[1] Helmut, Koester, ‘Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels’, HTR 73 (01–04, 1980), pp. 105–30.Google Scholar

[2] Not every text in the collection is exclusively Christian or Christian/gnostic. It contains several treatises that originally were not composed from a Christian/gnostic perspective but came to be included in the collection because they could be read from that perspective; that is, the heretical Christian group that used these texts found value in their concepts, moral stance, and mythology. The following texts have been classed as non-Christian: The Apocalypse of Adam V, 5; Plato, The Republic 588B–589B; VI, 5; The Three Steles of Seth VII, 5; Eugnostos. The Blessed III, 3 and V, I; The Paraphrase of Shem VII, I; Zostrianos VIII, I; The Sentences ofSextus XII, I; The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth VI, 6; and Asclepius VI, 8. Other documents have been described as having been secondarily Christianized, such as The Gospel of the Egyptians III, 2 and IV, 2; The Apocryphon of John II, I, III, I, IV, I; The Hypostasis of the Archons II, 4, and The Trimorphic Protennoia XIII, I.Google Scholar

[3] The revelation discourse is generally cast in the form of a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples in which the brief questions of the disciples provide the occasion for a discourse by the resurrected Christ. Compare the literary structure of the following tractates: The Apocryphon of James I, 2; The Book of Thomas the Contender II, 7; The Dialogue of the Savior III, 5; The First Apocalypse of James V, 3; The Second Apocalypse of James V, 4; The Apocalypse of Peter VII, 3. See in particular the article by Helmut, Koester, ‘Dialog und Spruchüberlieferung in den gnostischen Texten von Nag Hammadi’, Evangelische Theologie 39 (1979), pp. 532–56.Google Scholar

[4] However, see Peel, M. L., ‘Gnostic Eschatology and the New Testament’, Nov Test 12 (1970), PP. 141–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[5] Compare the discussion by Weeden, T. J., Mark: Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), pp. 80–1, 96–111, 118–21.Google Scholar Nevertheless, many of the sayings attributed to the pre Easter Jesus by the synoptic writers may originally have been sayings of the post-Easter Jesus that have been incorporated into the ministry and teaching of the pre-Easter Jesus. See Robinson, James M., ‘On the Gattung of Mark (and John)’ in Jesus and Man's Hope (2 vols.; Buttrick, David G., ed.; Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970), 1, pp. 99–129;Google Scholar‘Gnosticism and the New Testament’ in Gnosis: Festschrift für Hans Jonas (Aland, Barbara, ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), pp. 125–43Google Scholar and Hedrick, Charles W., ‘Resurrection: Radical Theology in the Gospel of Matthew’, Lexington Theological Quarterly 14 (1979), pp. 40–45.Google Scholar

[6] Cf. Weeden, , Mark: Traditions in Conflict, pp. 77–81, 159–69.Google Scholar

[7] Whether or not the setting of the Gospel of Thomas is to be understood as originally taking place prior to or following the resurrection is uncertain. See Koester, Helmut (‘One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels’, Trajectories through Early Christianity [Robinson, James M. and Koester, Helmut; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], p. 167), who argues that ‘Jesus, the Living One’ may be the earthly Jesus who ‘at some time in his [earthly] ministry is assumed to have spoken these words to Judas Thomas’.Google ScholarSee for example Robinson, James M. (‘LOGOI SOPHON; On the Gattung of Q’, Trajectories through Early Christianity, pp. 89–95) who shows that Mark 4. 1–34 may be understood as a collection of ‘secret sayings’ spoken by the pre-Easter Jesus. Koester is correct, ‘there are no features compelling us to understand the work as a secret revelation after the resurrection’ [italics are mine], and the technical nomenclature for a revelation discourse after the resurrection is lacking in the Gospel of Thomas. As Koester notes, however, the document was certainly understood in the community from the perspective of a post-Easter situation, although such a context is not indicated in its minimal narrative framework. Hence, the sayings would have been read as deriving from the risen Lord.Google Scholar

[8] Compare, for example, Schrage, W., Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen Synoptikerdeutung (Beihefte zur ZNW, 29; Berlin: Topelmann, 1964);Google ScholarSnodgrass, K. R., ‘The Parable of the Wicked Husbandman: Is the Gospel of Thomas Version the Original?’, NTS 21 (1974/1975), pp. 142–4;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMcArthur, H. K., ‘The Dependence of the Gospel of Thomas on the Synoptics’, ExpT 71 (1959/1960), pp. 286–7,Google Scholarand Dehandschutter, B., ‘L'Evangile selon Thomas: témoin d'une tradition prélucanienne?’ in L'Evangile de Luc:Problè;mes littéraires et théologiques. Mémorial Lucien Cerfaux (Neirynck, F., ed.; Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 32; Gembloux, Belgium: Duclot, 1973), pp. 288–97. See in particular Schrage, pp. 2–4 for his analysis of the division of scholarship on the issue of the relationship between Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels.Google Scholar

