1.1. The Influence of Thomas upon Luke (GTh → Lk)

As noted, the first part of this article provides an analysis of the various positions held. At one end of the spectrum is Riley's argument for the influence of GTh 47 upon Luke 5.36-39 (the wine + wineskins/patch + garment pericope) and of GTh 72 upon Luke 12.13-14 (where Jesus is asked to divide an inheritance).Footnote ⁴ Riley adopts the standard approach to identifying secondary features: ‘where Thomas redaction is found in the text of Luke, then the text of Luke must post-date and be dependent on sayings formed in Thomas Christianity’.Footnote ⁵ As we shall see in Part 4, however, despite the weakness of Riley's arguments, his conclusions have been enthusiastically taken up by Johnson, who extends Thomasine influence to include GTh 76.3 → Luke 12.33 (‘treasure in heaven’).Footnote ⁶

1.2. The Independence of Luke and Thomas (Lk | GTh)

Other scholars have argued for the independence of Thomas. In earlier scholarship, the most forcefully advanced version of this thesis was Quispel's theory that Thomas was influenced not by the Synoptics, but by the independent Gospel of the Hebrews (see on GTh 99 below).Footnote ⁷ More influential has been Sieber's unpublished dissertation,Footnote ⁸ and also widely discussed is Schramm's thesis that since Thomas contains Synoptic-like material but is free of the secondary elements found in other Gospels, it is independent of the Synoptics and relies upon a different written source.Footnote ⁹ A decade later, Patterson's monograph contended vigorously that Thomas had independent access to oral tradition, rather than written Gospels.Footnote ¹⁰

Arguments for independence are now very often conducted along such lines, rather than relying on additional documents as did Quispel and Schramm. Another thoroughgoing account of the commonalities and differences between Thomas and the Synoptics as arising from different oral performances can be found in DeConick's 2006 commentary.Footnote ¹¹ DeConick notes particularly how the extensive overlap among Matthew, Mark and Luke is very different in kind from the parallels between Thomas and the Synoptics: ‘The exact verbal agreement, lengthy sequences of words, and secondary features shared between the Triple Tradition versions and the Quelle versions far exceed anything we find in the Gospel of Thomas’.Footnote ¹²

We will consider later how this applies in particular cases, but one of the general difficulties with the independence theory is that it can only ever be provisional: ‘it is virtually impossible to demonstrate non-use, never mind non-knowledge of a text’.Footnote ¹³ One can suspect independence from the Synoptics, but no more. An additional difficulty attends the view that ‘the Thomasine-Synoptic parallels derive from the oral sphere’ because Thomas displays ‘strong features of oral transmission’:Footnote ¹⁴ it is by definition impossible for us now to define the specific features of oral transmission in ancient texts from the particular geographical, cultural and chronological context of Thomas and the Synoptics. To use the similarities among the Synoptics as a basis of comparison, and conclude that the Thomas/Luke relationship is exclusively an oral one because they are not so close, fails to recognise that the situation with the Synoptics is extraordinary, rather than an everyday instance of literary dependence. In fact, there is positive evidence for a literary relationship (which does not necessarily exclude oral factors as well) in the extremely close similarity in parts of the Greek (see on GTh 26 below).

1.3. The Influence of Lukan Special Material upon Thomas (L → GTh)

The first extended study of L → GTh came from Schürmann in 1963, provoked by Cullmann's suggestion of a common Jewish-Christian source behind the Lukan special material and Thomas.Footnote ¹⁵ Schürmann works through various passages in the Lukan special material, and concludes that Thomas is dependent upon Luke via a harmony of the Synoptics: he concedes the possibility of additional complicating factors such as a Jewish-Christian Gospel, but states that they cannot be demonstrated.

These criticisms of Cullmann's enthusiasm for an independent source were renewed ten years later in Dehandschutter's 1973 article, which criticises Schramm for positing additional sources.Footnote ¹⁶ In a nutshell, where Schramm sees common sources, Dehandschutter simply sees Lukan editorial work and Lukan influence upon Thomas.

Most recently, François Bovon has provided a fresh examination of the Lukan special material also found in Thomas, concluding that some sayings display dependence on Luke, and some independence.Footnote ¹⁷ GTh 3, for example, contains a feature of Lukan redaction according to Bovon, in its inclusion (and modification) of Luke's own introduction to Jesus' statement about the presence of the kingdom.Footnote ¹⁸Thomas's version of the saying about two lying on a couch (GTh 61.1) looks suspiciously to Bovon like a ‘de-apocalypticising’ of the Lukan parallel (Luke 17.34): Thomas replaces ‘will be taken’ and ‘will be left’ with the more prosaic ‘will die’ and ‘will live’.Footnote ¹⁹ On the other hand, in the case of GTh 79 (the macarism on barren women), ‘on ne peut pas affirmer que Thomas subisse ici l'influence de la version écrite de Luc’; rather, Thomas knows the saying in oral form.Footnote ²⁰ Overall, Bovon emphasises (albeit not strongly) the dimensions of dependence, and considers that in general some of the theological concerns of Luke are carried further by Thomas.Footnote ²¹

