No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
One of the methodical approaches to the tradition in the Gospel of Thomas is the search for Aramaisms in order to ascertain the Semitic background of the logia of Jesus. Aramaic, admittedly, was the language of Jesus and of the earliest strata of the Gospel tradition. Therefore, the discovery of Aramaisms or at least of a Semitic coloring in the Greek or Coptic wording could be helpful in reconstructing a pre-Greek or presynoptic stage of tradition. Some scholars have claimed to have traced genuine Aramaisms in the logia of the Gospel of Thomas that would carry us back to the earliest stages of oral or written tradition in the Aramaic speaking communities. It has been argued that in several cases Semitic coloring in the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas is stronger than in their synoptic parallels. If this observation is true, it would help in establishing the independence of the Gospel of Thomas. In itself this methodological approach is legitimate and should be applied to each of the logia preserved in this document. It is important, however, to avoid generalizations. If real Aramaisms are found in a logion, this may point to the archaic character of that specific logion, but this is not proof that the whole document is therefore rooted in early Aramaic tradition.
4 See, e.g., Jeremias, Joachim, Neutestamentliche Theologie, vol. 1: Die Verku'ndigung Jesu(GUtersloh: Mohn, 1971) 13–19Google Scholar.
5 See, e.g., Quispel, Gilles, “Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas,” NTS 5 (1958/1959) 276–90;CrossRefGoogle Scholaridem, “L'évangile selon Thomas et le Diatessaron,” VC 13 (1959) 87-117; Frend, W. H. C., “The Gospel of Thomas: Is Rehabilitation Possible?” JTS 18 (1967) 13–26, esp. 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. One may refer here to the article of Antoine Guillaumont, “Les sémitismes dans l'Évangile selon Thomas, essai de classement,” in Broek, R. van den and Vermaseren, M. J., eds., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions: Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (EPRO 91; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 190–204Google Scholar; however, this author carefully distinguishes between Semitisms, Aramaisms in general, and Syriasms in particular (for the latter, see esp. pp. 197-98 for Matt 13:47-50), and guesses that some of the Semitisms are due to a Syriac substratum of the Gospel of Thomas.
6 See Hunzinger, Claus-Hunno, “Unbekannte Gleichnisse Jesu aus dem Thomas-Evangelium,” in Eltester, Walter, ed., Judentum, Vrchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias (BZNW 26; Berlin: TOpelmann, 1960) 220 n. 48Google Scholar; Jeremias, Joachim, Unbekannte Jesusworte (3d ed.; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963) 19Google Scholar; idem, Die Gleichnisse Jesu (6th ed., GÖttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 200.
7 Cullmann, Oscar, “Das Thomasevangelium und die Frage nach dem Alter der in ihm enthaltenen Tradition,” ThLZ 85 (1960) 333Google Scholar.
8 Jülicher, Adolf (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu [2 vols.; Tabingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1910] 2. 563–69Google Scholar [§ 47. Vom Fischnetz], esp. 565-66) assumes that vss. 47-48 present us with the original parable (“rather accurately with respect to the original wording”), whereas vss. 49-50 are an addition of Matthew; so also Jeremias, Joachim, Die Gleichnisse Jesu (4th ed., GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956) 72Google Scholar; Quispel, Gilles, “The Gospel of Thomas Revisited,” in Bare, Bernard, ed., Colloque international sur les textes de Nag Hammadi (1978: Québec) (Series Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi. Section “Études” 1; Quebec: Les presses de l'Université Laval, 1981) 230Google Scholar. Thomas Walter Manson “The Sayings ofJesus [reprinted Guildford/London: 1964] 197-98) basing himself on earlier discussions (esp. Otto, Rudolf, Reich Gottes und Menschensohn [Munich: n.p., 1923] 99–102)Google Scholar assumes vs. 47 as the original parable, vss. 48-50 as a clumsy addition. However, see Fiebig, Paul, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu im Licht der rabbinischen Gleichnisse des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters: ein Beitrag zum Streit urn die “Christusmythe” und eine Widerlegung der Gleichnistheorie Jülichers (Tubingen: Mohr, 1912) 214Google Scholar; and Bultmann, Rudolf. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (7th ed.; GOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) 187Google Scholar.
