[1] In the Greek version represented by MS. P and its group the prayer occurs after ch. 167, immediately before Thomas' martyrdom. This may have been its original position, as James, M. R., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ² 1953) 428, 436Google Scholar, thought.

[2] Critical edition in Bonnet, M., Acta Philippi et Acta Thomoe accedunt Acta Barnabae (Lipsius, R. A. and Bonnet, M. ed., Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, II.2) (Hildersheim: Georg Olm, 1959) 253–5.Google Scholar

[3] After έπί τπς γης U must have omitted material equivalent to that in P up to έν τη γη.

[4] An additional allusion to Matt 12.20 is suggested by Burkitt, F. C., Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904) 103Google Scholar; and an additional allusion to the Wise and Foolish Virgins (Matt 25. 1–13) by A. F. J. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas (Supplements to Nov. T. 5; Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1962) 295.Google Scholar

[5] There are indications that the author followed a version of the Thief like those in the Gospel of Thomas, rather than the Synoptic version. Whereas in Matthew and Luke the householder would have been awake (but was not), in Gospel of Thomas 21 he will be awake (if he knows…, cf. 103). This is not a decisive consideration, for in several other cases Thomas in the Acts 146 claims to have done what characters in the parables should have done, but did not do. However, more Significant is that instead of the Synoptic ‘thief’ (κλεπτής: so also 1 Thess 5. 2; 2 Pet 3. 10; Rev 3. 3; 16. 15), the Acts of Thomas has ‘brigands’ (U and P: τῶν ληστῶν). This cannot reflect the synoptic interpretation of the parable (Matt 24. 44 par. Luke 12. 40), in which the thief is the Son of Man, but must reflect the gnosticizing interpretation of Gospel of Thomas 21, 103, in which ‘the brigands’ (ληστής is preserved in both logia) are the hostile cosmic powers. (Elsewhere in Gnostic literature, ‘the robbers’ are the powers of the material world: Gospel of Philip 101. 12; Sophia of Jesus Christ 121.16.) For a brief comment on the version of the Thief in Acts of Thomas 146, see Smitmans, A., ‘Das Gleichnis vom Dieb’, in Feld, H. and Nolte, J. ed., Wort Gottes in der Zeit (K. H. Schelkie Featschrift; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1973) 64–5.Google ScholarEpiphanius, , Haer. 69.Google Scholar 44. 1 also uses ληστής (but singular) with reference to the parable of the Thief.

[6] Assuming a reference to a version of the Thief like those in Gospel of Thomas 21, 103 (see n. 5 above).

[7] This isa form of ‘deparabolizing’ use of parables: for deparabolization, see my articles, ‘Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse’, N.T.S. 23 (1976–1977) 162–76Google Scholar; ‘Synoptic Parousia Parables Again’, N.T.S. 29 (1983) 129–34.Google Scholar

[8] For this translation, from Wright's text (in Wright, W., Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles [London/Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate, 1871] vol. 1Google Scholar), I am indebted to Dr Philip S. Alexander. It is more literal than the translation in Wright, Apocryphal Acts, vol. 2, 280Google Scholar, followed by Klijn, , Acts of Thomas, 143.Google Scholar The text of the Sinai MS., in Lewis, A. Smith, Acta Mythologica Apostolorum (Horae Semiticae III) (London: C. J. Clay, 1904)Google Scholar, here differs from Wright's text only at two points which are clearly errors in the MS.

[9] The commonly used title Book of Thomas the Contender is based on a misunderstanding: see Schenke, H. M., ‘The Book of Thomas (NHC II. 7): a Revision of a Pseudepigraphal Letter of Jacob the Contender’, in Logan, A. H. B. and Wedderburn, A. J. M. ed., The New Testament and Gnosis (R. McL. Wilson Festschrift; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983) 226.Google Scholar

[10] John 15. 1–8 is not, as it stands, a parable, and could not, in its present form, have been the source of Acts of Thomas 146. Its possible relationship to the parable behind Acts of Thomas 146 will be discussed below.

