1 Koester, Helmut and Robinson, James M., Trajectories through Early Christianity Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971Google Scholar), especially the essay “LOGOI SOPHON: On the Gattung of Q” (71–113) by Robinson and “GNOMAI DIAPHOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity” (114–57) and “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels” (158–204) by Koester. For the full publication history of Robinson's essay, see no. 8.

2 On the martyr's story as the template by which Mark's passion narrative was created, see Nickelsburg, George, “The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative, HTR 73 (1980) 153–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also idem, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS 26; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981, repr., expanded ed.: Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Divinity School, 2006). Whether John made use of Mark for the passion narrative, or shared with Mark an earlier source, which was itself shaped according to the canons of the wisdom tale, is not important for our purposes here. The significance of Nickelsburg's work is that it demonstrates the extent to which the canonical story is a conventional story and a conventional stratagem for interpreting the premature death of a hero. For John and martyrdom, see Paul Minear's study, John: The Martyr's Gospel New York: Pilgrim, 1984Google Scholar).

3 Williams, Sam, Jesus' Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept HDR 2; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1975Google Scholar); Seeley, David, The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul's Concept of Salvation JSNTS 28; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990Google Scholar).

4 This question has proven to be a thorny problem in the history of the Thomas discussion. My own view, strongly shaped by John Sieber's unpublished dissertation (“A Redactional Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels with regard to the Question of the Sources of the Gospel of Thomas,” Ph.D. diss., Claremont, 1966) was laid forth in The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1993) 9–110; more recently I renewed this argument in a more nuanced way in “The Gospel of (Judas) Thomas and the Synoptic Problem,” in The Oxford Conference in the Synoptic Problem (ed. John Kloppenborg et al.; Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming). For an older review of the literature see Patterson, Stephen J., “The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptic Tradition: A Forschungsbericht and Critique, Forum 8 (1992) 45–97Google Scholar. More recent proposals have made the discussion even more complex, including especially that of Hans-Martin Schenke, “On the Compositional History of the Gospel of Thomas,” Forum 10 (1994) 9–30. Schenke argues on the basis of a series of apparent narrative spurs in Thomas that its sayings were drawn from a narrative work, but not one of our known gospels. The idea of “secondary orality,” first promulgated by Kline Snodgrass some years ago (“The Gospel of Thomas: A Secondary Gospel,” SecCent 7 [1989–1990] 19–38), has been revived by Risto Uro in “Thomas and the Oral Gospel Tradition,” in Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas ed. Risto Uro; Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998) 8–32., as a way of arguing for Thomas's dependence on the synoptic gospels in some cases, while acknowledging evidence in Thomas of a certain freedom over against the synoptic text themselves. Similarly, Jens Schröter argues that the synoptic formulation of sayings has influenced Thomas in specific instances, but rejects the direct literary dependence of Thomas upon the synoptic gospels (Erinnerung an Jesu Worte Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas [WMANT 76; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997] passim) While variation and nuance now characterize the discussion, a consensus around the position of basic independence, or autonomy is beginning to emerge. There are exceptions: the recent study by Nicholas Perrin (Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron [Academia Biblica 5; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002]) revives the older thesis of Han Drijvers (“Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity,” SecCent 2 [1982] 157–75) that Thomas is dependent on Tatian's Diatessaron. Another exceptaion is Harry Fleddermann's theory that Thomas is dependent on Mark based on the hypothesis that Mark is dependent on Q; see his Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts (Leuven: Peeters, 1995). Neither of these novel contributions has attracted a following among Thomas specialists.

