Synoptic Tradition in Some Nag Hammadi and Related Texts

Author(s): Christopher Tuckett

Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Jul., 1982), pp. 173-190
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583491
Accessed: 08-08-2014 14:05 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

VigiliaeChristianae36 (1982) 173-190,E. J. Brill,Leiden

SYNOPTIC

TRADITION IN SOME NAG HAMMADI

RELATED TEXTS

AND

BY

CHRISTOPHER TUCKETT

in 1945,theGospelof Thomashas aroused

Eversinceitsdiscovery
itsrelationship
withthetradition
of
greatinterest,
especially
concerning
ofJesusinthesynoptic
thesayings
little
atgospels.However,
relatively
tention
hasbeenpaidtothesimilar
between
questionoftherelationship
tradition
of thesayingsof Jesusand theothertextswhich
thesynoptic
withtheGospelofThomasat Nag Hammadiorwhich
werediscovered
areotherwise
relatedto it.Thepurposeofthisarticleis to offera brief
of threeof thesetextswiththisquestionin mind.
discussion
1. The Gospel of Philip'

The problemof determining

in the
allusionsto theNewTestament
"Theseechoesandallusions
GospelofPhilipis complex.Wilsonwrites:
are fairly
notalwayseasytodetect.In somecases,
numerous,
although
what
to
one
scholar
a clearandunmistakable
echomay
indeed,
appears
2
to anotherseemquiteinsignificant."
However,a clearstarting
point
seemsto be providedby partof saying123: "That is whytheword
theaxeis laidattherootofthetrees'"'(83.11-13).3
(X6yo0)says'Already
It is universally
in
agreedthatthisis a quotationofthesayingpreserved
Matt.3.10/Lk.3.9.4 Althoughit is notclearprecisely
to whatX6yo0
hereis quotingthe
refers,'it does seemto be thecase thatthewriter
wordsofa priorsource.Whether
thissourcewasMatthew's
gospel,or
or
their
common
source
or
even
a
Luke's,
Q,
post-synoptic
harmony,
cannotbe determined
at thisstage(sinceMatthewand Lukeare identicalhere).Nevertheless
one can saythattheauthorof theGospelof
and he feelsitapPhilipknowsat leastsomeof thesynoptic
tradition,
to
it
in
form
use
the
of
a
With
thisin mind,it
propriate
quotation.6
seemsreasonableto assumethatotherlinkswiththesynoptictradition
whichcan be detectedin theGospel of Philip mayalso be explainedas

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

174

CHRISTOPHER
TUCKETT

due to knowledgeof thattradition.The questionis what stage of the

traditionis presupposedhere.
Furtherprogresscan be made by consideringpartof saying89: "For
he (i.e. Christ) said 'Thus we should fulfil all righteousness"'
(72.34-73.1). Althoughthereare some lacunae in themanuscriptat this
point,thereadingof thispartof thesayingis notin doubt,and it seems
in thepresclear thatthisis a quotationof Matt. 3.15.7 Its significance
ent discussion is that this verse in Matthew is almost universally
recognisedas beingdue to Matthew'sredaction.8This means thatthe
Gospel of Philip shows knowledgeof Matthew'sredactionalactivity
and thusof Matthew'sgospel,ratherthanof Matthew'ssources.In fact
all theremainingallusionsto thesynoptictraditionare, withone major
exception,all consistentwith the theorythat the Gospel of Philip is
dependenton Matthew'sgospelalone forthematerialit shareswiththe
synoptictradition.Several of theseallusionsare not veryclear, and I
shall discuss themin an orderof decreasingclosenessto the synoptic
tradition.
In saying23, thereis the comment:"He who receivesthese(i.e. the
fleshof Jesuswhichis the word, and the blood of Jesuswhichis the
Holy Spirit)has food, and he has drinkand clothing"(57.7-8).9 This
seems to be a clear referenceto the Q sayingsabout cares (Matt.
6.25ff./Lk.12.22ff.).However,it is onlyin Matthew'sgospel thatthe
three items of food, drink and clothing are explicitlymentioned
together.In Matt. 6.25 thereis strongMSS supportforthe versionin
whichJesustellsthedisciplesnot to worryabout whattheywilleat, or
whattheywill drinkor how theywillbe clothed.'0Luke's parallelhere
(Lk. 12.22) mentionsonly food and clothing.In Matt. 6.31 the threefold formis textuallycertain,as thedisciplesare told not to worryand
say "What shall we eat, whatshall we drink,or how shall we be clothed?" Luke's parallelat thispoint(Lk. 12.29) says "Do not seek what
you shalleat, or whatyou shall drink,neitherbe of doubtfulmind." It
is difficult
to decidewhichversionis moreoriginalhere." Nevertheless
it is onlyMatthew'sversionwhichexplicitly
refersto thetripleproblem
of food,drinkand clothingin a singlesaying(thoughthisis implicitin
the sayingsin Lk. 12.22,29). The Gospel of Philip thus has more affinitieswithMatthew'sgospelthanwithLuke's, so thatthisexampleis
at leastconsistentwiththetheorythattheGospel of Philipis dependent
on Matthew'sgospel(thoughit cannotof itselfgiveany strongerproof
of this).

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SYNOPTIC TRADITION IN NAG HAMMADI TEXTS

175

thatfall
"Let themfeedfromthecrumbs
Saying122saysofoutsiders
seemsto be
fromthe table,likethedogs" (88.23-24).The imagery
womanto Jesusin
derivedfromthe sayingof the Syro-Phoenician
betweenMatMatt. 15.27/Mk.7.28. However,thereare differences
thewandMarkat thispoint.Mk.7.28reads:"The dogsunderthetable
eatof thechildren's
crumbs";Matt.15.27reads:"The dogseatofthe
crumbswhichfallfromtheirmasters'table". The "table" is linked
withthedogsin Mark,butwiththecrumbsin Matthew;further,
the
in
"fall"
In
inare
said
to
Matthew's
version.
each
of
these
crumbs
only
stances,theGospelof PhilipfollowsMatthew'sversionratherthan
thestandard
Mark's.Further,
solutionto theSynoptic
Probassuming
Matthew's
version
here
must
be
due
to
Matthew's
redaction
of
lem,
of
Mark.12 Thus once again,theGospelof Philipshowsknowledge
Matthew'sredactional
thetheorythatthe
work,and thisstrengthens
writer
is dependent
on Matthew'sfinalgospel,ratherthanon one of
Matthew'ssources.13

thewords:"He said,'MyFatherwhois insecret'.

