currently a consensus around this issue in the still lively debate. However, this sort of piecemeal approach has proven attractive to many as a reasonable way to proceed. Still, new proposals are in the offing that may add yet more clarity to the issue. Recently, for example, Hans-Martin Schenke has proposed on the basis of Thom. 68 that the Gospel of Thomas must have been written after the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 C.E., when Jews were banished from Jerusalem by the Romans (“On the Compositional History of the Gospel of Thomas,” Forum 10 [1994 (1998)] 9–30). In his recent commentary, Richard Valantasis has suggested, based on common concerns he sees in John, Ignatius, and Thomas, a date just after the turn of the first century (The Gospel of Thomas [London and New York: Routledge, 1997] pp. 12–21).
23 See esp. Theissen’s book, The Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (trans. by John Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978).
24 For a discussion see Karen King, What is Gnosticism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2003) and Michael Williams, Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).
25 The interpretation of the Gospel of Thomas presented here is argued more fully in S. J. Patterson, “Jesus Meets Plato: The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas,” in J. Frey, et al., eds., Das Thomasevangelium, Entstehung – Rezeption – Theologie (Beihefte zur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 157; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008) 181–205.
26 T. F. Glasson, “The Gospel of Thomas, Saying 3, and Deuteronomy xxx.11–14,” Expository Times 78 (1966/67) 151–52.
27 H. –D. Betz, “The Delphic Maxim, GNWQI SAUTON in Hermetic Interpretation,” Harvard Theological Review 63 (1970) 471–77.
28 Leg 1.22.59.
29 For the concept in Jewish tradition see Deut 14:1–2; 32:5, 19; Is 30:1; 43:6; 45:1; Eze 16:20–21; Hos 2:1; Additions to Esther 16:16: “the Jews are the sons of the most high, mighty, living God.” So also among the rabbis: bShab 31a; mAbot 3:15; Mekhilta on Ex 15:18, et al. In early Christianity, see, e.g. Rom 8:14–17; Matt 5:45; Luke 6:35, etc.
30 Philo, Opif 134.
31 Ibid.
32 See 1 Cor 15:42–50 (esp. 15:49); the idea remained popular among the followers of Paul – see Col 3:10–11; see R. Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthroplogy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966) 70; on the concept in Thomas see S. Davies, “The Christology and Protology of the Gospel of Thomas,” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992) 668–9.
33 The subject is treated fully by D. MacDonald, in There is No Male and Female (Harvard Dissertations in Religion 20; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).
34 Cf. Thom. 4, 23; similarly Thomas 16, 49, 75; also 11 (“On the day when you were one, you became two.”) and 106:1 (“When you make the two into one, you will become sons of man.”).
35 For a detailed treatment of this saying in the context of early Christian asceticism, see R. Valatasis, “Is the Gospel of Thomas Ascetical? Revisiting an Old Problem with a New Theory,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (1999) 55–81.
36 Leg All 2.2.
37 E.g., Immut 10.45.
38 Opif 135.
39 Flesh (sarx) is a synonym for body (soma) in Thomas – cf. Thom. 87.
40 Plutarch, Mor 135E-F (Tu san); 681D-F (Quaest conv).
41 Philo, Leg All 1.33–35.
42 See Thomas 3, 22, 27, 46, 49, 82, 107, 109, 113:1.
43 Thomas 20, 54, 114.
44 Thomas 57, 76, 96, 97, 98, 99, 113:4.
45 See esp. Sayings 3 and 50.
46 Opif. 30.
47 Somn 1.75.
48 DeConick, Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (Supp to Vigiliae Christianae 33; Leiden: Brill, 1996)100–105.
49 DeConick, Seek to See Him, 129–43.
50 See discussion in DeConick, Seek to See Him, 105–7.
51 So, e.g., the approach taken by R. M. Grant and D. N. Freedman in The Secret Sayings of Jesus (Garden City: Doubleday/London: Collins, 1960).
52 For an account, see S. J. Patterson, “The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptic Tradition: A Forschungsbericht and Critique,” Forum 8 (1992) 45–97.
