^{page 155 note 1} Cf. Bishop, Cassian, ‘John xxi’, dans N.T.S. iii (1957), 132–6.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 2} Jean le Théologien et son évangile dans l'église ancienne (Paris, 1959). We have summarized the conclusions of this work in C.B.Q. xxii (1960), 219–22.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 3} The Gospel according to St john (London, 1956), p. 95, ‘It is the gnostic heretics themselves who are the first to show certain traces of knowledge of John.’ A much more radical approach is that of F. C. Grant, The Gospel according to St John (Harper's Annotated Bible, 1956), p. 14; in his view the author of John is something like a converted Gnostic using Gnostic terminology to expound Christianity.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 4} Op. cit. pp. 112–33.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 1} This opinion is shared by Quispel, G., ‘L'Evangile de Jean et la Gnose’, L'Évangile de jean (Recherches Bibliques, iii; Louvain, 1958), pp. 197–8. The theological outlook in John is radically different from the Gnostic outlook in EV, a true, although rudimentary, representative of Valentinian Gnosticism. Valentinus did use John abundantly but transposed its ideas.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 2} Op. cit. p. 188.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 3} Another Chenoboskion work that might be considered with relation to the Johannine question is the Apocryphon of john which appears in several copies and editions. This Gnostic work, parts of which may date back to the second century, has a certain superficial resemblance to the Apocalypse, N.T.. Cf. van Unnik, W. C., Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings (London, 1960), pp. 69–79.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 4} For an excellent bibliography see North, R., ‘Chenoboskion and Q’, C.B.Q. xxiv (1962), 154–70.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 5} L'Évangile selon Thomas (Paris, 1959), pp. 236–40.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 6} Grant, R. M. with Freedman, David N., The Secret Sayings of Jesus (New York, 1960), p. 109.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 7} L'Évangile selon Thomas (Neuchâtel, 1961), pp. 167–8. On p. 45 Kasser says that GTh freely imitates Johannine style but cites John rarely.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 8} Guillaumont, A., Puech, H.-C., Quispel, G., Till, W. and Masih, Y. 'Abd Al, The Gospel according to Thomas (Leiden and New York, 1959), pp. 59–62.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 9} Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (London, 1960), p. 87. He points out that the possibility that the author of GTh did not know John but had Johannine ideas might be an indication of the early character of GTh.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 10} In recent lectures W. C. van Unnik has questioned the theory that GTh is a Gnostic work, developing the doubt that he expressed in op. cit. p. 57: ‘…this document, when compared with other typically Gnostic works, exhibits much that deviates from Gnosticism, much that comes closer to the doctrines of the “great Church”.’ Certainly, if we allow that GTh is a composite work, there are sayings which evidence little clear Gnostic doctrine in themselves. Grant and Freedman point out how passages can be interpreted in a Gnostic manner, but this does not mean that the passages are Gnostic.

^{page 157 note 1} In the works of Wilson, North and Kasser there are tables correlating this enumeration with others, such as those of Doresse and of Grant.

^{page 157 note 2} Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Oxyrhynchus Logoi of Jesus and the Coptic Gospel According to Thomas’, T.S. xx (1959), 505–60.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 3} ‘Les “Logoi” d'Oxyrhynque et l'apocryphe copte dit “E'vangile de Thomas”’, Muséon, LXXIII (1960), 151–72; and ‘Les “Logoi” d'Oxyrhynque sont traduits du copte’, ibid. 334–49. E. Haenchen, Theol. Rund. xxvii (1961), 147, judges that Garitte's theory has not met with success.

^{page 157 note 4} As published by Horner, G. in The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1911–1924). We have also consulted the fourth-century Bohairic Papyrus Bodmer III of John (CSCO 178) which has Sahidic elements.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 5} As published by Thompson, H., The Gospel of St John According to the Earliest Coptic Manuscript (London, 1924).Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 1} Kenyon, F., Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (New York, 1958), p. 233, suggests ‘by or soon after the end of the second century’. A. Voobus, Early Versions of the New Testament (Stockholm, 1954), pp. 211–41: a date before 300 or earlier.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 2} Of course, we cannot use dissimilarity between GTh and the Coptic of John as an absolute disproof of parallelism.

