^{page 220 note 1} For English translations, The Gospel According to Thomas, ed. and translated by Guillaumont, A., Puech, H. Ch., Quispel, G., Till, W. and †, Yassah ' abd Al Masīḥ (London, 1959);Google ScholarGrant, R. M. and Freedman, D. N., The Secret Sayings of Jesus (London, 1960) [cited hereafter as Grant/Freedman]; for a French translation, Doresse, J. R., Les Paroles de Jésus (Paris, 1959) [cited hereafter as Doresse] for a German translation,Google ScholarLeipoldt, J., T.L.Z. 1958, pp. 481 ff.; for a Latin translation,Google ScholarGaritte, G., Muséon, LXX (1957), 59 ff. In this article I have made use of both English translations and occasionally I have made my own alterations with the kind assistance of Professor J. M. Plumley. As the system of numeration differs from translation to translation, I have cited the text by reference to the plates and lines of the photographic edition of the text inGoogle ScholarCoptic Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old Cairo, ed. Labib, P., vol. 1 (Cairo, 1956).Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 2} Sayings from M, L and Q can be paralleled in Thomas, as well as some sayings common to all three synoptics. It is therefore necessary to assume either that Thomas used Matthew and Luke (and possibly Mark) or that he had access to sources which contained some sayings similar to those found in M, L, Q and Mark. The fact that Thomas occasionally has some details in agreement with Mark against Matthew and Luke as well as points in common with Matthew and Luke against Mark does not prove that Thomas must be dependent on the synoptic gospels.

^{page 220 note 3} Kasser, R. (‘Les Manuscrits de Nag-Hammudi: faits, documents, problèmes’, Revue de Théol. et de Phil. (1959), p. 364), declares that on closer inspection Thomas' dependence on the synoptic gospels ‘appears more and more evident’; whileGoogle ScholarMcArthur, H. K. (Expos. Times, LXXI (1960), 286) asserts that Thomas is ‘demonstrably dependent on the Synoptics’.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 1} Leipoldt, J. (op. cit. pp. 494 ff.) holds that Thomas uses a current of synoptic tradition independent of the canonical gospels.Google ScholarQuispel, G. concludes that Thomas contains ‘an independent and very old Gospel tradition’ (‘Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas’, New Test. Stud. v (1959), 277). Many scholars are more cautious; for example,Google Scholarvan Unnik, W. C. opines that this ‘is not an a priori impossibility’ (Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings (London, 1960), p. 56).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 2} Thomas' material may be divided into four categories: (i) sayings identical or nearly identical with logia found in the canonical gospels; (ii) sayings which have some kinship with logia found in the canonical gcspels; (iii) sayings with a Jewish Christian background; (iv) sayings with a gnostic background; it is not impossible that sayings in category (i) have been derived from the synoptic gospels, while those in category (ii) have been taken from an independent source or sources.