In response to Bovon, however, arguments for identifying the influence of Lukan special material need to be treated cautiously because of the difficulty of deciding in favour of the presence of Lukan redaction where there is no Markan parallel. Arguments for the influence of Lukan special material upon Thomas depend on demonstrating either (a) that the piece of special material is pure Lukan creation, such that Luke's and Thomas's formulations could not go back to a common source, or (b) that the piece of special material is clearly Luke's redaction of L. Neither of these is at all easy to identify. Gregory has emphasised the fact that we cannot rule out the possibility of sources common to both Thomas and the material distinctive to Luke, a point also made in more general terms independently by DeConick.Footnote ²²

1.4. Thomas's Incorporation of Luke's Redaction of Q (Q → Lk → GTh)

The study of Thomas's incorporation of Luke's redaction of Q has been a less clearly demarcated field of research, even though Thomas has since its discovery been closely associated by scholars with Q. The approach can be illustrated, however, by two examples.

First, on the ‘dog-in-the-manger’ saying about the Pharisees and the Scribes taking the keys of knowledge (GTh 39.1-2), Tuckett rightly notes the similarities between Luke and Thomas over against Matthew, but questions whether one can simply opt for Q → Lk → GTh: since some Q specialists prefer the theory that Matthew and Luke employed different versions of Q (Q^mt and Q^lk), the different formulations in the two written Gospels might be a consequence of the form of their Q source, rather than of the evangelists' redaction.Footnote ²³ This is one potential obstacle to Q → Lk → GTh.

To take an apparently more robust case, Schürmann and Tuckett have argued that GTh 16.2 (‘…I have come to cast divisions upon the earth—fire, sword and war’) betrays Lukan redaction of Q in Thomas's reference to ‘divisions’ (as in Luke 12.51; cf. Matt 10.34's ‘sword’ tout simple). But here too the same difficulty applies: it might be replied by a multiple-Q enthusiast that Q^lk is closer to Q^th than either is to Q^mt. To be sure, the διαμɛριζ- root is frequent in Luke–Acts,Footnote ²⁴ but division is also a very common theme in Thomas.Footnote ²⁵ Since both Thomas and Luke are (for different reasons) interested in the motif, it is in principle possible that they could be independently using similar versions of Q. Thomas could in theory preserve early tradition in other instances as well. Finally, Q → Lk → GTh arguments will of course be rejected out of hand by the growing number of Q sceptics.Footnote ²⁶

1.5. Thomas's Incorporation of Luke's Redaction of Mark (Mk →Lk → GTh)

The most widely accepted instances of Thomas's secondary character are those where Luke's redaction of Mark (rather than of L or Q) is incorporated into Thomas. Here we are to a greater extent on terra firma because we are dealing with three more or less known quantities. This approach to the influence of the Gospels is commonly seen as finding its foremost expositor in Helmut Koester,Footnote ²⁷ and its best application to Thomas is Tuckett's 1988 article, somewhat neglected in North America, but perhaps the most influential recent work on Thomas in European scholarship.Footnote ²⁸ Tuckett sets out powerful arguments for Mk → Lk → GTh in GTh 5 in particular. Recently, Gregory has highlighted GTh 5 and 31 as useful examples because they appear to show dependence in the Greek text of Thomas.Footnote ²⁹ Tuckett and Gregory both show appropriate reserve, recommending that one talk of a measure of Thomasine dependence, rather than influence in any thoroughgoing way.Footnote ³⁰

2.1. Relative Datings: An Unquestioned Assumption in the ‘Redactional Method’

The weak point in most applications of this method is that it takes for granted the direction of influence: if Thomas shares a redactional feature with Matthew or Luke, then this is almost automatically taken as a sign of Thomasine dependence. This is a logical non sequitur, however: there is no a priori reason why it should be assumed that the line of influence must be from Lk → GTh. There is an unstated presupposition that Luke predates Thomas. Is this because Thomas, as the most recent discovery, must prove itself? Or are the clearly later features of Thomas (such as GTh 83-84, or 114) taken to mean that a literary relationship between Thomas and a canonical work must inevitably amount to Thomasine dependence? Perhaps for some, if Thomas is ‘Gnostic’, then it is inevitably later. This assumption about the direction of influence has been maintained, however, even now that a number of scholars considers Thomas at least as early as Luke,Footnote ³¹ and the Gnostic character of Thomas is widely rejected.Footnote ³²

While it is impossible here to consider in any comprehensive way the question of Thomas's date, it will be helpful to reflect on concrete reasons why one might suppose that redactional features shared between Thomas and Luke are much more likely to mean Thomasine rather than Lukan dependence, that is to say, why Lk → GTh is more likely than the reverse. There are four reasons which might be adduced.Footnote ³³

First, the later features such as those mentioned above do play a legitimate role, even if now any idea of Thomas being ‘Gnostic’ should almost certainly be abandoned.