^{page 158 note 3} It might be added that John xx supplies the only N.T. evidence of a special post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to Thomas. It was this appearance that gave Thomas a status that especially endeared him to the Gnostics and Manicheans. GTh does not tell us when Jesus spoke these logoi to Thomas, but it is probably conceived of as in the post-resurrection period as indicated by the title ‘the living Jesus’. The Chenoboskion Book of Thomas the Athlete uses very similar language of the revelation therein, and there the act of revelation is definitely post-resurrectional. Cf. J. Doresse, Les livres secrets des gnostiques d'Égypte (Paris, 1958), p. 243. E.T. 1960, 225.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 4} His place in the Marcan list is filled by Thaddaeus, and in the Matthean list by Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus.

^{page 158 note 5} This seems to be a Syrian tradition: Tatian, Ephraem, and the Abgar correspondence all speak of Judas Thomas. OxyP 654 does not use the title Didymus but speaks only of ‘Judas who is also [called] Thomas’; this form occurs in the Acts of Thomas (as does also ‘Judas Thomas Didymus’), with the information that he is Jesus' twin brother. These Acts were probably composed at Edessa in the third century.

^{page 158 note 6} The Theology of the Gospel according to Thomas (New York, 1961), p. 98.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 1} In John iv. 10; vii. 38 Jesus gives living water. He lives through the living Father (vi. 57), and the believer lives through Jesus (xi. 26; xiv. 19). Outside of Revelation, however, the title ‘living’ is applied to the Father rather than to Jesus. GTh also uses the title of the Father, for example, no. 3.

^{page 159 note 2} Some have suggested as a parallel the Synoptic passage (Matt. xvi. 28, par.): ‘…some standing here who will not taste death.’ However, this is probably a reference to physical death while GTh and John refer to spiritual death. Heb. ii. 9 refers to Jesus' tasting death for all. In GTh ‘taste death’ recurs in nos. 18, 19, [85].

^{page 159 note 3} The ‘forever’ is omitted by D, Ta¹, Syr, some Old Latin, Sah, and Achm. The affinity of GTh to some members of the ‘Western’ textual tradition is well known.

^{page 159 note 4} Art. cit. p. 517.

^{page 159 note 5} Stromata, ii, 9, 45 (GCS, xv, 137); v, 14, 96 (GCS, xv, 389).

^{page 160 note 1} Gärtner, , op. cit. p. 207 suggests a connexion with the mention of ‘place’ in the Apocryphon of James: ‘I shall go to that place [τόπος] from which I have come.’ (This Chenoboskion work is not yet published, but this verse can be found in E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen [3rd ed., Tübingen, 1959], 1, 247). This is an echo of John xvi. 5, 28, a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples that is also echoed in GTh (no. 12). That there are other parallels to John in the Apocryphon of James is mentioned by W. C. van Unnik, op. cit. p. 83. He dates the work to c. 150 (p. 87). Thus, if Gärtner is correct, the use of ‘place’ in GTh may come from John by way of an intermediary like this Apocryphon.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 2} Fitzmyer, , art. cit. pp. 523–4, hesitatingly offers this reconstruction of OxyP 654, lines 26–7: ‘They [will have eternal life].’ The reconstruction is quite Johannine, and he cites John iii. 16, 36; v. 24. G. C. Stead, Theology, LXII (1959), 325, proposes μονήν εύρήσουσιν. The word μονή occurs only in John xiv. 2 (which we have suggested as a parallel for GTh) and 23.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 3} The Coptic of no. 6 has a line: ‘All things are manifest before heaven.’ OxyP 654, lines 37–8 are fragmentary, but will not permit this reading. Fitzmyer, art. cit. pp. 528–9 tentatively reconstructs: ‘[For all things will be full of(?)] truth bef[ore heaven].’ He cites John i. 14 for the reconstruction.

