The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

282 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL HERITAGE
The present study demonstrates in what way these discoveries enrich
New Testament studies, using two examples: the Gospel of John and the
Gospel of Thomas. These two gospels are suited for such a study for two
reasons: On the one hand they represent two quite different theological
streams in early Christianity. On the other, a sound argument can be
made that the groups behind these texts had contact with each other or
rivaled each other. An essential difference between these theological concepts
can be seen in their approach to the Jewish roots of early
Christianity, which can be understood even better than before since the
discoveries of the texts from the Dead Sea.
Therefore, I first sketch the historical and interpretative questions that
readers must face if they attempt to understand them independently of
each other (sec. 2). Then I show the relationship between them as well as
the way in which they interpret each other (sec. 3). Against this background
I can then show how we can grasp the theological profiles of the
Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas comparing them with the writings
from Qumran (sec. 4). Finally, I briefly address a further theme that
is of central importance for understanding early Christianity: the question
of the relevance of the Gospel of Thomas and of the Gospel of John for
the so-called quest for the historical Jesus (sec. 5).
2. THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS:
TWO FASCINATING TESTIMONIES OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY
FULL OF HISTORICAL PUZZLES
The Gospel of John is a literary masterpiece. The author of this document
seems to have had a quite high level of education. The Greek language
of the Gospel of John is not very difficult. It is much easier to
translate the Fourth Gospel than—for instance—the Epistle to the
Hebrews. The fascination of this Gospel derives from its narrative art. 3
directly or indirectly. This means that now the other side of a theological debate
becomes more visible after being previously accessible only via the biased perspective
of its opponents. On the dating of the Nag Hammadi writings and their relationship
to the New Testament, cf. Craig A. Evans, Robert L. Webb, and Richard A. Wiebe,
eds., Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible (NTTS 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993); Hans-Martin
Schenke, “Einführung,” in Nag Hammadi Deutsch (ed. H.-M. Schenke, H.-G. Bethge,
and U. U. Kaiser for the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften;
Koptische-gnostische Schriften 2; NHC I,1–V,1; GCS NS 8; Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 2001), 1–6.
3. A fundamental contribution on this is, e.g., Derek M. H. Tovey, Narrative Art and
Act in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup 151, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997); R. Alan Culpepper,
Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (FF NT 20; Philadelphia: Fortress