Secondly, the presence in Thomas of reference to Matthew's Gospel surely makes the Lk → GTh order much more likely than the reverse. Matthew's influence upon Thomas is rather clearer in one respect than that of Luke, because Thomas actually names Matthew in a context which implies a reference to the Gospel of Matthew (GTh 13.1),Footnote ³⁴ a context which moreover itself betrays signs of Matthean redaction (GTh 13.4-8).Footnote ³⁵ A chronology of Mk–Mt–GTh–Lk would give a very tight window for dating Thomas, making a GTh → Lk relationship unlikely, even if not impossible.

Thirdly, a Lukan redactional feature is sometimes extended further by Thomas. As we shall see, Luke's version of the parable of the wicked tenants adds a ‘perhaps’ into the narrative, and two instances of ‘perhaps’ appear in Thomas; analogously, into the discussion about fasting Luke adds a reference to ‘prayer’, while Thomas shares this addition, and contributes another as well. Similarly, in the light-under-a-bushel saying, Luke adds the point that the illumination is ‘for those who come in’; Thomas says it is for ‘all who come in and go out’. This expansionist tendency, if one can call it such, adds a further argument.

Finally, albeit negatively, we have concrete proposals from scholars, discussed below, for instances of the influence running GTh → Lk (GTh 31, 47, 76). In these instances where such arguments have been made, the cases can be shown to be highly problematic. In sum, on the strength of the evidence currently available, the influence of Luke upon Thomas is far more likely than the reverse.

2.2. Literary and Oral Influence

The present study also aims to clarify, as far as is possible, how the influence of Luke upon Thomas took place. One of the problems in the debate in the past has been a polarisation of the options. In the first place, both Cullmann and Schürmann have one point in common, namely that similarities must be accounted for by direct literary dependence, whether that involves just Luke and Thomas, or other sources as well. Both probably make the mistake of construing dependence as too mechanically scribal. On the other hand, DeConick's mistake is to go to the other extreme. Although she mentions complex solutions as possibilities, she more often resorts to antithetical conclusions. On GTh 26, for example, she comments that ‘the variant is the result of oral transmission rather than literary development’.Footnote ³⁶ It is this either/or which is unnecessary. This antithesis has been widely recognised by scholars in other fields to be a false dichotomy, whether it is in Ruth Finnegan's studies of Eskimo, Malay, South African and other oral poetry or, closer to home, in Rosalind Thomas's treatment of ancient Greece.Footnote ³⁷ The problems identified in wider scholarship with what Finnegan has called the ‘radical divide’ raise the question of whether similar problems also attend a one-sided treatment of Thomas.Footnote ³⁸

One common way to avoid this polarity in the study of Thomas is by means of appeal to ‘secondary orality’.Footnote ³⁹ This refers to the way in which, after a first phase of oral transmission, a saying is then written down in (let us say) Luke's Gospel. After being written down, however, the Lukan formulation is then read out in a setting such as a Christian assembly, such that that Lukan formulation then shapes the way in which the particular saying is used thereafter (in a second oral phase).Footnote ⁴⁰ A ‘hard’ version of secondary orality might suppose that the saying reaching the author or community responsible for Thomas simply stems (albeit indirectly) from the formulation in Luke's Gospel. On a softer version, one might more modestly suppose a partial influence, involving ‘interference’ from the formulation in Luke's Gospel. In either case, appeal to secondary orality can be usefully combined with the ‘redactional method’, so that a saying shared between Mark and Luke does not come to the Gospel of Thomas in its earlier Markan form but arrives, albeit orally, having been shaped by Luke's formulation.

There are some problems with the terminology of ‘secondary orality’,Footnote ⁴¹ but as long as it is understood what is meant by the phrase, it is still useful. It is generally taken to be unlikely, or at least unproveable, that the author of Thomas had recourse to actual manuscripts of the Gospels for the composition of the work; thus direct influence is unlikely or impossible to demonstrate.Footnote ⁴² At the other end of the spectrum, it has already been noted, and will be argued for further in Part 3, that the view that Thomas goes back to independent oral tradition without any influence from a canonical Gospel is highly questionable. This leaves us with indirect influence, implying either the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ versions of secondary orality noted above. It should be emphasised that the present argument is not advocating the view that the author of Thomas used a text of Luke (or even knew it directly). Rather, the most likely scenario is that Thomas is influenced by a second oral phase which has itself been influenced by Luke. This is still the influence of the written form of Luke, even if that influence is only indirect.

2.3. Further Methodological Comments

Additionally, as has been recognised by some scholars, but not by many, textual criticism is also an essential component in the discussion (see e.g. on GTh 5, 26 and 100 below): it is not merely a matter of comparing the text of Thomas with that of NA²⁷ (which is in any case soon to be replaced) or with that of a standard Synopsis.Footnote ⁴³ The full range of textual variants needs to be taken into account, indeed rather more than just those which are noted in the Nestle-Aland apparatus.

