the-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

298 THE DIFFERING APPROACH TO A THEOLOGICAL HERITAGE
does not develop an elaborated redemptive myth, parts and tendencies of
later gnostics systems are discernible. 39
But these results are not the focus of this essay. In the following I
merely refer to another result of this study, which in my view opens new
levels for the debate. We can see the decisive fact by comparing the
Coptic and the Greek version of the Gospel of Thomas. 40 A comparison
between Gos. Thom. 77 und P.Oxy. 1.23–30 shows that at this point the
Greek fragments and the Coptic text of the Gospel of Thomas differ
markedly from each other: The imperatives in Gos. Thom. 77c already
occur in P.Oxy. 1.23–30 as the ending of saying 30. The Greek version
offers an I-am word, which cannot be found in the Coptic text (“I am
with him”; cf. P.Oxy 1.26–27). By contrast, the I-am words of the Coptic
version do not occur in the Greek fragments. That means that the clearest
light-metaphorical parallel between both gospels occurs only in the
Coptic version of the Gospel of Thomas! Whether it derives from a different
sequence in the Greek version remains speculation. Thus between
P.Oxy. 1.23–30 and Gos. Thom. 77, there must have been redactional or
compilatory revisions. The textual structure of Gos. Thom. 77 supports
the conclusion that this redactional reworking has been done only during
the translation into Coptic: The Coptic compiler links Gos. Thom. 77c
to 77b by means of a keyword connection that exists only in the Coptic
language. 41 Thus, a coherent connection between Gos. Thom. 77b and 77c
is possible only in the Coptic version.
Yet what does this mean for the relationship between the Gospel of
John and that of Thomas? First, here we find a paradigmatic example of
a decisive dilemma in any research on the Gospel of Thomas. The only complete
copy extant to us undoubtedly shows signs of redactional work.
39. Various scholars propose that the Gospel of Thomas cannot be seen as a gnostic
testimony because it does not contain any detailed gnostic myth. For this discussion
see Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, 360; Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple, 370–71. In
my view, however, this argument falls short of the truth since we also have to consider
the implicit preconditions of the existing motif structures.
40. On the general relationship between the Greek and the Coptic text of the Gospel
of Thomas, cf. Harold W. Attridge, “The Gospel according to Thomas; Appendix: The
Greek Fragments,” in Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7, vol. 1, Gospel According to Thomas,
Gospel According to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons and Indexes (ed. B. Layton; NHS 20;
Leiden: Brill, 1989), 92–128; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Oxyrynchus Logoi of Jesus
and the Coptic Gospel according to Thomas,” TS 20 (1959): 505–60; Otfried Hofius,
“Das koptische Thomasevangelium und die Oxyrynchus-Papyri Nr. 1, 654 und 655,”
EvT 20 (1960): 21–42, esp. 182–92.
41. On these redactional revisions, cf. E. E. Popkes, “‘Ich bin das Licht,’” 641–74,
655; Tuckett, “Das Thomasevangelium und die synoptischen Evangelien,” 186–200,
esp. 192.