^{page 221 note 3} Cf. doublets in Matthew and Luke which show the overlapping of Mark and Q, for example ‘taking up the cross’, for which Matt, xvi. 24Google Scholar and Luke, ix. 23Google Scholar reproduce Mark, viii. 34Google Scholar while Matt, x. 38Google Scholar and Luke, xiv. 27 represent the Qtradition.Google Scholar (Cf., B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (London, 1936), p. 191.)Google ScholarThomas, records a further version of this saying (xc. 25–9).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 4} (i) The World a Corpse (xc. 30–2; xcv. 12–14); (ii) Body, and Soul, (xcvi. 4–7; xcix. 10–12).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 5} (i) The Kingdom of God is within (Thomas, lxxx. 19–26; xcix. 14–18;Google Scholarcf., Luke xvii. 20);Google Scholar (ii) I Came to Cast Fire (Thomas, lxxxii. 14–16; lxxxiii. 32–6;Google Scholarcf., Luke xii. 49, 51;Google ScholarMatt., x. 34);Google Scholar (iii) Hating one's Family (Thomas, xc. 25–9; xcvii. 32–6;Google Scholarcf., Matt. x. 37;Google ScholarLuke, xiv.26); (iv) The Parable of the RobberGoogle Scholar (Thomas, lxxxv. 7–10; xcviii. 6–10;Google Scholarcf., Matt. xxiv. 43 f.;Google ScholarLuke, xii. 39 f.); (v) Power to Move MountainsGoogle Scholar (Thomas, lxxxix. 24–6; xcviii. 18–22;Google Scholarcf., Matt. xviii. 19; xvii. 20;Google ScholarMark, xi. 23).Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 1} Cerfaux, L., ‘Les Parables du Royaume’, Muséon, LXX (1957), 322.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 2} Irenaeus, , ado. Haer. 1.20.2, attributes to Marcosian gnostics a saying similar toGoogle ScholarThomas, lxxxviii. 2–5. The idea that a woman should become a manGoogle Scholar (Thomas, xcix. 22) is attributed to the Valentinian gnostic TheodotusGoogle Scholar (Clem., Alex.Excerpta ex Theodoto, 21.3).Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 3} Many similarities can be noted between Thomas and the Naassene gnostics: (i) Androgyneity to which Thomas, refers so often (lxxxi. 10; lxxxv. 25, 29; lxxxvi. 3; lxxxix. 28; xciv. 12; xcviii. 19)Google Scholar is found in Naassene thought (Hipp., Ref. 5.1.4); (ii) Stripping Naked which is mentioned in the Parable of the Children in the FieldGoogle Scholar (Thomas, lxxxv. 4;Google Scholarcf., lxxxvii. 31 f.) finds an echo inGoogle ScholarHipp, . Ref. 5.8.44; (iii) The Three Secret Words,Google Scholar mentioned by Hipp, . Ref. 5.8.5 seem to be intendedGoogle Scholar in Thomas, lxxxiii. 8; (iv) a saying about The Living and The Dead which is foundGoogle Scholar in Thomas, lxxxii. 19–22 has a parallelGoogle Scholar in Hipp., Ref. 5.8.32; (v) accordingGoogle Scholar to Hipp, . Ref. 5.7.1; 10.9.3, the Naassene traditions were handed down from James the Just through Mariamne. Mariamne is also connected with the Naassenes in Acts ofGoogle ScholarPhilip, 94 ff. She is mentionedGoogle Scholar in Thomas, lxxxiv. 34; xcix. 19 (Mariham), and James the Just is the subject of a sayingGoogle Scholar in Thomas, lxxxii. 29; (vi) a saying about A Child of Seven years is actually attributed to the Gospel of Thomas in connexion with the NaassenesGoogle Scholar in Hipp, . Ref. 5.7.20.Google Scholar It appears however in a very different form in Thomas, lxxxi. 5–8, and on the strength of this difference Puech almost went so far as to deny any direct connexion between our Gospel of Thomas and the gospel used by the NaassenesGoogle Scholar (Puech, H. Ch., L'évangile, scion Thomas, Comptes Rendus de l'académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1957), p. 151).Google ScholarGrant, R. M. (‘Notes on the Gospel of Thomas’, Vig. Chr. xiii (1959), 178) adduces further connexions with the Naassene gnostics.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 4} Irenaeus, , adv. Haer. 1.24.6,Google Scholar discussing the tenets of the Basilidean gnostics, uses similar words to those found in Thomas, lxxxvi. 2.Google ScholarGrant, R. M. (op. cit. pp. 172 f.) suggests other parallels between Thomas and the Basilideans.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 5} Hom. in Luc. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 6} Hut. Eccl. 3.25.6.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 7} Catech, . 4.36; 6.31.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 8} C. ado, leg. etprophet. 2. 14; cf., Thomas xc. 16–18.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 9} Cf., H. Ch. Puech, op. cit. pp. 148 f.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 10} Grenfell, and Hunt, regarded Oxy., P. 1 as ‘probably written not much later than the year 200’ (Sayings of Our Lord frorn an Early Greek Papyrus (London, 1897), p. 6);Google ScholarOxy., P.654 in ‘the middle or end of the third century’ (New Sayings of Jesus and Fragment of a Lost Gospel (London, 1904), p. 9);Google ScholarOxy., P.655 ‘not likely to have been written later than 250 A.D.’ (op. cit. p. 37). These Oxyrhynchus papyri were first connected with the Coptic gospel ofGoogle ScholarThomas, by Puech, in 1954, and Fitzmyer has described them as ‘all parts of the same work: they represent three different copies of the Greek text at different times and give evidence of a fairly frequent copying of it in the third century A.D.’Google Scholar (Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Oxyrhynchus Logoi of Jesus and the Coptic Gospel According to Thomas’,Theol. Stud. xx (1959), 510).Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 1} Cf., Grant/Freedman, p. 68.Google ScholarPuech, H. Ch. suggests that Thomas was current in at least two recensions, one of which was used in orthodox and the other in gnostic circles (Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, ed. Schneemelcher, W. W. (TÜbingen, 1959), I, 221 f.).Google ScholarGärtner, B., however, believes that ‘the majority of differences are due to the carelessness of the translator’ (The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas (London, 1961), p. 87).Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 2} Cf., Doresse, p. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 3} Acta Thomae, 1.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 4} Cf., Doresse, p. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 5} Nitriensis. Cf., W. C. van Unnik, op. cit. p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 6} lxxxiii. 7 ff.

