Robinson, Koester, and Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn also note certain affinities in 1 Corinthians 1–4 to the Gospel of Thomas.80 Koester, while focusing his discussion on Q 10:23–24 (Matt 13:16–17), notes a much closer parallel to 1 Cor 2:9 in GTh 17, though a literary relationship between the texts is difficult to maintain.81 Stevan L. Davies and Stephen J. Patterson have both picked up on these hints and argued that the collection of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, not Q, is perhaps best represented by Paul’s rhetoric against his opponents in 1 Corinthians 1–4.82 Davies cites two of the Corinthian passages most crucial to Robinson’s analysis, 1 Cor 3:1 and 4:8, and finds even stronger parallels in the Gospel of Thomas.83 In each case cited in 1 Corinthians (except perhaps 1 Cor 2:9—but even there, it is possible that Paul changes the last line of a traditional saying to bring it more in line with Isa 64:3 [LXX]), Paul appears to be using his opponents’ teaching against them. It is certainly significant that the Gospel of Thomas provides an even better picture of Paul’s rhetorical opponents than do the sapientially-oriented Q tradents. The evidence so far presented suggests the possibility that the opponents of Paul taught from a sayings collection very similar to what is found in parts of the Gospel of Thomas. For this very reason, Paul would not likely cite sayings of Jesus himself, but rather would focus—as he does—on the apparent folly of the cross and the kerygma with its message of divine power expressed in weakness.
In summary, detailed studies like Neirynck’s help to clarify just how much can be claimed when using lexical parallels as the primary datum for determining what constitutes use of a saying of Jesus. At the same time, Romans 12–14, 1 Thessalonians 5, and 1 Corinthians 1–4 appear to provide evidence for Paul’s use of sayings traditions when one observes how and where he uses them. Paul uses great freedom in adapting and modifying sayings traditions for his didactic needs. More to the point, Paul does not need to cite “the Lord” in the general exhortations of Romans 12–14 (or 1 Thessalonians 5) anymore than he would want to cite “the Lord” when condemning his opponents with their own sayings tradition in 1 Corinthians 1–4.
Regardless of how one decides for the authorship of letters such as Colossians and James, the foregoing survey has implications for the present study. Chapter 4 includes a comparison of similarities between specific sections of Colossians and Thomas and suggests the use by the author of Colossians of sayings material also found in Thomas. The similar material in Colossians is found at what is almost universally recognized among commentators as the beginning of an extended section of community paraenesis.84 As seen above with Romans 12–14, 1 Thessalonians 5, and 1 Corinthians 1–4, a collection of sayings parallels is found to be isolated in a particular section of the letter (Col 3:1–11). If Paul authored this letter, then the parallels potentially argue for a Thomasine sayings tradition that can be dated to the 50’s CE. If a follower of Paul is writing in his name, then the parallels are at least indicative of a tradition dating to the second half of the century in a location where a collection of Paul’s letters are known.
Summary
The foregoing survey of literature points to several issues to be addressed in the following analysis of the Treasure in Heaven saying. (1) Some of the sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas may reflect a primitive, first-century sayings tradition, one that may have influenced canonical texts in some places, while other Thomas sayings may derive—directly or indirectly—from the canonical gospels. When dealing with a sayings collection that represented the traditions of living communities behind it, these two observations are not contradictory, but point to a complex history of development. (2) While a strictly literary relationship between Thomas and John probably cannot be proven, there may be either a relationship between tradent communities, or evidence of the use of one sayings tradition in the writing of two different types of literary text. (3) The use of sayings traditions in the canonical letters is an ongoing debate, one that will not be determined by reference to lexical parallels alone. Isolating possible sayings sources in specific letter sections, especially paraenetic sections, appears to be a fruitful approach. Of course, James is almost entirely paraenetic, which is why James’s relationship to gospel traditions is an important topic for research today.
1. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition; Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel.
2. Crossan, In Fragments.
3. An excellent introduction to the subject is found in Mack and Robbins, Patterns of Persuasion.
4. See the October issues of volumes 109 (1990); 110 (1991); 111 (1992); 112 (1993); 113 (1994); 114 (1995); and 116 (1997).
5. Robinson, Hoffmann, and Kloppenborg, eds., The Critical Edition of Q. The text of the CEQ occasionally differs from the IQP text because the CEQ text is the result of deliberations by the managing editors in consultation with the earlier IQP decisions. Every variation between the CEQ and the IQP is identified in the apparatus of the CEQ.
6. See Johnson, Q 12:33–34.
7. Johnson, “Gospel of Thomas 76:3.”
8. Schrage, Das Verhältnis.
9. See Sieber, “Redactional Analysis”; Patterson, Gospel of Thomas; idem., “Gospel of Thomas.”
10. Recent examples of stratigraphical analysis include Arnal, “Rhetoric”; McLean, “On the Gospel of Thomas and Q”; and DeConick, Recovering. Some of these studies use recent work on the stratigraphy of Q as models for understanding the composition history of Thomas. Examples of recent analyses of the text as a whole include Asgeirsson, “Doublets and Strata”; Robbins, “Rhetorical Composition”; and Valantasis, Gospel of Thomas.
11. E.g., Haenchen, “Literatur zum Thomasevangelium”; Fallon and Cameron, “Gospel of Thomas”; Riley, “Gospel of Thomas in Recent Scholarship”; and Perrin, “Recent Trends.”
12. E.g., Cullmann, “Gospel of Thomas,” 434–35; Chilton, “Gospel according to Thomas,” 164; Fallon and Cameron, “Gospel of Thomas,” 4237; Hedrick, “Thomas and the Synoptics,” 56; Neller, “Diversity,” 18.
13. Uro, “Neither Here Nor There,” esp. 13–20, 30–31.
14. Ibid., 20. On the one hand, Thomas’ conclusion appears to be a redactional expansion. Uro suggests that GTh 113 comes from the same textual source as GTh 3:3a. On the other hand, Luke’s lack of a second “lo” (before “there”) suggests to Uro Lukan redaction. Also, the identity of the questioners differs in GTh 113 (disciples) and Luke 17:20–21 (Pharisees). Uro argues