Saying69 includes
andshutthedoorbehindyou,andpray
He said,'Go intoyourchamber
to yourFatherwhois in secret"'(68.9-13).Thatthisis a quotationof
Matt.6.6 is acceptedbyall.'4WithinMatthew's
gospel,thisis partof
"M"
to
the
material,i.e. materialpeculiar Matthew.The ultimate
is uncertain,
and it is notclearlyredactional.
originof thetradition
Thusthepresence
of thissayingin theGospelof Philipcannotprove
Matthew'sgospel,ratherthanMatthew's
thatthelatterpresupposes
oftheGospelofPhilipon
sourcehere.However,giventhedependence
Matthew's
redactional
workwhichwehavealreadyseen,theuseofthe
sayinghere fitswell withthe theorythatthe Gospel of Philipis
on Matthew.
dependent
withthistheory
Further
allusionswhichareconsistent
includeJesus'
whichis quotedin saying72: "My God, myGod,
cryof dereliction,
me?" (68.26-27).Clearlythiscannotbe
whyO Lordhaveyouforsaken
sinceMk. 15.34andMatt.27.46
derivedfromLuke'sgospel;however,
in
their
of Jesus' cry,eithercould
almost
identical
versions
are
thereappears
be thesourceoftheGospelofPhilip(though
theoretically
forreading
inthetextual
tradition
an extra"O Lord"
to be no support
herein eitherMatthewof Mark).Thisexampleis at leastconsistent
thattheGospelofPhilipis
wecansayno more)withthetheory
(though
on Matthew.
dependent

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

176

CHRISTOPHER

TUCKETT

to theveil of thetemple.In saying

The same applies to thereference
76 it is said that"its veilwas rentfromtop to bottom"(70.1-3); and in
saying 125 thereis an extendeddiscussion,claimingthat it is highly
thattheveilwas tornnotonlyat thetop, noronlyat thebotsignificant
tom,but fromtop to bottom(85.5-10). Once again,thisexcludesLuke's
versionas a possible source of the allusion, since Lk. 23.45 lacks the
phrase "from top to bottom" whichis so crucial for the Gospel of
Philip. Matt. 27.51 and Mk. 15.38 both have the relevantphrase. In
fact,Matthewand Mark are all but identicalhere,so thatagain, either
be thesourceof theGospel of Philip,and thisis once
could theoretically
moreconsistentwiththetheorythattheGospel of Philip is dependent
on Matthew.
The remainingsynopticallusionsare muchmoreindirectthanthose
consideredso far,thoughnearlyall of themcan be explainedas being
derivedfromMatthew.Saying22 includesthewords"No one willhide
a large valuable object in somethinglarge..." (56.20-22). Some have
cited Matt. 13.45f. as a parallel.'5If the parallel is accepted,it shows
once again a link betweenthe Gospel of Philip and M material,and
would fitthetheorythattheGospel of Philipis dependenton Matthew.
However,thereferenceis verygeneral,and theparallelis by no means
certain.In saying27 it is said that"No one willbe able to see thekingif
he is naked" (58.15-16). Some connectionwiththe parable of the man
without a wedding garmenthas been suggested.'16This parable is
peculiarto Matthew,and thustheremightbe anotherlinkbetweenthe
Gospel of Philipand M material,althoughone mustadmitthattheallusion (if such it is) is veryindirect.
Saying32 says: "There werethreewho alwayswalkedwiththeLord:
Maryhis motherand hersisterand Magdalene,theone who was called
his companion" (59.6-10). There would appear to be some link with
Matt. 27.55f./Mk.15.40f.(perhapsalso Jn. 19.25),'" butone cannotbe
moreprecise.Saying48 says (presumablyof thetrueGnostic): "When
thepearlis cast downintothemuditdoes notbecomegreatlydespised"
(62.17-19). A connectionwiththe parable of the pearl (Matt. 13.45f.)
has been suggested,'8but Matt. 7.6 may also have been in mind.'9No
NT allusionmaybe intendedat all, thoughsuchparallelsas mightexist
are once again in Matthew'sgospel alone.
Saying59 runs:"If one go down intothewaterand come up without
havingreceivedanythingand says 'I am a Christian',he has borrowed
thenameat interest.But ifhe receivetheHoly Spirit,he has thenameas

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SYNOPTIC TRADITION IN NAG HAMMADI TEXTS

177

a gift.He who has receiveda giftdoes not giveit back, but of himwho
has borrowedit at interestpaymentis demanded." (64.22-29). The first
partof thissayingmay reflectMatt. 3.16/Mk. 1.10.20 Possiblytoo the
second half may reflectMatt. 13.12.2' However,the connectionis not
strong,and Matt. 13.12 is closelyparallelto Mk. 4.24 and Lk. 8.18. At
the most one can say that no othersynoptictraditionis closer to the
Gospel of Philip than Matthew'sgospel.
Saying87 may includea referenceto "the sons of the bridegroom"
(72.20-21). The text is missing at the crucial point, and either
"bridegroom" or "bridal-chamber" could have been the original
reading.However,thephrase"sons of thebridegroom"occursagain in
saying122 (82.17).2 Theremaybe a connectionherewiththeD reading
of Matt. 9.15.23This variantis confinedto Matthew'stext.If thereis a
connection,it is once again withMatthew'sgospel withperhapsan indication of the textualtraditionof Matthewinvolved.However, this
evidenceis not strong,and one should be waryof buildingtoo much
on it.24
Saying99 includesthe words: "For thingsare not imperishable,but
sons are. Nothingwill be able to receiveimperishability
if it does not
firstbecomea son" (75.10-14). It maybe thatthewordfor"son" here
should be takenas "child", and thatthereis an allusionto thesayings
in thesynopticgospelsabout receivingthekingdomas a child.25If thisis
so, thenit could be arguedthatthe Gospel of Philip is closer to Matthew'sversionof thesaying(Matt. 18.3), wherethechildis explicitly
an
to
be
imitated
like
than
to
Mark's
verexample
("become
children"),
sion (Mk. 10.15), wherethe point of comparisonis rathermore ambiguous("receivethekingdomlikea child").26 The issueis byno means
clear cut, but it should again be noted that Matthew's version is
thatthis
presumablydue to hisredactionof Mark. It maybe, therefore,
is another instance of a link between the Gospel of Philip and
Matthew'sredactionalwork.
Finally,saying125 says thatwhentheveil is rent,"this house willbe
leftdesolate". (84.27-28). This appears to reflecttheQ sayingin Matt.
23.38/Lk. 13.35.27 The textof thegospelsayingis notcertain,butthere
is strongMSS supportforreadingeproS in Matt. 23.38,28 ratherless for
make any concluin Lk. 13.35.29 The textualdifficulties
readingEprgo2
sion uncertain,but it is not impossiblethatthe languageof the Gospel
of Philip is derivedfroma textof Matthew'sgospel.30
All theallusionsconsideredso farhave givenpositivesupportfor,or
are at leastconsistentwith,thetheorythattheGospel of Philipis depen-