^{page 160 note 4} The resemblances are closer if we compare GTh with the Coptic text of Matthew, for example, the Sahidic of Matthew mentions ‘fish’ while the Greek does not.

^{page 161 note 1} We should note, however, that GTh (and Sahidic Matthew) uses abō for ‘net’ while the Sahidic of John has shne.

^{page 161 note 2} The meaning of the parable in GTh is disputed: some think that the fish is the Gnostic who is found; others think that the fish is Gnosis found by the Gnostic. Gärtner, op. cit. pp. 233–4, suggests that the fish may be Christ and that the original background of the story may be that of the messianic banquet. This explanation would fit in well with the scene in John xxi.

^{page 161 note 3} Kasser, , op. cit. p. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 4} Kasser favours the former and Doresse the latter. The passing away of heaven is to be compared to the ‘passing away of heaven and earth’ in Matt. v. 18; Luke xxi. 33. The Synoptic passages all use παρέρχεσθαι while GTh uses the Greek loanword παράγειν this latter verb is used in I John ii. 17, ‘And the world passes away’ (also I Cor. vii. 31). The significance of this verbal parallel is lessened, however, by the fact that the Sahidic N.T. uses παράγειν in Matt. v. 18.

^{page 161 note 5} This saying in GTh gives James a central place among the disciples. An interest in James also marks the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see no. 2 above).

^{page 161 note 6} Gärtner, , op. cit. p. 125, suggests a remote parallel to the Caesarea Philippi scene (Mark viii. 27), where in response to ‘Who do men say that I am?’, three inadequate answers are given before Peter makes his confession. We would point out, however, that only in John do individual disciples apply a title to Christ.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 1} Doresse, Thomas, p. 141, and others suggest Mark x. 18, where Jesus is addressed as ‘Good Master’, only to reject the appellation ‘Good’. Our parallel seems closer in thought.

^{page 162 note 2} The Sahidic supplies ‘God’ as subject (also the Koine, D, θ, lat.). The better Greek reading does not specify the subject, and Jesus himself (the one sent) is probably the correct subject.

^{page 162 note 3} Kasser, , op. cit. pp. 47–8, says that the ‘spring’ in GTh is the Spirit.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 4} The Apocryphon of John (cf. p. 156, n. 3 above) is even closer to Revelation: the Father is the fountain and the source of the Spirit. See Gärtner, op. cit. p. 129.

^{page 162 note 5} Gärtner, ibid. pp. 132–3, points out some excellent parallels to the Odes of Solomon. Braun, op. cit. p. 245, thinks that the author of the Odes probably drew from John. Thus, again we have the possibility of an intermediary between GTh and John.

^{page 162 note 6} In the Apocryphon of John (xxi. 17 ff.) Jesus says, ‘I am the Father’.

^{page 162 note 7} Wilson, , op. cit. p. 103: ‘On the whole, therefore, we should probably see in logion 17 a Pauline saying growing into a word of Jesus.’Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 8} This added element is not found in a similar agraphon in the Acts of Thomas (xxxvi), but is found in the Gospel of Mani (Hennecke, op. cit. p. 263).

^{page 163 note 1} Gärtner, , op. cit. p. 259, translates as an affirmation rather than a question: ‘You have indeed discovered the beginning.’Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 2} The Greek of this verse changes verbs in the two parts, γίνεσθαι to είναι; the Sahidic and Achmimic use forms of shōpe in both parts (as does the saying in GTh); the Bohairic (PBod III) has no verb in the second part.

^{page 163 note 3} As Gärtner points out (p. 108), the Apocryphon of John mentions five aeons in the light-world. An apocryphal conversation between Jesus and John (Hennecke, op. cit. 1, 245) mentions an allegory of the five trees in Paradise.

^{page 164 note 1} Wilson, , op. cit. p. 83, expresses doubt as to whether the Johannine elements are genuine allusions or only a similarity of thought. We shall have to take this question up in reference to the whole of GTh in our evaluation of all the parallels.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 2} Grant, op. cit. p. 141; Wilson, op. cit. p. 36; Gärtner, op. cit. pp. 184–5.

