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

314 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL HERITAGE
theological profile is more similar to that of other Nag Hammadi writings.
78 And we can assume that the groups behind the tradition of various
Nag Hammadi writings were also co-responsible for the redactional
presentation of the Gospel of Thomas. To determine the early-Jewish traits
and roots of earlier textual stages of the Gospel of Thomas on the basis of
the texts available at the moment will have to remain speculative. 79
5. A THEMATIC SIDE REMARK: THE GOSPEL OF JOHN,
THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS, AND THE SO-CALLED
QUESTIONOFTHEHISTORICAL JESUS
In the study of the discoveries of Qumran, of the Gospel of John, and of
the Gospel of Thomas, one question is always unconsciously involved: How
can these texts help us grasp and understand the life, the words, and the
deeds of Jesus? 80 I briefly discuss this topic in the present study. This
78. Formally, the Gospel of Thomas is close to the Dialogue of the Savior. However, further
dialogue gospels, such as the Gospel of Philip, can also be seen as religious-historical
points of comparison. Cf. Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity,
154–56; Martin Krause, “Der Dialog des Sotēr in Codex III von Nag Hammadi,” in
Gnosis and Gnosticism: Papers Read at the Seventh International Conference on Patristic Studies
(Oxford, September 8th–13th, 1975) (ed. M. Krause; NHS 8; Leiden: Brill, 1977),
13–34, esp. 21–22, 33–34; Silke Petersen and Hans-Gebhard Bethge, “Der Dialog
des Erlösers (NHC III,5),” in Nag Hammadi Deutsch: Eingeleitet und Übersetzt von
Mitgliedern des Berliner Arbeitskreises für Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften (ed. H.-M. Schenke,
H.-G. Bethge, and U. U. Kaiser; GCS NS 12; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003),
Pages 381–97, esp., 383.
79. Even the said links of the Gospel of Thomas with the Apocryphon of John (NHC
II,1), the Gospel of Philip (NHC II,3), and the Book of Thomas the Contender (NHC II,7)
can merely be seen as indications of how the Gospel of Thomas was understood among
the people behind the Nag Hammadi library. Cf. Schröter and Bethge, “Das
Evangelium nach Thomas (NHC II,2),” 151–81, 161–62. Furthermore, we must recognize
that the Nag Hammadi writings do not have a coherent theological concept,
nor can we attribute them to a particular gnostic tradition.
80. On the relevance of the findings at the Dead Sea for understanding the circumstances
of living and the intellectual environment of Jesus, see, e.g., James H.
Charlesworth, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus,” in Jesus and the Dead
Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 1–74;
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins: General
Methodological Considerations,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Faith: In
Celebration of the Jubilee Year of the Discovery of Qumran Cave I (ed. J. H. Charlesworth and
W. P. Weaver; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 1–19; Hartmut
Stegemann, “Die Bedeutung der Qumranfunde für das Verständnis Jesu und des
frühen Christentums,” BK 48 (1993): 10–19; John J. Collins, “Jesus, Messianism
and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Qumran-Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in
the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth, H. Lichtenberger, and G. S. Oegema;