5 The fact and its implications was pointed out first, perhaps, by Wilson, Robert McL. in “Thomas and the Growth of the Gospels, HTR 53 (1960) 231CrossRefGoogle Scholar (see also his Studies in the Gospel of Thomas [London: A. R. Mowbray, 1960] 9, 145). He called it the “snow-balling” effect, drawing from Henry Chadwick's similar observations made about another early sayings collection, the Sentences of Sextus (The Sentences of Sextus: A Contribution to the History of Christian Ethics [Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1959] 159). But many have made the point similarly; see, e.g., Ernst Haenchen, “Literatur zum Thomasevangelium,” ThR 27 (1961/62) 306–7; Puech, Henri-Ch., “The Gospel of Thomas,” in New Testament Apocrypha ed. Hennecke, Edgar and Schneemelcher, Wilhelm; trans. Robert McL. Wilson; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963Google Scholar; repr. of Neutestamentliche Apokryphen [Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1959]) 1:305; Schrage, Wolfgang, Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen Synoptikerdeutung BZNW 29; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964) 10Google Scholar; Stephen J. Patterson, “The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptic Tradition,” 65; idem, “Understanding the Gospel of Thomas Today,” in Stephen J. Patterson, Robinson, James M., and Bethge, Hans–Gebhard, The Fifth Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas Comes of Age Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1998) 35–36Google Scholar.; idem, “The Gospel of Thomas and the Historical Jesus,” in Coptica—Gnostica—Manichaica: Mélanges offerts à Wolf-Peter Funk (ed. Louis Paichaud and Paul-Hubert Poirier; Biblioteque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section “Études” 7; Laval: Les Presses de l'Université Laval, 2006) 672–73; and Werner Kelber, “Die Anfangsprozesse der Verschriftlichung in Frühchristentum,” ANRW 26.1:26: “Listen haben weder Anfang noch Ende.” The general point is made also by Kevin V. Neller, “Diversity in the Gospel of Thomas: Clues for a New Direction?” SecCent 7 (1989/90) 1–17, and more recently by April DeConick in “The Original Gospel of Thomas,” VC 56 (2002) 167–99, and then programmatically in her recent two-volume treatment of Thomas: Recovering the Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth (LNTS 286; London: T&T Clark, 2005), and The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation, with a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel (LNTS 287; London: T&T Clark, 2006).

6 Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 113–18. This conclusion is hardly original; see, e.g., the remarks of Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt regarding P. Oxy. 1 in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London: Henry Frowde [for the Egypt Exploration Fund] 1904) 1:2: “(it is) earlier than 140 A.D., and might go back to the first century”; similarly Helmut Koester, “Introduction” (to the Gospel According to Thomas) in Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 together with XII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1), and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655 (ed. Bentley Layton; 2 vols.; NHS 20–21; The Coptic Gnostic Library; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 1:39–41; or more recently Richard Valantasis, The Gospel According to Thomas (New Testament Readings; London: Routledge, 1997) 12–21, who dates it to the early second century. Older estimates of a mid-second century date usually mistakenly credited Grenfell and Hunt with this view; see e.g., Puech, “Gospel of Thomas,” 305; Wilson, Studies, 7; Gärtner, Bertil, The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961) 271–72Google Scholar.; Haenchen, “Literatur,” 155; Leipoldt, Johannes, Das Evangelium nach Thomas Koptisch und Deutsch TU 101; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1967) 17Google Scholar. The argument for a very late date, after the appearance of Tatian's Diatessaron, made first by Drijvers (“Facts and Problems,” 172–3) and recently revived by Perrin (Thomas and Tatian), fails to reckon with the date of P. Oxy. 1 at the end of the 2d cent./ beginning of the 3rd cent. Attempts to date it earlier, say on the basis of formal similarity to Q (e.g., Stevan Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Wisdom [New York: Seabury, 1983] 14–17) also skate on thin ice.