^{page 164 note 3} For a possible connexion between watchfulness and nakedness see Rev. xvi. 15: ‘Blessed is he who is awake, keeping his garments that he may not go naked.’

^{page 164 note 4} Saying 21 closes with a harvest simile, a symbolism that is common to the Gospels. Doresse, Thomas, p. 155, thinks that there might be an echo here of John iv. 35–8, and makes reference to Gnostic commentaries on this passage. In our opinion the Synoptic parallels seem stronger.

^{page 165 note 1} The ultimate source of this counsel is Lev. xix. 17–18 which, while commanding the love of neighbour, speaks of not hating one's brother. GTh gives little evidence of directly citing the O.T.

^{page 165 note 2} We hesitate to make any connexion between GTh, ‘If you do not keep the Sabbath as Sabbath, you will not see the Father’, and Jesus' statement that both he and the Father work on the Sabbath (John v. 17). GTh speaks of fasting from the world; this may be something like being in the world but not of it (xvii. 16).

^{page 165 note 3} As Fitzmyer, art. cit. p. 536, points out, this use of ‘in the world’ is distinctly Johannine: i. 9, 10; iii. 17; vi. 14; xi. 27; xii. 46; xvi. 28; xviii. 37.

^{page 165 note 4} Also I John iv. 2–3. Fitzmyer, art. cit. pp. 536–7, gives abundant Johannine references for the saying in OxyP 1 which corresponds to no. 28. He quotes Evelyn White to the effect that the saying betrays incipient Johannism. Jeremias, J., Unknown Sayings of Jesus (London, 1957), p. 70, agrees that the saying should be classed with those of the Fourth Gospel.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 5} OxyP 1 has the verb form ⋯φθην; I Timothy has έφανερώθη. Gärtner, op. cit. p. 142, thinks that this is a very significant difference, and that the OxyP wording would be impossible in N.T. thought patterns. Be this as it may, the Coptic verb (ouōnh ebol) that is used in GTh is the same as the verb used in the Sahidic of I Timothy.

^{page 166 note 1} Thomas, p. 165. We take this occasion to point out also that while many mention John iv. 44 as a parallel for the next saying (no. 31), there is really no need for recourse to John: Luke iv. 23–4 is a much closer parallel.

^{page 166 note 2} There is a similar saying that Clement of Alexandria attributes to the Gospel according to the Egyptians (Stromata, iii, 13, 92 [GCS, xv, 238]). There it is introduced by Salome's question as to when the things about which he was speaking will be known. Thus the introductory questions may be ad hoc creations.

^{page 166 note 3} GTh uses he for ‘find’; the Sahidic of John vii. 34 also uses he, while the Achmimic and the Bohairic (PBod III) use čine (ğimi). OxyP 655 is too fragmentary to be of help. In no. 92 we read ‘Seek and you will find [čeine]’.

^{page 166 note 4} Doresse, Thomas, p. 172; Grant, op. cit. p. 154; Wilson, op. cit. p. 114.

^{page 166 note 5} Op. cit. pp. 243–5. Grant (p. 155) has: ‘Come into being as you pass away’ and cites II Cor. iv. 16. According to Wilson (op. cit. p. 104), Bauer cites as background I John ii. 17 on the transitory character of the world.

^{page 166 note 6} James, M. R., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924), p. 247.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 1} For ‘know’ GTh uses eime; the Sahidic and Achmimic of xiv. 9 use sooun.

^{page 167 note 2} In this passage also the Coptic N.T. uses sooun. For the GTh use of this verb in a context similar to John's see no. 51.

^{page 167 note 3} Grant, op. cit. p. 160, thinks that being from the kingdom is equivalent to not being from the world and cites John xvii. 16: ‘They are not of the world even as I am not of the world.’

^{page 168 note 1} Grant, op. cit. p. 162.

^{page 168 note 2} Op. cit. pp. 154–5. He cites the Ezra Apocalypse, xiv. 44.