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

178

CHRISTOPHER

TUCKETT

denton Matthew'sgospelalone. Thereis, however,one allusionwhich

in saying111
cannotpossiblyderivefromMatthew.This is thereference
to the parable of the Good Samaritan:"The Samaritangave nothing
but wineand oil to thewoundedman (78.8-9), interpreted
as referring
to the "ointment" of the true Gnostic. Whetherthis shows direct
knowledgeof Luke's gospel3'is, however,uncertain.The parableof the
Good Samaritanwas widelyknownand used in theearlychurch,and
appearsto have beenpopularin Gnosticcircles.32The allusionindicates
knowledgeof theparable itself,but not necessarilyof thewholegospel
of Luke.
to Luke's gospelhavebeenalleged.For example,the
Otherreferences
startof saying17: "Some said 'Mary conceivedby the Holy Spirit'"
(55.23-24) has been compared with Lk. 1.35.33 However, this very
to theVirginbirthcould equallywell be derivedfrom
generalreference
Matt. 1.18,20.The wordsin saying95: "It is because of thechrismthat
the Christhas his name. For the Fatheranointedthe Son" (74.15-18)
maybe an allusionto Lk. 4.18, butotherNT textsare equallyclose (e.g.
2 Cor. 1.21f.), and Menard points out how frequentlyXptoa6-and
are linkedin Gnostictexts.34
XpaLgoa
The final example to be considered here occurs in saying 35:
is acceptable" (59.30-31). Some have
"Withoutit (i.e. salt) no offering
pointedto the D textof Mk. 9.49 as providinga backgroundhere.35
However,thisreadingin Mark is itselfan allusionto Lev. 2.13. Given
the factthatthe Gospel of Philip in generalhas a highregardforthe
OT,36 it may well be thatthissayingin Philip is an OT, ratherthana
NT, allusion.3
The conclusion of this analysis is that, with the exceptionof the
referenceto theparable of theGood Samaritan,all theallusionsto the
synoptictraditionin theGospel of Philip can be explainedas deriving
fromMatthew'sgospel." The Gospel of Philip givesone sayingas an
explicitquotation,and itclearlyrefersto Matthew'sredactionalworkat
least once and probablymoreoften.Thus Matthew'sgospelappears to
forsayingsof
be theGospel of Philip's primarysourceof information
Jesusfromthesynoptictradition.
2. The Gospel of Mary39
The NT echoes in thistextare spread veryunevenly,and this fact,
along withotherconsiderations,has led to the beliefthat theremay
originallyhave been two separatedocumentswhichweresubsequently

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SYNOPTIC TRADITION IN NAG HAMMADI TEXTS

179

combined
redactor.40
Theprocessofidentifying
NT allubya Christian
sionsin thisgospelis againcomplex.We knowthatbehindtheCoptic
textliesa GreekVorlage,sincean early(3rdcentury)
Greekpapyrus
of thegospelsurvives.4'Further,
theCoptictranslator
ofthe
fragment
to
no
NT
document
have
made
to
harmonise
the
alluappears
attempt
sionswiththeCoptictextsof theNT.42
of thetext,thereis a verystriking
theprehistory
However,whatever
clusterof synopticallusionsat 8.14-22:"(14) Peace be withyou.
Receive(15) mypeaceto yourselves.
Bewarethatno one (16) leadyou
'Lo
here!'
or
'Lo
astray,
saying(17)
(18)there!'FortheSonofMan(19)
within
is
you.Follow(20) afterhim.Thosewhoseekhimwill(21) find
him.Go thenandpreach(22) thegospelofthekingdom."
Thisseemsto
be a deliberate
to supplymaterialknownto be authentically
attempt
Christian.8.14-15recallsLk. 24.36 (perhapsalso Jn.20.19)and Jn.
thestandard
Semiticpeacegreeting
cannotofitselfprove
14.27,though
verymuch.8.15-16recallsMatt. 24.5/Mk.13.5. 8.17-18is perhaps
closestto Luke'sversionofthissaying(Lk. 17.23)sincetheparallelsin
Matthewand Markbothadd 6 Xplota6
(Matt.24.23; Mk. 13.21);furversion
hasa repeated80s,rather
than 8se
andEix."3If
ther,Matthew's
one can relyon theCopticversionhereas accurately
difreflecting
intheoriginal
ferences
ofLuke's(or
Greek,thenthisimpliesknowledge
versionof
perhapsMark's)text.8.18-19looksverymuchlikea revised
Lk. 17.21,with"Son ofMan" replacing
"KingdomofGod". Thesayand finding
ingaboutseeking
(8.20-21)seemsto be verycloselyrelated
to the Q sayingin Matt. 7.7/Lk. 11.9, thoughagain with a
twistwhereby
theSaviourhimself
hasbecometheobject
Christological
of theseeking.Thissayingwas widelyusedbytheGnostics,44and the
ofthesayingherewithin
a cluster
of synoptic
allusionsmakes
presence
itreasonable
to supposethattheauthordeliberately
to allude
intended
to thissynoptic
Matthew
and
Luke
are
identical
here,
saying.However,
so thatitis impossible
to saywhether
theGospelofMaryis dependent
on Matthew
or Lukeor theircommonsource.Thefinalallusioninthis
catena is the charge"go and preachthe gospelof the kingdom"
to Matt.4.23; 9.35,45presumably
becauseof
(8.21-22).Till hererefers
thephrase"gospelofthekingdom".Wilsondisagrees
and,presumably
on thebasisofthe"go andpreach"phrase,refers
toMk. 16.15.46Butit
seemsdoubtfulwhether
one shouldgiveso muchweightto the"go
A farmorelikelysourceis Matt.24.15whichalso conand" element.
tainsthephrase"gospelofthekingdom".Fora little
laterintheGospel

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

180

CHRISTOPHER

TUCKETT

of Mary,thedisciplesecho theSaviour's commandand implythatthey

have been told to go to theGentiles:"How shall we go to theGentiles
and preach the gospel of the kingdomof the Son of Man?" (9.8-10).
refersto theGentiles
OnlyMatt. 24.15 of thepossibleNT textsexplicitly
to all
("This gospel of thekingdommustbe preached...as a testimony
the Gentiles"). Moreover,this textin Matthewis due to Matthew's
redactionof Mark, and hence the Gospel of Mary presupposesMatthew'sfinishedgospelratherthanMatthew'ssourceshere.If thisis the
case, then four of the five synopticallusions here derive from the
apocalypticdiscoursesof thesynopticgospels. It looks verymuchas if
theauthorhereknewthesediscoursesin theirpresentsynopticform(or
at least Matthewand Luke) and wove togethervarioussayingsto form
the presentclusterof allusions.
Othersynopticallusionsin theGospel of Maryare rare,and it is less
certainif any deliberateallusionis intended.Wilsonrefersto thewords
"He who has ears to hear,lethimhear" in 7.8-9 and 8.10-11(cf. Matt.
11.15; 13.9; 13.43; Mk. 4.9; Lk. 8.8; 14.35).47 However,thisexhortation is extremely
widespreadin Gnosticliterature(as well as in variant
in
the
NT
readings
itself),whereit is used in connectionwithan obscure
for
which
further
calls
interpretation.48The proverbialnatureof
saying
the sayingmakes it precariousto concludetoo muchabout theGospel
of Mary's dependenceon the synoptictradition.It may be significant
thattheGospel of Maryat one pointquotes a variantof thisaphorism
in the form"(He who) understands,let him understand",whichmay
linkwitha similarversionin some WesternMSS at Mk. 4.9.49 Since this
variantappears to occur nowhereelse in the synoptictradition,this
mightshow knowledgeof the Westerntextof Mark by the Gospel of
caution
Mary.However,theproverbialnatureof thesayingnecessitates
11
here.
The second part of the documenttellsof thejourneyof a soul who
converseswithfivegreatpowers.Duringtheconversationwiththethird
power, ignorance,the lattersays "Do not judge", to whichthe soul
replies "Why do you judge me, although I have not judged?"
(15.16-18). Some have suggestedthat this alludes to Matt. 7.1f./Lk.
6.37.1 However, this is by no means certain. The words "Do not
judge" are here placed on the lips of the hostilepower. Further,the
words of the soul's reply appear to have been proverbialand not
peculiarlyChristian.52It is thusdoubtfulif thereis any consciousallusion to the synoptictradition.Similarly,the sayingin 17.4-5, "From