7 See Puech, “The Gospel of Thomas,” 286; Gilles Quispel, “L’Évangile selon Thomas et les Clémentines,” VC 12 (1958) 181–96; idem, “L’Évangile selon Thomas et le Diatessaron,” VC 13 (1959) 87–117; idem, “The Syrian Thomas and the Syrian Macarius,” VC 18 (1964) 226–35; idem, “L’Évangile selon Thomas et les origins de l'ascése Chrétienne,” in Aspects du judéo-christianisme : Colloque de Strasbourg 23–25 avril 1964. Travaux du Centre d’études supérieures spécialisé d'histoire des religions de Strasbourg (Bibliothèque des Centre d’études supérieures spécialisés; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965) 35-52; Wilson, Studies, 10; Gärtner, Theology, 271–72; Klijn, A. F. J., “Das Thomasevangelium und das altsyrische Christentum, VC 15 (1961) 146–59Google Scholar; idem, “Christianity in Edessa and the Gospel of Thomas: On Barbara Ehlers, Kann das Thomasevangelium aus Edessa stamen?” NovT 14 (1972) 70–77; Koester, “GNOMAI DIAPHOROI,” 126–28; idem, Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 2:152; idem, “Introduction,” (The Gospel of Thomas) 40; idem, Ancient Christian Gospels (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990) 79; Layton, Bentley, The Gnostic Scriptures Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1987) 360–64Google Scholar., 377; Crossan, John D., Four Other Gospels Minneapolis, Minn.: Winston, 1985) 23–26Google Scholar.; Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 118–20; Neller, “Diversity in the Gospel of Thomas,” 7–8; Jens Schröter and Hans–Gebhard Bethge, “Das Evangelium nach Thomas [Einleitung],” in NHC I,1–V,1 (vol. 1 of Nag Hammadi Deutsch; ed. Hans-Martin Schenke, Hans-Gebhard Bethge, and Ursula Ulrike Kaiser; Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 2/8; Koptisch-gnostische Schriften 2; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001) 151–63, at 156–57; Plisch, Uwe-Karsten, Gospel of Thomas: Original Text with Commentary Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2008) 17–22Google Scholar.

8 The point was originally made with respect to form by Robinson, James M. in “LOGOI SOPHON: Zur Gattung der Spruchquelle,” in Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe on Rudolf Bultmann ed. E. Dinkler, ; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964) 77–96Google Scholar.; revised: “LOGOI SOPHON: On the Gattung of Q,” in Robinson and Koester, Trajectories, 71–113. It has been underscored more recently with respect to content by Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom, and Thomas Zöckler, Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium NHMS 47; Leiden: Brill, 1999).

9 The translation of all materials from the Gospel of Thomas are that of the author.

10 Kloppenborg, John, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections SAC; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 302Google Scholar, 305.

11 The interpretation of the Gospel of Thomas as deeply influenced by Middle Platonism is argued more fully by the author in “Jesus Meets Plato: The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas,” in Das Thomasevangelium, Entstehung—Rezeption—Theologie (ed. Jörg Frey, Enno Edzard Popkes, and Jens Schröter; BZNW 157; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008) 181–205. The influence of Plato in this gospel is also argued by Asgiersson, Jon Ma., “Conflicting Epic Worlds,” in Thomasine Traditions in Antiquity: The Social and Cultural World of the Gospel of Thomas ed. Asgiersson, April DeConick, and Uro, Risto; NHMS 59; Leiden: Brill, 2006Google Scholar). See also Jackson, Howard, The Lion Becomes the Man: The Gnostic Leontomorphic Creator and the Platonic Tradition SBLDS 81; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1983Google Scholar) for the Platonic background for saying 7. Others have also indicated in passing the relevance of Middle Platonic concepts to Thomas: Hans–Gebhard Bethge and Jens Schröter, “Das Evangelium nach Thomas [Einleitung],” 155; Enno Popkes, Edzard, Das Menschenbild des Thomasevangeliums. Untersuchungen zu seiner religionsgeschichtlichen und chronologischen Einordnung WUNT 206; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) 331–33Google Scholar.; the assumption of Bethge, Schröter, and Popkes that such Platonic speculation would take Thomas decisively out of the Jewish milieu and into a later time frame is unwarranted.