9 See, e.g., Quispel, , “Some Remarks,” 289Google Scholar; idem, “The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament,” VC 11 (1957) 206-7. (reprinted in Gilles Quispel, Gnostic Studies [2 vols.; Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Institut, 1975] 2. 3-16, esp. 16).
10 So Quispel, Gilles, Makarius, das Thomasevangelium und das Lied von der Perle (Leiden: Brill, 1967) 112CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This seems to me to be a sound solution, certainly better than the suggestion of Davies, Stevan L. (The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom [New York: Seabury, 1983] 2, 9, 154)Google Scholar who wishes to find here a scribal error (“that the scribe retired for the night upon completion of [logion] 8”).
11 For a discussion of possible redactional elements, see also Schrage, Wolfgang, Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelien-übersetzungen (BZNW 29.1; Berlin: Topelmann, 1964) 37–41Google Scholar.
12 Hunzinger, , Unbekannte Gleichnisse, 209–20Google Scholar; see idem, “Aussersynoptisches Traditionsgut im Thomas-Evangelium,” ThLZ 85 (1960) 843-46; Hunzinger's thesis with respect to this logion has been adopted by several scholars; see, e.g., Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (ThHKNT 1; Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstalt, 1968) 355Google Scholar.
13 Hunzinger, , Unbekannte Gleichnisse, 217Google Scholar(“Amazingly enough this reference is not found as yet in the literature on the subject”) see also 219-20; Quispel, , “The Gospel of Thomas Revisited,” 229–30Google Scholar; the agreement between logion 8 and the parable of the pearl merchant was observed in the same year by Bartsch, Hans Werner, “Das Thomas-Evangelium und die synoptischen Evangelien,” NTS 6 (1959/1960) 259Google Scholar; see also Wilson, R. McL., Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (London: Mowbray, 1960) 40, 94Google Scholar.
14 Hunzinger, , Unbekannte Gleichnisse, 219–20Google Scholar; there is a hint of circular reasoning in his argument that Matt 13:45-46 is secondary to Gos. Thorm. 76, in order to make Gos. Thorm. 8 agree more closely with the parable of the pearl merchant (p. 220). Gos. Thorm. 8 then becomes, by its analogical structure to Gos. Thorm. 76, more original than Matt 13:47-50.
15 Hunzinger, , Unbekannte Gleichnisse, 218Google Scholar, “erblickt,” an interpretation that he needs for his thesis; he defends this translation of ????ivHje???? (“he sees” lit. “he found”) with a reference to the same verb in Gos. Thorm. 76, but that does not alter the meaning of the verb; see Schrage, Das Verhätnis, 40.
16 Hunzinger, (Unbekannte Gleichnisse, 218)Google Scholar writes, “One might indeed think of an unusually large fish if one finds in it the analogy to the parable of the pearl,” but why? If Hunzinger is right in assuming that Gos. Thorm. 76 is the more original form of the parable of the pearl merchant, it does not say that the pearl was a big one, but just a pearl (because of the contrast Φορλίον-μαρλαρίης), where Matt 13:46 speaks of ἔνα ΠολνΠμν ΠολνΠμον μαρλαρίης. Is the Matthaean form in that particular point more original?
17 Hunzinger, , Unbekannte Gleichnisse, 218–19Google Scholar, “Giving up his first catch does not bother him, but in view of the joy about the big fish is easy to understand”; see also Bartsch, , “Das Thomas-Evangelium,” 259Google Scholar.
18 Hunzinger, , Unbekannte Gleichnisse, 218Google Scholar; followed by Quispel, Gilles, “Der Heliand und das Thomasevangelium,” VC 16 (1962) 121-51, esp. 149Google Scholar.
19 Babrius and Phaedrus (ed. and trans. Perry, Ben Edwin; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1975) 8 (Fable 4)Google Scholar.
20 See, e.g., Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 563Google Scholar.
21 Quispel, Gilles, Het Evangelie van Thomas en de Nederlanden (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1971) 117–18Google Scholar(“Devisser”), esp. 122 (not present in the revised edition, Baarn: Tirion, 1991, 150-52); see Helmut Koester, “Ein Jesus und vier urspriingliche Evangeliengattungen,” in idem and James M. Robinson, Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frtihen Christentums (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck 1971)164-65; ET: Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 176–77Google Scholar.