Rather than claiming with absolute certainty the influence of original Luke upon original Thomas, this article shares the concern of Tuckett to recognise the limits of what our current texts allow us to conclude. In the end, what can be stated with reasonable confidence is that Thomas as we have it is influenced by Luke as we have it.Footnote ⁴⁴ Tuckett also rightly resists any attempt to argue for a comprehensive influence of Luke upon Thomas. Both of these concerns, shared by the present article, are echoed in one of his concluding remarks: ‘the fact that Th sometimes shows parallels with redactional material in the Synoptics indicates that there is a measure of dependence between our version(s) of Th and our synoptic gospels’.Footnote ⁴⁵ How might we describe this ‘measure of dependence’? On the basis of the evidence to be presented in Part 3, it is tolerably clear that Lukan redactional features have exercised some influence upon the phraseology of the Gospel of Thomas as we have it. It needs to be remembered, however, what cannot be demonstrated here. For example, the evidence of Lukan redaction in Thomas does not necessarily mean that the author of Thomas was conscious that it came from Luke. Nor does it mean that the author knew the whole of Luke's Gospel, or that the author has a first-hand knowledge of the written text of Luke which would mean that the influence was direct. (Still less would one want to argue that the author of Thomas knew only Luke and nothing else.) It is also hard to know whether Thomas's source for any particular saying is Luke tout simple (the ‘harder’ version of secondary orality noted above), or whether the Lukan elements come from interference by the Lukan version of a saying with another version known to the author (the ‘softer’ version). Despite these caveats, it is nonetheless evident that the phraseology of Luke's written Gospel has exerted an influence on the phraseology of Thomas at various points.

The overall rhetorical aim of the present article is not to rest too much on any individual cases. Some presentations of Thomas's dependence perhaps are too focused upon GTh 5 and 31. The present argument aims to be cumulative, and indeed the arguments within the discussions of individual sayings are themselves cumulative (e.g. on GTh 65, 100).

Finally, on the mode of presentation, since in most cases we are comparing works in different languages (the Greek of Luke and the Coptic of Thomas), for ease of comparison and for accessibility, the parallel passages in the synopses will simply be presented in English translation; the exceptions are GTh 5, 26 and 31 where Greek texts of Thomas are extant.Footnote ⁴⁶

3.1. GTh 5.2/Luke 8.17

Although the amount of text here is small, it is clear that Thomas agrees exactly with Luke, but not with Mark.Footnote ⁴⁷ As such, many have seen this as a near-certain example of influence.Footnote ⁴⁸ We need, however, to recognise the lack of certainty available here. This may look to some like a smoking-gun proof, but the fragmentary nature of the Greek of GTh 5 must be considered: there may be other options for the reconstruction.Footnote ⁴⁹ One reason why the argument for secondariness looks so plausible above is that Thomas has been restored not only on the basis of the Coptic, but also (almost certainly) on the basis of Luke 8.17. It remains possible, too, that DeConick's theory of different versions arising through oral performance also explains the text-form in Thomas here.Footnote ⁵⁰ The closeness of Luke and Thomas should not merely be waved away, however. In particular, if the number of parallels to Lukan redaction in other sayings begins to mount up, then the theory of shared Lukan variations emerging in oral performances will look more shaky.

3.2. GTh 31.1/Luke 4.24

The substance of GTh 31.1 is the same as the versions in the four canonical Gospels: this saying is noteworthy for appearing also in John. There are features in Thomas's version, however, which are suspiciously Lukan. First, Thomas shares with Luke (and John) a simple negative statement, rather than the Matthean and Markan ‘not … except…’.Footnote ⁵¹ Secondly, Thomas shares with Luke the word δɛκτός. This is not a particularly common word: it occurs only five times in the NT (3× in Luke–Acts, 2× in Paul). Thirdly, excepting Luke's opening οὐδɛίς and Thomas's οὐκ, Luke and Thomas share all the same words, which differ only in their order. It is also possible that Thomas is dependent on Luke in pairing GTh 31.1 with 31.2.Footnote ⁵² DeConick here appeals to an exclusively oral source influencing both Luke and Thomas.Footnote ⁵³ But again, if more agreement appears in different sayings, one is faced with the increasing likelihood of Luke's written Gospel exerting an influence, even if that influence is indirect, and mediated by oral transmission as well.

3.3-4. GTh 65-66/Luke 20.9-17

This developing pattern can be seen further in the parable of the wicked tenants in Thomas:Footnote ⁵⁴

It is virtually certain that there is a literary relationship of some sort between the parable in the Synoptics and GTh 65-66, because of the way in which the parable is in all four (Matthew, Mark, Luke and Thomas) followed by a quotation of Psalm 118/117. Some additional features reinforce the impression that Thomas's version is generally secondary to that of the Synoptics. For example, Thomas has a strange explanation of the killing of the son: ‘When those tenants realised that it was he who was the heir to the vineyard, they seized him and killed him’. The Synoptics' explanation may not make psychological or legal sense, but it at least makes narrative sense. The Thomas version is less clear, and looks like it might be an abbreviation which has made the narrative no longer make good sense: there is a missing presupposition here. Moreover, the use of the Psalm in GTh 66 reflects a greater distance from the Psalter than do the Synoptic quotations, both in its initial statement (‘Show me…’) and in its attribution of the statement straightforwardly to Jesus. Identifying the likelihood of a literary relationship between Thomas and the Synoptics in general is of course not yet to prove Lukan influence in particular. Several commonalities specifically between Thomas's and Luke's versions can be noted, however:

1. 1. In the setting of the parable in GTh 65.1 and its parallels, Thomas shares in common with Luke a lack of reference to Isaiah 5 as a theological backdrop, in contrast to Mark and Matthew.Footnote ⁵⁷

2. 2. In connection with GTh 65.2, Mark and Matthew have the owner sending the servants to collect the produce (ἵνα παρὰ τῶν γɛωργῶν λάβῃ ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν τοῦ ἀμπɛλῶνος [Matt: λαβɛῖν τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτοῦ]), whereas Luke and Thomas have their final clause with the reverse syntax, ‘so that the tenants might give him the produce of the vineyard’: ἵνα ἀπὸ τοῦ καρποῦ τοῦ ἀμπɛλῶνος δώσουσιν αὐτῷ / ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ ⲉⲛⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲉ ⲛⲁϯ ⲛⲁϥ ʾⲡⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ.Footnote ⁵⁸

3. 3. Mark and Matthew have the servants seized, beaten, insulted and killed. Luke and Thomas, however, have the servants beaten and sent back, but reserve the killing for the son alone.

4. 4. In Luke 20.13, the owner of the vineyard says to himself, ‘Perhaps (ἴσως) they will respect my son’. That Luke alone of the Synoptics has ‘perhaps’ is noteworthy because ἴσως is a hapax legomenon in the NT. Then Thomas actually has ‘perhaps’ (ⲙⲉϣⲁⲕ) twice.Footnote ⁵⁹

5. 5. To return to the presence of Psalm 118/117 in all the versions, it is notable that Luke and Thomas end their appended references to the Psalm with v. 22, omitting Mark's and Matthew's continuation into v. 23.

Response to Objections

DeConick considers these common features as trifling, ‘since we do not find sequences of words or phrases longer than five or six’, and concludes in favour of oral factors.Footnote ⁶⁰ The choice of ‘five or six’ as requisite seems rather arbitrary, however, and indeed five or six phrases might well be rather considerable. Again, as noted in Part 1, it is wrong to use the degree of similarity among the Synoptics as a base-line of comparison.

The most substantial attack on the theory of Thomasine dependence has come from John Kloppenborg.Footnote ⁶¹ There is not space here to discuss Kloppenborg's whole argument for the primacy of the basic structure and contents of Thomas's version, even though there are difficulties with his arguments for, e.g., Thomas's more realistic reflections of viticulture and law.Footnote ⁶² On the matter of Thomas's connecting the parable with Psalm 117, Kloppenborg argues that the linking of parable and psalm predated both Mark and Thomas.Footnote ⁶³ Since Kloppenborg does not think this link original, however, the connection has been consigned to a no-man's-land; the problem has been moved, rather than solved. Almost all scholars, including those who generally prefer Thomasine independence, see a literary relationship here.Footnote ⁶⁴ On the specific issues pertaining to Lukan influence:

1. 1. On Thomas's and Luke's shared lack of reference to Isaiah 5 as a theological backdrop in the introduction, Kloppenborg is surely right that this is unlikely to be a matter of a Gnostic tendency to de-Judaise the parable. Nevertheless, many will find it hard to accept Kloppenborg's proposal that (a) Thomas's version reflects the earliest form of the parable without Isaiah, and (b) Mark inserts the Isaianic material into the introduction, and (c) Luke removes most of it again, leaving an introduction coincidentally similar to that of Thomas.

2. 2. On the differences in the purpose clauses between Mark 12.2/Matt 21.34 and Luke 20.10/GTh 65.2, Kloppenborg argues that λαμβάνɛιν and διδόναι are ‘stereotypical verbs used in the description of leasing arrangements’ and so ‘little can be made of the agreements between Thomas and the Synoptics’.Footnote ⁶⁵ It is important, however, that one does not say that nothing can be made of it, but that is what it amounts to in Kloppenborg's rhetoric. This is a minor agreement, to be sure, but it has a place in a cumulative case.

3. 3. On the point of Luke's and Thomas's difference from Mark in reserving the killing for the son alone, I have not been able to discover a comment in Kloppenborg's monograph.

4. 4. On the instances of ‘perhaps’ in Luke and Thomas, Kloppenborg argues that the ‘perhaps’ is ‘fundamental to Thomas's redactional purpose and only incidental to Luke's’; as such, ‘one might well conclude that Luke reflects knowledge of a parable such as Thomas's’.Footnote ⁶⁶ It is hard to know how seriously Kloppenborg is putting forward this option, given that he has previously insisted on Luke's redaction exclusively of Mark. He muddies the waters further by saying how difficult the situation is to assess given that Luke only uses ἴσως here (in fact, as noted above, it is a hapax in the NT) and that this is Thomas's only use of ⲙⲉϣⲁⲕ. But this is surely the point: Luke's use of a relatively unusual word (and indeed Thomas's adding a further ‘perhaps’) is all the more reason to suspect that Thomas is here incorporating a Lukan redactional feature.

5. 5. On the matter of Luke and Thomas ending their uses of the Psalm with v. 22, Kloppenborg notes the point, without further explanation.Footnote ⁶⁷ In sum, Kloppenborg's monograph, for all its massive learning, does not explain away the evidence for Mk → Lk → GTh.