12 Patterson, “Jesus Meets Plato,” 184–86. For the significance of the Delphic maxim in Middle Platonism see Hans-Dieter Betz, “The Delphic Maxim ΓNΩΘI ΣAΥTON in Hermetic Interpretation,” HTR 63 (1970) 465–84.

13 Many scholars have noted the relationship of Thomas's theology to Hellenistic Judaism, including Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom (also, later, his essay “The Christology and Protology of the Gospel of Thomas,” JBL 111 [1992] 662–82); John Dominic Crossan, Four Other Gospels, 31–35; and Pagels, Elaine, “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in Gospel of Thomas and John, JBL 118 (1999) 477–96Google Scholar.

14 See, e.g., Philo, Opif. 134; for discussion see esp. Klijn, A. F. J., “The ‘Single One’ in the Gospel of Thomas, JBL 81 (1962) 271–78Google Scholar. The idea may derive originally from Plato, Symp. 189D–192E; for discussion see MacDonald, Dennis R., There is No Male and Female: The Fate of a Dominical Saying in Paul and Gnosticism HDR 20; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 25–26Google Scholar.

15 For this typically Middle Platonic anthropology see, e.g., Plutarch, Mor. (de facie) 943A; Philo, Leg. 2.2, etc. The Platonic seed of this idea is to be found in Tim. 30AB and Phaedr. 247C–248B. For a discussion of these ideas in Thomas, see Patterson, “Jesus Meets Plato,” 186–90. Asgiersson also sees the Platonic framework behind these sayings, but assumes that they take a more polemical stance over against the Genesis account (“Conflicting Epic Worlds,” 162–71).

16 For the true self as the image of God, see e.g., Alc 1.133BC; for the concept among the later Middle Platonists and Stoics, see, e.g., Cicero, Leg. 1.22.59; Seneca, Ep. 31.11; Philo, Opif. 69; for discussion of the various other Jewish expressions of the idea, see Jervell, Jacob, Imago Dei FRLANT 76; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960Google Scholar); Schenke, Hans-Martin, Der Gott “Mensch” in der Gnosis Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 120–43Google Scholar.; and Fossum, Jarl, “Gen 1:26 and 2:7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism, JSJ 16 (1985) 202–39Google Scholar.

17 See Seneca, Ep. 102.21–28; Plutarch, Mor. (de facie) 943–945; Philo, Opif. 70–1; for discussion, see Patterson, “Jesus Meets Plato,” 196–97.

18 On the asceticism of the Gospel of Thomas see Richard Valantasis, “Is the Gospel of Thomas Ascetical? Revisiting an Old Problem with a New Theory,” JECS 7 (1999) 55–81.

19 On the continuity of the Thomas Christianity with the social radicalism of the early Jesus movement, see Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 121–214.

20 Other possible allusions to Jesus' death are few and equivocal: Gos. Thom. 12 refers to a time when Jesus will be absent; Gos. Thom. 71 commands “destroy this house,” but the reference is unclear; saying 66, alongside saying 65, appears to refer to Jesus' death/resurrection (compare Mark 12:10–11), but, presented as a separate saying, it may have a different referent altogether (see John Kloppenborg, The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine [WUNT 195; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006] 257).

21 So, e.g., Grant, Robert M. and Freedman, David Noel, The Secret Sayings of Jesus Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1960) 118Google Scholar; Gärtner, Theology, 98; Ménard, Jacque–E., L’Évangile selon Thomas NHS 5; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 76–77Google Scholar.

22 So, variously, Joseph Fitzmyer, “The Oxyrhynchus Logoi of Jesus and the Coptic Gospel according to Thomas,” in idem, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (SBLSBS 5; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1974) 368–9; Leipoldt, Evangelium nach Thomas, 55; Koester, , “One Jesus, Four Primitive Gospels,” 167; James M. Robinson, “Jesus—From Easter to Valentinus (Or to the Apostles’ Creed), JBL 101 (1982) 23Google Scholar; Davies, The Gospel of Thomas, 81–85; Meyer, Marvin, “The Beginning of the Gospel of Thomas, Semeia 52 (1990) 164–65Google Scholar.