[9] Compare, for example, Sieber, J. H., ‘A Redactional Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels with regard to the question of the Sources of The Gospel According to Thomas’, Ph.D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School and University Center, 1966;Google ScholarMontefiore, H., ‘A Comparison of the Parables of the Gospel According to Thomas and of the Synoptic Gospels’, NTS 7 (1960/1, pp. 220–48;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGrobel, K., ‘How Gnostic is the Gospel of Thomas’, NTS 8 (1962), pp. 367–73.Google Scholar

[10] Perrin, N., Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York/Evanston: Harper and Row, 1967), pp. 16–49.Google Scholar

[11] Perrin, , The New Testament: An Introduction (New York/Chicago/San Francisco/Atlanta: Harcourt/Brace/Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 280–2.Google Scholar

[12] Perrin, , Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, pp. 44–5.Google Scholar

[13] Jeremias, Joachim, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (2nd ed.; London: S.P.C.K., 1964), 8, but compare pp. 42–3.Google ScholarJeremias reduced the number of authentic sayings after writing the first edition. See also the review by Koester, Helmut, ‘Die ausserkanonischen Herrenworte als Produkte der christlichen Gemeinde’, ZNW 48 (1957), pp. 220–37.Google Scholar

[14] See the brief discussion by Metzger, B., The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (New York/London: Oxford, 1964), pp. 156–9.Google Scholar

[15] Conzelmann, Hans, The Theology of St. Luke (Harper and Row: New York, 1961), pp. 95–136.Google Scholar

[16] In this regard see also Koester, , ‘Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels’, HTR, pp. 105–30.Google Scholar

[17] Cf. Jeremias, , Unknown Sayings of Jesus, pp. 42–3.Google Scholar

[18] For a bibliography on the Apocryphon of James the reader is directed to Scholer, D. M., Nag Hammadi Bibliography 1948–1969 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971) as updated annually in Novum Testamentum (since 1971).Google Scholar

[19] Perrin, , Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, p. 47.Google Scholar

[20] Williams, F., ‘The Apocryphon of James (I, 2)’, The Nag Hammadi Library in English (Robinson, J. M., gen. ed.; New York/Hagerstown/San Francisco/London: Harper and Row, 1977), p. 35.Google Scholar

[21] Malinine, M., Puech, H.-Ch., Quispel, G., Till, W., Kasser, R., Wilson, R. McL. and Zandee, J., Epistula Iacobi Apocryphon: Codex Jung F.I^r-F. VIII^ν (p. 1–16) (Zurich/Stuttgart: Rasher, 1968), p. 127.Google Scholar

[22] Crum, W. E., A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1939), 745B.Google Scholar

[23] Wisse, F. and Williams, F., ‘The Concept of our Great Power’, Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2–5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4 (Parrott, D. M., ed.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979), p. 314.Google ScholarSee also Krause, Martin and Labib, Pahor, eds., Gnostische und hermetische Schriften aus Codex II und Codex VI (Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1971), p. 194.Google Scholar

[24] Dirkse, P. A. and Parrott, D. M., ‘Asclepius’, Nag Hammadi Codices, p. 418;Google Scholarsee also Krause, and Labib, , Gnostische und hermetische Schriften, p. 194. Cf. also the. translation of ειΡε … Wisse, and Williams, , ‘The Concept of our Great Power’, p. 313 (VI 43. 23–24) and Krause/Labib, Gnostische und hermetische Schriften, p. 159.Google Scholar

[25] Malinline, et al. , Epistula lacobi, p. 71.Google Scholar

[26] Crum, , Coptic Dictionary, 683B.Google Scholar

[27] Perrin, , Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, pp. 126–8.Google Scholar

[28] Jeremias, , The Parables of Jesus (New York: Scribners, 1963), pp. 195–8;Google ScholarJeremias, , Unknown Sayings of Jesus, pp. 72–3.Google Scholar

[29] Jeremias, , The Parables of Jesus, p. 129.Google Scholar

[30] Bouquet, A. C., Everyday Life in New Testament Times (New York: Scribner's, 1955), pp. 80–4; Encyclopedia Britannica, 1971 ed., s.v. ‘Wheat’; Encyclopedia Americana, 1981 ed., s.v. ‘Wheat’.Google Scholar

[31] The feature is found elsewhere: ‘A good seed’ and ‘a weed’: Gospel of Thomas II, 2, 42. 32–43. 7, cf. Matt. 13. 34–30; ‘a large and good fish’: Gospel of Thomas II, 2, 33. 28–34. 3; cf. Matt. 13. 47–50.Google Scholar

[32] Jeremias, , The Parables of Jesus, pp. 146–60.Google Scholar

[33] See Dodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom (rev. ed.; London and Glasgow: Collins, 1961), p. 13;Google ScholarFunk, R. W., Language, Hermeneutic and Word of God: The Problem of Language in the New Testament and Contemporary Theology (New York/Evanston/London: Harper and Row, 1966), pp. 133–62.Google Scholar

[34] Funk, , Language, Hermeneutic and Word of God, p. 161.Google Scholar

[35] Ibid., pp. 163–222.