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SYNOPTIC TRADITION IN NAG HAMMADI TEXTS

181

thistimeon I will attainto therest", mayallude to Matt. 11.29;15but

elsewherein Gnosticcirclesand in
the "rest" motifrecursfrequently
Christianity,54and itsoccurrencehereneedsno NT textto exprimitive
plain it.
The finalsayingto be consideredhereoccursin 10.15-16:"Where the
mindis, thereis thetreasure"."5Quispel refersto similarversionsof this
saying in Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VII.12.77; Q.D.S. 17; cf.
Strom. IV.6.33), Macarius (Hom. 43.3), and above all Justin(Apol.
1.15.16). He arguesthatthevariantformsof whatappear to be synoptic
allusions in Justin,which frequentlyagree with 'quotations' in the
Pseudo-ClementineHomilies and Recognitions,are due to common
dependenceon an independentgospel, the Gospel of the Hebrews.56
However, the recentstudiesof Bellinzoniand Kline"5have suggested
thatthesevariantformsare moreprobablydue to use of a post-synoptic
harmonyof the presentgospels, ratherthan to dependenceon an inIn thiscase, thewidespreadoccurrenceof thisform
dependentgospel."58
of thesayingsuggestsa commontradition,"but Bellinzoniarguesthat
its ultimatesource is Matt. 6.21 (or Lk. 12.34).60 It is possiblethatthe
change from"heart" to "mind" was due to an attemptto use more
6' also the inversionof the
philosophical,and less Jewish,terminology;
orderof the phrasesproducesa significantalterationin meaning:the
"place" whichis valued is no longerdefinedto be where"treasure" is,
but wherevo6pis. This looks to be a secondarydevelopmentof the
If thisis so, thentheGospel of Marygivesa developed
originalsaying.62
formof the logion,and thismay mean thatit is onlyindirectly
dependent on the synoptictraditionat thispoint.63
If one acceptsTill's and Wilson'sdivisionof thepresentdocumentinto two discretesources,thenit would appear thateach source section
makes only passing referenceto the synoptictradition,using either
stock phrases (7.8-9; 8.10-11), or sayings which reveal secondary
developmentsfromtheirsynopticform(10.15-16). These sourceswere
notusingin anydirectwaya stratumof thesynoptictraditionwhichcan
in 8.14-22
be readilyidentified.The situationseemsto be quitedifferent
work
of
a
where
the
the
later
author
redactor),
appears to be
(perhaps
deliberatelyalludingto synopticsayings.Moreover,the formof these
sayingssuggeststhatthe authorwas acquaintedwithat least Matthew
and Luke here,and thathe formedthissectionfromtextswhichwere
attitudesto
mostlytakenfromtheapocalypticdiscourses.The different
the synoptictraditionreflectedin the different
partsof the document

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

182

CHRISTOPHER

TUCKETT

may tell us somethingabout the originof theseparts,and thiswill no

doubt repayfurther
study.
3. The Book of Thomas the Contender64
The common use of the figureof Thomas in this text,the seventh
treatisefromCodex II of the Nag Hammadi library,and in theGospel
of Thomas invitesa comparisonbetweenthe two documents.Yet it is
in the
perhaps surprisingthat these two textsare markedlydifferent
amountof synopticmaterialwhichtheycontain.For whilsttheGospel
of Thomas is famousforitswealthof synoptic-type
material,theBook
of Thomas the Contenderappears to be almosttotallylackingin such
material.
Thomas the Contenderdevelops the motifof the ignoranceof the
withthepicdisciples(e.g. 138.31-36),a motifwhichhas some affinities
ture of the disciplesin Mark.65But thereis no need to postulatea
literaryrelationshiphere: the motifis extremelycommon in the Nag
Hammadi texts,and it providesthesituationnecessaryto provokefurtheresotericteaching.66The sayingin 140.41-42,"Blessed is the wise
man who (soughtafterthetruthand) whenhe foundit,he restedupon it
for ever",'s appears to allude to the synopticsayingof "seeking and
finding"(Matt. 7.7/Lk. 11.9); but,as we have alreadyseen, themotifs
so thatdirect
of "seeking/finding"
and "rest" wereverywidespread,68
dependenceon the synoptictraditioncannot be assumed. Rather,this
derive
looks moreliketheuse of commonthemes,whichmayultimately
fromthe synoptictradition,but whose ultimateoriginhas now been
forgotten.At 144.2-6, "Woe to you who dwell in error,heedlessthat
thesun whichjudges and looks down upon theAll willcirclearoundall
thingsso as to enslave the enemies", TurnersuggeststhatMatt. 5.45
But the allusion is veryremote,and cermay be in the background.69
of the sun's destructive
no
idea
Matt.
5.45
powers.
tainly
gives
Kirchnersees a clearallusionto Matt. 10.28 in thewordsof Thomas
in 148.38-40.He reconstructs
and translatesthetextas follows:"Wappneteuch vor denen,die das VerderbenfOrden Leib und'die Seele nicht
kennen".70Even in thisform,it is by no meansclearthatan allusionto
Matt. 10.28 is intended.(E.g. thereis nothingof thecontrastbetween
killingthebodyalone as opposed to killingthebodyand thesoul). Further, thereare a numberof lacunae in the text at this point, and
Kirchner'stextis a reconstructed
one. Turnertranslates:"Many are the
to
who
do
not know that theywill forfeittheir
revealed
those
things

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SYNOPTIC TRADITION IN NAG HAMMADI TEXTS