53 For a discussion of this view and its proponents see Patterson, “Thomas and the Synoptics,” pp. 50–63, 79–82. The most thorough attempt to prove Thomas’ dependence in this way was that of W. Schrage, Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur Synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen Synoptikerdeutung (BZNW 29; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964). But Schrage’s failure to consider the implications of redaction critical analysis in his study, and his unwarranted assumption that influence at the level of the Coptic translations would necessarily mean dependence at the point of original composition, left his work deeply flawed. Among the recent, more thoughtful treatments from this point of view is the study by C. M. Tuckett, “Thomas and the Synoptics,” Novum Testamentum 30 (1988) pp. 132–57. Tuckett proposes a saying–by-saying approach, refusing to rule out any possibilities prematurely.
54 In The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (pp. 17–99) my own analysis unearthed several such places, including Thom. 32 (cf. Matt 5:14b); Thom. 39 (cf. Matt 23:13); Thom. 45:2–4 (cf. Luke 6:45); Thom. 104:1 (cf. Luke 5:33); and Thom. 104:3 (cf. Luke 5:33–35). There are also a few places where the order of sayings in Thomas seems to have been influenced by the synoptic gospels, including Thom. 32 and 33:2–3; Thom. 43 and 45:4; Thom. 47:3–5; Thom. 65–66; and Thom. 91:2 and 93–94.
55 J. M. Robinson and C. Heil, “Zeugnisse eines schriftlichen, griechischen vorkanonischen Textes: Mt 6,28b )*, P. Oxy. 655 I,1–17 (EvTh 36) und Q 12,27,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1998) 30–44; J. M. Robinson, “The Pre-Q Text of (the Ravens) and the Lilies: Q 12:22–31 and P. Oxy. 655 (Gos. Thom. 36),” pp. 143–80 in Text und Geschichte: Facetten theologischen Arbeitens aus dem Freundes- und Schülerkreis. Dieter Lührmann zum 60. Geburtstag (MThSt 50; Marburg: Elwert, 1999); idem, “A Written Greek Sayings Cluster Older than Q: A Vestige,” Harvard Theological Review 92 (1999) 61–77; and Robinson and Heil, “The Lilies of the Field: Saying 36 of the Gospel of Thomas and Secondary Accretions in Q 12.22b-31,” New Testament Studies 47 (2001) 1–25.
56 This was the conclusion I drew in Part I of The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, pp. 9–110. Most scholars working on Thomas today share this view. However, this does not preclude other creative solutions that might better account for the sometimes puzzling evidence that confronts us in Thomas at every turn. Recently Hans-Martin Schenke has pointed to a number of narrative spurs in Thomas, which suggest to him that many of these sayings may have been extracted from a narrative gospel, though not any of the narrative gospels known to us today (“Compositional History of the Gospel of Thomas”). Risto Uro has argued that the Gospel of Thomas may have been influenced by the synoptic gospels indirectly, in a process he calls “secondary orality,” wherin the oral tradition would have been influenced by the synoptic texts, and then in turn influenced the text of Thomas (“’Secondary Orality’ in the Gospel of Thomas: Logion 14 as a Test Case,” Forum 9,3/4 (1993) pp. 305–29). His views are similar to those of Klyne Snodgrass, “The Gospel of Thomas: A Secondary Gospel,” Second Century 7 (1989–90) pp. 19–38.
57 For a description of Sethian Gnosticism see H.-M. Schenke, “The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism,” in B. Layton, ed., The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the Conference at Yale, March 1978 (Leiden: Brill, 1981) vol. 2, pp. 588–616. For the dating of Eugnostos the Blessed, see Douglas M. Parrott’s introduction of “Eugnostos the Blessed and The Sophia of Jesus Christ (III,4 and BG 8502,3),” in Robinson and Smith, eds., The Nag Hammadi Library in English, p. 221.
58 See above, note 24.
59 See esp. MacDonald, No Male or Female.
60 Cf. Helmut Koester’s remarks in “Gnostic Sayings and Controversy Traditions in John 8:12–59,” in C. W. Hedrick and R. Hodgson, Jr. eds., Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986) 97–110.
61 J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus; 2nd Revised Ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1972) pp. 196–7.
62 J. Bauer, “Echte Jesusworte,” in W.C. van Unnik, Evangelien aus dem Nilsand (Frankfurt: Verlag Heinrich Scheffer, 1960) 124–130.
63 R. McL. Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (London: A.R. Mowbray, 1960) 75–78.
64 R. W. Funk, B. B. Scott, and J. R. Butts, The Parables of Jesus: Red Letter Edition (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1988) p. 61.