23 Sayings 11 and 111 might be considered apocalyptic; sayings 10 and 16 are apocalyptic sayings in their synoptic contexts, but here less clearly so; the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Gos. Thom. 57) could be understood as an allegory for the apocalypse, as it probably is in Matthew (13:24–30). Margaretha Lelyveld's attempt to ground Thomas more thoroughly in Jewish apocalyptic (Les Logia de la vie dans l’Évangile selon Thomas [NHS 34; Leiden: Brill, 1987]) has met with little support in the literature. More recently DeConick has tried to identify an early apocalyptic core of speeches in Thomas (Recovering the Gospel of Thomas, 113–55), but most of the sayings she considers to be apocalyptic are not necessarily so. Often the saying in question takes on an apocalyptic cast—either by context, or through allegorization—in the synoptic tradition, which is missing in Thomas. Thomas's Parable of the Feast (saying 64), for example, is considered by DeConick to have apocalyptic significance. In Matthew and Luke (and perhaps Q) it does, but in Thomas there is nothing to suggest it. One of the most distinctive things about the Thomas tradition is that so many of the apocalyptic sayings and parables from the synoptic tradition are found here as wisdom or prophetic sayings and simple metaphoric stories.

24 The point is perhaps debatable—see, e.g., Antti Marjanen, “Thomas and Jewish Religious Practices,” in Uro, ed., Thomas at the Crossroads, 163–82. But Paul argues against circumcision and abrogates kashrut, and yet by most accounts should still be understood as he understood himself, that is, as a Jew. To engage in debate over Jewish practices, especially in the context of the Jewish diaspora, is not necessarily a manifestation of anti-Judaism. In any event, the pertinent point is that the Thomas community did not engage in recrimination against their fellow Jews, blaming them for the death of Jesus or even the destruction of Jerusalem in the Jewish revolt.

25 The influence of Middle Platonism on Tatian is extensive; see Elze, Martin, Tatian und seine Theologie Forschungen zur Kirken-und Dogmengeschichte; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960) 27–33Google Scholar.; and Drijvers, Han, “Early Syriac Christianity: Some Recent Publications, VC 50 (1996) 173Google Scholar. For Bardaisan, see Drijvers, Han, Bardaisan of Edessa SSN 6; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1966) 96–126Google Scholar. and 218–25. In the Acts of Thomas the Hymn of the Pearl is probably to be understood as the Platonic journey of the soul in mythic form (Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 367); for Middle-Platonic anthropology, see esp. Act. Thom. 94. The Book of Thomas (the Contender) advocates asceticism based on a Platonic anthropological dualism (see John Turner, “The Book of Thomas the Contender [II,7]” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English [ed. James M. Robinson; rev. ed.; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988] 200; also, generally, Drijvers, “Facts and Problems,” 174).

26 Or. ad Graec. 6.

27 Book of the Laws of the Countries (trans. Han Drijvers; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1965) 63.

28 Thom. Cont. 142.26–143.7.

29 Gos. Phil. 62.6.

30 Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (trans. Robert Kraft et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 16–17.

31 Hist. eccl. 4.30.1.

32 Or. ad Graec. 29.1.

33 Gos. Phil. quotes Mark 15:34 (see 68.26–28), and elsewhere refers to the tearing of the temple veil (see 84, 24–35).

34 Modern treatments include Klijn, A. F. J., Edessa, die Stadt des Apostels Thomas Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965Google Scholar); Segal, Judah B., Edessa: The Blessed City Oxford: Clarendon, 1970Google Scholar); Han Drijvers, “Hatra, Palmyra, and Edessa. Die Städte der syrisch-mesopotamischen Wüste in politischer, kulturgeschichtlicher und religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung,” ANRW 2.8:863–96; Millar, Fergus, The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337 Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993) 472–81Google Scholar.; and Ross, Steven K., Roman Edessa: Politics and Culture on the Eastern Fringes of the Roman Empire, 114–242 C.E. (London: Routledge, 2001Google Scholar).

