Notes
Notes Introduction 1 J. Horman, “The Source of the Version of the Parable of the Sower in the Gospel of Thomas,” Novum Testamentum 21 (1979): 326–43. 2 R. Grant and D.N. Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus, with an English translation of the Gospel of Thomas by W.R. Schoedel (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1960). 3 W. Schrage, Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen Synoptikerdeutung (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 29; Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1964). 4 See pp. 205–7. 5 Many of Quispel’s articles on the subject have been gathered into a single volume, G.Quispel,Gnostic Studies,vol.II (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 34,2; Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul,1975),including his earliest article,“The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament,”Vigiliae Christianae 11 (1957): 189–207,on pages 3–16.His most useful presentation is in G.Quispel,Makarius, dasThomasevangelium, und das Lied von der Perle (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 15; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967). 6 This issue is discussed by James M. Robinson in “On Bridging the Gulf from Q to the Gospel of Thomas (or Vice Versa),”Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism & Early Christianity , ed. Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr. (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986), 164–75. 7 This goal,for example,is explicit in Marcus J.Borg,The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith (New York: HarperSanFrancisco,2004),especially pp.80–100. Since “Jesus trumps the Bible” (p. 81), research into the life of Jesus has primary theological authority. 8 See pp. 92–96. 215 9 See the discussions of N 2:19 and N 4:29, pp. 23–30 and 79–81. 10 See pp. 193–203. Some critics have coped with the evident lateness of certain sayings in Thomas by postulating an original sayings gospel,which was later enhanced in one or more theological direction. 11 See pp. 205–14. 12 See pp. 157–72. 13 See pp. 173–92. 14 E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Allen Lane/Penguin Press, 1993), 33–39. 15 For a definition of “redactor”and “editor,”see J.Van Seters,The Edited Bible:The Curious History of the“Editor”in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,2006),13–15. Van Seters gives a brief history of the use of the term “redactor”in New Testament studies on pp. 283–92. As Van Seters shows, the term as used in Biblical studies is far too flexible and too divorced from its original meaning to be useful. 16 Discussion of the literary relationship of the synoptic gospels has traditionally been muddied by the language of textual criticism. Scribes did indeed exist who tried, often with very good success, to copy accurately the contents of a manuscript into a new manuscript. Neither the authors of the synoptic gospels nor Thomas can be included in their number. E.P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 9; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969) shows, among other things, how the use of maxims derived from manuscript criticism leads to inconclusive results when applied to the development of the synoptic tradition. 17 See the arguments of B.W. Henaut, Oral Tradition and the Gospels: The Problem of Mark 4 (Journal for the Study of the NewTestament Supplement Series 82; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 75–119. 18 Risto Uro,“Thomas and Oral Gospel Tradition,”in Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas, ed. R. Uro (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1998), 8–32. 19 As Henaut,OralTradition and the Gospels, 162,observes,Mk.4:34,which states that Jesus did not speak “without parables,” can be found inconsistent only if we project back onto Mark a modern understanding of “parable.” The Scope of N 1 H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London/Philadelphia: SCM Press/Trinity Press International, 1990), 108. 2 S.Davies,“The Use of the Gospel of Thomas in the Gospel of Mark,”Neotestamentica 30 (1996): 329; cf. Horman, “The Source of the Version of the Parable of the Sower in the Gospel of Thomas,” 343. 3 See, for example, the discussion of N 2:19, “when the bridegroom has left the bridechamber,” pp. 23–30. 4 See “Excursus 2: Esoteric...
OR