65 As noted by B. B. Scott, Hear, Then, the Parable (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) pp. 237–38.
66 The most thorough attempt to assess the transmission history of the sayings of Jesus taking Thomas into account is that of John Dominic Crossan, In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983). Crossan has also worked to integrate Thomas into the discussion of Jesus’ parables; see his In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1973). More recently one may also see the influence of Thomas in several major works on parables: Scott, Hear, Them, the Parable, James Breech, The Silence of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), and Charles Hedrick, Jesus’ Parables as Poetic Fictions: The Creative Voice of Jesus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994). One of the pioneers in this work, however, was Joachim Jeremias, who had already begun to integrate Thomas’ parables into revised editions of his Parables of Jesus in 1962.
67 Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (trans. by W. Montgomery; London: Adam and Charles Black, 1948; German original published in 1906). A non-apocalyptic understanding of Jesus has been advocated especially by John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991). Marcus Borg (Jesus: A New Vision [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987]) shares this view, but is not so influenced by Thomas in arriving at it. This view of Jesus is also widely shared by scholars who have participated in the Jesus Seminar and the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature (see Borg’s polling of these two groups in “A Temperate Case for a Non-Eschatological Jesus,” Forum 2/3 [1986] pp. 98–99). For an account of how Borg, Crossan and others have come to this conclusion, see Stephen J. Patterson, “The End of Apocalypse: Rethinking the Eschatological Jesus,” Theology Today 52 (1995) pp. 29–48.
68 For a review of the scholarship done on Thomas to date see the surveys of F. T. Fallon and R. Cameron, “The Gospel of Thomas: A Forschungsbericht and Analysis,” Aufstieg und Niedergand der Römischen Welt 2/25.6; W. Haase and H. Temporini, eds. (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1988) pp. 4195–4251 and G. J. Riley, “The Gospel of Thomas in Recent Scholarship,” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) pp. 227–252. For a thoughtful consideration of future prospects for research, see Philip Sellew, “The Gospel of Thomas: Prospects for Future Research,” pp. 327–46 in John D. Turner and Anne McQuire, eds., The Nag Hammadi Library After Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 44; Leiden: Brill, 1997).
Chapter 3: The Story of the Nag Hammadi Library
1 An abridgement of a Plenary Address given at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature on the occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Nag Hammadi Discovery on November 19th 1995. It was published in: The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration, ed. John D. Turner and Anne McGuire (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 44; Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 1997) 3–33. An earlier draft of this lecture was given at the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity on September 21st 1995.
2 Henri-Charles Puech and Jean Doresse, “Nouveaux écrits gnostiques découverts en Egypte,” Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres: Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Année 1948 [1948] 89.
3 “It was about 1946”: Doresse, “Une bibliothèque gnostique copte,” La Nouvelle Clio 2 (1949) 61.
4 “Toward 1945”: Doresse, “Sur les traces des papyrus gnostiques: Recherches à Chénoboskion,” Académie royale de Belgique: Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences morales et politiques, 5ème Série, 36 (1950) 433; see also Les livres secrets des gnostiques d’Egypte, I: Introduction aux écrits gnostiques coptes découverts à Khénoboskion (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1958) 145; II: L’Evangile selon Thomas ou les paroles secrètes de Jésus (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1959) 1; “Les gnostiques d’Egypte,” La Table Ronde 107 (1956) 86.
5 “Une importante découverte: Un papyrus gnostique copte du IVème siècle,” La Bourse Egyptienne, January 10, 1948, reprinted in Chronique d’Egypte 23 (1948) 260. This dating is erroneously based on the date of the acquisition of Codex III by the Coptic Museum, not the discovery itself.
6 From an interview with Doresse by Georges Fradier, UNESCO Features 2 (August 1, 1949) 11: “It was a year ago, on the shore of the Nile…”
7 For more detailed presentations see my “Introduction” in Marvin W. Meyer and James M. Robinson eds., The Nag Hammadi Library in English, translated by members of the Coptic Gnostic Library Project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 1977); “The Discovery of the Nag Hammadi Codices,” BA 42 (Fall 1979) 206–24, unabridged with footnotes as “From the Cliff to Cairo: The Story of the Discoverers and the Middlemen of the Nag Hammadi Codices,” in Colloque international sur les textes de Nag Hammadi (Québec, 22–25 août 1978), Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, ed. B. Barc, Section “Etudes” 1 (Québec: Les presses de l’Université Laval, 1981 [1982]) 21–58; “The Discovering and Marketing of Coptic Manuscripts: The Nag Hammadi Codices and the Bodmer Papyri,” Sundries in honour of Torgny Säve-Söderbergh (Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis, Boreas: Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 13 (l984) 97–114, reprinted in The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity, eds. B.A. Pearson and J.E. Goehring (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 1–25.