^{page 223 note 7} Acta Thomae, 11.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 8} Acta Thomae, 39.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 9} It was known to Irenaeus, (adv. Haer. 1.26.2; 3.11.7) as well as to Clem. Alex.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 10} Cf., M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924), pp. 1 ff.;Google ScholarHennecke, E., Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, ed. Schnecmelcher, W. W. (TÜbingen, 1959), I, 97.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 11} Strom. 5.14.96.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 12} Strom. 2.9.45.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 13} Oxy., P.6, second saying.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 14} Thomas, lxxx. 15–19.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 15} A further indebtedness to the Gospel of the Hebrews may be found in Thomas, xcviii. 12 f., ‘What sin have I committed?’Google Scholar (cf., Jerome, Dial. adv. Pelag. 3.2).Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} Concerning a conversation between Jesus, and Salome, (Strom. 3.63.3;Google Scholarcf., Thomas. xci. 30 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 2} Strom. 3.13.93.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 3} Thomas, lxxxv. 23–35; lxxxvii. 29-lxxxiii. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 4} The problem is rendered complex by cognate agrapha in II Clem., xii. 2Google Scholar and Mart. Petri 9Google Scholar (Lipsius-Bonnet, , vol. I, p. 94).Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 5} The saying in Thomas, xciv. 9–11, ‘O Lord there are many about the well but there are none in the well’ was known to CelsusGoogle Scholar (Origen, , c. Cels. 8.15 f.).Google Scholar The logion in Thomas, xcv. 17–19, ‘He who is near me is near the fire and he who is far from me is far from the Kingdom’ was known to Origen, who even thought that it might be authenticGoogle Scholar (Horn. in Jerem. 20.3).Google Scholar (Cf., J. Jeremias, The Unknown Sayings of Jesus (London, 1957), pp. 54 ff.)Google Scholar A logion similar to Thomas, lxxxix. 24–6 is foundGoogle Scholar in Didascalia Apostolorum (Connolly, p. 134).Google Scholar The words in Thomas, lxxxiv. 17 f., ‘Blessed is he who was before he came into being’, are foundGoogle Scholar in Irenaeus, , Epedeixis, 43.Google Scholar Reminiscences of Thomas, lxxxvi. 17–20Google Scholar may be found in Justin, , Dial. c. Tryph. 12.3Google Scholar and Irenaeus, , Epideixis, 96Google Scholar (‘truly keeping the Sabbath’) and in Clem, . Alex, . Strom. 3.99.4 (‘fasting from the world’). The sources of all these sayings are unknown.Google ScholarPuech, H. Ch. (op. cit. pp. 216 ff.) has listed eighteen logia which are quoted or to which allusions are made in patristic, gnostic or Manichean writings.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 6} Puech, H. Ch. (‘L'évangile scion Thomas’, Comptes Rendus de l'académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1957), p. 160),Google ScholarTill, W. (Bull. J. Rylands Library, XLI (1958/1959), 451),Google Scholar and Quispel, G. (Vigiliae Christianae, XI(1957), 194) are of the opinion that the Gospels to the Hebrews and the Egyptians lie behind the Gospel according to Thomas.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 7} Quispel has pointed out some variants in Thomas similar to those in Jewish Christian literature (‘L'évangile selon Thomas et les Clémentines’, Vig. Chr. XII (1958), 181–96). He had also pointed out similarities between Thomas and some versions of the DiatessaronGoogle Scholar (‘The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament’, Vig. Chr. XI (1957), 187–207), and he has further adduced readings from the ninth-century Heliand, which was itself based on the DiatessaronGoogle Scholar (‘Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas’, New Test. Stud. v (1959), 283 f.). Centuries ago it was surmised that Tatian composed his Diatessaron not from four but from five gospels; and the fifth may have been the Gospel to the Hebrews. Thus similarities between Thomas, the Clementine literature and some versions of the Diatessaron might be explained by their common dependence on the Gospel to the Hebrews.Google ScholarGuillaumont, A. (‘Sémitismes dans les login de Jésus retrouvés à Nag-Hammâdi’, J. Asiatique, CCXLVI (1958), 113–23) has joined with Quispel in carrying the argument one stage further. Many such variants show evidence of primitive Aramaisrns and some can be explained by reference to a supposed Aramaic tradition being behind the synoptic versions. If this argument is accepted, it can be held that Thomas is dependent on an Aramaic source (probably translated into Greek in the second century) which is independent of the synoptic gospels.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 1} Vol. I (TÜbingen, 1888); vol. II (1899).