35 Drijvers, Han, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa EPRO 82; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 190–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.; idem, “Syrian Christianity and Judaism,” in The Jews Among the Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire ed. Judith Lieu, John North, and Tessa Rajak; London: Routledge, 1992) 127–29. Segal (Edessa, 42) notes that there are Jewish names as well as inscriptions in Hebrew and Greek in the cemetery of Kirk Magara. Jews buried there also carry Macedonian, Roman, and Parthian names.

36 For a general account see Neusner, Jacob, A History of Jews in Babylonia, vol. 1: The Parthian Period Leiden: Brill, 1965Google Scholar).

37 Strabo. Geogr. 11.9.2; Dio Cass. 40.14; Pliny the Elder, Nat. 5.88; for discussion, see Rostovtzeff, Michael, Caravan Cities trans. D. and T. Talbot Rice; Oxford: Clarendon, 1932Google Scholar).

38 On Trajan's Parthian War, see Ross, Roman Edessa, 30–33.

39 Dio Cass. 68.33.

40 Dio Cass. 78.12; Drijvers, “Hatra, Palmyra, and Edessa,” 878–89; Segal, Edessa, 13–14.

41 Dio Cass. 68.30; see Ross, Roman Edessa, 34–35.

42 For discussion, see Sartre, Maurice, The Middle East Under Rome trans. Catherine Porter and Elizabeth Rawlings; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005) 117–31Google Scholar.

43 J.W. 2.457–98.

44 Wilson, John Francis, Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost City of Pan New York: I. B. Tauris, 2004) 78–84Google Scholar. He discusses Peter's confession at Caesarea-Philippi (Mark 9:27–30 and pars.), the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2–8 and pars.), and the healing of the demon-possessed boy (Mark 9:14–29 and pars.).

45 J.W. 7.23–25.

46 J.W. 7.37–38.

47 Tacitus, Ann. 15.44; Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.29.

48 Letters 10.96–97.

49 Ign. Rom. 5:3.

50 So, e.g., Ign. Trall 10.1; Ign. Smyrn 2.1–3.3.

51 Cf. the remarks of Susan Ashbrook Harvey: “Christians in this region had little if any direct experience with persecution until the fourth century.” (“Syria and Mesopotamia,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 1: Origins to Constantine [ed. Margaret Mitchell and Francis Young; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006] 363).

52 The Hellenistic Jewish Wisdom background of these chapters is well-known: Dupont, Jacques, Gnosis: La connaissance religieuse dans les épitres de Saint Paul Paris: Gabalda, 1949) 172–80Google Scholar.; Ulrich Wilckens, Weisheit und Torheit. Eine exegetische-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu 1. Kor 1 und 2 (BHTh 26; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1959); Pearson, Birger, The PNEUMATIKOS-PSYCHIKOS Terminology in 1 Corinthians SBLDS 12; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1973Google Scholar); Horsley, Richard, “PNEUMATIKOS vs. PSYCHIKOS: Distinctions of Spiritual Status among the Corinthians, HTR 69 (1976) 269–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The tendency of Pearson and Horsley to use Jewish Wisdom categories (rather than “Gnosis”) to account for the Corinthian position is to be preferred. For the relationship of this theological perspective to the Gospel of Thomas see Helmut Koester, “Gnostic Writings,” 248–50; idem, Ancient Christian Gospels, 55–62; Patterson, Stephen J., “Paul and the Jesus Tradition: It is Time for Another Look, HTR 84 (1991) 36–40Google Scholar.

