In subsequent chapters, I will track the development of the Treasure in Heaven saying of Jesus, a saying that is remarkable for its utility and breadth of interpretive applications in New Testament and other early Jesus movement writings. Elements of the Treasure in Heaven saying are found not only in the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but also in extra-canonical Q and the Gospel of Thomas. It was used in the Pauline epistolary tradition (Colossians) as well as in the Letter of James. Not only are no two of these eight versions of the saying exactly alike, but the saying is broadly applied under two vastly different topoi, or motifs, of the Jewish Wisdom tradition: the proper disposition of wealth and the search for divine wisdom or knowledge. These different topoi are not particular either to gospels or to epistles; each topos is found in both genres. The saying functions as exhortation or prohibition—sometimes both—as a rationale for moral behavior, and as a prophetic warning against unethical behavior. In short, it is one of the most widely used and broadly interpreted sayings of Jesus and is therefore a prime candidate for studying the development of sayings traditions in the first century of the common or Christian era.
Thesis and Approach
My primary thesis in this study is that the Q and Thomas versions of the Treasure in Heaven saying (Q 12:33; GTh 76:3) are particularly relevant to discussion concerning the development of sayings traditions. It is my contention that, on the one hand, the Thomasine Treasure in Heaven saying was well known in the first century and played a pivotal role in the early transmission of the saying, influencing or being modified in three canonical versions (Luke 12:33; John 6:27; Col 3:1–2). And on the other hand, the use of the saying in James (5:2-3) reflects knowledge of Q, which was also an early and foundational version of the saying for the gospel tradition (cf. Matt 6:19; Luke 12:33). Ironically, both extra-canonical gospel versions of the Treasure saying may have found their earliest canonical expressions in the epistles.
One ramification of this thesis, if it holds up under close scrutiny, is important for our reconstruction of the development of early Christian texts and communities because there is the implication that some sayings traditions (as represented in the Gospel of Thomas, for example), eventually excluded for their perceived heretical theology or for their use by groups excluded from the mainstream, were recognized as authoritative in the first century. However, the point should not be overstated. This study focuses on one saying of Jesus, not an entire collection, such as we find in the Sayings Gospel Q, the Gospel of Thomas, or in the many non-Q collections of parables and aphoristic sayings found in, for example, Matthew 13, Mark 4, and Luke. I stress this caveat later in the chapter by comparing pairs of studies by James M. Robinson and Risto Uro that lead to apparently contradictory results—results that are only contradictory, however, if one begins with the fallacious assumption that the Gospel of Thomas as we know it represents a relatively stable, unchanging tradition throughout the history of its oral and written transmission.
The International Q Project was formed in 1983 with two goals in mind. The first goal was to provide, for the first time, a relatively objective, non-idiosyncratic reconstruction of the text of Q—as far as this is possible—by an international team of scholars. The other was to provide a complete history of 200 years of research on Q reconstruction. The first goal was achieved in two stages: the publication of IQP reconstructions in the Journal of Biblical Literature4 and the subsequent publication of The Critical Edition of Q.5 The second goal is coming to fruition in the gradual publication of Documenta Q databases. Chapter 2 is largely a product of my work on the database for Q 12:33–34.6 The advantage of chapter 2 is that it provides a running commentary on my reconstruction of Q 12:33-34—supported by judicious use of notes—as well as a brief review of Matthew’s and Luke’s theological purposes in redacting Q a brief discussion of Mark’s adaptation of the Treasure saying (Mark 10:21). The reader can always refer to the Documenta Q volume for a complete survey of research on any given variation unit. Reference to the Gospel of Thomas and other non-synoptic versions of the saying is minimal and mostly relegated to the footnotes—the evaluations are largely based on issues specific to Matthew and Luke and their redactional tendencies.
Chapter 3 originated as an internal International Q Project paper looking at the relationship between Matthew, Luke, Thomas, and Q. When I discovered the importance of John 6:27 for understanding the transmission history of the saying, I revised and expanded the paper, presenting it to the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. It was subsequently published in a volume of collected essays commemorating the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library.7 Chapter 3 represents a significant revision of the published essay.
I discovered an epistolary version of the Treasure saying that had been adapted and used in a paraenetic section of the Letter to the Colossians (Col 3:1–2). It seemed wise to investigate this version, along with the previously recognized version in James 5:2–3, particularly for their relevance to the issue of the transmission of sayings traditions in epistolary literature. Chapter 4 is a result of this investigation, with interesting implications for gospel studies. Chapters 5 and 6 summarize the results of preceding chapters and suggest several significant implications for New Testament studies.
Before I launch into the more detailed comparative studies of chapters 2–4, however, it seems prudent to introduce those studies by a brief and limited survey of the current state of research with regard to the Gospel of Thomas and the study of the New Testament and Christian origins. The remainder of this chapter will look at research into several specific areas: (1) contemporary studies of individual Thomasine sayings of Jesus and their connection, if any, to the synoptic sayings traditions; (2) studies of the relationship, if there is one, between the gospels of Thomas and John; and (3) an overview of what comparisons have been made between Thomas and epistolary literature.
Recent History of Studies in Thomas
With Wolfgang Schrage’s seminal 1964 study, Gospel of Thomas studies all but died off in Europe and North America.8 However, Thomas studies have experienced something of a renaissance in recent years for a couple of reasons. First, Schrage’s study has been reassessed and found to be methodologically lacking.9 These reassessments have led to a reopening of the issue of Thomas’ date, provenance, and relation to synoptic sayings of Jesus traditions. Second, combined with these reassessments has been a convergence of Thomas and Q studies, especially in the fields of redactional analysis and social reconstruction of communities behind texts. Because of the growing recognition of the fluidity of sayings traditions both in oral and written form, the history of the composition of Thomas has become an important area of study. In tracing the methods of composition of the text, scholarship is moving in at least two different directions: the search for redactional evidence of a stratigraphical development of the text on the one hand, and on the other, an analysis of the text, either rhetorical or hermeneutical, as it stands in the extant Coptic manuscript.10 The literature is growing fast, and several attempts have been made through the years to mark the status of Thomas scholarship.11 It is my intention to pick up from the most recent Forschungsberichten and see where scholarship stands in the tracing of the relative antiquity of the Thomas tradition, the development of the text over time, and the place of the non-canonical gospel in relation to the canon.
One idea that