^{page 225 note 2} Cf., A. T. Cadoux, The Parables of Jesus, Their Art and Use (New York, 1931);Google ScholarManson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge, 1935);CrossRefGoogle ScholarDodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1935);Google ScholarOesterley, W. O. E., The Gospel Parables in the Light of their Jewish Background (London, 1936);Google ScholarSmith, B. T. D., The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, 1937).Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 3} E.T., , London, 1954.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 4} Op. cit. p. 88.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 5} Op. cit. pp. 21 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 6} Thomas records, like Luke, (viii. 6),Google Scholar that some seed fell on rock (contrast Mark, iv. 5 andGoogle ScholarMatt., xiii. 5, ‘rocky ground’), Thomas does not mention either Mark or Matthew's shallowness of soil and heat of the sun or Luke's lack of moisture. Other differences may be more significant. There may be a semitizing asyndeton inGoogle Scholar‘The sower went out, he filled his hand, he threw’ (lxxxii. 4 f.).Google Scholar‘The worm ate them’ (lxxxii. 10) may be the original description of what happened to the choked seed. AccordingGoogle Scholar to Thomas, some seed fell ‘on the road’ (lxxxii. 5), while the synoptics read παρά Τῂν όδóν. The synoptic version is rather puzzling; there were no pavements in first-century Palestine and men walked on the path. ‘On the road’ is foundGoogle Scholar in Clement, , Recog. (syr. and lat.) 3.14 as well as in the Aramaic DiatessaronGoogle Scholar (cf., C. Quispel, Vig. Chr. XII (1958), 183 f.). Quispel further points outGoogle Scholar (New Test. Stud. v (1959), 285) that the same variant is foundGoogle Scholar in Justin, (Dial. c. Tryph. 125)Google Scholar as well as in the Heliand (l. 2388). It is possible that these represent a Jewish Christian tradition stemming, like the synoptic παρά τῂv όδóν, from the original Aramaic al urha.Google ScholarBartsch, H. W., however, believes that Thomas here reflects a correction of the synoptic tradition (‘Das Thomas-Evangelium und die synoptischen Evangelien’, New Test. Stud. vi (1960), 250 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 1} Op. cit. p. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 2} Op. cit. ibid.