183

soul" (whichmightsuggesta veryindirectallusionto Mk. 8.36). When

about the text,it is impossibleto deduce
thereis so much uncertainty
the
of
much
about
nature
any alleged synopticallusion.
very
The extended metaphor/parableof the sun, the weeds and the
grapevine(144.20ff.)may owe somethingto biblical imagery.Turner
suggeststhattheremay be reflectionsof Matt. 5.5 (inheritanceof the
land), 5.45 (the sun shiningon bothgood and bad) and 13.30 (vineand
weeds growingtogether).He says: "It may be thatthe authorwas inspiredby the discoursesof the Gospel of Matthew,or anothersimilar
collectionof such discoursematerial.But thereis no singlelocus from
which the metaphorof Thomas the Contendercould have derived;
ratherwe mustaccept its characteras a pasticheof biblicalmotifs.""I
A muchstrongercase fora theoryof directuse of thesynoptictradition by Thomas the Contendercan be made in the case of the two
beatitudesin 145.3-8: "Blessed are you who are reviledand notesteemed on accountof thelove theirLord has forthem.Blessedare you who
weep and are oppressedby thosewithouthope, foryou willbe released
from everybondage." Turner points to the veryclose relationship
whichexistsbetweenthewordingof thefirstpartof each beatitudeand
If thisis thecase, it may
thatof Matt. 5.11 and Lk. 6.21 respectively.72
thatthereferenceto "weeping" in Lk. 6.21 is probalso be significant
ably redactional.73This means that Thomas the Contender shows
knowledgeof Luke's redactionand not just of Luke's sources, and
hencepresupposestheexistenceof Luke's finishedgospel. Whetherthis
is directknowledgeof the canonical beatitudesby Thomas the Contenderis, however,uncertain.Turnerobservesthat it is verystrange
that,ifThomas theContenderknewMatt. 5.11, theauthorshouldhave
omittedthe phrase "and theypersecuteyou and say everyevil thing
againstyou, lyingto you".74(On theotherhand, theconclusionof the
secondbeatitudequoted herecan easilybe seenas theresultof a change
to the ascetic's release fromthe
by Thomas the Contender,referrring
constraintsof the body.")
Finally, at the end of the document,"Watch and pray" (145.8)
recallsMatt. 26.41/Mk. 14.38 (Lk. 22.46 has no "watch").76 145.10-14
reads: "As you prayyou willfindrest,foryou have leftbehindthesufferingand the disgrace.For whenyou come forthfromthe sufferings
and passion of the body, you will receiverestfromtheGood One and
you will reignwiththe King." Once again thereis the collocationof
connectionbetween"rest" and
"finding" and "rest", and the further

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHRISTOPHER

184

TUCKETT

"reigning" shows that one is withina patternof motifswitnessed

elsewherein thetradition,and hencenot necessarilydirectlydependent
on the synoptictradition.77
In summary,very few clear synopticallusions can be found in
Thomas theContender.Mattheanmaterialis echoed,and on one occasion Luke's redactionalworkseemsto be presupposed.This mayshow
that Thomas the Contenderhas knowledgeof Matthew'sand Luke's
that
gospels,butin manywaysit seemsto be a veryindirectrelationship
is involved. What is perhaps surprisingis the contrastbetweenthe
Gospel of Thomas and theBook of Thomas theContender.The Gospel
of Thomas uses whatmaybe primitive
traditionsof thesayingsof Jesus
(whetherthe author derives them from the canonical gospels or
elsewhere).Thomas the Contendereitherdoes not know these traditions,or is unconcernedto use them.WhetherThomas the Contender
knows the Gospel of Thomas is also unclear."7Turnerconsidersthe
wholeThomas literature
as in somesensea discreteunity,withtheBook
of Thomas the Contenderoccupyinga median position betweenthe
Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas." However,Thomas the
Contenderis muchfurther
along the"trajectory"of developingJesustraditionsthantheGospel of Thomas, and he seemsalmostobliviousto
theoriginalformof thetradition.As Turnersays: "Whatevermayhave
been theoriginalsayinghas been all butobliteratedby theaccretionof
The Jesuanicformulaeare only an atavism
(ascetic) interpretation...
themessageof theinterpretation
designedto legitimatize
bydesignating
Jesusthe Savior as its source."80"
4. Conclusion
The analysisgiven here suggeststhat the authorsof the textsconsideredhad access to thesynoptictraditiononlyin theformof our presentgospels.The Gospel of Philipderivespracticallyall of itssynoptic
materialfromMatthew'sgospel; and boththeGospel of Mary and the
Book of Thomas the Contenderappear to presupposethe redactional
workof Matthewand Luke. Thereis virtually
no evidencefortheuse of
sources
these
These
textsare thusall "postpre-synoptic
by
writers.8'
synoptic",not onlywithregardto theirdates, but also withregardto
the formof the synoptictraditionwhichtheypresuppose.
In the course of a discussion of the Gospel of Thomas and the
traditionsof thesaypossibilitythatthisgospelmightpreserveprimitive
ings of Jesus,R. M. Grant argued that the natureof the Gospel of

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SYNOPTIC TRADITION IN NAG HAMMADI TEXTS

185

Thomas (whichhe takesto be a Gnosticwork)was in factnot surprising. He said thatanyauthor,composinga "gospel" whichpurportedto
give the esotericteachingof Jesusas the GnosticRevealer"must have
proclaimeddoctrineswhich were in some respectsclose to those set
forthin the Church's gospel; otherwisehe cannot be recognisedas
Jesus."82 Whetherthisexplainsthe similaritiesbetweentheGospel of
Thomas and the synoptictradition(as Grant was arguinghere), and
whetherone shouldindeeddescribetheGospel of Thomas as Gnostic,83
cannot be discussedhere. However,Grant's argumentis by no means
and not necessarilyjustifiedby the evidenceof the other
self-evident,
textsfromNag Hammadi or textsrelatedto them.84The threetextsexattitudesin thisrespect.For some
amined here show widelydiffering
(e.g. theauthorof theGospel of Mary8.14-22), it was clearlyveryimportantthatthespeakerin thetextbe "recognisedas Jesus". For others
(e.g. theauthorof theBook of Thomas theContender),thisconsideration seems to have been quite unimportant.
a
It would obviouslybe naiveto suggestthatthetraditionunderwent
gradually
simple,unilineardevelopment,wherebylaterinterpretations
Nevertheless,studyof the
replaced more primitiveJesus-traditions.8I
synopticmaterialin theseNag Hammaditextsmayenableus notonlyto
have a betterinsightinto the historyof the NT text,possiblyalso illuminatingthe way in which the NT came to be regarded as
and "canonical". It may also enable us to plot moreacauthoritative
curatelythe various "trajectories"on whicheach textmay lie and increase our knowledgeof theirSitz im Leben.
NOTES

1 For texts and commentarieson the Gospel of Philip, see H.-M. Schenke, Das
84 (1959) 1-26; R. McL.
Evangelium nach Philippus, TheologischeLiteraturzeitung
Wilson, The Gospel of Philip (London 1962); C. J. de Catanzaro, The Gospel according
to Philip,Journalof TheologicalStudies 13 (1962) 35-71; W. C. Till, Das Evangelium
nach Philippos(Berlin1963); J.-E. Menard,L 'Evangileselon Philippe(Paris 1967). The
use of the NT in theGospel of Philipis discussedin passingin thevariouscommentaries;
the only articleexplicitlydevoted to the topic seems to be R. McL. Wilson, The New
Testamentin the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Philip, New TestamentStudies 9 (1963)
291-294.
2
Wilson,NTS 9, 291.
3 All translations,
are takenfromJ. M. Robinson
togetherwithpage and linereferences,
(ed.), The Nag Hammadi Libraryin English(Leiden 1977).
4 Cf. Schenke,op. cit.,23; Wilson,Philip, 187; Catanzaro, op. cit.,66; Till, op. cit.,81;
M6nard,op. cit., 241.