3.5. GTh 33.2-3/Luke 11.33

GTh 33 has not been sufficiently probed for its potential links with this Lukan doublet. The similarity between Luke and Thomas can be seen first in the opening phrase. (1) In contrast to Mark's quasi-personification of the lamp (μήτι ἔρχɛται ὁ λύχνος), and Matthew's anonymous 3rd pers. pl. (οὐδὲ καίουσιν λύχνον), Luke has the more straightforward οὐδɛὶς [8.16 + δὲ] λύχνον ἅψας…. Thomas's phrasing (ⲙⲁⲣⲉ ⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲅⲁⲣ ϫⲉⲣⲉ ϩⲏ) is essentially the same, and so they are closest to each other. (2) In the next section of text, Luke 11.33 and Thomas are again closest, sharing the location ‘in a secret place’ (ɛἰς κρύπτην [P45: ɛἰς κρυπτόν] / ϩ ⲙⲁ ⲉϥϩⲏⲡʾ); Luke 8.16 does not have the ‘hidden place’ but does have the verb καλύπτɛι. Two further elements look even more like Lukan redactional features incorporated into Thomas. (3) Thomas's reference to ‘everyone who goes in and comes out’ (ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙʾ ⲉⲧⲃⲏⲕʾ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) looks like an incorporation, and expansion, of Luke's redactional ‘those who go in’ (οἱ ɛἰσπορɛυόμɛνοι). Finally, (4) there is the shared reference to them seeing the light (τὸ ϕώς βλέπωσιν / ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲛⲁⲩ ⲁⲡⲉϥⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ). Together, these features constitute solid evidence in favour of Luke's influence (specifically that of Luke 11.33) upon Thomas.Footnote ⁶⁸

3.6. GTh 99/Luke 8.20-21

The following Synoptic parallels also overlap with a dialogue attributed to the Gospel of the Ebionites (Epiphanius Pan. 30.14.5), as well as a much abbreviated version of less account in 2 Clement 9.11.

First, there is a relatively insignificant point: Thomas shares with Matthew and Luke the plus, ‘standing outside’, but this is not particularly noteworthy because ‘standing’ is also mentioned in the scene-setting in Mark 3.31 and Matt 12.46. Only marginally more significant is that Thomas, with Luke alone, lacks ‘behold’ at the beginning: this is perhaps interesting because Thomas likes using ‘behold’ (GTh 3, 9, 10, 113, 114), but in general shared minuses are probably less significant than shared pluses. However, Luke 8.21 and Thomas share a quite substantial minus in Jesus' reply which is rather more noteworthy. Finally, again on a minor note, the end of the saying in Thomas shares Luke's plurals (as opposed to indefinite singulars) in 8.21. It is possible that the Lukan and the Thomasine versions developed these features in parallel in oral tradition, but equally the written form of Luke's Gospel may have made an impact upon this oral tradition.Footnote ⁶⁹

3.7. GTh 104/Luke 5.33-35

Here we have a saying which even some who vigorously advocate Thomas's independence concede has features of Lukan redaction.Footnote ⁷⁰

This saying has obviously been substantially altered in Thomas. Nevertheless, Thomas includes an element of Lukan redaction—the reference to prayer as well as fasting. Thomas in fact includes two instances of this pairing, the first reversing the Lukan order, the second (no doubt quite unconsciously) restoring the Lukan order in Jesus' reply.Footnote ⁷¹

3.8. GTh 100/Luke 20.22–24

Before considering an important final example (3.10), we can consider briefly here two more speculative cases.

There are some ‘minor agreements’ between Luke and Thomas here. First, Luke and Thomas both share a generalised reference to ‘tax’ (ϕόρος/ϣⲱⲙ), in contrast to the more specific ‘poll-tax’ of Matthew and Mark (κῆνσος).Footnote ⁷² Secondly, Thomas and Luke have greater visuality, in their references to showing (over against ‘bringing’ the denarius in Mark).Footnote ⁷³ It may be relevant that this is even stronger in certain texts of Luke.Footnote ⁷⁴

3.9. GTh 26/Luke 6.42

If one merely compared Thomas with NA²⁷ or the standard synopses, it would be very difficult here to say that Thomas is dependent on either Matthew or Luke, or any of the other possible ways round—the forms of the saying are all just too similar to each other. DeConick concludes that independent oral development is evident from the ‘common words and phrases with varying sequences and inflections’.Footnote ⁷⁵

This is quite possible, but if Nestle-Aland is right about the original or earliest recoverable form of the text (and this is a big if), then we may have three stages: (1) the second column representing the earliest form of Lukan text; (2) a second-century scribal modification, perhaps under the influence of knowledge of Matthew; (3) Thomas's reproduction of this ‘Luke2’ form of the saying. This is not necessarily a particularly persuasive example, and is offered more as a speculative possibility, but this field of study is certainly one which merits further attention.