[11] But the allusion here (‘they shall rest and resting they shall reign’) corresponds not to the version in Gospel of Thomas 2, but rather to the Greek version in Pap. Oxy. 654, lines 5–9 (and also to that in the Gospel of the Hebrews, ap. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2.9.45. 5; 5. 14. 96. 3; cf. also Book of Thomas 145. 13–14). This suggests that the version of the Gospel of Thomas known to the author of the Acts of Thomas was closer to the Greek Gospel preserved in Pap. Oxy. 1, 654,655, than to the later Coptic Gospel.

[12] Acts of Thomas 147 is closer to Gospel of Thomas 22 than to the form of the saying in II Clement 12.2.

[13] Acts of Thomas 14 (‘the veil of corruption [or: shame] is taken away from me’) seems to reflect the logion found both in Gospel of Thomas 37 and the Gospel of the Egyptians (ap. Clement of Alexandria, , Strom. 3.Google Scholar 13. 92), but is closer to the latter. The statement in Acts of Thomas 79 that Jesus ‘offered the gift in the temple’ might refer to Matt 17. 24–27 (cf. the clear allusion to this passage in Acts of Thomas 143), but more probably refers to some apocryphal tradition. The relation of gospel traditions in the Acts of Thomas to Tatian's Diatessaron has yet to be fully in vestigated, but for the possibility that the author used the Diatessaron, see Klijn, , Acts of Thomas, 16–17Google Scholar, 295, against Burkitt, , Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, vol. 2, 101–4.Google Scholar

[14] On the parables in the Apocryphon of James, see Hedrick, C. W., ‘Kingdom Sayings and Parables of Jesus in the Apocryphon of James: Tradition and Redaction’, N.T.S. 29 (1983) 1–24Google Scholar; Sevrin, J.-M., ‘Paroles et paraboles de Jésus dans les écrits gnostiques coptes’, in Delobel, J. ed., Logia (J. Coppens Memorial vol.; Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 59; Leuven: University Press, 1982) 517–28.Google Scholar

[15] We cannot here discuss the difficult question of the possibly composite nature of the Acts of Thomas: see Tissot, Y., ‘Les Actes apocryphes de Thomas: exemple de receuil composite’, in Bovon, F. (et al.), Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres: Christianisime et monde païen (Publications de la Faculté de Théologie de l'Université de Genève 4; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 223–32.Google Scholar

[16] For ‘worthy’, see Klijn, , Acts of Thomas, 204Google Scholar; for ‘acquired’, cf. Acts of Thomas 72.

[17] This translation is from Holm-Nielson, S., Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (Acta Theologica Danica 2; Aarhus Universitetsforlaget, 1960), 101Google Scholar, but I have supplied the conjectural restorations ‘[the earth (?)]’ , which is adopted by Licht and Vermes, and ‘[all]’, from Holm-Nielson's note.

[18] On the use of the metaphor, see Jaubert, A., ‘L'image de la Vigne (Jean 15)’, in Christ, F. ed., Oikonomia: Heilsgeschichteals Thema der Theologie (O. Cullmann Festschrift; Hamburg/Bergstedt: Herbert Reich, 1967); 5.Google ScholarFujita, , ‘The Metaphor of Plant in Jewish Literature of the Intertestamental Period’, J.S.J. 7 (1976) 30–45.Google Scholar On the text of Isa 60. 21, see Brayler, I. F. M., ‘“Yahweh is the Guardian of His Plantation”: A Note on Is. 60,21’, Biblica 41 (1960) 275–86.Google Scholar

[19] From later Jewish literature, note especially Lev. R. 36. 2, which includes the statement, ‘As the vine is lower than all the other trees yet is predominant among all the trees, so are Israel; they appear as though they are inferior in this world, but in the Time to Come they are destined to take possession of the entire world from one end to the other.’ See also Herodotus 1. 108: a vine which spreads all over Asia symbolizes the kingdom of Cyrus.

[20] See Klijn, , Acts of Thomas, 46–9Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Influence of Jewish Theology on the Odes of Solomon and the Acts of Thomas’, in Aspects du Judéo-Christianisme: Colloque de Strasbourg 23–25 avril 1964 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965) 167–79.Google Scholar For a study of the relationship of the Odes of Solomon to gospel traditions, see McNeil, B., ‘The Odes of Solomon and the Scriptures’, Oriens Christianus 67 (1983) 104–22.Google Scholar

[21] Translation from Charlesworth, J. H., The Odes of Solomon (S.B.L. Texts and Translations Pseudepigrapha Series 7; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, ² 1977) 132–3.Google Scholar

[22] The allusion is clear whether or not the right hand symbolizes Christ, as Drijvers, H. J. W., ‘Odes of Solomon and Psalms of Mani: Christians and Manichaeans in Third-Century Syria’, in van den Broek, R. and Vermaseren, M. J. ed., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions (G. Quispel Festschrift; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981) 123Google Scholar, thinks.