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

186

CHRISTOPHERTUCKETT

5 Wilson,
is not
thislogosis theLogosor thewordofscripture
op. cit.,187:"Whether
clear". It shouldbe notedthat,in thecanonicalgospels,thesewordsare atentirely
to JohntheBaptist,
notJesus.
tributed
6
is another
thisimplies
matter.
Whatstageof 'canonicity'
' So Schenke,
op. cit.,56;Till,op. cit.,79;
op. cit.,153;Catanzaro,
op. cit.,18;Wilson,
M6nard,op. cit.,208.
The
Cf. G. Strecker,
Der WegderGerechtigkeit
8
1971)150;E. Schweizer,
(Gottingen
to Matthew
Good Newsaccording
(London1976)53.
1 Thereissomeuncertainty
aboutthetexthere.Thetranslation
givenassumestheemendationofhihbsoforhibsoproposed
op. cit.,89;alsoA.
byTill,op. cit.,75. Cf.Wilson,
in
of
New
Testament
Studies11
Problems
the
Translation
Helmbold,
Gospel Philip,
"in fulness"
of"clothing",
instead
(1964)90-93,onp. 91. Schenke,
op. cit.,9, translates
thefinalwordina formto producethis
butWilsonsaysthathe is "unableto identify
of Jn.6.53,whichsugaftera directquotation
meaning".Thistextcomesimmediately
oftheGospelofJohnbytheauthoroftheGospelofPhilip.In thisartigestsknowledge
tradition.
attention
to thesynoptic
cle, I haveconfined
10 However,thereferenceto drinking(i~
ilrt)is omittedby some MSS, notablyXNf

vg syca b etc.

-,nt

that
derEvangelisten
(Zorich1972),151,thinks
" E.g. S. Schulz,Q - Die Spruchquelle
undLukas(Freiburg
is moreoriginalhere;J. Schmid,Matthiius
Matthew
1930),236,
thinks
thatLukeis moreoriginal.
versions
of twoindependent
here(so B. H.
'Z Unlesswe are to assumetheexistence
TheFourGospels(London1924),260),butthisseemsunnecessary.
Streeter,
1 OnlyCatanzaro,op. cit.,65, refers
hereto Matt.15.27.
explicitly
op. cit.,52; Till,op. cit.,78;
op. cit.,17;Wilson,op. cit.,133;Catanzaro,
'" Schenke,
Menard,op. cit.,189.
to "Matt. 13.34",which
Cf. M6nard,op. cit.,141;Catanzaro,op. cir.,40, refers
'5
mustpresumably
be a misprint.
16
Wilson,op. cit.,93; Catanzaro,op. cit.,42; M6nard,
op. cit.,147.
" Wilson,op. cit.,97; M6nard,
op. cit.,150f.
'8 Catanzaro,
op. cit.,46.
ofthe'pearl'imagery
ofexamples
'9 Menard,
beingusedto
op. cit.,164,givesa number
denotesomething
ofgreatvalue.
20
Cf. Catanzaro,op. cit.,48.
21
de ce que l'on possede".
Catanzaro,ibid.;M6nard,
op. cit.,30: "privations
22
Cf. Wilson,op. cit.,151f.;M6nard,
op. cit.,206f.
23
in theGospelof Philip,Vigiliae
Notedby R. M. Grant,The Mystery
of Marriage
Christianae15 (1961) 136.

In anycaseoneshouldnotbetoohastyinassuming
thatdependence
couldonlyliein
is itself
It is possiblethattheWestern
dueto Gnosticinfluence,
as
onedirection.
variant
wassuggested
Die Gleichnisreden
JesuII (Tibingen1899)180f.
longago byA. Jilicher,
Cf. Wilson,NTS 9, 294.
24

25

Wilson,Philip, 161; M6nard,op. cit., 217.

Is one to receivethekingdom
as a childreceives
or is one to receivethe
things,
makesbetter
senseinMark).
as onereceives
a child?(Thelatter
kingdom
27
So Grant,op. cit.,136.Schenke
notesno NT parallelhere,andMenard,op. cit.,243,
doubtabouttheexistence
ofan allusionhere.Similarly
Wilson,op. cit.,190f.,
expresses
26

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SYNOPTIC TRADITIONIN NAG HAMMADITEXTS

187

onthecanonical
whowarnsagainstdeducing
a
However,
dependence
gospelstoohastily.
littlelaterinthesamesaying,
theGospelof PhilipsaysthattheGodheadwillbe "under
ofthesamegospelsaying
thewings"ofthecross.Thisseemstoreflect
theimagery
(Matt.
23.37/Lk.13.34:a hengathers
herbrood"underherwings")andhencesuggests
thatthis
gospelsayingis indeedinmind(cf.Grant,op. cit.,137).
28
etc.
p" K C D W O f' f" latsyrP,h
29
D N A O f" etc.
inthelatest(26th)edition
is
oftheNestle-Aland
Greek
'p-l1oS printed
NT inthetextofMatt.23.38,butnotof Lk. 13.35.
3" Itmaybesignificant
thatEpIl[oS
isthereading
theWestern
textof
of,amongst
others,
Matt.23.38.However,
oneclearly
cannotbuildtoomuchon this.
allusionto Luke".
31 So Wilson,op. cit.,7: "Thereis at leastonedistinct
32

