Did Thomas Know the Synoptic Gospels? A Response to Denzey Lewis, Kloppenborg and Patterson

Abstract

Nicola Denzey Lewis, Stephen Patterson and John Kloppenborg have written appreciative but critical reviews of the books by Simon Gathercole and Mark Goodacre. This response focuses on several key elements in their critiques: Thomas’s role in second- and fourth-century Christianity; the difference between ‘direct links’ and ‘diagnostic shards’; the analogy of ‘the plagiarist’s charter’; the categories ‘secondary orality’ and ‘scribal culture’; the role played by oral tradition; the argument from Thomas’s genre; the example of the Rich Fool; modelling Christian origins; and questioning the notion of a ‘new Synoptic Problem’.

Mapping the Vineyard: Main Lines of Investigation Regarding the Parable of the Tenants in the Synoptics and Thomas

“…Moreover, scholars are split among those who believe Thomas was essentially written as a unified composition from the start, and those who believe it underwent evolutionary development via redactional layering, from a core synoptic-like form to the longer final form. For recent summaries of the debate, see the exchanges among Kloppenborg, Gathercole and Goodacre (2014). Of greater importance for the present discussion is the broad consensus that has emerged: the source-critical question for Thomas as a whole is different than that for each individual logion (Meier 2012; Kloppenborg 2006: 248; Crossan 1971).…”

‘Render to Caesar the Things of Caesar and to God the Things of God’: Recent Perspectives on a Puzzling Command (1945–Present)

“…Among the early Gospel versions, the best case for inclusion is, arguably, Thomas 100. Although some kind of literary relationship almost certainly exists between the three Synoptic versions, the case for Thomas’ connection with the Synoptics is far more debated, with some arguing for its secondary dependence on the Synoptics (tentatively, Gathercole 2011: 134-35; 2012: 154; Goodacre 2012: 112-15; Davies and Allison 2004: 218), and others positing its independence (Crossan 1983: 399-400; Gibson 2004: 296–97, 314, 314 n. 110; for a general discussion of the relationship between Thomas and the Synoptics, see Kloppenborg 2014; Gathercole 2014b; Denzey Lewis 2014; Patterson 2014; Goodacre 2014). For the sake of simplicity, then, this article does not consider the Thomasine version in the analysis below (for an assessment of the options for the Thomasine referents, see Gathercole 2014a: 561-65).…”