A Common Written Greek Source for Mark and Thomas

Excursus 5: Thomas and the “Gnostics”

Excursus 5: Thomas and the “Gnostics” Since its rediscovery,Thomas has frequently been called a “Gnostic”work.1 While this judgement is logically separate from the question of sources and date,in practice these issues have been tightly bound,since arguments used to prove that Thomas was Gnostic are also used to prove its dependence on the canonical gospels,2 while arguments for the independence of Thomas against the canonical gospels are also often used to prove that Thomas is not Gnostic. For our present purposes, the most significant arguments are based on Thomas’s supposed use of the synoptic gospels.Thomas,it is asserted,used the synoptic gospels as his source,but because his theology was Gnostic,he “twisted”and “perverted”the teachings of Jesus as contained in “Scripture,” i.e.,the New Testament gospels,to convey a Gnostic message.A close comparison of the text of Thomas with the (Nestle-Aland?) text of those gospels reveals similarities, but also significant differences. Differences should not surprise us, since similar differences can be found among manuscripts, among the Synoptic gospels, as well as between those gospels and other early Christian writings such as I Clement, II Clement, and the Didache. It is alleged, however, that the character of the differences between Thomas and the others is not on the same level as the differences among the Synoptic gospels. Verse by verse, they are used to show that the Gospel of Thomas must be interpreted in a way compatible with the teachings of such groups as the Valentinians,the Naassenes,even the Manichaeans.If Thomas seems to leave something out,it is left out for Gnostic reasons; if the wording is different,it is a Gnostic difference; if words seem to have been added, 205 it is a Gnostic addition. Where two or three synoptic versions of a saying are available and Thomas agrees in some respects with one,in some respects with another,this also is used to prove that Thomas is secondary and (therefore ) Gnostic. This argument goes back to Robert Grant,who regarded the Gospel of Thomas as exegesis of the New Testament in the manner of the Naassenes.3 The Naassenes, he alleges, supported their teachings by taking texts from the canonical scriptures, sometimes inverting their order,4 sometimes juxtaposing them in arbitrary ways, sometimes adding words; so also did the author of Thomas. If we overlook the fact that we know about the Naassenes mainly, perhaps only from Hippolytus’s hostile summary of their system, then we can use the version of the story of the Sower in Ref. 5.8.29 as a model of such exegesis.The details of their version of the story of the sower as reported by Hippolytus reflect the synoptic gospels in the New Testament, while the interpretation which Hippolytus ascribes to the Naassenes cannot be supplied from Thomas,but requires one of the Synoptic versions: only those who are “knowledgeable”have “ears to hear.”5 When Hippolytus (Ref. 5.8.1) complains that the Naassenes were ˆ1/'-¤ + -3+ '-+, “inventors of a new grammatical art,”his complaint has nothing to do with juxtaposition of texts.He alleges rather that they used their exegesis to glorify gentile authors at the expense of the sacred texts. I find little to choose between the “exegetical methods”of the Naassenes and those of their opponents , except for their results. While the sayings which are ascribed to N have tended not to lend themselves to a “Gnostic”interpretation,some of these interpretations have been discussed in conjunction with the sayings which we have ascribed to N.6 Since a number of alleged Gnostic interpretations have been proposed for each variant reading, it follows that none are sufficiently compelling to show that Thomas is a Gnostic work. Hence while the conclusions from these interpretations, namely that Thomas is judged to be a secondary, Gnostic document, is always the same, there are often many roads to that destination, none of which strike other readers as inevitable. These differences are, however, not unexpected, since the author of Thomas gives very little help for the reader seeking to understand his sayings. These Gnostic interpretations would be more plausible if it could be shown that, at the time the Gospel of Thomas was written, there really was 206 excursus a canon of four and only four gospels with a standard text equal to our Novum Testamentum Graece.There...