53 For the likely role of baptism in the Gospel of Thomas, see Jonathan Z. Smith, “The Garments of Shame,” HR 5 (1965/66) 235–36; Meeks, Wayne, “The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity, HR 13 (1974) 193–94Google Scholar; and Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom, 117–37.

54 As the text reads in P⁴⁶.

55 That the question in 11:2–17 is one of hair style rather than “veils” is shown by Jerome Murphy O'Connor, “Sex and Logic in 1 Cor 11:2–16, CBQ 42 (1980) 482–500; idem, “1 Corinthians 11:2–16. Once Again,” CBQ 50 (1988) 265–74.

56 That the background of the Corinthian practice was the myth of primordial androgyny well-known from Hellenistic Judaism and attested in the Gospel of Thomas is suggested by Meeks (“The Image of the Androgyne,” 202) and argued in detail by Dennis R. MacDonald, There is No Male and Female, 92–111.

57 For discussion, see Tuckett, Christopher, “The Corinthians Who Say ‘There is no resurrection of the dead.’ (1 Cor 15,12),” in The Corinthian Correspondence ed. Bieringer, Reimund; BETL 125; Louvain: Peeters, 1996) 247–75Google Scholar.

58 Koester makes note of the connection between Gos. Thom. 2 and Paul's ironic statement in 1 Cor 4:8b (Ancient Christian Gospels, 60); generally, see Haenchen, Ernst, Die Botschaft des Thomasevangeliums Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 6; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1961) 71–72Google Scholar.

59 The Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptish-gnostische Schriften, whose text and translation of Thomas appears in the 15^th edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, proposes that the text be emended at this point to read άνάστασιϛ rather than άνάστασιϛ, on the assumption that a scribe has assimilated the beginning of saying 51 to the end of saying 50; for discussion, see Plisch, The Gospel of Thomas, 132.

60 So Pearson, PNEUMATIKOS-PSYCHIKOS Terminology, 27–42; Conzelmann, Hans, 1Corinthians Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 57–60Google Scholar.

61 The similarity was pointed out by Helmut Koester in “One Jesus, Four Primitive Gospels,” 186; see also later, idem, “Gnostic Writings,” 248–50; and idem, Ancient Christian Gospels, 55–62; also Patterson, “Paul and the Jesus Tradition,” 36–38.

62 Comm. Matt. 5.29. For a critical evaluation of this attribution, however, see Josef Verheyden, “Origen on the Origin of 1 Cor 2,9,” in The Corinthian Correspondence, 491–511.

63 Koester, “One Jesus, Four Primitive Gospels,” 186; idem, “Gnostic Writings,” 249–50; see also James M. Robinson, “Kerygma and History in the New Testament,” in idem and Koester, Trajectories, 42–43.

64 For a thoughtful critique of Koester, Robinson, and the author's own position, see Tuckett, Christopher, “Paul and the Jesus Tradition: The Evidence of 1 Corinthians 2:9 and Gospel of Thomas 17,” in Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall ed. Burke, Trevor and Keith Elliott, J.; NovTSup 109; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Tuckett raises important questions about whether the same saying is reflected in Q 10:23 and whether Paul and the Corinthian partisans knew the saying as a saying of Jesus. He does not, however, dispute the striking similarity between the theological position of the Corinthian partisans and that of the Gospel of Thomas, which must also play a role in any explanation of the relationship between 1Cor 2:9 and Thomas 17.

65 So Pearson, Birger, “Hellenistic Jewish Wisdom Speculation in Paul,” in Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity ed. Wilken, R. L.; Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1975) 57–58Google Scholar.

66 The term, originally coined by Crossan to describe the parables of Jesus (see, e.g., Cliffs of Fall [New York: Seabury, 1980]), has been revived by Jacobus Liebenberg to describe the Jesus tradition more broadly (Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom [BZNW 102; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001]).