^{page 226 note 3} Grant/Freedman's suggestion that Thomas has changed the synoptic reading ‘because he is thinking of life in the new world’ (p. 150) is not very convincing. Quispel points out that Thomas' reading is attested by the Persian, Diatessaron (Vig. Chr. XI (1957), 194).Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 4} This suggestion is made by Quispel, (New Test. Stud. V (1959), 281).Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 5} Instead of the synoptic ‘let it out’ (έΞέδεΤο, Mark, xii. iet par.)Google ScholarThomas, has ‘so that they would work it and that he would receive its fruit’ (xciii. 3). This is no more than a clumsy periphrasis.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 1} Op. cit. p. 59.Google Scholar The point is contested by Bammel, E. (‘Das Gleichnis von den Bösen Winzern’, Revue Intern. des Droits d'Antiqu. VI (1959), 11 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 2} Stead, G. C. comments: ‘flat stuff by comparison’ (‘New Gospel Discoveries’, Theology, Lxx (1959), 326).Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 3} Cf., Jeremias, op. cit. p. 90, n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 4} A further instance of compression is seen in Thomas' version of the Parable of the Mote and the Beam (Thomas, lxxxvi. 12–17;Google Scholarcf., Matt. vii. 3–5;Google ScholarLuke, vi. 41 f.).Google ScholarHere, R. McL. Wilson, suggests that ‘a case might be made out for expansion in the canonical tradition’ (Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (London, 1960), p. 58).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 1} Ezek, . xvii. 23; xxxi. 6;Google ScholarDan., iv. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 2} Wilson, R. McL. suggests, however, that the Isaianic quotation may be a Marcan or pre-Marcan addition (op. cit. p. 102).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 3} A further example of Thomas' disuse of Old Testament allusions can be seen in his logion about family strife. Thomas lxxxiii. 36-lxxxiv. 3 is further away from Mic., vii. 6Google Scholar than the synoptic versions in Matt., x. 35Google Scholar and Luke, xii. 52 f. Occasionally Thomas includes an Old Testament allusion which is not found in the synoptic gospelsGoogle Scholar (‘guard him as the apple of thine eye’, Thomas, lxxxvi. 11 f.;Google Scholarcf., Ps. xvii. 8, etc.).Google Scholar However, Thomas', attitude to the Old Testament seems to be summed up in xc. 13–18: ‘His disciples said to Him: Twenty-four prophets spoke in Israel and they all spoke about Thee. He said to them: You have dismissed the Living One before you and you have spoken about the dead.’.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 4} Cf., B. Gartner, op. cit. pp. 45 f.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 5} It is noteworthy, however, that G. Quispel has noted here four agreements with the Diatessaron against Matthew, (Vig. Chr. xiii (1959), 113 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 6} Op. cit. p. 198.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 1} Op. cit. p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 2} Cerfaux, L. (op. cit. pp. 311 f.) thinks that Thomas' Parable of the Mustard Seed is dependent upon Mark's version; but his argument is slender.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 3} Doresse, (p. 152)Google Scholar cites Hippolytus, , Ref. 5.9.6, where the beliefs of Naassenes are recounted. He speaks of‘a point which is nothing, which is composed of nothing because it has no parts, and which will develop by its own efforts an inalienable grandeur. This point is the Kingdom of Heaven, the grain of mustard seed, the indivisible point which exists in the body, the point which no one knows except only the gnostics.’Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 4} Other examples of such parables are: (i) The Parable of the Light (Luke, xi. 34 f. to the crowd;Google ScholarMatt., vi. 22 f.Google Scholar and Thomas, lxxxvi. 6 to the disciples); (ii) The Parable of the LampstandGoogle Scholar (Luke, xi. 34 f. to the crowd;Google ScholarMark, iv. 21 f.,Google ScholarMatt., v. 15 f.,Google ScholarLuke, viii. 16 f.,Google Scholar and Thomas, lxxxvii. 13 to the disciples); (iii) the Parable of the Grapes and ThistlesGoogle Scholar (Matt., xii. 33 f.Google Scholar to Jesus' opponents; Matt., vii. 16,Google ScholarLuke, vi. 44Google Scholar and Thomas, lxxxviii. 31 to the disciples); (iv) The Parable of the Treasure in the HeartGoogle Scholar (Matt., xii. 35 f.Google Scholar to Jesus' oppoîents; Luke, vi. 45 f.Google Scholar and Thomas, lxxxviii. 34 to Jesus' disciples); (v) The Parable of the LeavenGoogle Scholar (Luke, xiii. 20. ff. to the crowd;Google ScholarMatt., xiii. 33 ff.Google Scholar and Thomas, xcvii. 2 to the disciples); (vi) The Parable of the Lost SheepGoogle Scholar (Luke, xv. 4 ff. to the crowd;Google ScholarMatt., xviii. 12 ff.Google Scholar and Thomas, xcviii. 22 to the disciles).Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 5} Doresse, (p. 136)Google Scholar cites a passage from Hippolytus, (Ref. 5.8.30) according to which the gnostics interpreted the Parable of the Sower thus: ‘That signifies the mysteries which only the perfect gnostics have heard.’Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 1} Other examples of a change of audience and a consequent change of meaning are: (i) The Parable of the Strong, Man (lxxxvii. 20 ff.) which here refers to Jesus' conquest of ‘the world’; (ii) The Parable of theGoogle ScholarWineskins, (lxxxix. 17 ff.) which refers to the gnostic's life in the new world; (iii) The Parable of theGoogle ScholarPatch, (lxxxix. 22 f.) which has the same meaning; (iv) The Parable of theGoogle ScholarRich, Fool (xcii. 2 ff.) which refers to the dangers of commercial success; (v) The Parable of theGoogle ScholarFoxes, and Birds, (xcv. 34 ff.) which refers to the true ‘rest’ of the gnostic; (vi) The Parable of the Signs of the Sky (xcvi. 22 ff.) which refers to the ignorance of those who do not possess true gnosis.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 2} lxxxiii. 27–8.