8 For the details, see my review article, “The Jung Codex: The Rise and Fall of a Monopoly,” RelSRev 3 (1977) 17–30.
9 Die drei Versionen des Apokryphon des Johannes im Koptischen Museum zu Alt-Kairo, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo, Koptische Reihe 1 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1962 [1963]).
10 Die koptisch-gnostische Schrift ohne Titel aus dem Codex II von Nag Hammadi im Koptischen Museum zu Alt-Kairo, Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung 58 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962).
11 Koptisch-gnostische Apokalypsen aus Codex V von Nag Hammadi im Koptischen Museum zu Alt-Kairo, Sonderband of the Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität (Halle-Wittenberg: Martin-Luther Universität, 1963).
12 A poignant anecdote illustrates the oddity and injustice of the situation: the greatest living Coptologist of the time, Hans Jakob Polotsky, originally of Berlin, but by then of Jerusalem, expressed his amazement that, after his European colleagues had consistently denied him access to the new discovery, the texts should suddenly be offered to him by students from an unknown Institute for Antiquity and Christianity in California, of all places, who had come to Ann Arbor to study Coptic with him at a summer school in 1967.
13 The standard numeration of Nag Hammadi tractates lists first, in Roman numerals, the number of the codex, then, in Arabic numerals, the number of the tractate in the sequence of that codex.
14 Pahor Labib, Coptic Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old Cairo, Vol. 1 (Cairo: Government Press, 1956). This is the only volume of this edition to appear.
15 Kurt Rudolph, “Gnosis und Gnostizismus, ein Forschungsbericht,“ ThR n. F. 34 (1969) 89–120, 181–231, 358–361. The third installment, with the subtitle “Nachträge,” consists primarily of corrections I had sent him after reading proofs of the first two installments. He speaks quite openly, e.g. p. 359, of “the ongoing work of the editing team in Claremont (USA)” under my leadership.
16 James M. Robinson and Marvin W. Meyer, eds., The Nag Hammadi Library in English, translated by members of the Coptic Gnostic Library Project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 1977; paperback edition 1984 / San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977, paperback edition 1981); third, completely revised edition, Richard Smith and James M. Robinson eds. (San Francisco: Harper & Row / Leiden: Brill, 1988; paperback edition: San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990; unaltered fourth revised edition: Leiden: Brill, 1996).
17 Nag Hammadi Codices III,2 and IV,2: The Gospel of the Egyptians (The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit), edited with translation and commentary by Alexander Böhlig and Frederik Wisse in cooperation with Pahor Labib; NHS 4, eds. M. Krause and James M. Robinson, sub-series The Coptic Gnostic Library, ed. Robinson; (Leiden: Brill, 1975).
18 The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1 and IV,1, with BG 8502,2, edited by Frederik Wisse and Michael Waldstein; Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 33; eds. James M. Robinson and H.-J. Klimkeit, sub-series The Coptic Gnostic Library, ed. Robinson (Leiden: Brill, 1995).
19 Nag Hammadi Codex VII, edited by Birger A. Pearson; Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 30, eds. James M. Robinson and H-J. Klimkeit, sub-series The Coptic Gnostic Library, ed. Robinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996 [actually November 1995]).
20 Johannes Leipoldt, “Ein neues Evangelium? Das koptische Thomasevangelium übersetzt und besprochen,” ThLZ 83 (1958) 481–96.
21 See my review article, “The Jung Codex: The Rise and Fall of a Monopoly.”
22 A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, prepared with Introduction and Index by Robert H. Eisenman and James M. Robinson, 2 volumes (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1991; second revised impression, 1992).
23 On November 22, 1991 the Research and Publications Committee had (to quote its minutes) “directed that the statement on access be sent to funding agencies, publishers, primary repositories, be published in RSN, and be circulated through the American Council of Learned Societies to other learned societies interested in literary and artifactual remains (encouraging their participation in policy development). The Committee approved further distribution as widely as possible.” I had it republished in the Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 92 (1992) 296.