[23] Ps 80. 15b might have suggested the application to a single man.

[24] For the possible influence of 1QH 8 on the odist, cf. Charlesworth, J. H., ‘Les Odes de Salomon et les manuscrits de la Mer Morte’, R.B. 77 (1970) 538.Google Scholar

[25] Translation from Turner, J. D., The Book of Thomas the Contender from Codex II of the Cairo Gnostic Library from Nag Hammadi (CG II, 7) (S.B.L. Dissertation Series 23; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1975) 34–5.Google Scholar Brief discussions of the parable, reaching conclusions different from mine, are in Turner, ibid. 185–7, and Sevrin, ‘Paroles et paraboles de Jésus’, 527.

[26] Cf.Turner, , Book of Thomas, 185.Google Scholar

[27] Cf. the river which fills the whole earth in Odes of Solomon 6. 8–10.

[28] For other patristic references to the church as God's plantation or paradise, see Daniélou, J., Primitive Christian Symbols (ET; London: Burns & Oates, 1964) ch. 2.Google Scholar

[29] Cf. Turner, , Book of Thomas, 233–4.Google Scholar

[30] See n. 13 above for other apocryphal sayings in Acts of Thomas, but not in Gospel of Thomas.

[31] This translation by Schoedel, W. R., in Grant, R. M. and Freedman, D. M., The Secret Sayings of Jesus (London: Collins, 1960) 121.Google Scholar Less literal translations omit ‘up to heaven’, and the discussion of this parable in Koester, H., ‘Three Thomas Parables’, in Logan, and Wedderburn, ed., The New Testament and Gnosis, 195–7Google Scholar, similarly ignores this feature. One wonders whether there is some connexion with Mark's odd use of άναβαίνοντα in 4. 7: άναβαίνείν is often used with είς τòνούρανόν.

[32] Schrage, W., Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen (Z.N.W. Beiheft 29; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964) 48.Google Scholar

[33] Ménard, J.-E., L'évangile selon Thomas (Nag Hammadi Studies 5; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975) 93–4.Google Scholar

[34] For other examples of one parable influenced by another, cf. the Thief in Gospel of Thomas 21, 103, and perhaps Mark 13. 34.

[35] For another trace of this identification, see Quispel, G., ‘L'Évangile selon Thomas et les Clémentines’, Vig. Christ. 12 (1958) 189.Google Scholar

[36] I follow McArthur's argument for and reconstruction of the Q version: McArthur, H. K., ‘The Parable of the Mustard Seed’, C.B.Q. 33 (1971) 198–202.Google Scholar

[37] Crossan, J. D., ‘The Seed Parables of Jesus’, J.B.L. 92 (1973) 258–9.Google Scholar

[38] So, against Crossan, Scott, B. B., Jesus, Symbol-Maker for the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981) 70.Google Scholar

[39] Crossan, ‘Seed Parables’, 255, 257; cf. McArthur, ‘Parable’, 203.

[40] Cf. Mussner, F., ‘1Q Hodayoth und das Gleichnis von Senfkorn (Mk 4:30–32 Par)’, B.Z. 4 (1960) 128–30.Google Scholar On the trees of life and the world-tree in 1QH 8, see Gevaryahu, C. M. J., ‘The Parable of the Trees and the Keeper of the Garden in the Thanksgiving Scroll’, Immanuel 2 (1973) 50–7.Google Scholar

[41] Oesterley, W. O. E., The Gospel Parables in the Light of their Jewish Background (London: S.P.C.K., 1936) 77.Google Scholar

[42] Crossan, ‘Seed Parables’, 256–7.

[43] On Mark's redactional arrangement of the parables in Mark 4, see Lambrecht, J., Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus (New York: Crossroad, 1981) ch. 4.Google Scholar

[44] Without knowing of this parable, Riesenfeld, H., ‘Parabolic Language in the Pauline Epistles’, in The Gospel Tradition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970) 197–9Google Scholar, succeeds in connecting this passage with the parabolic images of the Gospels only in a very general way.

[45] Cf. also Ascension of Isaiah 4. 3, where the church is called τὴν φυτείαν η ονδΕδεκα άπόστλοι; and Dionysius of Corinth (ap. Eusebius, , Hist. Eccl. 2.Google Scholar 25. 8), who says that Peter and Paul planted (φυτεύσαντες) the church in Corinth.

[46] For this meaning of θεοῡ συνεργοί (3. 9), see Furnish, V. P., ‘“Fellow Workers in God's Service”’, J.B.L. 80 (1961) 364–70.Google Scholar

[47] γεώργιον can be a field (cf. Gen 26. 14) or an orchard (cf. Ecclus 27. 6) or a vineyard (which in Palestine was often an orchard too): see Riesenfeld, ‘Parabolic Language’, 198. γεωργός is used of the tenants in the parable of the Vineyard (Mark 12. 1–9 par.) and of the vinedresser in John 15. 1. If, as we shall argue below, John 15. 1 originated as an interpretation of our parable of the Vine, it may well show that the man in our parable was described in it as γεωργός. Cf. also 1 Cor 9. 7, for evidence that Paul thought of planting a vineyard as an image of his apostolic work.

[48] Since the two images of planting and building were so commonly associated (Jet 1. 10; 24. 6; 42. 10; Ecclus 49. 7; Col 2. 7; Odes of Solomon 38. 17), Paul's mind moves naturally from one to the other (1 Cor 3. 9–15). We do not need to postulate a parabolic source for the latter (though cf. Matt 7.24; 16.18).

[49] E.g. Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (New Century Bible; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1972) 486.Google Scholar

[50] Probably it is a conflation of two parables, but the author treats it as one.

[51] Cf. also Justin, , Dial. 110.Google Scholar 4, for independent allegorical use of the image of pruning a vine.

[52] Acts of Peter 7 (Act. Verc. 20) gives the following list of titles of Jesus: the door (John 10. 7, 9), the light (John 8. 12), the way (John 14. 6), the bread (John 6. 35), the water (John 4. 10), the life (John 11. 25; 14. 6), the resurrection (John 11. 25), the refreshment (Matt 11. 28), the pearl (Matt 13. 46), the treasure (Matt 13. 44), the seed (Mark 4. 26?), the abundance (Matt 13.12?) the mustard seed (Matt 13. 31), the vine (John 15. 1), the plough (Luke 9. 62), the grace (John 1. 14), the faith, the word (John 1. 1). The reference to ‘the seed’ (semen) is unfortunately vague, but the Seed Growing by itself seems more suitable for christological interpretation than the seed in either the Sower or the Taxes. Probably ‘the vine’ (vineam) refers to John 15. 1, but its position in the list should be noticed. The list has a series of seven Johannine titles (door – resurrection), then a series of eight titles which are all synoptic allusions apart from ‘the vine’ (refreshment – plough). It is therefore possible that the list (especially if the author of the Acts of Peter knew it as a traditional list) reflects knowledge of the Mustard Seed and the Vine as a pair of parables. The relationship between this list and the similar lists in Acts of John 98, 109, is problematic: see Schneemelcher, W., in Hennecke, E., Schneemelcher, W., McArthur, R.Wilson, L. ed., New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2 (London: Lutterworth, 1965) 265Google Scholar; Junod, E. and Kaestli, J.-D. ed., Acta Johannis. Textus Alii – Commentarius-Indices (Corpus Christianorum: Series Apocryphorum 2; Turn hout Brepols, 1983) 659–60.Google Scholar

[53] For a detailed study of the symbolism of the vine in the Syriac Fathers, see Murray, R., Symbols of Church and Kingdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975)Google Scholar, chap. III (and cf. also pp. 195–8). Careful study of this Syriac literature might yield further traces of our parable. I am grateful to Fr Robert Murray for encouragement and comments on this paper.

Additional Note: After completing this article I noticed that the description of Israel as a vine planted by God, with its roots in the abyss and its shoots reaching to the throne of God, in PseudoPhio, , Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 12.8Google Scholar, is relevant to and would strengthen the argument in the latter part of section 1.