46. Riley, “Gospel of Thomas,” 239.
47. See esp. Koester, “Gnostic Writings”; idem, “Dialog”; idem, “Traditions”; idem, “Les discours d’adieu”; and idem, “Johannine Tradition.”
48. Koester, “Gnostic Writings,” 253.
49. Ibid.
50. Koester, “Dialog,” 534, 544.
51. Ibid., 545–51. Koester and Elaine Pagels have argued that the Dialogue of the Savior is constructed using the saying found in GTh 2 as a framework, though they also state that the Dialogue of the Savior witnesses to a sayings tradition that “appears to be an independent parallel to the one used in The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John” (Koester and Pagels, “Dialogue of the Savior,” 244–45).
52. Koester, “Dialog,” 553–54: “1. Die Reden und Dialoge des Johannesevangeliums sind in größerem Umfang als bisher angenommen auf überlieferten Sprüchen Jesu aufgebaut. 2. Die Spruchdialoge aus den in Nag Hammadi gefundenen Schriften sowie bereits bekanntes apokryphes Evangelien-Material haben solche Sprüche unabhängig vom Johannesevangelium aufbewahrt und geben so eine Handhabe dafür, die den johanneischen Dialogen und Reden zugrunde liegenden Sprüche besser zu erkennen.”
53. Ibid., 554. “Ein Datum in der zweiten Hälfte des 1. Jh. nChr. läßt sich für eine ältere Fassung dieser Schrift durchaus annehmen.”
54. Koester, Gnostic Writings,” 243–44: “Although the Johannine attestations [of Thomas sayings] assure a first-century date for their incorporation into the sayings tradition of Jesus, it would be hazardous to consider these Johannine occurrences as proof for a first-century date of the Gospel of Thomas in the form in which it is preserved in its Coptic translation. The Greek fragments from Oxyrhynchus demonstrate the instability of text and context of such sayings collections” (italics mine).
55. E.g., Koester, “Gnostic Writings,” 243, 259.
56. See Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 119, 122–23.
57. See, e.g., Koester, “Les discours d’adieu,” 269–75; idem, Ancient Christian Gospels, 264–67; idem, “Johannine Tradition,” 19–23.
58. Koester, “Johannine Tradition,” 23.
59. Davies, Gospel of Thomas, 115–16.
60. Ibid., 106–16. Actually, Koester agrees that both texts develop wisdom traditions. In fact, gnostic thought clearly develops out of the wisdom tradition inasmuch as both emphasize the search for wisdom and enlightenment as the path to one’s salvation. The question is how far along in the development from wisdom speculation to gnostic speculation, and from wisdom forms to gnostic interpretation of those forms, the Gospel of Thomas has moved.
61. Davies, “Christology and Protology.” Cf. Koester, “Johannine Tradition,” 23.
62. Riley, Resurrection, 69–179.
63. Ibid., 178. Cf. Ron Cameron’s critique of Riley’s thesis in “Ancient Myths and Modern Theories,” esp. 239–44.
64. De Conick, “Blessed,” 397.
65. De Conick, Seek, 92–93. DeConick’s more recent Voices of the Mystics contains a more extensive and thorough treatment of her thesis.
66. “Blessed,” 396.
67. Dunderberg, “John and Thomas in Conflict?”
68. Ibid., 370–78.
69. Dunderberg, “Thomas’ I-Sayings”; and idem, “Thomas and the Beloved Disciple.” Dunderberg extensively critiques the theories of DeConick, Pagels, and Riley in The Beloved Disciple in Conflict?
70. An earlier study argues that the author of Mark also places the author in the narrative in a similar but even more subtle way than the redactor of John (Johnson, “Identity”). Mark may have even provided the model for the redactor’s work in John.
71. For a comprehensive bibliography and overview of the discussion up to 1986, see Neirynck, “Paul.”
72. Stanley, “Pauline Allusions”; John Pairman Brown, “Synoptic Parallels.”
73. E.g., Walter, “Paul.” Walter cites Schürmann, “‘Das Gesetz des Christus’ (Gal 6,2),” esp. 285–86; and Gräßer, “Der Mensch Jesus,” esp. 133–36. Martin Dibelius argues that paraenetic sections of epistolary literature—even full documents like the Epistle of James—use community paraenesis, an oral form of teaching that does not usually cite Jesus directly (Dibelius, James, 28–29; idem, From Tradition to Gospel, 238–44. He also argues that texts like James are themselves examples of the genre “community paraenesis.” However, Dibelius too facilely slips between oral forms and written genres without adequately explaining why paraenesis—be it oral form or written genre—does not tend to cite Jesus’ authority (especially when texts like James do cite scriptural authority). His argument that “all the sayings of Christian exhortation were regarded as inspired by the Spirit or by the Lord” cannot be taken seriously as an explanation.
74. According to Furnish, “Chapters 7 and 11 of 1 Corinthians supply firm evidence that, at the very least, Paul was acquainted with Jesus’ words as mediated in the catechetical and liturgical traditions” (Furnish, “Jesus-Paul Debate,” 375). That liturgy is a source is true at least for 1 Cor 11:23–25. For the other two, Neirynck observes that “there is no ‘quotation’ of the saying” by Paul. “Paul produces in his own formulation ‘a halakah based on such a saying’” (“Paul and the Sayings of Jesus,” 320; in the latter sentence quoting Gerhardsson, Memory