What this saying does confirm is the extreme likelihood of a literary relationship between Thomas and the Synoptics at the Greek stage: the striking string of very similar Greek words is surely instructive on this point. It is at the very least an indication of a literary relationship (without thereby excluding orality as well) between Thomas and the Synoptics, but this saying on its own probably cannot make clear either the direction of the influence among the three versions.

3.10. GTh 47.3-5/Luke 5.36-39

This example has been left to last because it leads into Part 4, and consideration of the GTh → Lk position. Thomas's versions of the brief ‘parables’ of the old-and-new-wine, and the patch-on-the-garment, are of interest here because Riley claims that they supply evidence for the influence of Thomas on Luke. What attracts Riley's attention is Luke's addition to the Markan (and Matthean) version, in which the Lukan Jesus says, ‘And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, “The old is better.” ’ (Luke 5.39). This appears to contradict what Jesus has been saying. He has been stressing that the new cannot merely be sewn onto, or poured into, the old: rather, the new requires a whole new setting. On the other hand, the Lukan addition then, rather confusingly, praises the old. Riley understandably asks: ‘Why did Luke add this sentence to the Markan saying about the Patches and Wineskins?’Footnote ⁷⁶ Examination of the saying in Thomas turns up an interesting fact, according to Riley: the version in GTh 47 ‘values the old over the new throughout’.Footnote ⁷⁷ This is questionable,Footnote ⁷⁸ but in any case, it leads Riley to give the following account of the Mark–Thomas–Luke relationship:

The complexity of Riley's theory is evident from the series of verbs in his summary of what happened: ‘Thomas Christianity inherited … it redacted … reversing … emphasized … introducing … conflated’:Footnote ⁷⁹Thomas takes the Markan version, adds a new preface, and reverses the original order. Luke then takes both the Markan and the Thomasine version. He keeps the Markan order and overall sense, but takes Thomas's preface and puts it at the end, introducing a contradictory saying.

Elegant this solution is not. There is a solution which is more economical, involving only two steps: supplementation and reversal. Luke supplements the Markan version with his postscript, and Thomas takes the Lukan version and reverses the order of the elements as follows:

As such, the simple solution would be: AB → ABC → CBA. Of course a great many complexities attend the transmission of Synoptic sayings, but this is all the more reason not to multiply complexities unnecessarily.

The difficulty with the Lukan addition is not nearly so extreme as Riley suggests: probably a majority of commentators—who cannot merely be dismissed in a footnote—consider Luke 5.39 to be a comment on Jesus' interlocutors being reluctant to change their ways and embrace the new.Footnote ⁸⁰ This corresponds well with the question about fasting which has just been addressed to Jesus, and especially with the two pericopes following at the beginning of Luke 6. As such, we have here a good case for Thomas incorporating Lukan redaction.Footnote ⁸¹

4.1. GTh 72/Luke 12.13-14

A generation ago, the complex debate between Quispel and Baarda on whether Thomas was dependent here upon Luke reached something of a stalemate,Footnote ⁸² but Riley has reopened the case, arguing for Luke's dependence upon Thomas.Footnote ⁸³ He claims that Baarda's Achilles heel is his lack of attention to Luke's quirky word μɛριστής. According to Riley, ‘the word itself is until the time of Luke a hapax legomenon [sic], occurring here for the first time in extant Greek literature’. Riley continues, noting the ‘strange word’, and claiming that ‘there was no such office or title in any court or system of arbitration … neither in Greco-Roman nor Jewish culture’. Moreover, ‘the Lukan story certainly has no need of it; the text reads more naturally without the new and awkward expression’.Footnote ⁸⁴ Hence Riley's question: ‘Why was the term coined and why is it in the text of Luke?’Footnote ⁸⁵

Enter the Gospel of Thomas, where ‘divider’ (ⲣⲉϥⲡⲱϣⲉ) fits perfectly naturally in GTh 72, and more generally with Thomas's Jesus, who ‘comes from the undivided’ (GTh 61.3). This anomalous word crept into Luke because the original saying had ‘judge’; Thomas replaced this with ‘divider’, and Luke conflated the two.Footnote ⁸⁶

The fundamental problem with Riley's theory, however, is in the claim that μɛριστής is a Lukan neologism. One might gain this impression from the main text of LSJ, though second-century references in Pollux Grammaticus and Vettius Valens might give pause for concluding that ‘the word appears to be a coinage arising in this very saying’.Footnote ⁸⁷

However, the 1968 LSJ supplement includes a third-century bce inscription mentioning μɛρισταί, glossed ‘financial officials at Istria’.Footnote ⁸⁸ After being noted in the Bulletin épigraphique for 1955 (to which the LSJ supplement refers), it was published in Pippidi's edition of the Istria inscriptions, which also contains another partially reconstructed, and two fully reconstructed, instances of μɛριστής.Footnote ⁸⁹ These appear in a formula assigning duties to the οἰκονόμος and the μɛριστής respectively: ‘The oikonomos is to pay out the cost, the meristai are to distribute it’.Footnote ⁹⁰