Cf. W. Monselewski,Der barmherzigeSamariter.Eine auslegungsgeschichtliche

zu Lukas10,25-37(Tuibingen
Untersuchung
1967),whoarguesthatGnosticinterpretationsof theparablewerecurrent
veryearly,andthatinterpretations
bythe"orthodox"
fathers
to counter
can be seenas an attempt
Gnosticexegesis:"Es liesssichnachweisen,
dassdiealtesten
auffindbaren
Herkunft
uberhaupt
Auslegungsplitter
geradegnostischer
seitIrenausinverschiedener
sind,ja, dasssichsogarindengrosskirchlichen
Auslegungen
Ahnlichkeit
mitgnostischem
im
Hinsicht
findetundzwarfastdurchweg
Gedankengut
miteinerausgesprochenen
Zusammenhang
polemisch-antignostischen
Haltung."(49). It
is also possiblethatthenotein saying9, thatthesoul"fellintothehandsof robbers"
is alsoan allusiontotheparable.(See Monselewski,
(53.11-12),
op. cit.,22ff.,forthisintheactionof therobbers
to theimprisonment
of thesoulin the
terpretation,
referring
of Gnosticexegesis
oftheparable.)Surprisingly,
doesnot
Monselewski
world,as typical
notetheGospelof Philipin his otherwise
exhaustive
of interpretations
of the
survey
parable.
op. cit.,39; M6nard,
op. cit.,30, 136.
33 Catanzaro,
Menard,op. cit.,213.
34
35 Catanzaro,
op. cit.,43.
36
Menard,op. cit.,29f.
" Cf. Wilson,op. cit.,99.
Thus supporting
Wilson'sgeneralclaimthat"of the fourGospels,theauthor's
38
is clearlyforMatthew
and John"(op. cit.,7; cf. also NTS 9, 291),though
preference
Wilsondoesnotundertake
thedetailedcomparison
offered
here.
Forthetextandtranslation,
see W. C. Till(ed.),Die gnostischen
deskopSchriften
39
tischenPapyrus Berolinensis8502. Texte und Untersuchungen
60 (Berlin 1955); also a

translation
andnotesbyR. McL. WilsonandG. W. MacRae,inD. M. Parrott
(ed.),Nag

Hammadi Codices V, 2-5 and VI withPapyrusBerolinensis8502, 1 and 4 (Leiden 1979)

453-471.TheNT allusionsarediscussed
inthe
byR. McL. Wilson,TheNewTestament
Gnostic
Studies3 (1957)236-243.
ThefactthattheBerlin
GospelofMary,NewTestament
codexalso includestwoothertextswhichhavealso beenfoundin theNag Hammadi
of Johnand The Sophia of JesusChrist)seemssufficient
library(the Apocryphon
forconsidering
theGospelof MarywiththeotherNag Hammaditexts.
justification
40
Till,op. cit.,26; Wilson,NTS 3, 237.
1' See C. H. Roberts,Catalogue of the Greekand Latin Papyri in the JohnRylands
Libraryof ManchesterIII (Manchester1938) 18-23.

"
43

Wilson,op. cit.,238.
inthetextual
tradition
of Lukehere,
Wilson,op. cit.,241,saysthatthereis variation

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHRISTOPHERTUCKETT

188

withB reading
of
Thisdoesnotagreewiththenoteinthecritical
ae
repeated.
apparatus
the Nestle-Alandtext,accordingto whichB reads ixe ... ;

'

.... ixt is read by a

ofMSS, including
strictA D W 0 oldlatandmostlaterMSS. Iftranslated
largenumber
thattheversion
fromwhich
ly,theCoptictexthere(mpeisa... mpeeima)
might
suggest
thisderived
readixe ... Wsb (cf.W. E. Crum,A CopticDictionary
(Oxford1939)154b,
Tilltranslates
"'Siehthier'oder'siehtda'". However,
itisdubiousifone
313a),although
on suchtinydetailsof a textin translation.
can placetoo muchweight
TheTheology
oftheGospelof Thomas(London1961)258ff.;J.-l.
4" Cf. B. Gartner,
as
GnosticWritings
selonThomas(Leiden1975)193;H. Koester,
Menard,L'ltvangile
Witnesses
forthe Development
of the SayingsTradition,in B. Layton(ed.), The
discussion
Seetootheextended
byTer(Leiden1980)238-240.
Rediscovery
ofGnosticism
De Praescr.8-13and43,on theuseofthissayingbyvarious'heretics'
tullian,
(e.g. Marcion,Valentinus,
Apelles,Simon).
5 Op. cit.,65.
46

Op. cit., 243.

Op. cit.,240.
inB. Aland(ed.), Gnosis.
Gnosticism
andtheNewTestament,
See J. M. Robinson,
furHansJonas(Gottingen
Festschrift
1978)135f.
Wilson,op. cit.,241.
49
beonlya literary
tooWilson'scautiousremarks
See
50
(p. 241n. 3): "The wordsmight
thesewordsstoodinthe
variation
oftheearlier
partoftheverse.Nordo weknowwhether
Itmustalsobe bornein
orareduetoexpansion
Greekoriginal
bytheCoptictranslator."
in
textsliketheGospelofMaryandvariant
between
mindthattherelationships
readings
thecanonicalgospelsarenotnecessarily
only.See n. 24 above.
one-way
5, Cf. Wilson,op. cit.,243.
to
on theGospelaccording
andExegetical
See W. C. Allen,A Critical
52
Commentary
St.Matthew
(Edinburgh
1907)66. On theotherhand,thesayingwasknownandusedas
tradition:
see H.
of thesynoptic
a sayingof Jesusveryearly,possiblyindependently
Vatern.Texteund Unterbei den apostolischen
Koester,Synoptische
Oberlieferung
on theuseofa similar
65 (Berlin1957)12-16,commenting
sayingin I Clem.
suchungen
13.2.
" Cf. Wilson,op. cit.,238.
5"
in W. Eltester(ed.),
See Gartner,op. cit., 265ff.; P. Vielhauer, 'Avt'omuatg,
L. Peel,TheEpistle
M.
for
Haenchen
E.
Festschrift
281-299;
1964)
(Berlin
Apophoreta.
to Rheginos
(London1969)54, 142f.
im gnostischen
see G. Quispel,Das Hebraerevangelium
For this translation,
55
11(1957)139.Tillallows"treasure"as a
nachMaria,VigiliaeChristianae
Evangelium
has
butprefers
"yourface"(pe-hoforp-eho).Quispel'sargument
possiblerendering,
of thetext.
beenacceptedbyWilsonand MacRaein theirtranslation
evidently
of the
56
Quispel,op. cit.,139-141.R. vandenBroekpointsoutthatthesameversion
Authoritative
(CG VI, 3):
Teaching
logionis alsoalludedtointheNagHammaditractate
one in whichhermindis"
"She (thesoul) runsupwardintohertreasure-house-the
the
theSentences
as wellas possibly
ofSextus316andPistisSophia90(though
(28.22-27),
ofChristian
herearenotexact.)See TheAuthentikos
Logos:A NewDocument
parallels
to Professor
vanden
33 (1979)274f.(I am verygrateful
Christianae
Platonism,
Vigiliae
to this).
Broekandto Professor
myattention
Quispelforbringing
" A. Bellinzoni,
TheSayingof Jesusin theWritings
of Justin
Martyr
(Leiden1967);
Homilies(Missoula1975).
L. L. Kline,TheSayingsofJesusin thePseudo-Clementine
47
48

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SYNOPTIC TRADITION IN NAG HAMMADI TEXTS