24 As recently as October 1, 1995 Tov had reported by email to the “Judaios: First Century Judaism Discussion Forum,” denying rumors that the Israeli authorities had “dropped their objection to the Huntington action” (which had on September 22, 1991 removed all restrictions on the microfilms that for years had been stored there by Elizabeth Hay Bechtel, inaccessible to the public), and affirmed that “all of us are still in the middle of deliberations.” On October 6, 1991 he wrote to the Huntington, proposing a meeting to discuss the problem, and requested that the Huntington “delay all access to the scrolls for one month, until the said meeting.” The meeting never took place.
25 By pure coincidence, I presented an address proposing such policies the same weekend that the Huntington Library made its announcement. It has hence been widely published: Manuscript Discoveries of the Future with an appendix containing the title page, table of contents, introduction and sample plates from: A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Occasional Papers, The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, ed. J.L. Reed, 23 (Claremont: IAC, 1991); abridged by myself, “Avoiding Another Scrolls Access Furor,” Los Angeles Times, September 28, 1991, Section F, 13–14; abridged by the editor, “Handling Future Manuscript Discoveries,” BA (December 1991): 235–240; abridged by Hershel Shanks, “What We Should Do Next Time Great Manuscripts Are Discovered,” BAR 18/1 (January-February 1992): 66–70; reprinted in unabridged form in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 92 (1992) 281–96.
26 In handling the 152 Sixth Century C.E. charred Greek documentary papyri rolls from the Byzantine church in Petra, a conscious effort seems to have been made to introduce clear new policies: “It will be recalled that all parties involved had signed an access/publication agreement and we are happy to report that the final division of the scrolls for publication purposes between the two groups was agreed to in late 1995.” Pierre M. Bikai, “Update on the Scrolls,” ACOR Newsletter 7.2 (Winter 1995) 11.
27 See Hans-Martin Schenke, “The Relevance of Nag Hammadi Research to New Testament Scholarship” (a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Chicago, November, 1994).
28 The tractate Zostrianos (VIII,1) concluded with an encoded subscript: “Zostrianos; Oracles of Truth of Zostrianos, God of Truth; Teachings of Zoroaster.” But the text is not Zoroastrian, but Sethian, building on 2 Enoch.
29 The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. by James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) 707–11 (MacRae’s introduction), 712–19 (MacRae’s translation).
30 “From Jewish Apoclypticism to Gnosis” (a paper presented at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Nag Hammadi Discovery: Copenhagen International Conference on the Nag Hammadi Texts in the History of Religions, September 19–24, 1995 at the Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters).
31 The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March 28–31, 1978, Vol. 2, Sethian Gnosticism, edited by Bentley Layton, Studies in the History of Religions 41, Supplements to Numen, (Leiden: Brill, 1981). See especially Hans-Martin Schenke, “The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethia nism,” 588–616, and also my contribution, “Sethians and Johannine Thought: The Trimorphic Protennoia and the Prologue of the Gospel of John,” 643–62, as well as the “Discussion,” 662–670, and the “Concluding Discussion,” 671–685.
32 See Schenke, “Gnosis: Zum Forschungsstand unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der religions-geschichtlichen Problematik, VF 32 (1987) 2–21.
33 Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 1.29: “Barbelo-Gnostics”; 1.30: “Ophites” and “Sethians”) and Epiphanius (Panarion 26: “Gnostics”; 39: “Sethians”; 40: “Archontics.”
34 Jean-Marie Sevrin has worked out the baptismal dimensions of Sethianism, Le dossier baptismal séthien: Etudes sur la sacramentaire gnostique ; Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi, Section “Etudes” 2 (Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1986).
35 Ernst Käsemann, invited to make a presentation at a Faith and Order conference, asked me to verify the English translation of his essay that had been prepared for him. His key term, “eschatologisher Vorbehalt,” came through in English in a completely unintelligible way that would lead the audience inevitably to miss the point. So I coined for him the English formulation “eschatological reservation.”
36 See Gerd Lüdemann, Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity (London: SCM and New York: Westminster/John Knox, 1996) 120–42 for a full presentation of Colossians, Ephesians, the Pastoral Epistles, and The Treatise on Resurrection in this regard.