[36] Funk, R. W., ‘Beyond Criticism in Quest of Literacy: The Parable of the Leaven’, Int 25 (1971), pp. 149–70.Google Scholar

[37] Ibid., pp. 163–4.

[38] Encyclopedia Britannica, 1971 ed., s.v. ‘Wheat’.Google Scholar

[39] See Malinine, et al. , Epistula lacobi, p. 69.Google Scholar

[40] Jeremias, , The Parables of Jesus, pp. 100–3.Google Scholar

[41] Although it is rare, can be used as a masculine gender; see Westendorf, W., Koptisches Handwörterbuch (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1965–1977), p. 25 and Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, p. 40.Google Scholar

[42] For a similar non-indicated shift in subject at Lk. 15. 15 see Jeremias, , The Parables of Jesus, p. 129.Google Scholar

[43] Ibid., pp. 146–60.

[44] Ibid., p. 152.

[45] Encyclopedia Britannica, 1964 ed., s.v. ‘Date Palm’ ‘Swingle, W. T., ‘The Date Palm and its Culture’, Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture 1900 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1901), p. 475.Google Scholar

[46] Anderson, A. W., Plants of the Bible (London: Crosby Lockwood and Son, 1956), p. 61;Google ScholarSwingle, W. T., The Date Palm (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904), p. 126.Google Scholar

[47] Corner, E. J. H., The Natural History of Palms (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California, 1966), pp. 122–3.Google Scholar

[48] Corner, , The Natural History of Palms, p. 114; Encyclopedia Britannica, 1971 ed., s.v. ‘Palm’, 184B.Google Scholar

[49] Corner, , The Natural History of Palms, pp. 123–4.Google Scholar

[50] Moore, H.E. Jr, The Major Groups of Palms and Their Distribution (Ithaca, New York: L. H. Bailey Hortorium, New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 1973), p. 86.Google Scholar

[51] Cf. Malinine, (Epistula Iacobi, p. 121), and Williams, F. (‘The Apocryphon of James’, The Nag Hammadi Library, p. 32) for different translations.Google Scholar

[52] Cf. Malinine, et al. , Epistula Iacobi, p. 57. Τκ is an unknown word that may come from Τωωσε ‘to plant’ (Malinine, et al. ) or Τω ‘to pluck’ (cf. Williams, F., Nag Hammadi Library, p. 32). It might possibly be a variant form of Τωσπ (Crum, 466A) ‘to push’ or ‘to repel’. As a translation of άπωθεν it could mean ‘to shake off’ and refer to the harvesting of ‘the fruit’.Google Scholar

[53] For example, see above, note 31.Google Scholar

[54] Taylor, Vincent, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices (London: MacMillan, 1959), p. 242.Google Scholar

[55] See Jeremias, J., ‘Kennzeichnen der ipsissima vox Jesu’, Synoptischen Studien (Munich: Karl Zink, 1953), pp. 86–93;Google ScholarSchlier, H. ‘άμήν’ Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel, Gerhard, ed.; Bromiley, G. W., trans, and ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 335–8;Google ScholarPerrin, Norman, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, p. 38.Google ScholarHowever, see the following authors who regard the expression as deriving from the later Christian community: Hasler, Victor, Amen. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Einführungsformel der Herrenworte ‘Wahrlich, ich sage euch’ (Zurich/Stuttgart: Gotthelf, 1969), pp. 168–74; and Klaus Berger, Die Amen-Worte Jesu. Eine Untersuchung zum Problem der Legitimation in apokalyptischer Rede (BZNW 39; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1970), pp. 4–28 and an article by the same author ‘Zur Geschichte der Einleitungsformel “Amen, ich sage euch”’, ZNW 63 (1972), pp. 45–75.Google ScholarIn this connection see also the short note by Strugnell, John, ‘“Amen, I say unto you” in the Sayings of Jesus and in Early Christian Literature’, HTR 67 (1974), pp. 177–82 who points out that the expression ‘Amen’ appears on a 7th Century B.C. Hebrew ostracon.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSee also the review of Berger by Kearns, Rollin, JBL 91 (1972), pp. 267–8,Google Scholarand the note by Joachim, Jeremias, ‘Zum nicht-responsorischen Amen’, ZNW 64 (1973), pp. 122–3.Google Scholar

[56] See Hawkins, J. C., Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (2nd ed. rev.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), pp. 117–21 where Hawkins shows that Matthew and Luke treated Mark in precisely this fashion.Google Scholar

[57] See Perrin, Norman, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), pp. 15–98,Google Scholarand The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), pp. 158–206.Google Scholar