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

290 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL HERITAGE
Q, and to be dated in the first century. 20 In opposition to this, other scholars
regard the Gospel of Thomas as a relatively late gnostic modification or
transformation of the New Testament gospel tradition, and at the earliest
date it around the middle of the second century C.E. 21
At this point we can demonstrate the importance and complexity of
the question, whether the Gospel of Thomas is relevant for understanding
the Gospel of John.
3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN
AND THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS
At the early stage of research in the Gospel of Thomas, the main question
above all was how this document is related to the Synoptic Gospels. Only
rather late did scholars recognize that the links between the Gospel of
Thomas and the Gospel of John are even more complex. 22 I explain this
20. Examples of a rather early date for early stages of the text of the Gospel of Thomas
are Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (FF Reference Series; Sonoma,
CA: Polebridge, 1993), 116–17; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 21; idem, “GNO-
MAI DIAPHOROI: Ursprung und Wesen der Mannigfaltigkeit im frühen
Christentum,” Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frühen Christentums (ed. H. Köster and
J. M. Robinson; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971), 107–46, 126–27; Theodor Zöckler,
Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium (NHS 47; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 19–25 and 96–98.
21. Thus, e.g., Wolfgang Schrage, Das Verhältnis des Thomasevangeliums zur synoptischen
Tradition und zu den synoptischen Evangelienübersetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur gnostischen
Synoptikerdeutung (BZNW 29; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1964), passim, comes to the
conclusion that the Gospel of Thomas can be seen as a gnostic interpretation of the
Synoptic Gospels. Methodologically more careful are the views by, e.g., Jens Schröter
and Hans-Gebhard Bethge, “Das Evangelium nach Thomas (NHC II,2),” 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), 151–81, 155: “Eine
Datierung des EvThom nicht früher als das 2. Jahrhundert legt sich … zunächst
näher, während die hypothetische Zurückführung auf eine weisheitlich geprägte
Traditionslinie der Jesusüberlieferung mit zu vielen Unsicherheiten belastet
erscheint.”
22. Even if the thematic correspondence between the Gospel of John and the Gospel
of Thomas has been recognized quite early (cf., e.g., Raymond E. Brown, “The Gospel
of Thomas and St. John’s Gospel,” NTS 9 [1962/63]: 155–77), in-depth research of
these relations began considerably later. For the research history, see, e.g., James H.
Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? (Valley
Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), 360–89; Gregory J. Riley, Resurrection
Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); Elaine H.
Pagels, Das Geheimnis des fünften Evangeliums: Warum die Bibel nur die halbe Wahrheit sagt
(trans. from English, K. Neff; Munich: Beck, 2004), 36–79; April D. De Conick,