37 Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Uebersetzung, vol. 1, Evangelien, 5th edition, ed. W. Schneemelcher (Tübingen: Mohr / Paul Siebeck, 1989). English tr. New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1. Gospels and Related Writings, ed. R. McL. Wilson (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992):The Apocryphon of James (I,2), The Gospel of Thomas (II,2), The Gospel of Philip (II,3), The Book of Thomas (the Contender) (II,7), The Dialogue of the Savior (III,5), The (First) Apocalypse of James (V,3), The (Second) Apocalypse of James, and The Letter of Peter to Philip (VIII,2); vol. 2, Apostolisches; Apokalysen und Verwandtes. English tr. Writings Related to the Apostles, Apocalypses and Related Subjects: The Apocalypse of Paul (V,5), The Acts of Peter and the Twelve (VI,1), and The Apocalypse of Peter (VII,3).
38 Stephen J. Patterson, “New Testament Apocrypha,” Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York etc: Doubleday, 1992) 1.295–296.
39 Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. 2, History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982): The Apocryphon of James (I,2), The Gospel of Truth (I,3; XII,2), The Apocryphon of John (II,1; III,1; IV,1; BG 8502,2), The Gospel of Thomas (II,2), The Hypostasis of the Archons (II,4), The Book of Thomas (the Contender) (II,7), The Gospel of the Egyptians (III,2; IV,2), The Letter of Eugnostos the Blessed (III,3; V,1), The Sophia of Jesus Christ (III,4), The Dialogue of the Savior (III,5), The (First) Apocalypse of James (V,3), The (Second) Apocalypse of James (V,4), The Apocalypse of Adam (V,5), The Paraphrase of Shem (VII,1), The Second Treatise of the Great Seth (VII,2), and The Three Steles of Seth (VII,5).
40 C.-H. Hunzinger, “Unbekannte Gleichnisse Jesu aus dem Thomas-Evangelium,” in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias, Beiheft 26 zur ZNW, ed. W. Eltester (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960; 2nd ed. 1964) 209–20.
41 C.-H. Hunzinger, “Aussersynoptisches Traditionsgut im Thomas-Evangelium,” TLZ 85 (1960) 843–46.
42 “Das Gleichnis von den bösen Weingärtnern (Mark. 12.1–5),” Aux Sources de la tradition chrétienne: Mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Goguel à l’occasion de son soixante dixième anniversaire (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1950) 120–31.
43 Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas And Jesus (Sonoma: Polembridge, 1993), especially Ch. 2. A Question of Content: The Autonomy of the Thomas Tradition, 17–93.
44 See The Books of Elijah Parts 1–2, collected and translated by Michael E. Stone and John Strugnell (SBL Texts and Translations 18, Pseudepigrapha Series 8, ed. Robert A. Kraft and Harold W. Attridge (Missoula, MO: Scholars, 1979) 41–73 for the many attestations for this saying. In Nag Hammadi it recurs in I,1: A,23–27 (pp. 58–59) and III,5: 140,1–4 (pp. 56–57), in the latter case also ascribed to Jesus, as it is also in other texts (pp. 50–53). See also Takashi Onuki, “Traditionsgeschichte von Thomasevangelium 17 und ihre christologische Relevanz,” in: Anfänge der Christologie: für Ferdinand Hahn zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Cilliers Bretenbach und Henning Paulsen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1991) 399–415, and Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas And Jesus, 85, and the extensive literature cited by both.
45 Nikolaus Walter, “Paulus und die urchristliche Jesustradition,” NTS 31 (1975) 498–522.
46 John S. Kloppenborg, Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes and Concordance (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1988).
47 In a letter of October 4, 1995.
48 Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum: Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis editit Kurt Aland, Editio quindecima revisa (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996 [1997]) 517–46.
49 After the SBL presentation R. McLaughlin Wilson listed to me distinguished American New Testament scholars of preceding generations, to relativize talk of the discipline only now coming of age in America. But the scope of the presentation was that of the sociology of knowledge – the structures of the discipline – not individuals, in which one can only agree heartily with Wilson. Among our predecessors my own role model is at least for me preeminent, Ernest Cadman Colwell. Indeed a major part of his distinction consisted in his involving himself actively in such a restructuring of the discipline – in his specialization, New Testament textual criticism, he organized the International Greek New Testament Project, and implemented it by means of the ongoing Textual Critical Seminar of SBL. His coming to grips with the restructuring called for in terms of the sociology of knowledge would have been even more prominent, had not taken place in the generation dominated by biblical theology on the right, and demythologizing, existentialistic hermeneutics on the left.
50 Lüdemann, Heretics, 230, n. 9: “It was a truly historical moment when at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Francisco in December 1977 this pioneering work of North American biblical scholarship was presented to the public. It made symbolically clear that the former predominance of German exegesis had come to an end forever.”