^{page 230 note 3} lxxxii. 32 f.; xcix. 18 f.

^{page 230 note 4} lxxxii. 34.

^{page 230 note 5} lxxxiv. 34 f.

^{page 230 note 6} xci. 30 f.

^{page 230 note 7} Op. cit. pp. 31 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 1} The only parable included by Thomas which originally had a hortatory meaning is the Parable of the Mote and the Beam (lxxxvi. 12–17) and this has been given a gnostic interpretation by the redactor.

^{page 231 note 2} Quispel, G. (New Test. Stud. V (1959), 288) suggests another interpretation, quoting in supportGoogle ScholarClem, . Alex, . Strom. 6.95.3 and Heliand 2628. According to this the ‘large fish’ refers to the true gnosis which the wise man prefers to all else. For a similar interpretation,Google Scholarcf., H. W. Bartsch, op. cit. p. 259.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 3} Gärtner, B. (op. cit. p. 183) suggests that the strong man and his house here stand for the body.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 4} Gärtner, B. (op. cit. p. 231) suggests that the leaven here stands for the heavenly particle of light or the spiritual element in man.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 1} Gärtner, B. (op. cit. p. 48) points out that ‘it was not merely in Jewish circles that commerce was looked upon with suspicion and a word of warning’.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 2} op. cit. pp. 96 f.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 1} Cf., Thomas lxxxiii. 1; lxxxv. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 2} Doresse, (p. 162)Google Scholar cites Hippolytus, , Ref. 8.10.9 as an illustration of the way in which the gnostic sectaries conceived of ‘the eternal places’.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 3} Cf., Thomas lxxxi. 8; xci. 21; xciii. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 4} Grant/Freedman, (p. 152) refer to the Naassene speculations about rest and movement reportedGoogle Scholar by Hippolytus, (Ref 5.7.25).Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 5} The concept of the ‘light-man’ appears in Pistis Sophia, 125.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 6} According to Thomas, the shepherd says: ‘I love thee more than the ninety-nine.’ Guillaumont, (op. cit. p. 120) has pointed out that the same Aramaic word can be translated ‘love’ (as in Thomas) or ‘rejoice over’Google Scholar (as in Matt., xviii. 13).Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 1} Cf., the ‘large fish’ (lxxxii. 1);Google Scholar the ‘large branch’ (lxxxiv. 32).Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 2} Bartsch, H. W. (op. cit. p. 255), however, regards it as a mere explanatory expansion.Google ScholarGrtner, B., however, suggests that ‘large’ stands for the heavenly element (op. cit. p. 231).Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 3} In the Gospel of Truth the pable appears thus: ‘He is the Shepherd who left the ninety and nine sheep which had not gone astray; he rejoiced when he found it. For ninety and nine is a number which is counted on the left hand, which comprehends it, but when the one is found the total number passes to the right hand’ (Evangelium Veritatis, ed. Malinine, M., Puech, H. Ch., Quispel, G. (Zurich, 1956), pp. 31 f.).Google Scholar A complex and cognate system of numerology was, according to Irenaeus, (adv. Haer. 1.16.2), in vogue among the Valentinians.Google ScholarGärtner, B. (op. cit. pp. 235 f.) suggests that in Thomas' version the ninety-nine sheep represent the heavenly world, while the lost sheep stands for that part of the light-world which is imprisoned in the material universe.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 4} Cf., L. Cerfaux, op. cit. pp. 316 if For variations in Thomas' usage,Google Scholarcf., B. Gärtner, op. cit. pp. 211 f.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 5} Cf. also Thomas, xcix. 16Google Scholar and Luke, xvii. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 6} Cf., B. Gärtner, op. cit. p. 70.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 7} Cf., B. Gärtner, op. cit. p. 178.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 1} Cf., Jeremias, op. cit. p. 61.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 2} Cf., Jeremias, op. cit. pp. 64 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 1} Synoptic parables sometimes begin with this or a similar expression. Cf., Luke x. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 2} Cf., R. MeL. Wilson, ‘Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels’, Erp. Times, LXXII (1960), 37.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 1} Grant, R. M., however, concludes from a comparative study of Thomas and the synoptic gospels here that the former's procedure ‘proves that Thomas relies on the synoptic gospels’ (‘Notes on the Gospel of Thomas’, Vig. Chr. XIII (1959), 178).Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 2} Cf., Iren. ado. Haer. 1,3,1, f.: They tell us that this knowledge is not openly proclaimed because not all are able to understand it, but that it is secretly revealed by the Saviour through parables to such as can understand it.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 3} Mark, iv. 9, 23; vii. 16;Google ScholarMatt., xi. 15; xiii. 9, 43;Google ScholarLuke, viii. 8; xiv. 35.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 4} lxxxii. 2, lxxxv. 19; lxxxvi.6; xcii. 9; xciii. 16; xcvii. 6. Wilson, R. McL. points out that the phrase is used four times in the Matthaean form and twice in that of Mark, and Luke, (Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (London, 1960), pp. 52 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 1} Quispel, (New Test. Stud. V (1959), 286) cites Heliand 1775.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 1} Cf., Quispel, op. cit.,Google Scholaribid.

