P. Derek Overfield PhD Thesis - Research@StAndrews:FullText

It is now generally agreed that this document, along
with the majority of the remainder of the Nag'Harnrnadi
Corpus, was originally written in Greek and the
'original' of our citation has been reconstructed as
follows: 93
'to't£,'o1)..,,· JJ, ~ .la'l t,- &'1t6O"'tOAO,,' O'bVE:1t&eo~c..,
cd", xa.l ovvTJY'!p6rp£v a.~'t~ xc£t ov~vtfjrp£v ~,,~
(Or XCLt cruva.vt~rpcv 0&'" cl, 't&v o~po.v6v)
For this there are three possible sources:
Col 2:12b,
3:19 or Eph 2:6. Peel seems to argue convincingly
when he says that: 94 "due to the absence of
any
mention of baptismal practice in the letter, Col 3:1
seems a less likely source;
while only differences
in person and number keep the Coptic text of Eph 2:6
from being virtually identical to 45:26-27.
Once
again, the author does not literally cite but rather
summarises his understanding of the Pauline teaching
concerning the believer's participation in the Saviour's
redemptive acts.
The Ephesian passage appears to be.
the major source for the thought expressed in Rheg 45:27-28".
The citation from this epistle offers no gu~delines
as
to whether the ascension was viewed as part of resurrection,
or as a separate event;
whether it was seen or
unseen; whether it happened on Easter Day or after some
space of time, measured in days or even months.
But
in some way these questions, although of interest to NT
-369-