22 Babrius, 14 (Fable 9).
23 See W. E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, s.v. σΒω and σΒωψηε; see, e.g., Matt 4:18-22 (Sahidic, Bohairic).
24 Leipoldt, Johannes, “Ein neues Evangelium? Das koptische Thomasevangelium abersetzt und besprochen,” ThLZ 83 (1958) 483 n. 11Google Scholar, “The manuscript adds (without any specific connection) ‘in them.’ If there stood ‘in it’ (the net) one might accept it.” In fact, Leipoldt in his rendering omits the words ????FTgpikV … ???????. In his later translations (“Thomas-Evangelium,” in Leipoldt, Johannes and Schenke, Hans-Martin, Koptisch-gnostische Schriften aus den Papyrus-Codices von Nag Hamadi (Hamburg/Bergstedt: Reich, 1960) 11Google Scholar; Das Evangelium nach Thomas, koptisch und deutsch [Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1967] 29)Google Scholar Leipoldt renders with “among them.”
25 Hunzinger, , Unbekannte Gleichnisse, 219 n. 43Google Scholar, with reference to synoptic parallels and t o Gos. Thorm. 76 (???????).
26 Babrius 10, 12 (Fable 6).
27 Small fish could be useful for the frying pan; see ibid.
28 See Oppian, Halieutica 3.281-337 (the catch of Anthias) in Oppian, Colluthus, Tryphiodorus (ed. Mair, A. W.; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963) 370–75;Google ScholarLucian, , Revivescentes sive piscator 47 in Lucian (8 vols.; ed. Harmon, A. M.; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969) 3. 70–72Google Scholar. A great number of fish requires a trawl net or seine, see Lucian Revivescentes sive piscator 51 (Harmon, 3. 76), “But look here, I see a lot of fish … shall we need a σαΥήνη for them?”
29 Quispel, , “Der Heliand,” 149Google Scholar.
30 Quispel, , Thomas en de Nederlanden, 121 (rev. ed., 154)Google Scholar, with differences in idem, Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas: Studies in the Western Diatessaron (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 98Google Scholar; these differences are in brackets.
31 Baarda, “Philoxenus and the Parable of the Fisherman.”
32 Baarda, “The Parable of the Fisherman in the Heliand.”
33 Quispel, , Thomas en de Nederlanden, 118 (rev. ed., 151)Google Scholar, “Matthew describes a catch from a boat by several people who use a trawl net. ‘Thomas,’ however, speaks of one single fisherman who standing in the shallow water near the shore throws out his casting net.” When Quispel (Tatian, 96) writes that neither Matthew nor the vulgatized Fuldensis mention the fish (“we speak most confidently about the parable of the fishnet, but strictly speaking the fish are not there”), he should consider the fact that even his “boat” is not there.
34 See Quispel, , Tatian, 98–99Google Scholar.
35 P. G. W. Glare, ed., (Oxford Latin Dictionary, s.v. sagena) mentions only one instance for the word, in the early first-century author Manilius (5.678).
36 See Jülicher, Adolf, Matzkow, Walter, Aland, Kurt, eds., Itala: Das Neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung, vol. 1: Matthäus-Evangelium (2d ed.; Berlin/New York: Gruyter, 1972) 93.Google Scholar
37 Quispel, Tatian, 102 renders “his nets”; idem, Thomas en de Nederlanden, 121 (rev. ed., 154), “een net”; likewise he renders the Dutch segene with net for his modern readers to tell his readers what is meant with the word “zegen,” which is still an existing word, but is no longer used frequently (Thomas en de Nederlanden, rev. ed., 153).
38 Behaghel, Otto, ed., Heliand und Genesis (7th ed.; rev. Walther Mitzka; Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1958) 92 (2629-30)Google Scholar.
39 See Baarda, “The Parable of the Fisherman in the Heliand,” sec. 8 for a broader discussion.
40 In fact, Quispel (“Der Heliand,” 151) reconstructs the Diatessaron text used in the Heliand this way: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man casting a net in the sea” (simile est regnum caelorum homini mittenti sagenam in mare), which implies that there was a difference between this Diatessaron exemplar and the hypothetical reconstructions of the Latin Diatessaron given in other contributions, e.g. homini instead of piscatori, sagenam instead of rete.