^{page 239 note 2} Quispel, points out (Vig. Chr. XI (1957), p. 598)Google Scholar that Codex Palatinus on Luke, vi. 45 supports Thomas here.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 3} op. cit.,Google Scholaribid.Grant, R. M. (op. cit. p. 177) adduces the Naassene practice of linking together synoptic login to form gnostic catenae, and dismisses the passage in question as constructed out of synoptic sayings.Google ScholarBartsch, H. W. (op. cit. pp. 253 f.) concurs. Gärtner, B. (op. Cit. pp. 37 ff.)Google Scholar cites Iren, . ado. Hosr. 1.8.1 for the gnostic attempts ‘to twist ropes out of sand' by altering the order and connexion of dominical sayings, especially in the parables. Gärtner sees this tendency at work here and elsewhere in Thomas.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 4} Quispel, (Vig. Chr. xii (1958), 191)Google Scholar cites Clem, . Recog. 3.62: solum prudentem.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 1} Grant/Freedman, , p. 567.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 2} Grant/Freedman, suggest (pp. 94 f.) that Thomas placed this saying here because the word ‘light’ appears in the synoptic parallelsGoogle Scholar (Matt., x. 27;Google ScholarLuke, xii. 3). This suggestion assumes that Thomas built up this section from the synoptic gospels. It is interesting thatGoogle ScholarClem, . Alex., , describing Naassene syncretism, writes of‘light not under a bushel but on a candlestick, proclaiming its message on the housetops’ (Strom. 5.7.28).Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 3} Oxy., P.1, saying 6.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 4} Le Problèms Synoptiqus (Paris, 1954), pp. 340–3, cit.Google ScholarQuispel, , op. cit. p. 187.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 1} Quispel, (Vig. Chr. XII (1959), 187)Google Scholar cites Clem., Hom., 3.37,Google ScholarRehm, 81.5.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 2} Quispel, , New Test. Stud. V (1959), 285.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 3} Cf., C. F. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford, 1925), pp. 63 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 4} Isa, . ii. 2; xxviii. 4;Google ScholarJer, . xxxvii. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 5} Cf., The Riddle of the New Testament (London, 1958 edn.), p. 134.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 6} Grant/Freedman, , p. 142.Google ScholarBoth, Grant/Freedman and Fitzmyer, (op. cit. p. 542) believe that Thomas is here based on Matthew.Google Scholar

^{page 241 note 7} Cf., Quispel, New Test. Stud. V (1959),Google Scholaribid.