^{page 168 note 3} Feuillet, A., ‘Les vingt-quatre vieillards de l'Apocalypse’, R.B. LXV (1958), 5–32.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 4} Perhaps we should recall that the twenty-four elders of Revelation stand before the throne of the living God who is and was (xi. 16–17).

^{page 168 note 5} Op. cit. p. 81. He cites many Pauline passages too, but not Phil. iii. 3.

^{page 168 note 6} Op. cit. p. 163.

^{page 169 note 1} The saying actually opens with Jesus' statement, ‘Two shall go to rest on a bed; one shall die, the other shall live’. This is reminiscent of Luke xvii. 34, where in the same situation one is taken and the other left. Gärtner, op. cit. p. 171, thinks that the introduction of ‘live’ and ‘die’ in GTh has its closest comparative material in John and its view of life and death (v. 24; viii. 51). However, ‘die’ and ‘live’ in GTh may be just synonyms of Luke's ‘be taken’ and ‘left’.

^{page 169 note 2} Op. cit. p. 167. We believe that the Johannine parallel makes almost a conclusive case for translating shōsh as ‘equal’, rather than as ‘scattered’. The official translation and Gärtner render the word by ‘same’.

^{page 169 note 3} Kasser, op. cit. p. 90; Grant, op. cit. p. 171. The vocabulary in GTh, however, is different from the Coptic versions of the Temple scene. GTh uses toou (‘those who buy’); this verb can translate άγοράξειν, the Greek verb used in the Temple scene, but the Sahidic version actually uses shōp (Crum, Coptic Dictionary, p. 441², shows that the two Coptic verbs are interchangeable). For ‘merchant’ GTh uses the noun shōt, while the Sahidic accounts of the Temple scene (and all the Coptic versions of John ii. 14) use a verbal construction from ti ebol (‘to sell’).

^{page 170 note 1} However, once again a comparison of the Coptic N.T. with GTh does nothing to confirm this suggestion. In John xi. 48 the Sahidic, Achmimic, and Bohairic of PBod III do not use the Greek loanword τόπος used by GTh, but the Coptic ma. Only the later Bohairic MSS. use τόπος.

^{page 170 note 2} Sayings 68–9 contain a series of beatitudes similar to the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount.

^{page 170 note 3} The expression ‘to know in truth’ does not occur in John, but xvii. 8 has the expression ‘to know truly’ (Sahidic eime name). Of interest, too, is I John v. 20: ‘to know Him who is true’. Doresse, op. cit. p. 186, points out that the Coptic of this saying in GTh might also be translated: ‘These are they whom the Father has known in truth.’ In John ii. 25 Jesus is said to know men; and in x. 15 Jesus says that he knows the Father and the Father knows him.

^{page 170 note 4} So L. Cerfaux and G. Garitte, ‘Les paraboles du Royaume dans l'Évangile de Thomas’, Muséon, LXX (1957), 313.

^{page 170 note 5} Op. cit. p. 99.

^{page 170 note 6} See Fitzmyer, , art. cit. p. 540.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 1} So Kasser, , op. cit. p. 100; Wilson, op. cit. p. 63. But we should be cautious here; μεγιστἄ occurs in a setting dealing with John the Baptist in the description of Herod's banquet (Mark vi. 21). Even though GTh does not mention the Baptist, the original connexion of the saying and of this word with the Baptist may account for their present fusion.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 2} Perhaps no. 83 with its reference to light and ‘the light of the Father’ may have some distant resemblance to Johannine phraseology, especially I John i. 5, 7.

^{page 171 note 3} Wilson, , op. cit. p. 65, suggests that it may not be the disciples but the opponents of Jesus who are asking this. He cites John x. 24.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 4} The answer given by Jesus is actually closer in a few details to Luke xii. 56 than to Matt. xvi. 1–3 (only the latter has the request for a sign); but the opening question in GTh moves the saying. into the Matthean framework.

^{page 171 note 5} Grant, op. cit. p. 186, thinks GTh is giving a garbled version of John xvi. 4–5.

^{page 172 note 1} There is a much closer parallel in the Gospel according to the Hebrews as cited by Jerome in Adv. Pelag. iii, 2. This is another example of a possible relation between GTh and GHeb as mentioned above, no. 2.