41 Codex Fuldensis: Novum Testamentum latine interprete Hieronymo (ed. Ranke, Ernest; Marburg: Elwert, 1868) 71:37Google Scholar; Sievers, Eduard, Tatian (2d ed.; Paderborn: SchOningh. 1960) 101:16Google Scholar; Grein, C. W. M., Die Quellen des Heliand (Cassel: n.p., 1869) 173:18Google Scholar; Zacharias Chrysopolitanus, In unum ex quattuor (PL 186) 236:1.
42 Sievers, , Tatian, 101:16Google Scholar.
43 Bruin, Cebus Cornelius de, Diatessaron Leodiense (Leiden: Brill, 1970) 92:36 (L)Google Scholar; Bergsma, J., De Levens van Jezus (Leiden: Sijthof, 1895–1898) 94 (S), 95 (L)Google Scholar; Bruin, Cebus Cornelius de, Diatessaron Haarense (Leiden: Brill, 1970) 39:5 (Hr)Google Scholar; Plooij, Daniel et al., ed., The Liège Diatessaron (8 vols.; Amsterdam: Noordhollandsche Uitgeversmij, 1939–1970) 180 (see apparatus)Google Scholar.
44 Bergsma, , De Levens van Jezus, 94 apparatusGoogle Scholar.
45 Gerhardt, Christoph, Diatessaron Theodiscum (Leiden: Brill, 1970) 57 apparatusGoogle Scholar. The rendering with rusche (MS ZV), rūsse …, rewse (MS NW) suggests that the translator thought of a rod, perhaps of a dipnet.
46 See Skeat, W. W., The Gospel according to Saint Matthew in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian and Old Mercian Versions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1867) 117Google Scholar.
47 Quispel, , Tatian, 103Google Scholar; idem, Thomas en de Nederlanden, 121 (rev. ed., 154) speaks of “enormous” differences of the Latin Diatessaron from the canonical text.
48 Quispel, , Tatian, 105Google Scholar.
49 Quispel, , “Der Heliand,” 149Google Scholar.
50 Quispel, , Thomas en de Nederlanden, 121 (rev. ed., 154)Google Scholar; idem, Tatian, 98; idem, Der Heliand, 149.
51 Quispel, , “L'évangile selon Thomas et le Diatessaron,” VC 13 (1959) 87–117, esp. 89Google Scholar(reprinted in Quispel, Gnostic Studies 2. 31-55, esp. 33); Quispel, (“Der Heliand,” 149)Google Scholar mentions the same witnesses: “all witnesses presuppose the variant reading σύνέλεξαν” (here Quispel assumes the plural form!).
52 Quispel, , Tatian, 105Google Scholar.
53 Quispel, , Thomas en de Nederlanden, 118 (rev. ed., 151): “This looks like two different translations of the Aramaic verb ‘gaba’ which can have both meanings.” Quispel had not yet listed this Aramaism in “L'évangile selon Thomas et le Diatessaron,” 53-54Google Scholar.
54 I have checked the lexica of Gesenius, Wilhelm, Thesaurus Linguae Hebraicae et Chaldaicae Veteris Testamenti (3 vols.; Leipzig: Vogel, 1829-1842) 1. 255Google Scholar; idem and Frants Buhl, Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament (Leipzig: Vogel, 1915) 125; Baumgartner, Walter, Hartmann, Benedikt, and Kutscher, E. Y., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Allen Testament (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1967-1983) 1. 163Google Scholar; Yehuda, Elieser Ben, A Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew (8 vols.; New York/London: Yosellef, 1959) 1. 673, 678Google Scholar; Jastrow, Marcus, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature (2 vols., New York: Pardes, 1951) 1. [205Google Scholar-6; Levy, Jacob, Chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Targumim (2 vols.; Leipzig: Baumgdrtner, 1881) 1. 121–22Google Scholaridem, Neuhebräisches und chaldäisches Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim (4 Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1876-1889) 1. 292-93; Rosenthal, Franz, An Aramaic Handbook (Porta linguarum orientalium n.s. 1; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1967) 3, 44Google Scholar; Sokoloff, Michael, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990) 119Google Scholar; Charles-F, Jean and Hoftijzer, Jacob, Dictionnaire des inscriptions se'mitiques de l'ouest (Leiden: Brill, 1965) 46Google Scholar; Lidzbarski, Mark, Handbuch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik nebst ausgewdhlten Inschriften (2 vols.; Weimar: Felber, 1898) 1. 247Google Scholar; see Segal, J. B., Aramaic texts from North Saqqâra (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1983) 38 (22:4), 53 (35:4), 55 (38:6), 60 (43a:6)Google Scholar.
