Seeking the Imperishable Treasure. Steven R. Johnson

in its entirety at any one place or time. Many studies seem to assume that it was, though there have been periodic calls to analyze the gospel one saying at a time.12 Indeed, many studies have been made of individual sayings or small groups of sayings through the years, but often with overt or covert presuppositions that predetermined the results. The primary assumption seemingly held by a broad spectrum of commentators is that the Gospel of Thomas is either a first-century, non-gnostic document embodying traditions that are independent of canonical traditions, or it is a mid- to late-second century, thoroughly gnostic document, directly or indirectly dependent upon the synoptic gospels for parallel material. But need this strict dichotomy be maintained? Is not some sapiential and philosophical literature somewhat “gnostic” in character, literature that predates the first century? Could not the traditions behind the Gospel of Thomas have been interpreted, and hence shaded, in a gnostic direction in the early first century, especially if they bore resemblance to Jewish wisdom literature? And need the text in its entirety have been written in one place and time? What sets apart some recent attempts to address the issue of Thomas’ relationship to canonical tradition on the basis of individual sayings is the openness to seeing broader possibilities concerning the history of the composition of the text. These studies should be examined carefully.

      Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels

      Though research into the Gospel of Thomas has expanded into many different directions in recent years, the issue of its place in the history of sayings of Jesus traditions continues to be debated. Several recent works suggest that some scholars are finally taking seriously the many previous calls to approach the Gospel of Thomas by analysis of one or two sayings at a time. The result of this approach is different studies, sometimes by the same scholars, that yield potentially divergent conclusions with regard to the tradition history of Thomas sayings.

Risto Uro, in his 1990 essay “Neither Here Nor There: Luke 17:20–21 and Related Sayings in Thomas, Mark, and Q,” finds that both GTh 113 and Luke 17:20–21 show signs of redaction, but that GTh 113 does not include any of the redactional elements of Luke 17:20–21.13 On the contrary, Uro finds two specific differences between the texts that shows GTh 113 to be the more primitive version of the sayings complex.14 Uro takes this evidence to suggest that GTh 113 and Luke 17:20–21 represent use of a common tradition.15 Uro does not go beyond this to suggest a date for the Thomas versions of the saying, and this is perhaps wise. The evidence, as Uro has laid it out, does not warrant such a conclusion.

In his 1993 Forum article, “‘Secondary Orality’ in the Gospel of Thomas? Logion 14 as a Test Case,” Uro discerns evidence of synoptic redaction in at least one of the sayings included in Thomas 14 (GTh 14:5; cf. Matt 5:11’s redaction of Mark 7:15).16 At the same time, however, the evidence is not substantial enough to suggest to Uro direct use of a synoptic gospel in the construction of the logion. In fact, he argues that the structure of GTh 14 and the order of the sayings therein rule out direct dependence on the synoptic gospels. In trying to adjudicate between these two conflicting results, Uro develops a theory of “secondary orality.”17 In other words, Uro argues that sayings of Jesus found in the canonical gospel texts often circulated independently after the gospels were written as isolated sayings of Jesus in oral transmission among Jesus communities. Uro’s thesis is an attempt to respect both the pervasive influence of oral tradition in the first century and the influence of the written gospels. While Uro does not come to any conclusions about the first two sayings of GTh 14 (he thinks Luke 10:8–9, circulating independently of the written gospel, may have been the source for GTh 14:4),18 the implication of his study would be that the brief chreia elaboration-like sayings cluster of GTh 14 is a construction that postdates the writing of the Gospel of Matthew (and maybe Luke).

      While the results of Uro’s earlier study need not imply a written text of GTh 3 and 113 pre-dating the writing of the synoptics, they do imply that the composition of the Gospel of Thomas involved sources for the sayings of Jesus other than the synoptic gospels. The evidence of Luke’s redactional elements in Luke 17:20–21 and the lack of these elements in GTh 113 does not rule out Uro’s later theory of “secondary orality” for this particular saying of Jesus, but there is no evidence to support it. To summarize, Uro has provided evidence for Thomas’ use of oral tradition that ultimately goes back both to the synoptic gospels and to oral tradition that lies behind or is independent of the synoptic gospels.

James M. Robinson has likewise presented evidence that precludes any easy resolution regarding the history of traditions behind the Gospel of Thomas. In his evaluation of Q (Luke) 12:52 for the International Q Project, he argues that the Gospel of Thomas does not provide independent testimony of this saying being in Q.19 Rather, GTh 16:3 lacks elements that would make its version of the Children against Parents pericope fully understandable, elements that are found only in Luke’s redactional expansion of Q 12:51–53 (Luke 12:52’s number of antagonists in the house). While Robinson concedes that the history of the transmission of GTh 16:1–2 is probably much more complicated, he finds, quite simply, that GTh 16:3 is dependent upon Luke (whether directly or indirectly he does not indicate). From this, one can conclude that the chreia elaboration-like clustering of sayings in GTh 16 postdates the writing of the Gospel of Luke, even if the traditions behind GTh 16:1–2 are potentially earlier and remain obscure.

On the other hand, Robinson, with Christoph Heil, believes he has identified a rare instance where one can actually observe the literary redaction of a saying of Jesus by the author of Q.20 Central to Robinson and Heil’s argument is the version of the Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies pericope found in P. Oxy. 655 (GTh 36; cf. Q/Luke 12:22–31 and Matt 6:25–34; cf. esp. Q 12:27), a version that is more primitive than the abridged Coptic version and which contains two words (οὐ ξαίνει) that stand behind the version of the saying in Q 12:27 (specifically, Q 12:27’s αὐξάνει). They argue that the P. Oxy. 655 version of the Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies pericope shows no signs of Gnostic theological development—if anything, the P. Oxy. version of GTh 36 is anti-Gnostic and closer to Jesus’ intention than Q—and that the Q version of the pericope shows more theological development in its parallel text (Q 12:22–24; e.g., its body-soul pairing vis-à-vis P. Oxy. 655’s food-clothing pairing).21 In constructing a chart of textual and chronological relations among the versions of the saying of Jesus about the unconcern of the crows, Robinson and Heil date a written pre-Q text to 30–70 CE and the written Gospel of Thomas at ±100 CE, though they give no reason for this comparatively late dating of Thomas. Their own evidence, however, leaves open other possibilities, and Robinson’s further expansion on the “scribal error” in Q makes a turn of the century date for GTh 36 (Oxyrhynchus version) seem even more unlikely.22

Uro and Robinson both demonstrate that the source and composition history of the Gospel of Thomas is complex. They provide one example of the dependence of Thomas on a synoptic gospel23 and one of indirect dependence through secondary orality.24 Conclusions from their other two studies are less clear.25 Do Luke and Thomas reflect use of a common tradition?26 Do Q and Thomas reflect independent developments of oral and literary traditions?27 What is clear from these studies