^{page 172 note 2} None of the similar Synoptic passages dealing with Jesus' relatives (Matt. xiii. 55–6; Mark vi. 3; Luke iv. 22) mentions ‘father and mother’ or uses the verb ‘know’.

^{page 172 note 3} Gärtner, , op. cit. p. 132, cites good parallels from the Odes of Solomon; see n. 5, p. 162 above.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 1} Vielhauer in Hennecke, op. cit. 1, 107–8, lists seven sayings; James, op. cit. pp. 1–8, lists about fifty; Aurelio de Santos, Los Evangelios Apocrifos (Madrid, 1956), pp. 37–50, lists fifty-four. One of the chief reasons for these differences is a dispute as to whether the many citations that Jerome gives from a Hebrew gospel used by the Nazareans belong to GHeb or to some other work. In the following citations the original Latin or Greek can be found in de Santos, an English translation in James.

^{page 173 note 2} Eccles. Hist. iii, 39, 17 (PG, xx, 300^d).

^{page 174 note 1} iv, 12. For the original Syriac see Erwin Preuschen, Antilegomena (Giessen, 1901), p. 8, number 20.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 2} In Hennecke, , op. cit. p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 3} Comm. III in Eph V. 4 (PL, xxvi, 552^d): ‘Et numquam laeti sitis nisi cum fratrem vestrum videritis in charitate.’ See treatment in Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, pp. 83–5.

^{page 174 note 4} Yet the fragment from the Gospel According to the Hebrews preserved in Pseudo-Origen, Lat. Comm. in Matt. XV. 14 (James, op. cit. p. 6) does speak of love of neighbour.

^{page 174 note 5} There is always the remote possibility that GTh drew on some lost tradition which preserved sayings of Jesus like those recorded in John; the Johannine logion in Matt. xi. 25–30 reminds us that Johannine language can be found outside John. However, there is no way to control this suggestion, and it would be a rather far-fetched solution.

^{page 175 note 1} The end of no. 38 comes the closest to being a verbatim citation; most of no. 43 is a mosaic of Johannine phrases; also see no. 77.

^{page 175 note 2} If we had the Greek of GTh, we might be able to settle this question for we could see how closely it matches the Greek of John (see nos. 2, 6, 37).

^{page 175 note 3} No. 8, however, may be dependent on John xxi; and no. 13 on a part of John iv that consists in narrative.

^{page 175 note 4} For a balanced view of the different redactional strata in the composition of John see M.-É, Boismard, ‘L'évolution du thème eschatologique dans les traditions johanniques’, R.B. LXVIII (1961), 507–24.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 1} Notice too some of the sequences of sayings in GTh: nos. 31–6 have Synoptic echoes, while no. 37 has a Johannine parallel; nos. 45–8, Synoptic and nos. 49–50 Johannine; no. 69a has a few Johannine phrases, but the series in which it is found, nos. 63–75, is largely of Synoptic tradition; nos. 93–100 are largely Synoptic with a Johannine phrase at the end of no. 100.

^{page 176 note 2} One possible exception is no. 8.

^{page 176 note 3} We would insist that we wish in no way to prejudice the question of how Gnostic GTh really is. Recently K. Grobel, ‘How Gnostic is the Gospel of Thomas’, N.T.S. viii (1962), 367–73, joins the rank of those who think that it is not very Gnostic, nor Gnostic in toto.

^{page 177 note 1} For the literature on the various theories see the article by R. North cited in n. 4, p. 156 above.

^{page 177 note 2} ibid. pp. 164–5.

^{page 177 note 3} This source itself may be composite, of course, and reflect the work of several different authors.

^{page 177 note 4} There may have been several intermediaries. Gärtner, op. cit. pp. 132–3, has made a good case for some influence of the Odes of Solomon on GTh. Braun, op. cit. pp. 224–51, thinks that the Odes were the work of a convert to Christianity who had had contact with incipient Gnosticism and who was familiar with the Gospel of John.