Another almost complete example comes in a second-century bce Magnesian inscription: ‘Three envoys from all the craftsmen are to be despatched both now and for all time, and the meristai (τοὺς μɛρι[σ]τά[ς]) are to give them whatever the assembly commands for the sacrifice…’ (IMagn 54, ll. 34–37).Footnote ⁹¹ Unfortunately the inscription breaks off shortly after this notice. Perhaps they were, as above, responsible for the distribution of funds, in this case for sacrifices.Footnote ⁹²

There are also two cases in technical writings from the first century ce. The first comes in Apion's glossary of Homeric terms, which appears to flout the golden rule of lexicography by explaining an obscure word by other words just as obscure: δαιτρός (Od. 1.141): ὁ μάγɛιρος καὶ ὁ μɛριστής (‘carver’: ‘butcher’ and ‘divider’).Footnote ⁹³ So μɛριστής is acceptable as an equivalent of two terms which are known to refer to meat-cutting, a rather different sense from that above.

Finally, the first-century ce astrologer Dorotheus of Sidon says that a son has an ill-starred destiny if there is a ‘divider of the periods’ (μɛριστὴς τῶν χρόνων) in his horoscope.Footnote ⁹⁴ Although the meaning of this designation is not obvious, it also occurs in LSJ's example from Vettius Valens in the second century ce. There the μɛριστὴς χρόνων ζωῆς is the lord of the horoscope,Footnote ⁹⁵ and so the sense is probably the same in Dorotheus. Pollux Grammaticus provides the other example from the second century cited by LSJ.

In sum, then, the word is used in a variety of settings in the pre-Christian period and the first century ce. While it could not be claimed that μɛριστής is a common word, it is certainly—pace Riley—no Lukan or Thomasine invention either.Footnote ⁹⁶ This does not of course prove Lukan influence upon Thomas, but it does remove the basis for Riley's argument that Thomas has contributed to the form of Luke 12.

4.2. GTh 76.3/Luke 12.33

A further instance of GTh → Lk has recently been proposed by Steven Johnson.Footnote ⁹⁷ He begins by enthusiastically taking up Riley's conclusions above: he considers Riley to have ‘demonstrated’ Lukan use of GTh 47, and comments that ‘Riley chose perhaps the clearest and strongest cases for Lukan dependence on the Thomas tradition’.Footnote ⁹⁸ Be that as it may, Johnson suggests a further instance, in which GTh 76 is influential as one of a number of sources for Luke 12.33:

In sum, according to Johnson, Luke ‘recomposed Q 12:53 with the aide of Mark 10:21 and GTh 76:3’.Footnote ⁹⁹

Leaving aside the questions of the influence of Mark and Q, the key point for our purposes is the theory of GTh 76.3 as a source, and here a number of problems surface. First, in Johnson's main synopsis, the word in Thomas for ‘which does not fail’ (ⲉⲙⲁϥⲱϫ) is retroverted into the very odd Greek phrase μὴ τὸν ἀπολλύμɛνον, surely a solecism.Footnote ¹⁰⁰ Secondly, it is perhaps peculiar that Johnson posits a retroversion employing a form of ἀπολλύναι, when Thomas's ⲉⲙⲁϥⲱϫ is closer to Luke's ἀνέκλɛιπτον: Crum's first equivalent for ⲱϫ is ἐκλɛίπɛιν (Crum 539a),Footnote ¹⁰¹ and conversely Luke's ἀνέκλɛιπτον is translated in Luke 12.53 as ⲁⲧⲱϫ. Thirdly, more strange, is the answer to the question, ‘What does Thomas contribute to the Lukan saying?’ In Johnson's view, it is not what appears closest in the synopsis above, because of his purported Greek for Thomas's ‘which does not fail’. Rather, it is ‘the idea for a qualifier of “treasure”’;Footnote ¹⁰² Luke did not get the actual qualifier itself: this Luke changes from μὴ τὸν ἀπολλύμɛνον to ἀνέκλɛιπτον. So what Thomas contributes to Luke, according to Johnson, is merely the idea of a second qualifier. This is clearly quite a paltry contribution.

Johnson's puzzlement at those who argue for the canonical Gospels' influence on Thomas is expressed as follows: ‘why would the composer of GTh 76:3 go to such trouble picking out individual words here and there from three, or even all four canonical Gospels?’Footnote ¹⁰³ Irrespective of how many sources are needed (as we have seen, Johnson's Luke requires three here: Mark, Q and Thomas), this question assumes that other scholars think of composition taking place in the same woodenly scribal manner as does Johnson.Footnote ¹⁰⁴ Much more likely is an oral tradition combining numerous converging traditions. Johnson claims that other theories are more complicated than his view of Luke's use of three sources, and rejects a view positing ‘secondary orality’ because he considers that John 6.27 would have to be included in the oral tradition influencing Thomas.Footnote ¹⁰⁵ This is spurious, however, as the connections between John and Thomas are thin here: Johnson generally overemphasises the commonality.Footnote ¹⁰⁶

In sum, there are so many difficulties with this theory that it is hard to see how it could find acceptance: the same goes for the other cases alleging GTh → Luke. As mentioned above, however, these two sayings discussed here in Part 4 are not proposed as evidence pointing in the other direction (Lk → GTh); the arguments here are simply negative.