^{page 241 note 8} op. cit. p. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 1} Jeremias, , op. cit. p. 72.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 2} In Thomas, xcii. i–xciii. 16 can perhaps be seen the beginnings of a new collection. The Parables of the Rich Fool and the Banquet are here placed together because both give a warning about the dangers of materialism.Google ScholarCf., R. McL. Wilson, op. cit. p. 90.Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 3} Wilson, R. McL. notes that all the parables in Matt. xiii appear in Thomas but not in the same order or grouping (op. cit. pp. 53 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 4} Wilson, R. McL. regards these two parables as ‘probably the product of later reflection’, but he gives no firm grounds for this judgement (op. cit. p. 97).Google Scholar

^{page 242 note 5} Clem, . Alex, . Strom. 3.13.92;Google ScholarHippolytus, , Ref. 5.8.44.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 1} For an interpretation of this parable, cf., B. Gärtner, op. cit. p. 184.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 2} In the East a woman would be the most likely person to carry a vessel of corn along a road.

^{page 243 note 3} Cf., Thomas xcix. 19 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 4} Swords were commonly worn in Palestine in the first century (cf., Mark xiv. 47Google Scholar; Luke, xxii. 38).Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 5} Thomas lxxxvii. 20 reads ‘taking by force’ the strong man's house; Mark, iii. 27 ‘plundering’Google Scholar it. Ouispel, points out (New Test. Stud. V (1959), 280) that the Aramaic anas can bear both meanings.Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 6} Grant/Freedman, regard this passage as ‘a mosaic of sayings chiefly derived from Luke’ (p. 135)Google Scholar, but Bartsch, H. W. believes it comes from tradition independent of the synoptic gospels (op. cit. p. 260).Google Scholar

^{page 243 note 7} Thomas reads: ‘Blessed is the man…’; cf., Luke xii. 37. Thomasfurtherreads: ‘in which part of the night robbers will come in’Google Scholar; cf., Luke xii. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 1} Bartsch, H. W. (op. cit. p. 260) fails here to find in Thomas any relation to the synoptic version.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 2} Cf., Grant/Freedman, p. 183.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 3} Cerfaux, (op. cit. p. 314)Google Scholar cites Simeon ben Jochai, , ap. Midr. Cant. iv.13.Google Scholar

^{page 244 note 4} Jeremias, , op. cit. pp. 10 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 245 note 1} For a similar omission, cf., Thomas lxxxvi. 12Google Scholar. Contrast Matt, vii. 5Google Scholar; Luke, vi.42.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 1} For similar introductory formulae, cf., W. L. Knox, Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, 1953), I, 105.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 2} (i) The Sower, , lxxxii. 3;Google ScholarMark, iv. 2;Google ScholarMatt, xiii. 3;Google ScholarLuke, viii.4;Google Scholar (ii) The Tares, , xc.33;Google ScholarMatt, xiii.24;Google Scholar (iii) The Banquet, , xcii.10;Google ScholarMatt, xxii. 1;Google Scholar (iv) The Fox, and Birds, , xcv. 34;Google ScholarMatt, viii.20Google Scholar; Luke, ix.58;Google Scholar (v) The Leaven, , xcvii.2;Google ScholarMatt, xiii.31Google Scholar; Luke, xiii.20;Google Scholar (vi) The Lost Sheep, xcviii. 22;Google ScholarLuke, XV. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 3} (i) The Mote, and Beam, , lxxxvi. 12;Google Scholar (ii) The City on a Hill, lxxxvii. 7Google Scholar; (iii) The Blind, lxxxvii. 18;Google Scholar (iv) The Strong Man, lxxxvii. 20Google Scholar; (v) The Grapes, and Figs, , lxxxviii. 31;Google Scholar (vi) The Yoke, , xcvi. 16;Google Scholar (vii) The Treasure in a Field, xcviii. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 4} (i) The Dragnet, , lxxxi. 28;Google Scholar (ii) The Mustard Seed, lxxxiv. 28;Google Scholar (iii) The Vineyard, xciii. 1;Google Scholar (iv) The Signs of the Sky, xcvi. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 5} The Thief, lxxxv. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 1} Presumably ‘Man’ represents the true gnostic (cf., Thomas xcviii. 20); but the correct translation may be simply ‘a man’.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 2} Cf., Jeremias, op. cit. p. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 3} Jeremias, (op. cit. p. 67)Google Scholar speaks of Matt, . xiii. 49 f. as ‘simply a shortened replica of Matt. xiii. 40b–43’.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 4} Op. cit. p. 187.Google Scholar