55 See, e.g., Lane, Edward William, An Arabic-English Lexicon (8 vols.; London/Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 1863–1893) 1.2. 378Google Scholar(there are a few texts that have the idea of choosing in the sense of collecting for oneself).
56 See Dillmann, August, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae (New York: Ungar, 1955) 1168–69;Google ScholarLeslau, Wolf, Comparative Dictionary of Ge'ez (Classical Ethiopic) (Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1987) 176–77Google Scholar.
57 See Herford, R. Travers, Pirke Aboth, The Ethics of the Talmud: The Sayings of the Fathers (5th ed.; New York: Schocken, 1969) 89–90Google Scholar.
58 Schulthess, Fridericus, Lexicon Syropalaestinum (Berlin: Reimer, 1903) 24Google Scholar.
59 Ibid., 33.
60 Lewis, Agnes Smith and Gibson, Margaret Dunlop, The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels: Re-edited from the two Sinai Mss. and from P. de Lagarde's Edition of the “Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum” (London: Paul, Trench, Trtlbner, 1899) 117Google Scholar col.l (“a rather early hand added it between two columns”—manus satis vetusta in intercolumnio addidit).
61 Ibid., 91 MS B (A and C have small divergences).
62 “It. ex usu Syriaco eligere”: Smith, R. Payne, Thesaurus Syriacus (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1879-1901) 1. 636Google Scholar.
63 See Klein, Otto, Syrisch-Griechisches Worterbuch zu den vier kanonischen Evangelien (Giessen: TOpelmann, 1916) 36Google Scholar.
64 Smith, Payne, Thesaurus Syriacus, 1. 637Google Scholar.
65 Jülicher, (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 2. 565)Google Scholar writes, “The activity of the fishermen who take out of a trawl net all edible fish finds a correct expression in the verb σνλέγειν; the expression ‘(s)elect’ of Latin and Syriac texts hardly fits in with είς άγη.”
66 Plooij, Daniel, “Matthew xiii.48b in the Textual Tradition,” Meededeelingen der koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen 71:A.I (Amsterdam: Noordhollandsche Uitgerversmaatschappij, 1931) 5Google Scholar.
67 See Baarda, “Philoxenus and the Parable of the Fisherman,” sec. 7h, lOp, 10s under 4.
68 Winterhalter, Robert, The Fifth Gospel: A Verse-by-verse Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988) 22Google Scholar; elsewhere (p. 6) he speaks of the secondary settings of the parables in the synoptic Gospels without expressing the noticeable fact that in a sense the parables in Thomas also have a setting which is not necessarily “original.”
69 Gillabert, Émile, Bourgeois, Pierre, and Haas, Yves, eds. and trans., Évangile selon Thomas (Paris: Dervy-Livres, 1985) 165Google Scholar.
70 Davies, E.g., The Gospel of Thomas, 9, 29–30Google Scholar, in opposition to the earlier position of Helmut Koester (“GNOMAI DIAPHOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity,” in Robinson, and Koester, , Trajectories, 139–40)Google Scholar. See, however, Helmut Koester, “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels,” in Robinson, and Koester, , Trajectories, 176–77Google Scholar; and especially Koester, Helmut, Ancient Christian Gospels (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990) 104:Google Scholar “Matthew, changing the parable of the Fisherman into a parable of the Fishnet, has produced an allegory for the last judgment—a secondary development.”
71 Koester, (Ancient Christian Gospels, 104)Google Scholar following Cameron, Ron (Parable and Interpretation [Foundations & Facets 2.2; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1986] 29)Google Scholar writes, “Thomas has preserved the intent of the wisdom parable better than Matthew,” which included the finding of the one fine thing. But if one reads the parable in Matthew without the explanation it might—if one wishes—also be treated as wisdom, even if it does speak of more than one good thing, τα καλα. See the plural in the apocryphal saying: αίτείτε τα μεγαλα, καί τα μικρα ύμιν Προσθελησελαι (“Ask for the great things and the small ones will be given to you in addition”), Resch, Alfred, ed., Agrapha: Aussercanonische Schriftfragmente (2d ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906) 111–12Google Scholar. The approach of Koester is interesting, since in his earlier study (“GNOMAI DIAPHOROI,” 139) he had claimed the logion of Thomas to have been a gnostic redressing of the saying in Matthew.
72 In that connection, I am somewhat puzzled by the words of Quispel, (“The Syrian Thomas and the Syrian Macarius,” VC 18 [1964] 226Google Scholar; [reprinted in Quispel, Gnostic Studies 2. 113]), that the version of Thomas is independent in logion 8, but “not necessarily better.” This seems to go against his observations elsewhere, but see also Quispel, “The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament,” 206: “This does not necessarily imply that the new Sayings always represent a better tradition.”
73 This is in line with what Quispel wrote in one of his earliest contributions, “The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament,” 207: “We must have very strong arguments before we decide that in some cases the text of the new documents is to be preferred” (reprinted in Quispel, Gnostic Studies, 2. 16).
75 See my article on Gos. Thorm. 42: “Jesus zeide: ‘Weest Passanten,’” in Ad Interim: Opstellen over Eschatologie, Apocalyptiek en Ethiek, aangeben aan Prof. R. Schippers (Kampen: Kok, 1975) 113–40Google Scholar(ET in Baarda, Tjitze, Early Transmission of Words of Jesus: Thomas, Tatian, and the Text of the New Testament [ed. Heldermann, J. and Noorda, S. J.; Amsterdam: VU Boekhandel/Uitgeverij, 1983] 179–206)Google Scholar; on Gos. Thorm. 27, see Baarda, Tjitze, “2 Clement 12 and the Sayings of Jesus,” in Delobel, Joél, ed., Logia—les paroles de Jésus—The Sayings of Jesus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens (Leuven: University Press, 1982) 529–56Google Scholar(reprinted in Baarda, Early Transmission, 261–88); on Gos. Thorm. 27, see Baarda, Tjitze, “‘If you do not sabbatize the Sabbath …,’ The Sabbath as God or World in Gnostic Understanding (Ev. Thorn., Log. 27),” in Broek, R. van den, Baarda, T., and Mansfeld, J., eds., Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World (Leiden: Brill, 1988) 178–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
76 E.g. Tjitze Baarda, “Luke 12,13-14, Text and Transmission, from Marcion to Augustine,” in Neusner, Jacob, ed., Christianity, Judaism, and other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 1. 107–62, esp. 121-55Google Scholar(reprinted in Baarda, Early Transmission, 117-72, esp. 131-65), where I demonstrated that Quispel wrongly conjectured a western Aramaic verb ?????, “to see,” which is in fact eastern Aramaic, esp. Syriac, and that he defended his conjecture with a reference to the (French rendering of the) Arabic Diatessaron, which, however, merely reproduced a Syriac wording that was in agreement with the Greek text of Luke.
77 See my discussion of the thesis of Alfred Resch in Baarda, “Clement of Alexandria, the Fisherman and the Fish,” sec. 16.
78 ΣαΠρός does not occur in the LXX, but it has been registrated for the so-called Samaritikon i n Lev 27:14 and 33 where ??? and ??? are distinguished with respect to the bringing of holy things before the Lord. For Origen's explanation of Matt 13:47–48 on the basis of the levitical distinction of clean and unclean fish, see Origen In Leviticum Homilia 7.7 quoted in Dölger, Franz Josef, Ιχθγξ: Das Fisch-Symbol in friihchristlicher Zeit (5 vols. in 6; Manster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1922-1943) 2.Textband. 27 n. 3Google Scholar.
79 So Hunzinger, , Unbekannte Gleichnisse, 218Google Scholar(“The present fomula is most likely a gnostic modification”); see already Quispel, , “Some Remarks,” 289:Google Scholar “It should be admitted that this parable contains secondary elements, which are due to a transposition into a different context.”
80 See also Quispel, , “Some Remarks,” 290Google Scholar; Bartsch, , “Das Thomas-Evangelium,” 259Google Scholar; Hunzinger, , Unbekannte Gleichnisse, 259; and othersGoogle Scholar.
81 See Quispel, , “Some Remarks,” 290:Google Scholar “The idea that only one out of an enormous multitude is selected, and this because it is the largest, certainly is not primitive and has a Gnostic or pre-Gnostic flavour.”
82 I would like to emphasize the fact that scholars who prefer the text of Thomas, since it would represent archaic tradition, do not know the underlying tradition itself, but merely reconstruct it on the basis of the text of Thomas. This of necessity sometimes causes a circular reasoning in their hypothesis.
83 Zahn, Theodor, Der Evangeliencommentar des Theophilus von Antiochien (Erlangen: Deichert, 1883) esp. 45:1–4 (Lib.I, c.llb)Google Scholar.
84 Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, 64.9Google Scholar.
85 See my discussion of Aphrahat in “Philoxenus and the Parable of the Fisherman,” sec. 9e-h.
86 Leloir, Louis, ed. and trans. Commentaire de l'Évangile Concordant, Texte Syriaque (Manuscript Chester Beatty 709) Saint Éphrem (Chester Beatty Monograph 8; Dublin: Hodges Figgis, 1963) 68.21–23Google Scholar.
87 See Baarda, “Philoxenus and the Parable of the Fisherman,” sec. 8–9Google Scholar for Quispel's argumentation.
88 Ibid., sec. 9e-h.
89 See Baarda, , “The Parable of the Fisherman in the Heliand,” esp. sec. 12–14Google Scholar.
90 See Baarda, “Philoxenus and the Parable of the Fisherman,” esp. sec. 9c.
91 Strom. 6.11, 95.3. For the text and the discussions of its form, see Baarda, , “Clement of Alexandria, the Fisherman and the Fish,” sec. 11ffGoogle Scholar.
92 Schlatter, Adolf von, Der Evangelist Matthäus: Seine Sprache, sein Ziel, seine Selbständig keit: Ein Kommentar zum ersten Evangelium (3d ed.; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1948) 447, my emphasisGoogle Scholar.
93 Jülicher, , Gleichnisreden 2. 567–58, my emphasisGoogle Scholar.
94 Dölger, Ιχθγξ, 1. 1, my emphasis.
95 I will not pursue here the suggestion of Quispel (“The Gospel of Thomas Revisited,” 229) that “before it became a parable in the mouth of Jesus, its theme was already known to the first century poet Babrius.” Apart from the fact that Babrius is usually connected with the second century CE, one should observe that the theme in Babrius is quite different; only the imagery is similar. Of course, one cannot absolutely exclude the possibility that the fable in a pre-Babrian form influenced the wording of Thomas and Matthew (see Koester, “One Jesus,” 176–77 n. 61), but there is no urgent reason to suppose that this was actually the case. The imagery of the fisherman, the net, and the fish is found in several fables of Babrius and elsewhere, but it may have been so common in the Middle Eastern world that its use in wisdom, preaching, and prophecy suggested itself to everyone who wished to convey a message in metaphorical language. Moreover, there is a remarkable difference between the fable of Babrius on the one hand and Thomas and Matthew on the other hand that should not be overlooked. Quite remarkable is the conclusion of Quispel (“The Gospel of Thomas Revisited,” 229): “If Clement and Thomas are Gnostic, then so are Tatian and Babrius” (by which he implies that Thomas is not gnostic). I do not find the reasoning here sound. One should interpret each text on the basis of its own way of expressing the message that it wishes to convey to its readers. Similarity of expression and the use of a similar imagery do not by themselves say anything about the intention of the person that presents us with the parable, saying, or fable; much depends on the setting in which the stories are told. Whether Clement is gnostic or not cannot be deduced from his references to the fisherman, for he uses it to show that even in Greek philosophy there are sometimes ideas of great value for Christians; whether Tatian is gnostic or not cannot be deduced from his form of Matt 13:47-50 because he brings out the eschatological setting of the parable according to the testimony of the sources that we have. Whether Babrius is gnostic or not cannot be answered on the basis of the fable, for he uses it for practical wisdom. Finally, whether Thomas is gnostic or not should be judged on the basis of both setting and contents of the saying.