189

noevidence
"Notonlyisthere
hisresults
as follows:
summarizes
Bellinzoni
absolutely
fortheuse
evidence
toindicate
theuseofa pre-synoptic
source,butthereisoverwhelming
is
thatJustin
tosupport
theposition
material...
Thereisalsonoevidence
ofpost-synoptic
on
or
more
non-canonical
one
cit.,
139).
gospels."(op.
dependent
tradition".
to a "fixed,literary
'9 VandenBroek,op. cit.,275,refers
60
vandenBroek,op. cit.,p. 275,says
Bellinzoni,
op. cit.,92,98. Similarly,
apparently,
a distinct
that"therecan be no doubtthattheAuthentikos
Logosin28, 22-27contains
other
ofMatth.6, 21". He alsoshowsthatthistextherepresupposes
allusiontothesaying
context.
versesin theMatthean
6' So E. Massaux,Le Textedu Sermonsur la Montagne
utilisepar SaintJustin,
who
28
attributes
thechangetoJustin
Lovanienses
437f.,
(1952)
Theologicae
Ephemerides
oftheGospelofMaryrenders
thisunlikely,
sinceitisdiftheevidence
himself.
However,
itsbeingdependent
on Justin's
work.On theotherhand,thedifference
toenvisage
ficult
variants:
cf.vandenBroek,op. cit.,275,withpossible
couldbeduetotranslation
parallel
cited.
examples
62
whichcontainsthereference
to
Van den Broek,ibid.,arguesthatJustin's
version,
oftheoriginal
anadaptation
inversed
version
"mind"butlackstheinversion,
"represents
to thecanonicaltradition".
63
useofsynoptic
I wouldthusagreewith
anydirect
Quispelthatthereis notnecessarily
istheGospeloftheHebrews
thesourceforthesaying
tradition
here.Whether
is,however,
toindicate
thatthisform
ofthelogionisnota development
of
Thereis nothing
uncertain.
firsttookplaceis not
formof thesaying,thoughwhenthisdevelopment
thesynoptic
clear.
64
TheBookof ThomastheContender
See J. D. Turner,
(Missoula1975);D. Kirchner,
102(1977)793-804.
Das BuchdesThomas,Theologische
Literaturzeitung
65 Cf. Mk. 4.13,41; 6.51f.;7.17f.;8.17-21.The parallelis notedbyTurner,
op. cit.,
132f.
66
Cf. Robinson,
op. cit.,133ff.
67
Forthetext,seeTurner,
op. cit.,152f.
68
intheGospelofThomas,saying
areconnected
Seenotes44,54above.Thetwomotifs
of
2 (in theGreekversioninPOxy654) and intheGospelof theHebrews
(cf.Clement
to "reigning".It is
Strom.11.9.45;V.14.96)withan additionalreference
Alexandria,
intheNagHammadi
tractate
TheDialogueoftheSaviour(CG
possiblethata longsection
of thissaying.(See Koester,
GnosticWritings,
242f.).See also
111,5) is an elaboration
belowon 145.10-14.
69
Op. cit.,177.
70
Op. cit.,cols.793,799.
5'

7
72

Op. cit.,185f.
Ibid., 189f.

to be redactional
(Matt.5.4) butthisis unlikely
parallelhereuses vUWo
'" Matthew's
,t
On theotherhandLukeusesxXaxco
usestheverbonlyonceelsewhere).
quite
(Matthew
TomeI
often(10 timesin hisgospel,3 timesin Acts).See J. Dupont,Les Bdatitudes.
(Paris1969)266-271.
op. cit.,189,saysthattheseare "notionswhichwouldhavebeenverycon'" Turner,
of ThomastheContender".
genialto theintention
75 Ibid., 189f.
76
to Mk. 13.33,butthishas no "pray".
Turner,
op. cit.,190,also refers

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

190

CHRISTOPHERTUCKETT

" Cf. n. 68 above. Whetherthereis anydirectrelationshipbetweenthesetextsis notcertain. Thereis clearlya close connectionbetweenthesayingin theGospel of the Hebrews
and thatin theGospel of Thomas(thoughonlyin theGreekversionof thelatter:theCopto "rest"). The versionsin Thomas theContenderare lessclose.
tictexthas no reference
The sayingin 140.41-42may only indicatea commonmilieuand vocabulary.However,
the sayingin 145.10-14shows more strikingsimilarities,especiallywiththe additional
to "reigning'.However,ifthereis a linkbetweenThomas theContenderand the
reference
of thesayGospel of Thomas here,itmustbe at a relatively
earlystagein thedevelopment
ing, i.e. priorto the presentCoptic versionof the Gospel of Thomas (whichomits the
traditionhere(cf. Koester,"Gnostic Writings",
"rest" motif).Whetherthereis primitive
242-244) is more doubtful.This saying appears to reflecta secondarydevelopment,
perhapsof thesynopticsaying:see J. Jeremias,UnknownSayingsof Jesus(London 1957)
14f.; M6nard,Thomas,79; P. Vielhauer,in E. HenneckeNew Testament
ApocryphaVol.
1 (London 1963) 162.
The connectionbetween145.10-14and theGreekversionof saying2 in theGospel of
78
Thomas suggestssome connection(see previousnote). However,it is also worthnoting
thatthe apparentallusionsto thecanonical beatitudesin Thomas theContenderdo not
overlapat all withthewordingof thebeatitudeswhichhave beenpreservedin theGospel
of Thomas (sayings54, 68, 69).
79
Op. cit., 233ff.;also hisarticleA New Link in theSyrianJudasThomas Tradition,in
M. Krause (ed.), Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of AlexanderBihlig
(Leiden 1972) 109-119.
80 Thomas the
Contender,221.
81
to theGood Samaritanin theGospel of Philip,or
Unlessit is impliedbythereference
the"judging" sayingin theGospel of Mary.Butthereis no indicationineithercase thata
more primitivetraditionhas been preserved.
82
Two GnosticGospels, Journalof Biblical Literature79 (1960), on p. 3.
83
This has alwaysbeencontestedbysome. See mostrecently
G. Quispel, The Gospel of
Thomas Revisited,in B. Barc (ed.), Colloque Internationalsur les Textesde Nag Hammadi (Quebec & Louvain 1981) 218-266.(1 am verygratefulto ProfessorQuispel forthis
reference).
B" It is, of course, also disputedwhetherone should describesome of the otherNag
Hammadi textsas "Gnostic". For example,of thetextsexaminedin thisarticle,theBook
of Thomas the Contendermightbe consideredas not necessarilyGnostic: see van den
Broek, op. cit., n. 45 on p. 285f.; also his reviewof Turner,Thomasthe Contender,in
VigiliaeChristianae33 (1979) 407.
85
Jesus-traditions
E.g. theGospel of Mary mayshow a laterredactoraddingprimitive
to an earliertext.Cf. too therelationship
betweenthetractatesEugnostostheBlessedand
The Sophia of JesusChrist.

of Manchester,Facultyof Theology.
ManchesterM13 9PL, University

This content downloaded from 190.122.240.19 on Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:05:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions