John among the Other Gospels: The Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Extra-Canonical Gospels 3161523997, 9783161523991

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)

347

Lorne R. Zelyck

John among the Other Gospels The Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Extra-Canonical Gospels

Mohr Siebeck

Lorne R. Zelyck, born 1978; 2000 BSc in Agriculture at the University of Alberta, Canada; 2006 MDiv at Phoenix Seminary, United States; 2007 ThM in New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, United States; 2012 PhD in Divinity at the University of Cambrigde, England; currently Lecturer in Biblical Studies at St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta, Canada.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-152624-4 ISBN 978-3-16-152399-1 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2013 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

To the Dinklings For the Bloodpact In loving memory of Michael M. Zelyck (1947–2012)

Preface This monograph is a slightly revised version of my doctoral thesis that was completed in August 2012 at the University of Cambridge. I would like to thank the Tyndale House Text and Canon Project, as well as the St. Edmund’s College Commonwealth Scholarship, for their generous financial support. My parents, John and Linda Gemmill, Bill and Elvira Warner, Timothy and Gwenyth Hall, and Michael Zelyck graciously allowed me to beg, borrow, and steal money from them to complete this thesis. I am thankful for the personal, as well as financial, support that each of them has provided. My Doktorvater, Dr. Simon Gathercole, offered invaluable direction and insight into the extra-canonical gospels, and my host at the University of Regensburg, Prof. Tobias Nicklas, provided exceptional feedback on the role of the extra-canonical gospels in early Christianity. Prof. Jörg Frey and Dr. Peter Williams, the examiners of my thesis, also provided many helpful critiques and useful suggestions for its publication. My wife, Kristin, and daughters, Zoe and Selah, have given me joy and a welcome reprieve to the burden of completing this work. They have endured seven moves, over four years, to three countries, and I am exceedingly grateful for their constant love and support. Ash Wednesday 2013

Lorne R. Zelyck

Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................. VII

Part I: Introduction 1. Identifying the Extra-Canonical Gospels .................................. 3 1.1. What is a Gospel? ............................................................................ 3 1.2. The Sub-Genres of the Extra-Canonical Gospels .............................. 6 1.2.1. Narrative Gospels ..................................................................... 6 1.2.2. Sayings Gospels ........................................................................ 7 1.2.3. Dialogue/Discourse Gospels ..................................................... 8 1.2.4. Gospel Fragments ..................................................................... 9 1.2.5. Excursus: Doubtful Extra-Canonical Gospels .......................... 10 1.3. Theological Categories for the Extra-Canonical Gospels ............... 11 1.4. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 12

2. Method for Identifying the Reception of the Fourth Gospel ...................................................................... 13 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................... 13 2.2. Method ........................................................................................... 14 2.2.1. Maximalist Methodology: F.-M. Braun ................................... 15 2.2.2. Minimalistic Methodology: M.R. Hillmer ............................... 15 2.2.3. ‘Realistic’ Methodology: T. Nagel .......................................... 17 2.2.4. Method for the Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Extra-Canonical Gospels ........................................................ 17 2.3. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 20

X

Table of Contents

Part II: Narrative Gospels 3. The Egerton Gospel (P.Eg. 2 = P.Lond.Christ. 1, + P.Köln. 255) .............................................................................. 25 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................... 25 3.2. The Egerton Gospel and the Canonical Gospels ............................. 26 3.3. The Egerton Gospel and the Fourth Gospel .................................... 28 3.3.1. Episode 1 – Confrontation with the Authorities (1v.1–20 + P.Köln. 255 1v.19–24) ......................................................... 29 3.3.1.1. Probable Influence of the Fourth Gospel .................... 29 3.3.1.2. Analysis of Episode 1 ................................................ 33 3.3.2. Episode 2 – Attempt to Stone and Arrest Jesus (1r.1–10) ........ 37 3.3.2.1. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel .................... 38 3.3.2.2. Analysis of Episode 2 ................................................ 40 3.3.3. Episode 3 – Healing of a Leper (1r.11–20 + P.Köln. 255 1r.19–24) ................................................................................ 42 3.3.3.1. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel ..................... 42 3.3.4. Episode 5 – Question about Tribute-Money (2r.1–18) ............. 43 3.3.4.1. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel .................... 43 3.3.5. Episode 6 – Another Attempt to Stone Jesus (3r.1–6) .............. 44 3.3.5.1. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel .................... 44 3.4. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 45

4. The Gospel of Peter (P.Cair. 10759) ........................................ 48 4.1. Introduction ................................................................................... 48 4.2. The Gospel of Peter and the Canonical Gospels ............................. 50 4.3. The Gospel of Peter and the Fourth Gospel .................................... 53 4.3.1. Joseph’s Request and the Handing Over of the Lord (§§3–5) .. 53 4.3.2. Mocking the Son of God as a King (§§6–8) ............................ 54 4.3.3. Abusing the Son of God (§9) .................................................. 59 4.3.3.1. Analysis of §§6–9 ...................................................... 60 4.3.4. The Crucifixion of the Lord (§§10–14) ................................... 60 4.3.5. The Death of the Lord (§§15–19) ............................................ 65

Table of Contents

XI

4.3.6. The Removal from the Cross and Burial of the Lord (§§20–24) ............................................................................... 66 4.3.7. The Securing of the Tomb (§§28–33) ...................................... 67 4.3.8. The Report to Pilate (§§43–49) ............................................... 68 4.3.9. The Women’s Visit to the Tomb (§§50–57) ............................ 68 4.3.10. A Fishing Excursion to the Sea (§§58–60) ............................ 69 4.4. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 70

5. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 ......................................................... 72 5.1. Introduction ................................................................................... 72 5.1.1. The Historical Veracity of Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 ............. 72 5.1.2. The Nature of the Debate between Jesus and Levi ................... 75 5.2. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 and the Canonical Gospels ................... 75 5.3. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 and the Fourth Gospel .......................... 76 5.3.1. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel .................................. 76 5.3.2. Excursus: ‘Living Waters’ and Baptism .................................. 79 5.4. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 81

Part III: Sayings Gospels 6. The Gospel of Thomas (NHC II,2 + P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655) ..... 85 6.1. Introduction ................................................................................... 85 6.2. The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels ............................ 86 6.3. The Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel ................................ 87 6.3.1. Influenced by the Fourth Gospel ............................................. 87 6.3.2. Independent of the Fourth Gospel ........................................... 89 6.3.3. The Community-Conflict Thesis ............................................. 90 6.3.3.1. Variant Interpretations of Common Traditions and Themes .............................................................. 90 6.3.3.2. The Negative Portrayal of Thomas in the Fourth Gospel .......................................................... 92 6.3.3.3. Analysis of the Community-Conflict Thesis ............... 93

XII

Table of Contents

6.3.4. Parallels between the Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel ......................................................................... 94 6.3.4.1. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel .................... 94 6.3.4.2. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel ..................... 99 6.4. Conclusion ................................................................................... 102

7. The Gospel of Philip (NHC II,3) ............................................ 104 7.1. Introduction ................................................................................. 104 7.2. The Gospel of Philip and the Fourth Gospel ................................. 105 7.2.1. Probable Influence of the Fourth Gospel ............................ 106 7.2.1.1. Flesh and Blood (§23b) ......................................... 106 7.2.1.2. Knowledge and Truth, Freedom and Enslavement (§§110a and 123d) ................................................ 109 7.2.2. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel ............................ 113 7.2.3. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel ............................. 118 7.3. Conclusion ................................................................................... 120

Part IV: Dialogue/Discourse Gospels 8. The Gospel of the Savior (P.Berol. 22220 + Strasbourg Coptic Papyrus 5–7) ................................................................. 125 8.1. Introduction ................................................................................. 125 8.2. The Gospel of the Savior and the Canonical Gospels ................... 126 8.3. The Gospel of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel .......................... 126 8.3.1. Probable and Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel (vs.12–23) .......................................................................... 127 8.3.2. Probable and Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel (vs.91–93; 69–70) .............................................................. 134 8.3.3. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel ............................. 141 8.4. Conclusion ................................................................................... 142

Table of Contents

XIII

9. The Sophia of Jesus Christ (NHC III,4; BG 8502,3; P.Oxy. 1081) ............................................................................. 144 9.1. Introduction ................................................................................. 144 9.2. The Sophia of Jesus Christ and the Fourth Gospel ....................... 146 9.2.1. Probable Influence of the Fourth Gospel ............................ 146 9.2.2. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel ............................ 148 9.2.3. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel ............................. 150 9.3. Conclusion ................................................................................... 153

10. The Gospel of Mary (BG 8502,1; P.Ryl. 493; P.Oxy. 3525) ........................................................................... 155 10.1. Introduction ............................................................................... 155 10.2. The Gospel of Mary and the Canonical Gospels ......................... 156 10.3. The Gospel of Mary and the Fourth Gospel ................................ 157 10.3.1. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel ........................ 157 10.3.2. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel .......................... 162 10.4. Conclusion ................................................................................. 166

11. The Gospel of Judas (Codex Tchacos, 3) ........................... 168 11.1. Introduction ............................................................................... 168 11.2. The Gospel of Judas and the Canonical Gospels ........................ 169 11.3. The Gospel of Judas and the Fourth Gospel ............................... 170 11.3.1. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel (Thematic Parallels) ....................................................... 170 11.3.2. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel (Verbal Parallels) ........................................................... 173 11.4. Conclusion ................................................................................. 174

XIV

Table of Contents

12. The Dialogue of the Savior (NHC III,5) ............................. 175 12.1. Introduction ............................................................................... 175 12.2. The Dialogue of the Savior and the Canonical Gospels .............. 176 12.3. The Dialogue of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel ..................... 176 12.3.1. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel .......................... 176 12.4. Conclusion .................................................................................. 182

13. The Book of Thomas the Contender (NHC II,7) ................ 184 13.1. Introduction ............................................................................... 184 13.2. The Book of Thomas the Contender and the Canonical Gospels ..................................................................... 185 13.3. The Book of Thomas the Contender and the Fourth Gospel ........ 186 13.3.1. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel .......................... 186 13.4. Conclusion ................................................................................. 189

Part V: Conclusion 14. Summary and Conclusions .................................................... 193 14.1. Were the Extra-Canonical Gospels Influenced by the Fourth Gospel? .......................................................................... 193 14.1.1. Ranking the Influence of the Fourth Gospel on the Extra-Canonical Gospels ..................................................... 193 14.1.1.1. Probable Influence of the Fourth Gospel ............. 193 14.1.1.2. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel ............. 194 14.1.1.3. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel .............. 194 14.1.2. Comparing the Influence of the Fourth Gospel on the Extra-Canonical Gospels by Sub-Genre, Theology, and Date of Composition .................................................... 195

Table of Contents

XV

14.2. How did the Extra-Canonical Gospels Use and Interpret the Fourth Gospel? .......................................................................... 196 14.2.1. Quotation and Exegesis .................................................. 197 14.2.2. Lengthy Parallels ............................................................ 197 14.2.3. Shorter Parallels ............................................................. 198 14.2.4. Traditional Interpretations .............................................. 199 14.3. The Reception of the Fourth Gospel ........................................... 202

Chart 1: Identifying the Extra-Canonical Gospels ................... 205 Chart 2: Parallels between the Extra-Canonical Gospels and Fourth Gospel .......................................................... 206 Chart 3: Concentration of Parallels: The Frequency of Parallels Relative to the Length of Text ..................... 211 Chart 4: Number of Verses from the Fourth Gospel Paralleled in the Extra-Canonical Gospels ................. 212 Bibliography ....................................................................................... 213 Index of Ancient Sources .................................................................... 237 Index of Authors ................................................................................. 257 Index of Subjects ................................................................................ 259

Part I: Introduction

Chapter 1

Identifying the Extra-Canonical Gospels The canonical gospels are the four gospels that were listed in an authoritative collection by bishops, synods, and Church councils of the fourth century CE. While the extra-canonical gospels are the ‘other’ gospels, there is little scholarly consensus regarding the enumeration and identification of the works that should be included in this corpus.1 In order to identify the extra-canonical gospels, a fundamental question must first be answered: What is a gospel?

1.1. What is a Gospel? The definition of a gospel is intrinsically connected to the literary genre of the canonical gospels, but identifying the genre of the canonical gospels is itself problematic: there is no exact, parallel genre in antiquity; the ‘gospel’ title first attributed to these works was likely a description of their kerygma, rather than an identification of their literary genre; the canonical gospels vary in content and structure (e.g. Mark→FG) and they appear to incorporate multiple sources with parallel forms in other literary genres (e.g. an ‘apocalypse’ (Mark 13)). Since it is difficult to identify exemplary features of the gospel genre based on the canonical gospels, many recent attempts to define this genre and demarcate its corpus have been either too restrictive or too inclusive. 1

Significant collections of extra-canonical gospels from the past quarter-century do not include and exclude the same works. See R. Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1982); H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels (London: SCM, 1990); J.K. Elliott, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: University Press, 1993); U.-K. Plisch, Verborgene Worte Jesus – verworfene Evangelien (Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft und von Cansteinsche Bibelanstalt, 2000); H.-J. Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels (London: T&T Clark, 2003); W. Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003); C.M. Tuckett, “Forty Other Gospels,” in M. Bockmuehl – D.A. Hagner, eds. The Written Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 2005), 238–253; A.E. Bernhard, Other Early Christian Gospels (London: T&T Clark, 2006); P. Foster, ed., The Non-Canonical Gospels (London: T&T Clark, 2008); C. Markschies – J. Schröter, hrsg., Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).

4

Chapter 1: Identifying the Extra-Canonical Gospels

R. Burridge has argued that the gospel genre is most similar to ancient bioi, where the primary subject is one person, who is also the grammatical subject of a high proportion of verbs.2 This is an adequate description of the canonical gospels where the primary subject is Jesus, but it does not account for fragmentary works of the second and third centuries CE that possess narrative material about Jesus’ life and teaching, but bear little resemblance to ancient bioi. A more inclusive definition of the gospel genre is needed to incorporate these other works. It is also imprecise to correlate the gospel genre with a gospel kerygma (Mark 1:1). If the kerygma is restricted to a proclamation of the saving works of Jesus’ death and resurrection,3 then this would be far too narrow of a definition for a gospel and, according to A. Gregory – C.M. Tuckett, it may even exclude “one or two of the canonical ones!”4 J. Schröter has accurately noted that all genres of canonical and extra-canonical Christian literature attempt to promote some type of a soteriological message about Jesus. The gospel kerygma is the soteriological message of a work; it does not help us identify its genre.5 H. Koester has suggested that the gospel genre is a compilation of multiple genres from divergent sources (birth legends, parable collections, miracle stories, sayings sources, passion sources, etc.), and that “all those writings which are constituted by the transmission, use, and interpretation of material and traditions from and about Jesus of Nazareth” should be considered gospels.6 This definition is far too inclusive and does not discriminate between a gospel (Mark), letter (Ep. Pet. Phil.), acts (Acts John), or apocalypse (Rev), which all contain traditions about Jesus. In the introduction to the Oxford Early Christian Gospel Texts series, Gregory – Tuckett state their criteria for a work to be included in the series: As an overarching criterion, we have tended to accept the distinction that many might instinctively make, separating ‘gospels’ from other early Christian works (e.g. letters of apostles, or accounts of the history of the early church) on the basis that ‘gospels’ make at least some claim to give direct reports of the life and/or teaching of Jesus, but taking ‘life and teaching’ broadly enough to include accounts purporting to give teaching given by Jesus after his resurrection. Further, we have mostly accepted the claims—either of 2

R.A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 110. See N.T. Wright, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus (London: SPCK, 2006), 29. 4 A. Gregory – C.M. Tuckett, “Series Preface,” in C.M. Tuckett, The Gospel of Mary (Oxford: University Press, 2007), vi. 5 J. Schröter, „Die apokryphen Evangelien und die Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons,“ in J. Frey – J. Schröter, eds., Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 40–45. However, Schröter is overly skeptical of any definition of the gospel genre. 6 Koester, Ancient, 46. 3

1.1. What is a Gospel?

5

manuscripts themselves (e.g. in colophons) or of ancient authors talking about such texts—to identify some works as ‘gospels.’7

The overarching criterion is commendable in that it is simple, inclusive of canonical and extra-canonical works, and focused on the claims of the text itself. However, it is not entirely clear how this criterion can identify the genre of a work. A gospel, letter, acts, and apocalypse can all claim to give direct reports of the life and/or teachings of Jesus, and the distinction between these genres does not appear to be instinctive to multiple scholars.8 It is insufficient to define the gospel genre simply by its content (kerygma; sources and traditions about Jesus; claims to give direct reports about Jesus), since this content is not unique to the gospel genre. Many would agree that one of the most distinctive features of the gospel genre is its authorial perspective—the canonical gospels are primarily written from the third-person perspective, while letters and apocalypses are primarily written from the first-person perspective.9 Therefore, a more precise definition of a gospel is: a work that claims to give direct reports of the life and/or teachings of Jesus, and is primarily written from the third-person 7 Gregory – Tuckett, “Series Preface,” vi–vii. Markschies provides similar criteria for the works included in Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung: „Es gibt zwar keine eigenständige und einheitliche Gattung ‚apokryph gewordene Evangelien‘. Aber die unter diesem Titel hier in verschiedenen Abschnitten zusammengestellten Texte gehören nicht nur dadurch zusammen, daß sie Person und Werk Jesu Christi zum Inhalt haben, sondern sie sind auch dadurch charakterisiert, daß sie in unterschiedlicher Weise von der Gattung ‚Evangelium‘ bestimmt oder beeinflußt sind“ (C. Markschies, „Außerkanonische Evangelien“ in Markschies – Schröter, Apokryphen, 351). This definition is similar to Gregory – Tuckett’s in that it focuses on material about Jesus and attempts to describe the extra-canonical gospel genre in light of the canonical gospel genre, but it does not adequately distinguish gospel-content from the gospel genre. 8 For example Markschies – Schröter include 1 Apoc. Jas., 2 Apoc. Jas., and Ep. Pet. Phil. as gospels (Apokryphen II, 1152, 1181, 1195). Tuckett does not include these works, but considers the Ap. Jas., Dial. Sav., Thom. Cont., and Gos. Mary to be gospels (“Forty,” 247), while F.T. Fallon considers all seven works to be ‘Gnostic Apocalypses’ (“The Gnostic Apocalypses” in J.J. Collins, ed., Apocalypse (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), 123–158). 9 The exceptions would be the first-person perspective in Luke 1:3 and John 21:24, and the third-person perspective in Rev 1:1–3. These exceptions indicate that the criterion of authorial perspective is somewhat imprecise; even Luke and the FG do not provide ‘pure’ examples of the gospel genre. It is necessary to emphasize that this criterion must be applied to an entire work, in order to determine if it was primarily written from the third-person perspective. The value of this criterion is admittedly diminished when applied to fragmentary works, since it is possible that these fragments belonged to a larger works that were mostly written from the first-person perspective. Despite these shortcomings, this criterion is useful for evaluating and demarcating the genres of extant fragments.

6

Chapter 1: Identifying the Extra-Canonical Gospels

perspective. By emphasizing the claim to give direct reports of the life and/or teachings of Jesus, gospels are distinguished from acts, and by emphasizing the third-person authorial perspective, gospels are distinguished from letters and apocalypses. This definition of a gospel is the primary criterion that will be used to identify the extra-canonical gospels that will be examined in this study. Colophon titles and the claims of ancient authors that identify particular works as gospels are secondary criteria that will also be employed. For pragmatic reasons, this study will be limited to the Greek and Coptic extracanonical gospels that give direct reports about the adult Jesus, are extant as distinct works in ancient manuscripts, and can be reasonably dated to the second or third century CE.10

1.2. The Sub-Genres of the Extra-Canonical Gospels The extra-canonical gospels can be categorized into the following subgenres: narrative gospels; sayings gospels; dialogue/discourse gospels; and other gospel fragments. Each gospel will be evaluated in more detail in their respective chapter, although the features that demarcate these works as gospels will be briefly listed below (see Chart 1). 1.2.1. Narrative Gospels A narrative gospel is a work that claims “to give an account of the incidents in Jesus’ life in the form of a narrative.”11 There is a widespread scholarly consensus that the Egerton Gospel (P.Eg. 2 = P.Lond.Christ. 1, + P.Köln. 255), Gospel of Peter (P.Cair. 10759), and the work preserved on P.Oxy. 840 are gospels. These gospels claim to give direct reports of Jesus’ life and/or teachings written from the third-person perspective in the form of a narrative. They do not contain a gospel colophon, and the only work known to ancient authors is a gospel attributed to Peter (Serapion in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.12.5–6; Origen, Comm. Matt. 10.17).

10

Infancy gospels, extra-canonical gospels imbedded in the writings of the church fathers, and works that can be reasonably dated to the fourth century CE or later will be excluded. 11 Tuckett, “Forty,” 244.

1.2. The Sub-Genres of the Extra-Canonical Gospels

7

1.2.2. Sayings Gospels A sayings gospel is a work that consists “primarily of sayings of Jesus collected together with little or no narrative context.”12 The Gospel of Thomas (NHC II,2 + P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655) is the prime example of this gospel sub-genre. It claims to give direct reports of 114 sayings spoken by Jesus to his disciples, is written from the third-person perspective, contains a gospel colophon in the Coptic manuscript, and ancient authors knew of a gospel attributed to Thomas (Hippolytus, Haer. 5.7.20; Origen, Hom. Luc. 1:1; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses 4.36). The Gospel of Philip (NHC II,3) is more difficult to categorize. C.M. Tuckett does not consider it a gospel since “the text is mostly taken up with teaching from the author him/herself about God, Jesus, and human beings.”13 However, there are a number of features that indicate this work may be a gospel. Firstly, it does claim to give direct reports of the life and/or teachings of Jesus. There is narrative material about Jesus’ life that does not include the author’s theological reflection—‘The Lord went into the dye works of Levi. He took seventy-two different colors and threw them into the vat. He took them all out white. And he said, “Even so the Son of Man has come as a dyer”’ (63.25–30). There are nine sayings of Jesus that have parallels with the canonical gospels,14 eight sayings without canonical parallels,15 and at least three dialogues between Jesus and the disciples.16 It is also questionable how much material is the result of the author’s own theological reflection, and how much should be attributed to Jesus. For example, two sayings of Jesus that have parallels with the canonical gospels are not introduced with any formulae (77.15– 18; 85.29–31), which makes it difficult to determine whether the entire pericope should be attributed to Jesus, the author, or a combination of the two. Secondly, the majority of this work is written from the third-person perspective, although significant portions of the work that include the author’s personal reflection are written from the first-person perspective.17 Thirdly, the Coptic manuscript contains a gospel colophon (86.18–19).18 12

Ibid., 245. Ibid., 242. See also Koester, Ancient, 47. 14 Gos. Phil. 55.34–36; 57.4–5; 68.8–12, 26–27; 72.33–73.1; 77.15–18; 83.11–13; 84.7–9; 85.29–31. 15 Gos. Phil. 55.37–56.3; 58.10–14; 59.25–27; 63.28–30; 64.2–12; 67.30–35; 74.25– 27. 16 Gos. Phil. 55.37–56.3; 59.23–27; 63.37–64.9. 17 Gos. Phil. 52.21–24; 57.9; 59.4–5; 62.2–4; 66.9; 67.6; 69.4–8; 73.33; 74.1, 14, 18; 75.20, 22; 76.31–32; 77.9–11; 79.25–30; 80.5; 83.18–29; 84.11–15; 85.11–12, 14, 18. 18 The colophon title in this manuscript is unique. There are no decorative marks to complete the final line of text (as in the Gos. Thom.), but ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ continues on 86.18 with ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲫⲓⲗⲓⲡⲡⲟⲥ centered below on 86.19. Both ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ and ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲫⲓⲗⲓⲡⲡⲟⲥ 13

8

Chapter 1: Identifying the Extra-Canonical Gospels

Fourthly, a gospel attributed to Philip was known to Epiphanius (Pan. 26.13.2–3), and the Gos. Thom. and Gos. Phil. are coupled by other authors in antiquity, as they are in NHC II. 19 Also, in PS 71.18–23, Jesus tells Philip, ‘you and Thomas and Matthias are the ones to whom it was given, through the First Mystery, to write all the words that I say to you, and the things that I will do, and everything that you will see,’ which may correspond to the three gospels in NHC II—Gos. Thom. (II,2), Gos. Phil. (II,3), and Thom. Cont. (II,7). This does not provide definitive evidence for the genre of the Gos. Phil., although it should probably be classified as a sayings gospel.20 1.2.3. Dialogue/Discourse Gospels A dialogue/discourse gospel is a work that is focused on the life and/or teachings of Jesus (frequently the post-resurrection-Jesus) revealed in dialogue with his disciples. The Gospel of Mary (BG 8502,1; P.Ryl. 493; P.Oxy. 3525) and Gospel of Judas (Codex Tchacos, 3) claim to give direct reports of Jesus’ dialogues with the disciples, are written from the third-person perspective, and contain a gospel colophon. Irenaeus (Haer. 1.31.1–2 = Theodoret, Haer. 1.15) and Epiphanius (Pan. 38.1.5) also knew of a gospel attributed to Judas. The Dialogue of the Savior (NHC III,5) claims to give direct reports of the Savior’s dialogues with his disciples, is written from the third-person perspective, but does not contain a gospel colophon, and does not appear to be known by ancient authors.21 are surrounded with a rudimentary border (see J.M. Robinson, ed., The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices, Codex II (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 98). P. Nagel has suggested that a copy of the work used by the scribe only contained ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲫⲓⲗⲓⲡⲡⲟⲥ—the scribe could have chosen ⲁⲡⲟⲕⲣⲩⲫⲟⲛ, ⲇⲓⲁⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ, or ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ, but neither of these align with the content of the Gos. Phil., so the decision had to be made between ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ and ϫⲱⲱⲙⲉ, and the scribe or a later redactor inserted ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ to align it with the preceding Gos. Thom. (P. Nagel, „Das (Buch) nach Philippus,“ ZNW 99 (2008): 104– 111). However, even if a previous copy of this work contained the title ⲡϫⲱⲙⲉ ⲡⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲫⲓⲗⲓⲡⲡⲟⲥ, this would not exclude it from the gospel genre (cf. ‘The Book (ⲡϫⲱⲙⲉ) of Thomas the Contender’ discussed below). 19 Pseudo-Leontius of Byzantium, De sectis 3.2; Timothy of Constantinople, De receptione haereticorum (Migne, PG, 86.21C). See S.J. Gathercole, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas (Cambridge: University Press, 2012), 121. 20 The following collections of extra-canonical gospels include the Gos. Phil.: Plisch, Verborgene; Klauck, Apocryphal; Schneemelcher, Apocrypha; Foster, Non-Canonical; Markschies – Schröter, Apokryphen. 21 The following collections of extra-canonical gospels include the Dial. Sav.: Cameron, Other; Koester, Ancient; Plisch, Verborgene; Klauck, Apocryphal; Schneemelcher, Apocrypha; Tuckett, “Forty;” Markschies – Schröter, Apokryphen.

1.2. The Sub-Genres of the Extra-Canonical Gospels

9

The Gospel of the Savior (P.Berol. 22220 + Strasbourg Coptic Papyrus 5–7), Sophia of Jesus Christ (NHC III,4; BG 8502,3; P.Oxy. 1081), and Book of Thomas the Contender (NHC II,7) all claim to give direct reports of Jesus’ dialogues with his disciples, do not contain a gospel colophon, and do not appear to be known by ancient authors. These works are primarily written from the third-person perspective, although some portions are written from the first-person perspective. The Gos. Sav. narrates events in which all the disciples participate from the first-person plural perspective (vs.29, 30, 33, 36, 67). It may be possible to classify this work as a narrative gospel,22 but the disjunctive chronology and the divergent contexts are more similar to dialogue/discourse gospels. The Soph. Jes. Chr. transformed a letter, Eugnostos the Blessed, into a gospel by placing the direct speeches of Eugnostos (written from the first-person perspective) into the mouth of the Savior (narrated from the third-person perspective), although there is one narrative aside written from the firstperson perspective (BG 79.1).23 The Thom. Cont. introduces the amanuensis—Mathaias—from the first-person perspective (138.1–4), while the rest of the dialogue between the Savior and Judas Thomas is recorded from the third-person perspective.24 1.2.4. Gospel Fragments There are also multiple scraps of papyrus and parchment that claim to give direct reports of the life and/or teachings of the adult Jesus written from the third-person perspective. This includes P.Mert. 51, P.Oxy. 210, P.Oxy.

22 S. Emmel has championed the narrative gospel position because it “seems to presuppose the narrative framework of the canonical Gospel story” and the extant page numbers “suggest that the complete work was comparable in length to one of the longer canonical gospels, namely Luke or Matthew” (S. Emmel, “Preliminary Reedition and Translation of the Gospel of the Savior,” Apocrypha 14 (2003): 13). This position has been recently challenged by J.L. Hagen who suggests that the Gos. Sav. is episodic literature comparable to a homily or Acts of the Apostles (J.L. Hagen, „Ein anderer Kontext für die Berliner und Straßburger ‚Evangelienfragmente,‘“ in Frey – Schröter, Jesus, 339–371). The precise genre of this work is somewhat elusive due to the fragmentary nature of the manuscripts. For the sake of completeness, the Gos. Sav. will be included in this study, although future scholarship and the discovery of more fragments of this work may ratify Hagen’s conclusions. The following collections of extra-canonical gospels include the Gos. Sav.: Plisch, Verborgene; Klauck, Apocryphal; Markschies – Schröter, Apokryphen. 23 The following collections of extra-canonical gospels include the Soph. Jes. Chr.: Schneemelcher, Apocrypha; Klauck, Apocryphal; Markschies – Schröter, Apokryphen. 24 The following collections of extra-canonical gospels include the Thom. Cont.: Schneemelcher, Apocrypha; Plisch, Verborgene; Klauck, Apocryphal; Tuckett, “Forty;” Markschies – Schröter, Apokryphen.

10

Chapter 1: Identifying the Extra-Canonical Gospels

1224, P.Oxy. 5072, and P.Vindob.G. 2325.25 These fragments do not have any parallels with the FG, so it is unnecessary to analyze them further. 1.2.5. Excursus: Doubtful Extra-Canonical Gospels There are a number of works that some scholars have classified as gospels, but they do not satisfy the criteria used in this study. Two works that bear the (modern) gospel title—the Gospel of Truth (NHC I,3) and the Gospel of the Egyptians (NHC III,2, IV,2)—do not claim to give direct reports of the life and/or teachings of Jesus. Rather, they provide generalized summaries about Jesus’ life: ‘Jesus was patient in accepting sufferings’ (Gos. Truth 20.11); ‘Jesus the living one’ is ‘he whom the great Seth has put on’ (Gos. Eg. III 64.1–3). Furthermore, the first line ‘the gospel of truth’ (Gos. Truth 16.31) and the first colophon ‘the gospel of the Egyptians’ (Gos. Eg. III 69.6–8) likely refer to the kerygma of these works, and do not demarcate their genre.26 The Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1, III,1, IV,1; BG 8502,2) and Apocryphon of James (NHC I,2) give direct reports of the life and/or teachings of Jesus, but they are primarily written from the first-person ____

25

It is doubtful that P.Berol. 11710 contains an extract from an extra-canonical gospel. Rather, it appears to be an amulet with a clumsy remembrance of John 1:29, 49 that was combined with other Christian traditions that emphasized Jesus’ divine identity. John 1:29 is quoted in the magical papyri P.Berol. 6751, and the only apocryphal narrative that appears to be used as an amulet is the Abgar Legend (see T.J. Kraus, “Other Gospel Fragments,” in T.J. Kraus – M.J. Kruger – T. Nicklas, Gospel Fragments (Oxford: University Press, 2009), 228–239; T. de Bruyn, “Apocryphal and Canonical Christian Narratives in Greek Papyrus Amulets in Late Antiquity,” in P. Piovanelli, ed., Christian Apocryphal Texts for the New Millennium (Leiden: 2013), 8–11, forthcoming). 26 Irenaeus knew of a Valentinian work entitled ‘the Gospel of Truth’ (Haer. 3.11.9), while multiple scholars have classified the Gospel of Truth (NHC I,3) as a “homily” or “meditation,” rather than a gospel (Koester, Ancient, 47; Klauck, Apocryphal, 135; Tuckett, “Forty,” 241–242). This suggests that ancient works that bore the title ‘gospel’ do not necessarily satisfy modern criteria used to identify the gospel genre, which is altogether unsurprising if ancient authors attributed this title to their works as a form of propaganda. Conversely, ancient works that do not contain the title ‘gospel’ may satisfy modern criteria used to identify this genre (e.g. Dialogue of the Savior; Sophia of Jesus Christ; Book of Thomas the Contender). Since the works in NHC I,3 and NHC III,2, IV,2 do not satisfy the primary criterion for classification as a gospel, they will be excluded from this study. For a discussion of the colophon title in NHC III,2—‘The Holy Book of the Great, Invisible Spirit’ (III 69.18–20), see A. Böhlig – F. Wisse, Nag Hammadi Codices III,2 and IV,2 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 26.

1.3. Theological Categories for the Extra-Canonical Gospels

11

perspective and should probably be considered apocalypses.27 The (First) Apocalypse of James (NHC V,3) and (Second) Apocalypse of James (NHC V,4) have superscript titles that identify these works as apocalypses, although they are written from the first- and third-person perspective in order to record James’ vision and recount his martyrdom. The Letter of Peter to Philip (NHC VIII,2) is primarily written from the third-person perspective since the majority of this work records a dialogue between Jesus and the disciples, but it focuses on Peter and contains a superscript title and incipit that identifies it as a letter. The Epistula Apostolorum also contains a significant amount of dialogue between Jesus and the disciples, although it is primarily written from the first-person perspective. Both of these works open with an introductory address and close without final greetings (similar to James, 2 Peter, and Jude), and should be considered letters.28

1.3. Theological Categories for the Extra-Canonical Gospels It is difficult to place the extra-canonical gospels into theological categories since many of these works are fragmentary, and their depiction of Jesus and/or the universe do not have a precise correlation with known theological systems. Nevertheless, some of these gospels can be placed into broad categories.29 The Gnostic gospels—those that present Jesus and/or the universe in a way similar to Irenaeus, Haer. 1.29–31, the Ap. 27 The Apocryphon of John begins with a narrative description of the revelation written from the third-person perspective (II 1.1–17), similar to Rev 1:1–3. Likewise, The Book of Allogenes (Codex Tchacos, 4) begins by giving direct reports of the life and teachings of Allogenes written from the third-person perspective (59.1–62.9), but then it switches to the first-person perspective (62.9–66.24) to report the author’s vision. Therefore, it may be categorized as an apocalypse. 28 As noted above, it is problematic to clearly define a ‘pure’ literary genre, since one genre may be embedded within a larger genre. Therefore, the Ep. Pet. Phil. and Ep. Apost. may be examples of a gospel embedded within a letter, and 1 Apoc. Jas. and 2 Apoc. Jas. may be examples of a gospel embedded within an apocalypse. In order to avert this endless fragmentation of particular works (which would nullify the efficacy of any genre-classification assigned to them), this study has examined the works as a whole and sought to identify the overarching genre that best categorizes each particular work. 29 This study follows M.J. Edwards, B. Layton, and D. Brakke in distinguishing Gnostic and Valentinian works, since Irenaeus indicates that Valentinus ‘adapted the principles of the heresy called “Gnostic” to the peculiar character of his own school’ (Haer. 1.11.1). See M.J. Edwards, “Gnostics and Valentinians in the Church Fathers,” JTS 40 (1989): 26–47; “Neglected Texts in the Study of Gnosticism,” JTS 41 (1990): 26–49; B. Layton, “Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism,” in L.M. White – O.L. Yarbrough, eds., The Social World of the First Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 334–350; D. Brakke, The Gnostics (London: Harvard University Press, 2010).

12

Chapter 1: Identifying the Extra-Canonical Gospels

John, and other Gnostic works—include the Gos. Jud., Gos. Mary, and possibly Soph. Jes. Chr. The Valentinian gospels—those that present Jesus and/or the universe in a way similar to Valentinus, and other known Valentinians and Valentinian works—include the Gos. Phil. and Dial. Sav. The Thomasine gospels—the Gos. Thom. and Thom. Cont.—should also be placed in a separate category.

1.4. Conclusion The extra-canonical gospels examined in this study form an artificial (but not arbitrary) corpus, and their placement into sub-genres and theological categories are admittedly tentative. However, each work has the following common features: they are individually extant in Greek or Coptic manuscripts, claim to give direct reports of the life and/or teachings of the adult Jesus, are primarily written from the third-person perspective, and were likely composed in the second or third century CE. After introducing the method used in this study, Part II will examine the influence of the FG on the narrative gospels, Part III on the sayings gospels, Part IV on the dialogue/discourse gospels, and Part V will provide a summary analysis and conclusion.

Chapter 2

Method for Identifying the Reception of the Fourth Gospel 2.1. Introduction The study of the reception of the FG in the extra-canonical gospels is burdened with multiple historical and methodological issues. Firstly, variant readings of the FG indicate that an author in the second or third century CE may have known a version of the FG that differs from modern critical editions, which would produce false-negative results in this study. Variant readings for some of the extra-canonical gospels also indicate that the copies we possess may not be an accurate depiction of the original, and the wording of these gospels may have been assimilated to the FG through the transmission process, which would produce false-positive results. Secondly, the comparison of Coptic extra-canonical gospels with the Greek FG is obviously imprecise, so we must compare these works with Coptic translations of the FG, which is also problematic.1 Thirdly, it is difficult to determine the precise date and provenance of these works, which raises the question of accessibility. It is often concluded that the FG was originally composed near the end of the first century CE,2 and P52 (John 18:31–33, 37–38) indicates that the FG had probably made its way to

1

The inadequacies of G.W. Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Otherwise Called Sahidic and Thebaic, Volume 3, The Gospel of S. John (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911) do not need to be repeated. Throughout this study, Horner’s Coptic text is supplemented with: H. Thompson, The Gospel of St. John according to the Earliest Coptic Manuscript (London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1924); E.M. Husselman, The Gospel of John in Fayumic Coptic (P.Mich.Inv.3521) (Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, 1962); H. Quecke, Das Johannesevangelium saïdisch (Rome: Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 1984); http://www.biblia-coptica.com. 2 B.F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John (London: J. Murray, 1908), lxxxii; R.H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), 1; R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (i–xii) (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), 1:LXXXVI; C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1978), 128; G.R. Beasley-Murray, John (Waco: Word Books, 1987), lxxviii; C.S. Keener, The Gospel of John (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:140.

14

Chapter 2: Method for Identifying the Reception of the Fourth Gospel

Egypt sometime in the second century CE.3 The dates and provenances of the extra-canonical gospels are even more speculative. Fourthly, parallels between an extra-canonical gospel and the FG do not necessitate direct literary dependence, since an author could have been dependent on a written source (intermediate source) or oral source (secondary orality) that was dependent on the FG. Therefore, it is necessary to speak of the potential influence of the FG on an extra-canonical gospel, without making firm conclusions about the means by which an author knew the FG. Lastly, when compared to the study of the reception of Matt and Luke, the study of the reception of the FG cannot produce such secure results, since the absence of a persuasive source-theory makes it virtually impossible to identify redactional material in the FG. These issues introduce a level of uncertainty into this study that must be mitigated with a critical methodology that evaluates the “recognizable potential parallels”4 between the FG and extra-canonical gospels.

2.2. Method A. Gregory – C.M. Tuckett have recently examined the methodological issues surrounding the reception of the NT and provided a helpful overview of the different approaches used by É. Massaux, H. Koester, and W.-D. Köhler.5 These notable scholars developed their methods to evaluate the reception of one or more of the Synoptic gospels, and Johannine scholars have followed suit and applied these same methods to the study of the reception of the FG. The methods used can be categorized by the results they produced—maximalist, minimalistic, and realistic.

3 In a recent reassessment of the palaeographic dating of P52, B. Nongbri has noted that this fragment also has similarities with documentary papyri of the later second and early third centuries CE, which challenges the majority date of the first half of the second century CE (B. Nongbri, “The Use and Abuse of P52,” HTR 98 (2005): 23–48). Nongri does not provide a precise date for the fragment, but concludes that any proposed date should now range between the first half of the second century to the early third century CE, which simply emphasizes how difficult it is to date papyrus fragments with precision (Nongbri, “P52,” 46). 4 A. Gregory – C.M. Tuckett, “Reflections on Method,” in A. Gregory – C.M. Tuckett, eds., The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: University Press, 2005), 63. 5 Gregory – Tuckett, “Method,” 70–78.

2.2. Method

15

2.2.1. Maximalist Methodology: F.-M. Braun In 1959, F.-M. Braun examined the reception of the FG in multiple works from Egypt, Rome, and Asia Minor.6 He did not elucidate a clear method, but appears to have applied Massaux’s principle of simplicity, which assumed that these works knew the NT.7 He then examined whether particular works shared more significant parallels with the FG than other NT writings. Unsurprisingly, this produced maximalist results. 2.2.2. Minimalistic Methodology: M.R. Hillmer In 1966, M.R. Hillmer examined the reception of the FG in multiple works from the second century CE in his Harvard dissertation that was supervised by H. Koester.8 He severely upbraided Braun and his method for its apparent lack of sophistication,9 and applied Koester’s redactional criterion to the reception of the FG. Hillmer explains his method as follows: In order to establish definitively that the written gospel has been used it is necessary to have either explicit quotation formulae or some indication that the written gospel is being cited, or else it is necessary to prove that parallels are with material in the gospel which has been written by the author himself or which reflects characteristics of his work. Parallels with traditional materials do not prove literary connection; on the contrary they often provide a more adequate explanation of the source of common materials.10

Hillmer identified the material written by the evangelist by following R. Bultmann’s source-theory for the composition of the FG.11 This sourcetheory has received severe criticism because the stylistic and linguistic 6

F.-M. Braun, Jean le Théologien (Paris: Gabalda, 1959), 67–296. A similar method is employed by G. Iacopino, who assumes that the ‘Gnostic’ literature was dependent on the FG, and then elucidates how the authors interpreted this source (G. Iacopino, Il vangelo di Giovanni nei testi gnostici copti (Roma: Institutum Partristicum Augustinianum, 1995), 10–11). 8 M.R. Hillmer, “The Gospel of John in the Second Century,” (Diss., Harvard University, 1966). 9 “Braun’s solutions are unacceptable because he has not worked out clear criteria for quotations and allusions and he is obviously biased in his intention to show at any cost that orthodox Christians used John at an early date” (Ibid., 4). 10 Ibid., i–ii. W. von Loewenich and J.N. Sanders also produced minimal results for the influence of the FG in the second century CE (von Loewenich was more optimistic about its influence on Justin and Ignatius), although they do not use as sophisticated methodology as Hillmer (W. von Loewenich, Das Johannes-Verständnis im zweiten Jahrhundert (Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1932), 3; J.N. Sanders, The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge: University Press, 1943), 4). 11 Hillmer, “John,” 6. For a summary and critique of Bultmann’s source-theory, see: D. Moody Smith, The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965); J. Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, 1998, 2000), 1:119–150. 7

16

Chapter 2: Method for Identifying the Reception of the Fourth Gospel

features that Bultmann attributes to the evangelist are also found in material attributed to his sources.12 It is also likely that the evangelist adapted his sources, which makes their identification and reconstruction highly problematic.13 However, Hillmer strayed from this rigorous methodology and appealed to other criteria to validate dependence on the FG. For example, he concludes that Tatian, Orat. 19.4 is dependent on John 1:3, even though the evangelist was dependent on a pre-Johannine hymn for this material.14 Hillmer rejects the idea that the evangelist and Tatian were dependent on a common source, since: (1) the wording in John 1:3 and Orat. 19.4 is almost identical; (2) the statement does not appear in any source independent of the FG; and (3) Tatian has already introduced a quotation from the FG with an introductory formula.15 Hillmer also acknowledges that the evangelist used traditional material to develop Jesus’ evgw, eivmi statements in the FG, but concludes that Clement of Alexandria’s Exc. 26.1 was dependent on John 14:6 and 11:25 because: (4) these sayings are presented as the words of Jesus as in the FG.16 In one of the more questionable conclusions of his dissertation, Hillmer argues that Ignatius’ statement ‘he is the true door’ (Phld. 9.1) was dependent on a widespread tradition that identified Jesus as the door,17 but the statement ‘I am the true gate’ in the so-called Naassene fragment (Hippolytus, Haer. 5.8.20) was dependent on John 10:9 and the author has, (5) “substituted pu,lh for qu,ra in his citation of John.”18 Despite the restrictions of Hillmer’s stated method, he actually uses five criteria to argue for dependence on the FG. The primary criterion is: (1) significant verbal parallels—the greater the amount of verbal parallels, the more likely it is that an author was dependent on the FG, rather than a common source or tradition. The second criterion is: (2) unique verbal parallels—if these verbal parallels are unique to the FG, it is more likely that an author was dependent on the FG. Hillmer also appeals to: (3) cumulative evidence—if it has already been shown that an author was dependent on the FG, then weaker parallels may still indicate dependence 12

See G. van Belle, The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel (Leuven: University Press, 1994), 41–70; J. Frey, “Eschatology in the Johannine Circle,” in G. van Belle et al., eds., Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel (Leuven: University Press, 2005), 66. 13 For the unity of the FG, see Smith, Composition, 108; van Belle, Signs, 370; Frey, Eschatologie, 1:429–445. 14 Hillmer, “John,” 30, 77. 15 Ibid., 77. Hillmer also makes similar arguments for the dependence of the so-called Naassene Fragment (Hippolytus, Haer. 5.8.5) on John 1:3–4 (Ibid., 125–126). 16 Ibid., 110. 17 Ibid., 14. 18 Ibid., 123.

2.2. Method

17

on the FG. Another criterion is: (4) contextual similarities—if the parallels are presented in the same context, this increases the likelihood of dependence on the FG. Lastly, Hillmer appeals to: (5) purposeful alteration—dependence on the FG is likely if it can be persuasively argued that an author purposefully altered the FG for interpretive or theological reasons. In practice, Hillmer unwittingly sidestepped the constraints and unsubstantiated claims of Bultmann’s source-theory, but in doing so he distanced himself from Koester’s rigorous methodology, and aligned himself with the more ‘realistic’ methodology of T. Nagel. 2.2.3. ‘Realistic’ Methodology: T. Nagel In 2000, T. Nagel noted the inadequate methodologies used by Braun and Hillmer, and applied Köhler’s method to examine the reception of the FG before Irenaeus.19 Nagel’s stated method for determining dependence looks strikingly similar to Hillmer’s actual method. His criteria include: (1) significant verbal parallels; (2) unique verbal parallels that are more similar to the FG than other extant works; and (3) cumulative evidence.20 Throughout his examination of individual works, Nagel also appeals to (4) contextual similarities, and (5) purposeful alteration as evidence for dependence on the FG. In 2004, C.E. Hill applauded Nagel’s “realistic” methodology, and applied similar criteria to his own examination of the reception of the Johannine corpus in the second century CE.21 2.2.4. Method for the Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Extra-Canonical Gospels The method adopted in this study is similar to the actual method used by Hillmer and Nagel. The primary criterion for measuring the influence of the FG is: (1) the presence of common terminology. The common terminology can be classified as: verbal parallels (exact lexical terms and conjugation); verbal overlap (same lexical terms with different conjugation and order); a catchphrase (an exact phrase from the FG); or a paraphrase 19 T. Nagel, Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2000), 31. 20 Ibid., 42–45. 21 C.E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: University Press, 2004), 67–71. Hill has recently defended this method in: “The Orthodox Gospel,” in T. Rasimus, ed., The Legacy of John (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 235–241; “In These Very Words,” in C.E. Hill – M.J. Kruger, eds., The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford: University Press, 2012), 261–281. W.G. Röhl also used a methodology similar to Nagel and Hill in Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums in christlich-gnostischen Schriften aus Nag Hammadi (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1991).

18

Chapter 2: Method for Identifying the Reception of the Fourth Gospel

(free rendering or amplification of a passage from the FG). The amount and precision of the common terminology will determine the probability of influence from the FG. It must also be argued that this common terminology and its usage is: (2) distinctive to the FG. This is admittedly more difficult to prove, since many of the terms that appear more often in the FG than the Synoptics are also common in other Jewish and Christian works from the first and second centuries CE—truth, light, life, believe, etc. However, the FG often arranges and interprets these terms in a way that is unique. If the common terminology is imprecise, but it has already been argued that the extra-canonical gospel was influenced by the FG, this would increase the probability of influence from the FG—(3) cumulative evidence. If the common terminology also includes (4) contextual similarities, or it can be persuasively argued that the extra-canonical gospel made (5) a purposeful alteration of the FG, this would increase the probability of influence from the FG.22 The potential weakness of this method (and the others listed above) is that it is open to at least two critiques: the parallels between an extracanonical gospel and the FG may indicate that the extra-canonical gospel influenced the FG, or that both authors were dependent on a common source/tradition. These critiques will be addressed on a case-by-case basis in the following chapters, although few scholars have argued that an extracanonical gospel influenced the FG; the EG, Gos. Pet., and Gos. Thom. are the notable exceptions. The second critique is more common, and must be addressed here. The argument that an extra-canonical gospel and the FG were dependent on a common source is often not based on the presence of empirical evidence, but on presuppositions regarding quotation formulae, quotation accuracy, and the development of literary and oral traditions in the ancient world. Firstly, the appeal to mutual dependence on a non-extant oral and/or written source, and the argument that one work influenced the other, do not compete on equal terms. The former hypothesis cannot be falsified, refuted, or tested. Secondly, it is inadequate to claim that an extracanonical gospel was not influenced by the FG since it does not reference the FG or introduce the parallel with quotation formulae. This is rare in the second century CE, mostly confined to the writings of the church fathers, and should not be expected in gospel literature. Thirdly, it should not be 22

Despite using a similar method, the conclusions in this study differ from those of Hillmer, Röhl, Nagel, and Hill. Our primary difference, as will become evident throughout this study, is the value we place on these criteria. I am generally more pessimistic than Nagel and Hill when the terminology is not distinctive to the FG, although more optimistic when it can be argued that an extra-canonical gospel purposely altered the FG, or provides a traditional interpretation of the FG (see below).

2.2. Method

19

assumed that an imprecise parallel indicates that one work did not influence the other. J. Whittaker and S. Inowlocki have noted that when authors in Greek antiquity quote a source, they often add, omit, and substitute words, make grammatical changes, reorder passages, and combine quotations.23 Fourthly, it is circular reasoning to argue that an extra-canonical gospel and the FG were dependent on a common literary source, since the extra-canonical gospel reveals and preserves this source in its more original form. The ‘laws’ of form-criticism, that once enabled scholars to determine the relative antiquity of certain material, have been seriously questioned, if not refuted.24 Fifthly, it may also be questioned whether recent work on the development of oral traditions in various modern cultures is applicable to the context of these authors in the second and third centuries CE, and whether we can identify specific features that indicate dependence on a common oral source.25 Lastly, this argument is unable to produce positive evidence that an extra-canonical gospel and the FG were in fact dependent on a common source; it simply undermines the probability that one work influenced the other. While this argument prevents hasty conclusions for the influence of the FG, it does not have a substantial braking mechanism and can quickly become a black hole that consumes, and trumps, all other critical methods and conclusions. There are, however, instances where the common source/tradition argument can be seriously questioned. The most significant methodological lacuna in research on the extracanonical gospels and their sources (as well as the reception of the FG) is that parallels with the FG have not been examined in light of other early Christian literature. In order to argue that an extra-canonical gospel was influenced by the FG, rather than both authors being dependent on a common source/tradition, this study will introduce: (6) the criterion of traditional interpretation—an extra-canonical gospel appears to use and interpret the FG in a way similar to other early Christian authors. If an early Christian author claims to be dependent on the FG and quotes, paraphrases, or interprets this gospel in a way similar to an extra-canonical gospel that does not make any claim to dependence on the FG, then it is more likely that the extra-canonical gospel was influenced by the FG 23

J. Whittaker, “The Value of Indirect Tradition in the Establishment of Greek Philosophical Texts or the Art of Misquotation,” in J.N. Grant, ed., Editing Greek and Latin Texts (New York: AMS Press, 1989), 94–95; S. Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 40. See Hill, “In These Very Words,” 261–281. 24 E.P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: University Press, 1969), 272; R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 247. See also C.M. Tuckett, “Form Criticism,” in W.H. Kelber – S. Byrskog, eds., Jesus in Memory (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009), 33–34. 25 For a recent overview of this question, see Gathercole, Composition, 215–220.

20

Chapter 2: Method for Identifying the Reception of the Fourth Gospel

rather than a common source/tradition. A contemporary example may help explain the traditional interpretation criterion. Student A writes a short paper for an intermediate theology class without references. The following year, Student B writes a long paper for the same class, but in one section, addresses the same topic and uses similar terms to make a similar argument as Student A, yet Student B references a publication for this parallel material. How do we explain the parallels between the papers written by Student A and Student B, and more importantly, the paper written by Student A and the publication? Although there are multiple possible explanations and the imprecision of the parallels undermine any positive conclusions, the most economical solution is that Student B (early Christian author) and Student A (extra-canonical gospel) were both dependent on the publication (FG). Based on these six criteria, the parallel can be placed on a spectrum between probable and possible influence of the FG.26 Probable Influence

→

Plausible Influence

→

Possible Influence

The parallel may indicate probable influence from the FG if it has a significant amount of verbal parallels with the FG; plausible influence from the FG if it has a significant amount of verbal overlap; possible influence from the FG if it has a catchphrase from the FG or appears to be paraphrasing a passage from the FG.27 Based on criteria 2–6, the probability of influence may be strengthened.

2.3. Conclusion Similar to other historical studies of the NT, the study of the reception of the FG in the extra-canonical gospels is hampered with historical and methodological issues. These issues introduce a level of uncertainty into this study, which justifies the hedging of arguments and the proliferation of sentences in the subjunctive mood. However, the critical methodology 26 Most of the previous studies on the reception of the FG have not graded the strength of each parallel, which makes it difficult to compare the significance of a direct quotation of the FG with introductory formula, from a weak paraphrase of the FG. 27 In the synoptic charts used throughout this study, a double-underline indicates verbal parallels between an extra-canonical gospel and the FG; single-underline indicates verbal overlap; dashed-underline simply draws attention to the parallel even if there are few verbal similarities. When other works are included in the synoptic chart, the underlining indicates parallels with the extra-canonical gospel, not the FG.

2.3. Conclusion

21

introduced in this chapter allows us to evaluate the reception of the FG with a reasonable degree of confidence. The following chapters will use this method to measure the probability of the FG’s influence on the extracanonical gospels.

Part II: Narrative Gospels

Chapter 3

The Egerton Gospel (P.Eg. 2 = P.Lond.Christ. 1,+ P.Köln. 255) 3.1. Introduction The four Papyrus Egerton fragments were published together in 1935 by H.I. Bell – T.C. Skeat,1 and Papyrus Egerton 2 (P.Eg. 2) was individually republished later the same year.2 In 1987, M. Gronewald published Papyrus Cologne 255 (P.Köln. 255) and identified it as a fragment „aus demselben Papyruskodex“ as P.Eg. 2.3 The extant gospel on P.Eg. 2 (= P.Lond.Christ. 1) and P.Köln. 255 will be referred to as the Egerton Gospel (EG). Based on a palaeographical comparison with datable documents, Bell – Skeat cautiously dated P.Eg. 2 to the middle of the second century (140–160 CE), but they acknowledged, “there are features in the hand which might suggest a period yet earlier in the tradition.”4 They originally dated the work to “before the end of the first century,” 5 and then to “not later than about A.D. 110–30.”6 M. Gronewald concluded that the apostrophe between consonants in avne,neg’kon (P.Köln. 255 1r.21) provided palaeographical evidence of a third-century CE provenance.7 Although this dating of P.Köln. 255 has not been seriously challenged, it is

1 H.I. Bell – T.C. Skeat, Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other Early Christian Papyri (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1935). 2 H.I. Bell – T.C. Skeat, The New Gospel Fragments (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1935). 3 M. Gronewald, „255,“ in M. Gronewald, et al., eds., Kölner Papyri (P.Köln) (Opladen: Westdeutcher Verlag, 1987), 136. 4 Bell – Skeat, Fragments, 1. See also Bell – Skeat, New Gospel, 17. 5 Bell – Skeat, Fragments, 39. 6 Bell – Skeat, New Gospel, 17. 7 Gronewald, „255,“ 137. Gronewald is dependent on E.G. Turner who claims, “In the first decade of iii A.D. this practice suddenly becomes extremely common and then persists” (E.G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 13). However, S.J. Gathercole has argued that the apostrophe as a consonant divider does not provide decisive evidence for a third century CE date (S.J. Gathercole, “The Earliest Manuscript Title of Matthew’s Gospel,” NovT 54 (2012): 209– 235).

26

Chapter 3: The Egerton Gospel

still likely that the original composition of the EG may be dated to the “first decades of the second century CE.”8

3.2. The Egerton Gospel and the Canonical Gospels In an evaluation of the relationship between P.Eg. 2 and the Synoptics, Bell – Skeat suggested that P.Eg. 2 may have used an independent oral or written source, or the author had previously read the Synoptics and composed the work with “a memory of the Synoptic version rather than with a copy of it before him.”9 Regarding the FG, they conclude that the verbal similarities indicate dependence on a common written source, although it is also possible that the “highly individual writer” of the FG used a “free handling” of P.Eg. 2,10 or the author of P.Eg. 2 used “a form of John earlier than that which we know and widely differing from it.”11 The responses to Bell – Skeat’s monographs were generally divided by international borders. With few exceptions, German reviewers agreed that P.Eg. 2 was independent of the canonical gospels,12 while British, French, and American reviewers concluded that P.Eg. 2 was dependent on the canonical gospels,13 or the FG specifically. 14 In response to these critical reviews, Bell retreated from his previous “untenable” claim and concluded 8 T. Nicklas, “The ‘Unknown Gospel’ on Papyrus Egerton 2 (+ Papyrus Cologne 255),” in Kraus – Kruger – Nicklas, Gospel Fragments, 113. This chapter uses Nicklas’ transcription of the EG. 9 Bell – Skeat, Fragments, 33. See also Bell – Skeat, New Gospel, 27. 10 Bell – Skeat, Fragments, 37. 11 Bell – Skeat, New Gospel, 28. 12 M. Dibelius, “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments,” Deutsche Literaturzeitung 57 (1936): 10; H.A. Sanders, “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments,” CP 32 (1937): 163–164; W. Bauer, “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments,” Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 198 (1936): 29. 13 G. Dix, “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments,” Laudate 13 (1935): 109; M. Goguel, «Les nouveaux fragments évangéliques de Londres,» RHR 113 (1935): 54; «Les fragments nouvellement découverts d’un Évangile du IIe siècle,» RHPR 15 (1935): 463– 464; M.-J. Lagrange, «Deux nouveaux textes relatifs a l’Évangile,» RB 44 (1935): 343; H. Lietzmann, „Neue Evangelienpapyri,“ ZNW 34 (1935): 291; L. Cerfaux, “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments,” RHE 31 (1935): 572 (although he allows for the possibility of dependence upon common traditions); R.P. Casey, “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments,” AJP 57 (1936): 106; E.C. Colwell, “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments,” JR 16 (1936): 480. 14 F.C. Burkitt, “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments,” JTS 36 (1935): 302; R.V.G. Tasker, “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments,” CQR 121 (1935–36): 130–131; S. Lake, “Review of Bell – Skeat, New Gospel,” JBL 55 (1936): 100; C.H. Dodd, New Testament Studies (New York: Scribners, 1956), 45.

3.2. The Egerton Gospel and the Canonical Gospels

27

that “the New Gospel is in part based upon St. John’s Gospel, whether in its present or in some earlier form.”15 The first significant monograph on P.Eg. 2 was by G. Mayeda in 1946. He allows for the possibility that the author of P.Eg. 2 may have quoted from memory or been dependent on secondary orality, but he argues for its independence from the canonical gospels and concludes that it is more likely that the presence of „johanneische Farbe“ comes from a common source/tradition, rather than the FG.16 British, French, and American responses to Mayeda’s Marburg dissertation were unsurprisingly critical.17 Regarding the relationship between P.Eg. 2 and the FG, Bell suggested Mayeda’s conclusions were “disputable,” and J.J. Collins questioned Mayeda’s methodology. 18 With the exception of H. Koester, R. Cameron, and J.D. Crossan, who suggested that the canonical gospels (specifically the FG) were dependent on P.Eg. 2,19 there were few significant developments in the study of P.Eg. 2 until Gronewald’s publication of P.Köln. 255. J.B. Daniels was the first scholar to evaluate both fragments of the EG together (P.Eg. 2 + P.Köln. 255) in his 1989 Claremont dissertation, and he essentially affirmed Mayeda’s conclusions—the EG is independent of the canonical gospels, but they were dependent on common sources/traditions.20

15

H.I. Bell, Recent Discoveries of Biblical Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937),

17. 16

G. Mayeda, Das Leben-Jesu-Fragment Papyrus Egerton 2 und seine Stellung in der urchristlichen Literaturgeschichte (Bern: Paul Haupt Verlag, 1946), 68, 74, 89. 17 P.H. Menoud, “Review of Mayeda, Leben-Jesu-Fragment,” Erasmus 1 (1947): 578; M.-E. Boismard, «À propos de Jean V, 39,» RB 55 (1948): 11; H.I. Bell, “The Gospel Fragments P. Egerton 2,” HTR 42 (1949): 59; J. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (London: SPCK, 1958), 20; Braun, Jean, 92. 18 Bell, “Gospel,” 63. J.J. Collins, “Review of Mayeda, Leben-Jesu-Fragment,” TS 9 (1948): 323, states, “After very carefully weighing all the evidence, when the author finally excludes relationship to the canonical Gospels, the conclusion does not seem to be based solely on the immediate evidence but to rest partly on views which he shares with Dibelius and Bultmann on the authorship of the canonical Gospels and the formation of the early Christian tradition.” W.C. van Unnik also noted Mayeda’s relationship with M. Dibelius and suggests that his conclusions are “largely based on hypotheses” (W.C. van Unnik, “Review of Mayeda, Leben-Jesu-Fragment,” VC 2 (1948): 120). 19 H. Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,” HTR 73 (1980): 120–123; H. Koester, “Gnostic Sayings and Controversy Traditions in John 8:12–59,” in C.W. Hedrick – R. Hodgson, Jr., eds., Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, & Early Christianity (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986), 100–101; Cameron, Other, 72–74; J.D. Crossan, Four Other Gospels (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 75. 20 J.B. Daniels, “The Egerton Gospel,” (Diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1989), 96.

28

Chapter 3: The Egerton Gospel

The conclusions from the past two decades are mixed: some scholars maintain that the EG is dependent on the canonical gospels in some way,21 specifically the FG,22 while others argue for its independence,23 or that the canonical gospels are dependent on the EG.24 A lacuna in the study of the EG and its sources is a comparison between the apparent use of the FG in the EG and the use of these same passages by other early Christian authors.

3.3. The Egerton Gospel and the Fourth Gospel The EG consists of four papyrus fragments that contain at least six episodes in the life of Jesus: 1. Confrontation with the Authorities (1v.1– 20 + P.Köln. 255 1v.19–24); 2. Attempt to Stone and Arrest Jesus (1r.1– 10); 3. Healing of a Leper (1r.11–20 + P.Köln. 255 1r.19–24); 4. Miracle on the Jordan (2v.1–16); 5. Question about Tribute-Money (2r.1–18); 6. Another Attempt to Stone Jesus (3r.1–6). The narrative of the EG will be followed in the analysis below, and parallels that indicate a probable, plausible, or possible measure of influence from the FG will be examined together.

21

F. Neirynck, “The Apocryphal Gospels and the Gospel of Mark,” in F. Neirynck, Evangelica II (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991), 753; M. Hengel, The Johannine Question (London: SCM Press, 1989), 11; J. Jeremias – W. Schneemelcher, “Papyrus Egerton 2,” in Schneemelcher, Apocrypha, 97; S.R. Pickering, “The Egerton Gospel and New Testament Textual Transmission,” in C.-B. Amphoux – J.K. Elliott, eds., The New Testament Text in Early Christianity (Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 2003), 232; S.E. Porter, “Apocryphal Gospels and the Text of the New Testament before A. D. 200,” in Amphoux – Elliott, New Testament, 258; L.W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 441; Hill, Johannine, 305. 22 J.W. Pryor, “Papyrus Egerton 2 and the Fourth Gospel,” ABR 37 (1989): 13; E. Norelli, «Le Papyrus Egerton 2 et sa localisation dans la tradition sur Jésus,» in D. Marguerat et al., eds., Jésus de Nazareth (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1998), 427, 430; Nagel, Rezeption, 206–207; Klauck, Apocryphal, 25; D. Lührmann, Die apokryph gewordenen Evangelien (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 135–136; T. Nicklas, “Papyrus Egerton 2,” in Foster, Non-Canonical, 148; Nicklas, “Unknown Gospel,” 113–114. 23 J.K. Elliott remains somewhat hesitant but suggests that the EG may quote the canonical gospels from memory or be dependent on “the oral tradition behind the written Gospels” (Elliott, Apocryphal, 38); R.J. Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1994), 413; C. Kellas, “The Healing of the Leper,” IBS 16 (1994): 168, 171; K. Erlemann, „Papyrus Egerton 2,“ NTS 42 (1996): 19, 26; T. Kazen, “Sectarian Gospels for Some Christians?,” NTS 51 (2005): 571; R.L. Webb, “Jesus Heals a Leper,” JSHJ 4 (2006): 182. 24 Koester, Ancient, 211, 215; H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 2:186–187.

3.3. The Egerton Gospel and the Fourth Gospel

29

3.3.1. Episode 1 – Confrontation with the Authorities (1v.1–20 + P.Köln. 255 1v.19–24) The first episode begins with a conflict between Jesus and ‘the lawyers’ where he is accused of transgressing the Law (perhaps for breaking the Sabbath)25 and declares himself innocent. This leads to a debate with ‘the rulers of the people’ concerning the identity of Jesus.26 3.3.1.1. Probable Influence of the Fourth Gospel 1v.7–10a evṛau[na/te t]ạ.j grafa,j\ evn ai-j u`mei/j do[kei/te] ẓwh.n e;cein evkei/nai,̣ ẹịv[s]ịṇ [ai` mart]ụrou/sai peri. evmou/\

John 5:39 evrauna/te ta.j grafa,j( o[ti u`mei/j dokei/te evn auvtai/j zwh.n aivw,nion e;cein\ kai. evkei/nai, eivsin ai` marturou/sai peri. evmou/\

Daniels and Mayeda have argued that 1v.7–10a and John 5:39 were both dependent on a common source/tradition, and the EG preserves a more traditional form of the saying, while the FG has adapted it to fit the context of John 5:31–47. Each of these arguments may be briefly addressed. Daniels suggests that John 5:39 may be based on a traditional saying because “evrauna,w is not especially typical of John, nor is it found elsewhere in the NT with reference to scriptural study.” 27 Firstly, evrauna,w is ‘not especially typical’ of any NT work, but it does occur most often in the FG (John 5:39; 7:52).28 Secondly, both occurrences in the FG are distinctive in that evrauna,w is associated with ‘scriptural study’—where else would the Pharisees recommend that Nicodemus ‘search’ to know that a prophet does not come from Galilee (John 7:52)? 29

25

Goguel, «Nouveaux,» 69; M.-J. Lagrange, «Deux nouveaux,» 328; Casey, “Review,” 104; Jeremias, Unknown, 19; Norelli, «Egerton,» 418. 26 Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho has an important terminological parallel to Episode 1. Justin claims that ‘the Jews’ (VIoudai/oi) have excised passages from the Scriptures that refer to Jesus, and Trypho responds: ‘Whether [or not] the rulers of the people (oi` a;rcontej tou/ laou/) have erased any portion of the Scriptures, as you affirm, God knows; but it seems incredible’ (Dial. 73). The correlation of ‘the Jews’ with ‘the rulers of the people’ in the context of Scripture’s testimony to Jesus suggests that the EG may have exchanged Jesus’ conflict with ‘the Jews’ in John 5 to ‘the rulers of the people,’ although the reason for doing so is not altogether apparent unless, perhaps to appeal to a wider Jewish audience, the author placed the blame for violence against Jesus on the ‘rulers of the people’ instead of ‘the Jews’ in general. 27 Daniels, “Egerton,” 111. 28 It occurs once in Rom 8:27; 1 Cor 2:10; 1 Pet 1:11; Rev 2:23. 29 D and other variants clarify that Nicodemus is to search ta.j grafa,j .

30

Chapter 3: The Egerton Gospel

Daniels also suggests that the rare plural grafa,j is further evidence that John 5:39 may be a traditional saying. 30 This is the only occurrence of grafa,j in the FG (the singular grafh, occurs 10x), since the context is unique in that it is not referring to a specific OT passage, but rather ‘the writings’ of Moses (John 5:47). Mayeda suggests that the addition of aivw,nioj to zwh, in John 5:39, and its absence in 1v.9, may also indicate dependence on a common source.31 Although ‘eternal life’ is a Johannine idiom (Matt 3x; Mark 2x; Luke 3x; John 17x), zwh, occurs more often without aivw,nioj in the FG (19x), and they do not always have significantly different meanings—surely zwh.n aivw,nion in John 5:39 is equivalent to zwh,n in 5:40.32 Daniels also claims that the phrase evkei/nai, eivsin ai` marturou/sai peri. evmou/ in John 5:39 may be a secondary addition because of its similarities with John 5:31–40,33 but this is a dubious argument since the idiom is also found in other sections of the FG. In the NT, only the FG links peri. evmou' with marture,w—John the Baptist (5:32), Jesus’ works (5:36; 10:25), the Father (5:37; 8:18), the Scriptures (5:39), the writings of Moses (5:46), and the Paraclete (15:26) all testify to Jesus.34 There does not appear to be sufficient evidence to claim that 1v.7–10a and John 5:39 were dependent on a common source, or that John 5:39 adapted this source. The significant verbal parallels suggest that one work influenced the other, and the minor differences can be explained if the EG was influenced by the FG. For example, the EG could have omitted aivw,nioj because the meaning of zwh, in John 5:39 was self-explanatory, just as it is in John 5:40. 1v.10b–14a mh. ṇ@omi,zete o[#ti evgw. h=lqon kathgo\[r]h/sai @u`mw/n# pro.j to.n p$ate,%ra mou\ e;stin @o` kath#g̣ọrw/n u`mw/n Mw$u?sh/j% eivj o]n @u`mei/j# hṿlpi,kate\

30

John 5:45 mh. dokei/te o[ti evgw. kathgorh,sw u`mw/n pro.j to.n pate,ra\ e;stin o` kathgorw/n u`mw/n Mwu?sh/j( eivj o]n u`mei/j hvlpi,kate.

Daniels, “Egerton,” 111. Mayeda, Leben-Jesu-Fragment, 71, 22. 32 D, Θ, 69, pc, e, syp add aivw,nion in John 5:40. Nicklas correctly warns against “overstressing” the importance of the absence of aivw,nioj in the EG, since “The variation could also be explained as an unconscious alteration (for example, due to quotation from memory), as a conscious change (for example, the text does not want to speak about eternal life in connection with its opponents), or simply as a sign of a lack of interest regarding the difference” (Nicklas, “Unknown Gospel,” 39). 33 Daniels, “Egerton,” 112–113. 34 The only other NT occurrences of peri. evmou/ and ‘testimony’ (although not marture,w) are Acts 22:18 (marturi,a ) and 23:11 (diamartu,romai). 31

3.3. The Egerton Gospel and the Fourth Gospel

31

There are significant verbal parallels between these two passages, including the use of terminology that is relatively rare in the NT: o` kathgorw/n only occurs in John 5:45 and Rev 12:10; hvlpi,kate is unique to John 5:45. The primary differences between 1v.10b–14 and John 5:45 are as follows: the reconstructed verb ṇ@omi,zete# instead of dokei/te;35 h=lqon kathgo\[r]h/sai instead of the future tense kathgorh,sw; and the additional personal pronoun mou in 1v.12. The verb nomi,zw and the h=lqon (singular) + infinitive construction does not occur in the FG. Daniels suggests that this construction in the EG is a “more traditional formulation,” and John 5:45 may have switched to the future to suit the discussion of future judgment in John 5,36 although it could also be argued that the EG switched to the aorist to emphasize the timeless indictment of Jesus’ opponents. However, it is not clear that the works have a different eschatology; both suggest that judgment is a present reality based on unbelief and the rejection of Jesus (1v.18–20; John 3:18; 5:30; 12:31, 48).37 The presence of mou in 1v.12 and its absence in John 5:45 is insignificant—the author could have added it, or been influenced by a version of John 5:45 that included it.38 W.A. Meeks contends that John 5:45 is ironic because “in almost every circle of Judaism and Samaritanism Moses was regarded as the primary defender (sunh,goroj, para,klhtoj) of Israel before God.”39 The reversal of Moses’ role in both John 5:45 and the EG, as well as the lengthy verbal parallels, indicates a significant relationship between these works. 1v.14b–17a a@uv#tw/n de. le@go,ntw#n o[̣@ti# oi;damen o[ṭị Mw$usei/% evḷa,̣@lhsen# o` q$eo,%j@\# se. de. ouvk oi;damen @po,qen ei=#\

John 9:29 h`mei/j oi;damen o[ti Mwu?sei/ lela,lhken o` qeo,j( tou/ton de. ouvk oi;damen po,qen evsti,nÅ

The primary differences between 1v.14b–17a and John 9:29 are as follows: the EG introduces the statement with the genitive absolute auvtw/n 35 Bell – Skeat, Fragments and New Gospel reconstructed the verb as d[okei/te], which was followed by Cerfaux, Dodd, and Mayeda; Daniels and Nicklas reconstruct the verb as n[omi,zete]. Only the upper left-hand corner of the first letter is visible, which could either be N or D with a minimal hook. The vertical line suggests that N is more probable, so the reconstruction n[omi,zete] is likely correct. 36 Daniels, “Egerton,” 135. See also Mayeda, Leben-Jesu-Fragment, 22. 37 See Jeremias, Unknown, 20; Nicklas, “Unknown Gospel,” 36–37; Frey, Eschatologie, 3:315. 38 When Jesus is speaking of ‘the Father’ in the FG (NA27), there are numerous examples where manuscripts add mou: John 6:44, 57, 65; 8:28, 38; 10:30, 32; 12:26; 14:28; 16:10; 18:11; 20:17. 39 W.A. Meeks, The Prophet-King (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 294.

32

Chapter 3: The Egerton Gospel

lego,ntwn; John 9:29 has the subject h`mei/j, which is absent from 1v.15; the EG has the aorist tense evla,lhsen, while John 9:29 has the perfect tense lela,lhken; the EG has the personal pronoun se, and the second-person singular ei= is entirely reconstructed, while John 9:29 has the demonstrative pronoun tou/ton and the first-person singular evsti,n. These differences are not easily explained. The genitive absolute auvtw/n lego,ntwn does not occur in the NT—perhaps this is evidence of a seam where the author has joined two sources (John 5:45 and 9:29).40 The EG usually agrees with the FG’s inclusion or exclusion of the nominative personal pronoun except in 1v.1541—perhaps the author was influenced by 9:29b where h`mei/j is excluded before oi;damen. The aorist active indicative of lale,w is more common than the perfect active indicative in the NT— perhaps the author was influenced by a version of John 9:29 that used the aorist,42 or attempted to mitigate the FG’s excessive predilection for the perfect.43 None of these explanations are entirely persuasive, although the differences are seemingly insignificant. The remaining difference is the result of different contexts—in 1v.16–17a, the rulers of the people address Jesus (se,; ei=); in John 9:29, the Jews address the blind-man about Jesus (tou/ton; evsti,n). Koester contends that John 9:29 is dependent on the EG (or possibly a similar source), and the evangelist borrowed this passage to supplement “a statement which is most certainly a composition of the author (9.28).”44 However, this assumes that the evangelist used a ‘cut-and-paste’ method of borrowing; a method he elsewhere denies the author of the EG would have employed.45 Daniels argues that the EG and John 9:29 were dependent on a common source/tradition, since the phrase ‘we know that God spoke to Moses’ is “probably a slogan imagined for Jews by emerging Christians.”46 The appeal to a slogan without historical precedence apart from John 9:29 does not inspire confidence in his conclusion.

40 41

Lagrange, «Deux nouveaux,» 331. 1v.8//John 5:39; 1v.11//John 5:45; 1v.14a//John 5:45; 1v.16//John 9:29; 2r.4//John

3:2. 42

A, Θ, 053, according to Mayeda, Leben-Jesu-Fragment, 25. Dodd, Studies, 23. 44 Koester, “Apocryphal,” 120, 123. 45 “It is hard to imagine that Papyrus Egerton 2 could have patched its text together from half a dozen passages of the Gospel of John” (Koester, Introduction, 187). 46 Daniels, “Egerton,” 90. 43

3.3. The Egerton Gospel and the Fourth Gospel

1v.18b–20 + P.Köln. 255 1v.19–23 nu/n kathgorei/tai @u`mw/n to. av#p̣istei/@n# toi/j u`pV ạuvtou/̣ @memarturh#ṃe,̣ṇọij\ eiv ga.r evpi@steu,sate Mw$u?sei/%#\ evpisteu,sate a'@n# @evmoi.\ pe#ṛ@i.# evmou/̣ ga.r evkei/no@j# @e;graye#ṇ toi/j pat@ra,#ṣin u`mw/@n#

33

John 5:45b–46 e;stin o` kathgorw/n u`mw/n Mwu?sh/j( eivj o]n u`mei/j hvlpi,kateÅ eiv ga.r evpisteu,ete Mwu?sei/( evpisteu,ete a'n evmoi,\ peri. ga.r evmou/ evkei/noj e;grayenÅ

There are no exact parallels between 1v.18b–20a and the canonical gospels. When kathgore,w is used in the Synoptics, it is always the opponents ‘accusing’ Jesus, but only in the EG and John 5:45 does Jesus indicate that the opponents are ‘accused.’ There is significant overlap in 1v.10b–14a and John 5:45, so the author of the EG may be recapitulating John 5:45 before leading into John 5:46 in 1v.20b. The primary differences between 1v.20b–23 and John 5:46 are: the aorist evpisteu,sate instead of the imperfect evpisteu,ete; and the additional phrase toi/j patra,sin u`mw/n in 1v.23, which is absent from John 5:46. Daniels acknowledges the prevalence of pisteu,w in the FG, but states: “only eleven times does it take a dative object, and only in 5:46–47 do there appear dative objects other than Jesus or God. Thus the saying as formulated here is unusual for John and may be suspected as traditional.”47 Daniels’ analysis and conclusion are surely incorrect. In the FG, pisteu,w takes a dative object 18x,48 and there are four passages besides John 5:46– 47 that have a dative object other than Jesus or God.49 The FG regularly uses the pisteu,w + eivj construction (35x), but the use of the dative object is not ‘unusual for John’ or evidence for a ‘traditional’ source. The mention of ‘your fathers’ in the canonical gospels refers to their culpability in violence towards the prophets (Matt 23:32; Luke 11:47–48), and their rebellion and death in the wilderness (John 6:49, 58 some mss). ‘Your fathers’ in 1v.23 serves to distance Jesus from the lineage of his opponents, similar to the FG (John 7:19; 8:17, 41, 44, 56), although it cannot be claimed that the EG was influenced by these passages. 3.3.1.2. Analysis of Episode 1 There are at least four ways to explain the relationship between these works: (1) the EG was influenced by the FG; (2) the FG was influenced by the EG; (3) the FG and the EG were dependent on a common source; (4) 47

Daniels, “Egerton,” 120–121. John 2:22; 4:21, 50; 5:24, 38, 46 (twice), 47 (twice); 6:30; 8:31, 45, 46; 10:37, 38 (twice); 12:38; 14:11. Daniels omits John 2:22; 4:50; one occurrence in 5:46; the two occurrences in 5:47; one occurrence in 10:38; and 12:38. 49 John 2:22 (evpi,steusan th/| grafh/|); 4:50 (evpi,steusen o` a;nqrwpoj tw/| lo,gw|); 10:38 (toi/j e;rgoij pisteu,ete); 12:38 (evpi,steusen th/| avkoh/|). 48

34

Chapter 3: The Egerton Gospel

the FG and the EG were entirely independent from one another. The significant amount of verbal parallels between the works makes option (4) doubtful. In order to test the probability of the other options, the language and context of each work must be examined. The language of Episode 1 appears frequently in the FG. Of the 31 significant nouns and verbs in Episode 1, 19 occur more often in the FG than the Synoptics, and one verb (evrauna,w) occurs twice in the FG but is absent from the Synoptics.50 C.H. Dodd labels this episode as “Johannine through and through,” and concludes that if the EG and FG were dependent on a common source, “we should have to say that the language of the Fourth Gospel was coloured all through by this hypothetical source, since the expressions . . . have parallels in all parts of the Gospel.”51 Since the EG is minute when compared to the FG, it is difficult to identify idioms of the work and reverse the argument. However, the significant verbal parallels between Episode 1 and the FG, and the presence of these terms throughout the FG, make it doubtful that they were dependent on a common source, and may indicate that the EG was influenced by the FG. Furthermore, the addition and omission of words, the substitution of synonymous terms, the use of the same verb in a different tense, and the combination of passages are, according to J. Whittaker and S. Inowlocki,52 just the alterations one would expect to see when an author in this period is quoting a text. The apparent interjection of John 9:29 between John 5:45 and 5:46 in the EG has led Daniels to doubt that the EG was influenced by the FG. Firstly, Daniels argues that 1v.15–17a is integrated in the context of the EG because “the opponents’ professed allegiance to Moses is the basis for the accusation made against them” in 1v.18ff.53 However, the issue that makes 1v.15–17a appear out of place is not the opponents’ professed allegiance to Moses, but the claim: se. de. ouvk oi;damen @po,qen ei=#. The reference to Jesus’ origin is a consistent theme in John 9 (16, 29, 30, 33) and other incidences of conflict in FG (John 7:27, 28; 8:14; see also 19:9). Dodd and J.W. Pryor astutely note that the progression in the EG may seem logical only because the reader is importing the context of each saying from the FG,54 while John 9:29 suits the context of John 9, 50

Of the remaining nouns and verbs in Episode 1: one occurs more frequently in Matt than the other canonical gospels; nine occur more frequently in Luke; one (parapra,ssw) does not occur in the NT. 51 Dodd, Studies, 25. See also Pryor, “Egerton,” 3. 52 Whittaker, “Indirect,” 94–95; Inowlocki, Eusebius, 40. 53 Daniels, “Egerton,” 81. 54 Dodd, Studies, 25; Pryor, “Egerton,” 9. The claim that the sayings in the EG fit together smoothly is made by Bell – Skeat, Fragments, 35; Mayeda, Leben-JesuFragment, 68; Koester, “Apocryphal,” 120.

3.3. The Egerton Gospel and the Fourth Gospel

35

specifically with the opponents’ claim, ouvk e;stin ou-toj para. qeou/ o` a;nqrwpoj, because he does not keep the Sabbath (9:16).55 Secondly, Daniels doubts that the EG was influenced by the FG for these passages because the EG disregards the context and theology of John 5 and 9. Daniels asks: “how is it possible that an author who knows John so well that s/he can quote some of Jesus’ words from it almost verbatim is simultaneously unaware of their literary framework?”56 If the author of the EG is considered to be a composer and not simply a compiler (as Daniels affirms),57 then different contexts and literary frameworks do not necessarily undermine the relationship between the works. Regarding the absence of John 5:40–44 and other ‘Christological assertions’ in the EG, Daniels claims, “The fact that the author does not import Christologically developed language and notions from elsewhere in John’s gospel suggests either that s/he chooses deliberately to overlook their possibilities or that s/he simply is not familiar with them.”58 Daniels favors the latter option to support his argument for independence, but even if the EG had a different Christology than the FG, this would not necessitate independence. Nevertheless, Daniels has failed to adequately address the theological similarities between Episode 1 and John 5 and 9. Episode 1 is primarily concerned with the identity and authority of Jesus. The conflict with the authorities concerns Jesus’ relationship to the Law, Scriptures, and Moses. Jesus declares himself innocent of transgressing the Law (1v.1–5), the Scriptures testify to Jesus (presumably his divine origin based on the opponents’ question in 1v.15–17) (1v.6–10), yet the opponents do not receive this testimony because they do not believe Moses (1v.10–14, 17–24), and are therefore accused by Moses (1v.12–14, 18–20). Many of these themes occur in conflict episodes with the Jews in the FG,59 but they are focalized in John 5: Jesus is guilty of breaking the Sabbath (5:10, 16, 18); he declares himself innocent because he is doing the things of his Father (5:19, 30); the Scriptures testify to Jesus (5:39); the opponents do not receive his testimony because they do not believe Moses and are therefore accused by Moses (5:45–47). The confrontation in John 9 also has themes similar to John 5: an accusation against Jesus for breaking the Sabbath (9:14); an appeal to Moses (9:28–29); questions surrounding Jesus’ identity (9:13–34). The similarities between John 5 and 9—a Sabbath healing that leads to confrontation regarding Jesus’ identity and 55

Goguel, «Fragments,» 463; Norelli, «Egerton,» 420–422. Daniels, “Egerton,” 86. A similar argument is made by Bell – Skeat, Fragments, 35; New Gospel, 28; Bauer, “Review,” 29. 57 Daniels, “Egerton,” 133. 58 Ibid., 95. 59 John 2:18; 5:9–18; 6:35–42; 7:14–52; 8:12–59; 9:13–17; 10:19–21, 31–39. 56

36

Chapter 3: The Egerton Gospel

his relationship to the Law—may have led the author of the EG to conflate sayings from each pericope in order to create a new episode.60 Perhaps the strongest argument offered by Koester and Daniels against the conclusion that Episode 1 was influenced by the FG is that Episode 1 does not contain John 5:40–44. Koester has claimed that the FG was dependent on the EG since the latter seems to be “more original” and “preserves features which derive from a stage of the tradition that is older than the canonical gospels.”61 According to Koester, the redaction of the EG by the evangelist is particularly evident in the separation of 5:39 and 5:45, with the interjection of the theme of ‘taking honor’ (John 5:40–44).62 Since there is no evidence that the evangelist appropriated unique material from the EG, Daniels denied that the FG was dependent on the EG for this pericope, but claimed that the pairing of John 5:39 and 5:45 may indicate that “Egerton preserves a traditional continuity that is disrupted by editorial work in John.”63 Therefore, he concludes that the EG and FG were both dependent on a common source/tradition that contained John 5:39 and 5:45 together, but the evangelist inserted 5:40–44, while the author of the EG followed the source more closely. Regardless of the function and meaning of John 5:40–44, it is extremely doubtful that the pairing of John 5:39 and 5:45 in the EG is indicative of an ancient source. Early church fathers who are explicitly dependent on the FG make a similar omission of 5:40/41–44, and combine John 5:39/40 with 5:45/46 to make the same theological point as that exhibited in the EG—Moses foretold Jesus’ coming. Irenaeus affirms that the Scriptures come from one and the same Father by stating: Wherefore also John does appropriately relate that the Lord said to the Jews: “You search the Scriptures, in which you think you have eternal life; these are they which testify of me. And you are not willing to come to me, that you may have life” [John 5:39–40]. How therefore did the Scriptures testify of Him, unless they were from one and the same Father, instructing men beforehand as to the advent of His Son, and foretelling the salvation brought in by Him? “For if you had believed Moses, you would also have

60 Goguel, «Nouveaux,» 54; Lagrange, «Deux nouveaux,» 330; Norelli, «Egerton,» 420–422; Pickering, “Egerton,” 224; Nagel, Rezeption, 201. 61 Koester, “Apocryphal,” 120–121. Although Koester does not substantiate this claim, it is safe to assume that it is undergirded by a priori assumptions regarding the ability of form criticism to determine the antiquity of particular traditions. 62 Koester, “Apocryphal,” 120–121. More recently, H. Koester, “Gospels and Gospel Traditions in the Second Century,” in A. Gregory – C.M. Tuckett, eds., Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: University Press, 2005), 27–44, 37. 63 Daniels, “Egerton,” 113.

3.3. The Egerton Gospel and the Fourth Gospel

37

believed Me; for he wrote of Me” [John 5:46]; (saying this,) no doubt, because the Son of God is implanted everywhere throughout his writings (Irenaeus, Haer. 4.10.1).64

In response to Heracleon’s degradation of the prophets, Origen asks: [S]o if the prophetic voice is nothing more than noise, how does the Savior say, as he refers us to it: “Search the Scriptures, because you think you have eternal life in them, and they are those who testify [John 5:39],” and, “If you believed Moses you would believe me, for he wrote of me [John 5:46],” and, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, ‘This people honors me with their lips’ [Isa 29:13]” (Origen, Comm. Jo. 6.109)?65

Cyprian affirms that Deut 18:18–19 refers to Jesus: Concerning whom also Christ says in the Gospel according to John: “Search the Scriptures, in which you think you have eternal life. These are they which set forth testimony concerning me; and you will not come to me, that you might have life” [John 5:39–40]. “Do not think that I accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuses you, even Moses, on whom you hope. For if you had believed Moses, you would also believe me: for he wrote of me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you believe my words” [John 5:45–47] (Cyprian, Test. 1.18)?

Irenaeus and Cyprian are explicit in their dependence upon the FG,66 and they each omit 5:41–44, while Origen, in his commentary on the FG, also omits 5:40–45. It cannot be argued that these early church fathers were unaware of John 5:40–44, or were dependent on a version of FG that omitted these passages—Irenaeus and Cyprian quote John 5:43 (Haer. 5.25.4; Test. 2.5), and Origen alludes to John 5:44 (Origen, Comm. Jo. 20.337). Instead of suggesting that the EG preserves an ancient source that the FG was dependent on, it is more likely that the EG reflects a traditional interpretation of the FG that considered John 5:40/41–44 superfluous for the argument that Moses foretold Jesus’ coming. 3.3.2. Episode 2 – Attempt to Stone and Arrest Jesus (1r.1–10) The beginning of this episode is quite fragmentary, but it appears that the opponents pick up stones to stone Jesus. The opponents then lay their hands on him in an attempt to hand him over to the crowd, but they are 64

Unless noted otherwise, all quotations of the church fathers are from A. Roberts – J. Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995); The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994). Archaic terminology has been replaced. 65 R.E. Heine, trans., Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1– 10 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1993). EG 2r.13–18 also contains a quotation of Isa 29:13. 66 B. Mutschler notes, “In introducing some of his quotations of the Fourth Gospel, Irenaeus has ‘the Lord’ speaking 31 times, John 16 times, his gospel 4 times, John in his gospel 3 times, and scripture 2 times” (B. Mutschler, “John and His Gospel in the Mirror of Irenaeus of Lyons,” in Rasimus, Legacy, 332).

38

Chapter 3: The Egerton Gospel

unable to arrest him because his hour had not come. The episode ends with the Lord slipping out from their hands and withdrawing from them. 3.3.2.1. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel 1r.1–3 [. . . . . . . . .] ̣ . w[. . . .] . [ [. . . . . . . . . . . .] li,qouj o`mou/̣ . . [ sị@n auv#ṭo,n\

John 10:31 VEba,stasan pa,lin li,qouj oi` VIoudai/oi i[na liqa,swsin auvto,nÅ

The fragmentary nature of 1r.1–2 makes any reconstruction questionable, yet some scholars have suggested that the lacuna contained e[lkwsin and basta,santej.67 The verb e[lkw occurs most often in the FG (John 5x; Acts 2x; James 1x), and only in John 10:31 does basta,zw refer to picking up stones. The only occurrences of li,qouj in the NT are John 8:59, 10:31, 1 Cor 3:12, and in both passages from the FG, it is Jesus’ opponents who pick up stones to throw at him. The term o`mou/ is also rare in the NT, but it occurs most often in the FG (John 3x; Acts 1x). Most editions reconstruct 1r.2b–3a as liqa,swsin auvto,n,68 and the FG is the only canonical gospel to use the verb liqa,zw (John 8:5; 10:31–33; 11:8).69

67

See Nicklas, “Unknown Gospel,” 42. Ibid. 69 The only mention of ‘stoning’ in the Synoptics is Matt 21:35 (liqobole,w); 23:37 (liqobole,w); and Luke 13:34 (liqobole,w); 20:6 (kataliqa,zw). Jesus is never in danger of being stoned in the Synoptics or other extra-canonical gospels: the soldiers are fearful of being stoned by the Jews (Gos. Pet. 48); Thomas is fearful of being stoned by the disciples (Gos. Thom. §13); Judas is stoned by the disciples in a vision (Gos. Jud. 44.26). 68

3.3. The Egerton Gospel and the Fourth Gospel

1r.3–8

John 7:30

kai. evpe,baloṇ @ta.j# cei/@raj# auvtw/n evpV auvto,n oi` @a;rcon#tej @i[n#a pia,swsin kai.̣ paṛ@ . . . .] ṭw/| o;clw|\ kai. ouvk hṿ@du,nanto# auvto.n pia,sai o[ti ou;pw ev@lhlu,qei# auvtou/ h` w[ra th/j parado,̣@sewj\#

a VEzh,toun ou=n auvto.n pia,sai( kai. ouvdei.j evpe,balen evpV auvto.n th.n cei/ra(

1r.9–10 a#uṿto.j de. o` k$u,rio%j evxelqw.n @evk tw/n cei,#rwn avpe,neusen avpV ạ@uvtw/n\#

b o[ti ou;pw evlhlu,qei h` w[ra auvtou/Å

Matt 26:50b, 45c 50b to,te proselqo,ntej evpe,balon ta.j cei/raj evpi. to.n VIhsou/n kai. evkra,thsan auvto,nÅ

Mark 14:46, 41c 46 oi` de. evpe,balon ta.j cei/raj auvtw/| kai. evkra,thsan auvto,nÅ

45c ivdou,( h;ggiken h` w[ra( kai. o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou paradi,dotai eivj cei/raj a`martwlw/nÅ

41c h=lqen h` w[ra( ivdou. paradi,dotai o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou eivj ta.j cei/raj tw/n a`martwlw/nÅ

39 Luke 20:19a Kai. evzh,thsan oi` grammatei/j kai. oi` avrcierei/j evpibalei/n evpV auvto.n ta.j cei/raj evn auvth/| th/| w[ra|

John 10:39 VEzh,toun Îou=nÐ auvto.n pa,lin pia,sai( kai. evxh/lqen evk th/j ceiro.j auvtw/nÅ

The fragmentary nature of 1r.3–10 also makes any reconstruction questionable, but as it stands, the rulers lay their hands (@ta.j# cei/@raj#) upon Jesus in 1r.3–4, which has more verbal agreements with the Synoptics than John 7:30a, where no one is able to lay a hand (th.n cei/ra) on him (John 7:44b does use the plural ta.j cei/raj). However, a violent reaction to Jesus’ words and a failed attempt to incarcerate him is more similar to the context of John 7:28–30. The EG and John 7:30 have verbal parallels that indicate the opponents are unable to seize him (auvto.n pia,sai), because his hour had not yet come (o[ti ou;pw evlhlu,qei h` w[ra auvtou/). The terminology is also significant. The verb pia,zw does not occur in the Synoptics, but it occurs in the FG 8x.70 The adverb ou;pw never relates to Jesus’ hour in the Synoptics, while it does in John 2:4; 7:30; 8:20. The idea of the ‘coming hour’ (e;rcomai + 70

John 7:30, 32, 44; 8:20; 10:39; 11:57; 21:3, 10. The other NT occurrences of pia,zw are Acts 3:7; 12:4; 2 Cor 11:32; Rev 19:20.

40

Chapter 3: The Egerton Gospel

w[ra) occurs once in each of the Synoptics, but 15x in the FG.71 However, the EG adds the clarifying comment that it is his hour of being handed over (h` w[ra th/j parado,̣@sewj#), which is similar to Matt 26:45 and Mark 14:41. 1r.9–10 indicates that the Lord got out from their hands (evxelqw.n @evk tw/n cei,#rwn), which has verbal overlap with John 10:39, where Jesus’ opponents seek to seize him again (likely referring back to 7:30), but Jesus got out from their hand (evxh/lqen evk th/j ceiro.j auvtw/n ). In the canonical gospels, the verb evxe,rcomai is used in the context of Jesus’ escape from opponents in John 8:59 and 10:39, where in both cases, he is in danger of being stoned, as in 1r.1–3. 3.3.2.2. Analysis of Episode 2 Episode 2 contains features that recur in the FG: (1) an attempt to stone Jesus (John 8:59; 10:31); (2) an attempt to seize Jesus (7:30, 44; 10:39); (3) the inability to seize Jesus (7:30, 44; 8:20; 10:39) because his hour had not yet come (2:4; 7:30; 8:20); and (4) Jesus eludes incarceration (8:59; 10:39; Luke 4:30). The combination of John 7:30 and 10:39 is understandable since their content and construction is similar, which may indicate that the author of the EG has conflated these passages.72 Koester doubts that Episode 2 was influenced by the FG since, “It is far more likely that John utilized this report repeatedly (in order to create the impression of an increasing hostility of the Jews) than to assume that the passage in Papyrus Egerton 2 was pieced together from passages in three different chapters of the Gospel of John [7:30, 44; 8:20; 10:31, 39].”73

71 Matt 24:44; Mark 14:41; Luke 12:40; John 4:21, 23; 5:25, 28; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:2, 4, 21, 25, 32; 17:1. These calculations are slightly different than Dodd’s: Matt once, Mark once, John 14x (Dodd, Studies, 31). 72 Norelli, «Egerton,» 407; Porter, “Apocryphal,” 246. The insertion of Luke 4:30 after John 8:59 in multiple manuscripts also suggest that it was not unusual for scribes to conflate episodes of violence against Jesus (‫א‬1 C L N Ψ 070. 33. (579). 892. 1241; see also A Θc f1.13 M (f) q). 73 Koester, “Gnostic Sayings,” 103. The methodology of Koester and Daniels gets particularly creative in this episode. Koester acknowledges that the narrative of John 8:20 is usually considered redactional, yet he argues that the evangelist returned to his controversy source (preserved in the EG) in 8:20b because the “remark that ‘no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come’ interrupts the context more than necessary” (Koester, “Gnostic Sayings,” 102). Daniels also acknowledges that many scholars consider the repetitious themes of conflict and assault in John 7:30, 44; 8:20, 59; 10:31 to be products of Johannine redaction, but then notes that the “aporias” and “awkward junctures,” especially in John 7–8, suggests that these chapters “contain material which has not yet been drafted in its final form” (Daniels, “Egerton,” 124–128). The appeal to multiple drafts of the FG and assumptions about what constitutes a necessary interruption of the context appears more complicated than supposing that the

3.3. The Egerton Gospel and the Fourth Gospel

41

However, the EG probably reports another attempt to stone Jesus (3r.1– 6//John 10:30–31), which may suggest it followed the FG’s theme of repeated attempts to stone Jesus. When compared with the FG, the EG gives the impression of increasing the hostility of Jesus’ opponents since they succeed in laying their hands on Jesus, while they do not in John 7:30. This creates a logical inconsistency in the EG74—the opponents lay their hands on Jesus to arrest him, but then are unable to arrest him—which is most easily explained if the author was influenced by John 7:30 and wanted to emphasize the violent intention of Jesus’ opponents. Koester also claims that Episode 2 is “less ‘Johannine’ in its vocaulary [sic] and shows several phrases paralleled in the Synoptic gospels,”75 but it is difficult to agree with his first conclusion. The FG is the only canonical gospel to use the verb liqa,zw, and it is not difficult to agree with P.H. Menoud that the absence of pia,zw in the Synoptics and its eight occurrences in FG indicates that «il est caractéristique du vocabulaire johannique.»76 The difference between ‘the hour of his being handed over had not yet come’ (1r.7–8) and ‘his hour had not yet come’ (John 7:30) has caused some scholars to doubt that the EG could have been influenced by the FG. Koester suggests that the evangelist was dependent on a conflict source (preserved in the EG) for this phrase,77 but its occurrence in John 2:4 does not relate to a conflict with his opponents (unless his mother is considered an opponent!), and Jesus’ ‘coming hour’ is a theme that pervades the FG. Other scholars have argued that the phrase in 1r.7–8 reflects “less theological development” than the FG where Jesus’ w[ra is associated with his glorification, and the EG is closer to the Synoptic idea of Jesus’ w[ra as his betrayal (Mark 14:41).78 However, the connection of Jesus’ w[ra with his glorification does not occur until John 12:23,79 while the meaning of the preceding references is not explicit. It is possible that the author of the EG, perhaps being influenced by the Synoptics, interpreted Jesus’ w[ra in John 7:30 as a reference to his betrayal and simply made this explicit.

author of the EG conflated multiple passages and/or themes from the FG, as is probably the case in Episode 1. 74 Contra Mayeda, Leben-Jesu-Fragment, 27–31; Koester, “Gnostic Sayings,” 103; Daniels, “Egerton,” 205. 75 Koester, “Apocryphal,” 121. See also Daniels, “Egerton,” 98. 76 Menoud, “Review,” 578. 77 Koester, Ancient, 211. See also Koester, “Gnostic Sayings,” 102; Cameron, Other, 73; Daniels, “Egerton,” 124–128. 78 Daniels, “Egerton,” 124. See also Mayeda, Leben-Jesu-Fragment, 73, 76; Koester, Ancient, 211. 79 See Frey, Eschatologie, 2:215–216.

42

Chapter 3: The Egerton Gospel

3.3.3. Episode 3 – Healing of a Leper (1r.11–20 + P.Köln. 255 1r.19–24) In Episode 3, a leper approaches Jesus, explains that he has acquired leprosy while eating with lepers in an inn, and petitions Jesus to make him clean. Jesus heals the man and commands him to go show himself to the priests and make the offering commanded by Moses for his purification. Jesus’ final injunction to the leper is ‘do not sin again.’ 3.3.3.1. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel This episode has similarities with the healing of a leper in the Synoptics (Matt 8:1–4; Mark 1:40–45; Luke 5:12–16), but the exhortation, p̣ọ[email protected] seau#ṭo.n evpi,deixon toi/@j i`ereu/sin] (1r.19–21), has a greater amount of verbal overlap with the healing of the ten lepers in Luke 17:14 (poreuqe,ntej evpidei,xate e`autou.j toi/j i`ereu/sin).80 The injunction @m#hke,ti a`@ma,#rtane (P.Köln. 255 1r.23) may be influenced by John 5:14, where Jesus tells the healed blind-man: mhke,ti a`ma,rtane. Daniels suggests that John 5:14 is a traditional phrase that was incorporated into the FG and the correlation between sin and illness was later rejected by the redactor of John 9:2–3,81 but it is then questionable why the redactor chose to retain 5:14 if he disagreed with it. Since the phrase occurs in John 8:11, it is possible that it was associated with multiple traditions about Jesus, but D. Lührmann is probably correct that the unique parallel between „Krankheit und Sünde“ in John 5 and Episode 3 (which is absent from John 8:11 and the Synoptic leper-healing pericopae), suggests that the EG may have been influenced by the FG for this theme.82

80

Scholars who argue that the EG was dependent on the Synoptics for Episode 3 include: F. Neirynck, “Papyrus Egerton 2 and the Healing of the Leper,” in Neirynck, Evangelica II, 779; Goguel, «Nouveaux,» 71; Casey, “Review,” 105; Colwell, “Review, 479; Jeremias – Schneemelcher, “Egerton,” 97; Porter, “Apocryphal,” 253. Those who argue that the EG was not dependent on the Synoptics include: Bell – Skeat, Fragments, 19; New Gospel, 27; Sanders, “Review,” 163; Dodd, Studies, 33, 36; Bell, Recent, 18; Mayeda, Leben-Jesu-Fragment, 68–69; Crossan, Four, 74 (who suggests Mark is dependent on the EG (84–86)); Koester, “Apocryphal,” 121–122; Ancient, 212–213; Pryor, “Egerton,” 4; Kellas, “Healing,” 171; Erlemann, „Egerton,“ 22; Kazen, Jesus, 122; “Sectarian,” 570–571; Webb, “Jesus,” 182; Nicklas, “Unknown Gospel,” 62. However, the verbal overlap suggests that the influence of Luke 17:14 is a plausible explanation of the parallel with 1r.19–21. 81 Daniels, “Egerton,” 129. 82 Lührmann, Evangelien, 135–136. The Synoptic healing of the leper episode is the only episode inserted in between John 4 and 5 in Ephrem’s commentary on the Diatessaron (Ephrem, Comm. Diat. 12.21–24), which may suggest that the healing of the leper and paralytic were interpreted together.

3.3. The Egerton Gospel and the Fourth Gospel

43

3.3.4. Episode 5 – Question about Tribute-Money (2r.1–18) Episode 5 has some similarities with the Synoptic pericope regarding the payment of taxes to Caesar (Matt 22:15–22; Mark 12:13–17; Luke 20:20– 26).83 An opponent approaches Jesus in order to test him, addresses him as teacher, and claims to know that he comes from God because what he does testifies beyond all the prophets. He then poses the question: ‘Is it lawful to hand over to kings what belongs to their government or not?’ Jesus knew their intention, becomes angry, questions why the opponent calls him teacher but does not listen to what he says, and then quotes Isa 29:13. 3.3.4.1. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel 2r.1–6 [ ] . no,menoi pro.j auvto.n ex̣@etas#tikw/j evpei,razon auvto.n ḷ@e,gontej# dida,skale VIh$sou/% oi;damen o[ti @avpo. q$eo%u/# evlh,luqaj\ a] ga.r poiei/j mạ@rturei/# u`pe.r to@u.#j prof$h,t%aj pa,ntaj

John 3:2

ou-toj h=lqen pro.j auvto.n nukto.j kai. ei=pen auvtw/|\ r`abbi,( oi;damen o[ti avpo. qeou/ evlh,luqaj dida,skaloj\ ouvdei.j ga.r du,natai tau/ta ta. shmei/a poiei/n a] su. poiei/j( eva.n mh. h=| o` qeo.j metV auvtou/Å

Matt 22:16 kai. avposte,llousin auvtw/| tou.j maqhta.j auvtw/n meta. tw/n ~Hrw|dianw/n le,gontej\ dida,skale( oi;damen o[ti avlhqh.j ei= kai. th.n o`do.n tou/ qeou/ evn avlhqei,a| dida,skeij kai. ouv me,lei soi peri. ouvdeno,jÅ ouv ga.r ble,peij eivj pro,swpon avnqrw,pwn

Mark 12:14

kai. evlqo,ntej le,gousin auvtw/|\ dida,skale( oi;damen o[ti avlhqh.j ei= kai. ouv me,lei soi peri. ouvdeno,j\ ouv ga.r ble,peij eivj pro,swpon avnqrw,pwn( avllV evpV avlhqei,aj th.n o`do.n tou/ qeou/ dida,skeij\

Luke 20:21

kai. evphrw,thsan auvto.n le,gontej\ dida,skale( oi;damen o[ti ovrqw/j le,geij kai. dida,skeij kai. ouv lamba,neij pro,swpon( avllV evpV avlhqei,aj th.n o`do.n tou/ qeou/ dida,skeij\

83 Scholars who argue that the EG was dependent on the Synoptics for Episode 5 include: Burkitt, “Review,” 303; L. Cerfaux, «Parallèles canoniques et extra-canoniques de ‹l’évangile inconnu› (Pap. Egerton 2),» Mus 49 (1936): 76; Goguel, «Nouveaux,» 83; Lagrange, «Deux nouveaux,» 336; Casey, “Review,” 105–106; Porter, “Apocryphal,” 253. Those who argue that the EG was not dependent on the Synoptics include: Tasker, “Review,” 130; Sanders, “Review,” 163; Dodd, Studies, 37–39; Bell, Recent, 18; Mayeda, Leben-Jesu-Fragment, 44–47; Cameron, Other, 73; Koester, “Apocryphal,” 123; Crossan, Four, 84–85; Pryor, “Egerton,” 2; Daniels, “Egerton,” 169; Erlemann, „Egerton,“ 24; Norelli, «Egerton,» 427; Kazen, “Sectarian,” 570–571; Nicklas, “Unknown Gospel,” 89.

44

Chapter 3: The Egerton Gospel

In the Synoptics, the speakers know that Jesus teaches ‘the way of God in truth,’ while in the EG and John 3:2, they state: oi;damen o[ti avpo. qeou/ evlh,luqaj. Koester suggests that “the Johannine parallel [3:2] would argue for a dependence of John upon the Unknown Gospel . . . the author of the Fourth Gospel seems to have utilized pieces from the much more tightly composed Unknown Gospel in order to construct his elaborate discourse.”84 But the claim that Jesus has ‘come from God’ also occurs in John 8:42 and 13:3 (with evxe,rcomai); it is doubtful the evangelist transferred this phrase of the opponents in the EG to Jesus’ affirmation in John 8 and then used it for the narrative of John 13. In both the EG and John 3:2, the reason they know Jesus has ‘come from God’ is based on the things he ‘does’ (poie,w)—‘signs’ in John 3:2 and unspecified in the EG. It has already been noted above that the Scriptures ‘testify’ to Jesus (1v.10//John 5:39), but 2r.5–6 indicates that what Jesus does ‘testifies (mạ@rturei/#) greater than all the prophets.’ There is no exact parallel to this claim in the NT (Acts 10:43 may be closest), although some early church fathers state that Jesus’ teaching and deeds give testimony greater than the prophets, especially Moses. For example, Origen identifies Jesus as ‘one who is much greater than Moses and the prophets’ (Comm. Jo. 2.28), and claims that Jesus ‘accomplished far greater works than those of Moses,’ his miracles were of ‘greater grandeur and divinity,’ and ‘he who taught and did such things was greater than the prophets’ (Cels. 2.52). The lack of clarification in the EG of what the things are that Jesus ‘does’ may indicate that the author has glossed John 3:2, since it is not apparent what ‘signs’ Nicodemus may have been referring to besides the things that Jesus ‘does’ (poie,w) in general (John 2:23). The author appears to combine John 3:2 with a relatively common interpretation of Jesus’ teaching and deeds—they testify more than those of Moses and the prophets and indicate that he has ‘come from God.’ 3.3.5. Episode 6 – Another Attempt to Stone Jesus (3r.1–6) 3.3.5.1. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel 3r.1–6 e[n evsṃ@en ṃenw p@ q̣ouj eivj @ ktei,nw@sin ḷe,gei\ o@ @ . #e@ . . # . . @

84

li&# avpo&#

Koester, “Apocryphal,” 123.

John 10:30–31 30 evgw. kai. o` path.r e[n evsmen. 31 VEba,stasan pa,lin li,qouj oi` VIoudai/oi i[na liqa,swsin auvto,nÅ

3.4. Conclusion

45

The correlation of the reconstructed statements, e[n evsṃ@en# with @li#q̣ouj in 3r.1–6, has verbal parallels with John 10:30–31. Whether or not this is a separate episode or connected with Episode 1 or 2, it is apparently another attempt by the opponents to stone Jesus—a theme that only occurs in the FG (see above). Daniels admits, “The combination of letters is sufficiently unusual in Greek for one to expect that Egerton contained some kind of parallel to John 10:30,” but he follows Bultmann and concludes that the evangelist was dependent on a traditional source for this statement.85 However, the unity of Jesus and the Father is a prevalent theme throughout the FG, and Gos. Sav. 16 is probably influenced by John 10:30 (see Chapter 8),86 not a traditional saying. Even if John 10:30 was a traditional saying, one must explain its combination with John 10:31 in the EG. Either the author of the EG and the evangelist of the FG independently combined the same traditional saying with the same controversy source (Koester’s hypothesis), or one work influenced the other. The latter option seems more likely, and since it is plausible that the author was already influenced by John 10:31 in 1r.1–3, the same judgment should be applied here.

3.4. Conclusion There are significant verbal and thematic similarities between the EG and the FG. The influence of the FG (John 5:39; 5:45; 9:29; 5:45b–46) on Episode 1 is probable; Episode 2 (John 10:31; 7:30; 10:39), Episode 5 (John 3:2), and Episode 6 (10:30–31) indicate a plausible degree of influence from the FG; and it is possible Episode 3 was influenced by John 5:14. The absence of any significant parallels between Episode 4 and the FG indicates that the EG was influenced by at least one other source. T. Nicklas has provided five significant reasons why it is untenable to conclude that the FG was dependent on the EG: (1) it is difficult to prove that the FG used written sources; (2) the proposed dates for the works suggest the priority of the FG; (3) the Johannine parallels in Episode 1 are better integrated in the FG than the EG; (4) the Christology of Episode 6 is prevalent throughout the FG; and (5) the EG is ignorant of Jesus’ Palestinian background and geography. 87 Furthermore, one would have to explain why the ‘Synoptic looking’ material in the EG does not appear in the FG.

85

Daniels, “Egerton,” 131–132. It is also possible that Dial. Sav. 145.17–19 was influenced by John 10:30 (see Chapter 12). 87 Nicklas, “Unknown Gospel,” 97. 86

46

Chapter 3: The Egerton Gospel

It is also doubtful that the EG and FG were dependent on a common source. It has been suggested that this explanation is often based on methodological assumptions regarding quotation accuracy and the incorporation of the theology from one work in another, rather than any specific evidence. This chapter has also argued that some of the differences between the works can be attributed to the author of the EG, and that these alterations are what one would expect from an author using a source. It is impossible to know the means by which the author of the EG was influenced by the FG, but the numerous, lengthy, strong parallels suggests the direct literary influence of the FG. Perhaps the most significant argument against this claim for dependence on a common source, is that the early church fathers, who are explicitly dependent on the FG, conflate the same passages to make the same point as the EG. In this sense, the author of the EG should not be envisaged as a compiler of traditions or an editor of texts, but rather an early interpreter of the FG whose interpretations would later be considered traditional. It may be asked: why did the EG use the FG in the way that it did? W. Bauer is correct to label the EG as „Jesus und seine Gegner,“88 yet this descriptive label does not elucidate the motivation of the author. Many scholars have also suggested that the EG is a Jewish-Christian gospel, but the difficulty in defining this category and determining what writings should be identified as ‘Jewish-Christian’ lessens the ability of this rubric to explain the purpose of the EG.89 Likewise, Daniel’s claim that the combination of miracles and resistance motifs in the EG “fit together in a qei/oj avnh,r typology” does not carry significant explanatory weight, nor does the combination of these motifs necessitate his conclusion.90 It is possible that the EG attempted to portray Jesus as congruent with Moses and the prophets: Episode 1 may relate to Deut 18:15; Episodes 3 and 4 may relate to the miracles of Elisha (2 Kings 5:1–14, 6:1–7). It is insufficient to claim that the EG only depicts Jesus as “first among equals”

88

Bauer, “Review,” 28. See most recently, J. Carleton Paget, “The Definition of the Term ‘Jewish Christian’/‘Jewish Christianity’ in the History of Research” in Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 290. 90 Daniels, “Egerton,” 248–249. This supports Daniel’s argument that the EG and FG were dependent on a common source, since he claims that the pre-Johannine miracles also reflect a qei/oj avnh,r typology (Daniels, “Egerton,” 226). Yet simply equating a miracle-worker with a qei/oj avnh,r is problematic, and the supposed qei/oj avnh,r typology has been repeatedly questioned (see C.R. Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 237; B. Blackburn, Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Tradition (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 265; W.R. Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: University Press, 1999), 31). 89

3.4. Conclusion

47

or emphasizes his “subordination to Moses.”91 He is: innocent of breaking the Law (possibly 1v.1–5; 1r.11–20 + P.Köln. 255 1r.19–24), testified to by Moses and the Scriptures (1v.8–14), has come from God and is greater than the prophets (2r.4–6), and is Lord (1r.9, 16), teacher (1r.12; 2r.4), and one with God (3r.1–6). He is contrasted with his opponents who are lawbreakers (possibly 1v.1–5), ignorant of the Scriptures (1v.14–20 + P.Köln. 255 1v.19–24), violent (2r.1–10; 3r.1–6), and hypocrites (2r.1–18). K. Erlemann is probably correct to identify the EG as an apologetic work that emphasizes Jesus’ innocence and obedience to the Law through his continuity with Moses and the prophets and, similar to the FG, draws attention to the violent reaction of his Jewish opponents.92 Nicklas also suggests that the EG describes Jesus as a pious Jew who observes the Law, and that the EG “was used by a group of (Jewish?) Christians in a situation of some disharmony with Judaism” is a feasible description of the milieu in which this work was composed.93 This disharmony may be related to an accusation that Jesus was a lawbreaker (and by implication, Christians are also lawbreakers), and the author attempted to counter this claim by emphasizing Jesus’ innocence and his opponents’ ignorance of the Scriptures that foretold his coming.94 In order to achieve this goal, the EG was probably influenced by the FG since it addressed these same themes.

91

Contra Daniels, “Egerton,” 266. Erlemann, „Egerton,“ 28–30. 93 Nicklas, “Unknown Gospel,”113. 94 This accusation is already present in the canonical gospels, yet it appears to be a lively issue in the second and third centuries CE. In numerous so-called adversus Judaeos works, the author emphasizes that Jesus was foretold by the Scriptures, and this is sometimes combined with the claim that Jesus is (and/or Christians are) innocent of breaking of the Law (Justin, 1 Apol. 31–32; 36; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 6–7; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 3; Cyprian, Test. 1.18; Origen, Cels. 1.45, 49; 2.4, 6, 38; Comm. Matt. 10.18). 92

Chapter 4

The Gospel of Peter (P.Cair. 10759) 4.1. Introduction During the winter dig of 1886–87 at Akhmîm in Upper Egypt, a small parchment codex of 33 pages was discovered and later catalogued as P.Cair. 10759. U. Bouriant originally dated P.Cair. 10759 between the eighth and twelfth centuries CE, while P. Foster suggests the current scholarly consensus dates the manuscript between the end of the sixth and beginning of the ninth century CE.1 Pages 2–10 contained a previously unknown gospel and, since Peter is the narrator in §60, Bouriant suggested this was the Gospel of Peter known by Serapion (Hist. eccl. 6.12.5–6) and perhaps Origen (Comm. Matt. 10.17).2 Early scholars ratified Bouriant’s conclusion and found a docetic Christology in the Akhmîm Gospel of Peter (Gos. Pet.) that aligned with Serapion’s comments.3 More recently, scholars have doubted that the Gos. Pet. is docetic at all,4 which makes it questionable whether Serapion is in fact the terminus ante quem for the 1 U. Bouriant, «Fragments du texte grec du livre d’Énoch et de quelques écrits attribués à saint Pierre,» in Mémoires publié par les membres de la Mission archéologique française au Caire (t. IX, fasc. 1) (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1892), 93; P. Foster, The Gospel of Peter (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 3. 2 Bouriant, «Fragments,» 137. Later references to a gospel attributed to Peter are found in Jerome, Vir. ill. 1; Didymus the Blind, Comm. Eccl. 1.8; Theodoret, Haer. 2.2; Decret. Gelasian. 5. 3 J.A. Robinson, The Gospel according to Peter, 2nd ed. (London: C.J. Clay and Sons, 1892), 19–21; J.R. Harris, A Popular Account of the Newly-Recovered Gospel of St. Peter (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1893), 35; J.H. Moulton, “The ‘Gospel of Peter’ and the Four,” ExpTim 4 (1893): 300; H.B. Swete, The Akhmîm Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of St Peter (London: Macmillan and Co., 1893), xxxviii; T. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Petrus (Erlangen–Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1893), 143–180; A. Resch, Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1894), 2:37–46. 4 J.W. McCant, “The Gospel of Peter,” NTS 30 (1984): 269; Crossan, Four, 131; P. Head, “On the Christology of the Gospel of Peter,” VC 46 (1992): 216; J. Verheyden, “Some Reflections on Determining the Purpose of the ‘Gospel of Peter’,” in T.J. Kraus – T. Nicklas, eds., Das Evangelium nach Petrus (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 290–291; M. Myllykoski, „Die Kraft des Herrn,“ in Kraus – Nicklas, Petrus, 325; P. Foster, “The Gospel of Peter,” in Foster, Non-Canonical, 35.

4.1. Introduction

49

Gos. Pet.5 Determining the original date of composition for the Gos. Pet. is further complicated by other possible manuscripts,6 as well as the possible reception of the Gos. Pet. in works from the second and third centuries CE.7 Each of these issues cannot be addressed in detail, although a few statements can be made. The early Christian authors do not quote the Gos. Pet. as we know it, and there is a complete lack of textual parallels between the Gos. Pet. and P.Oxy. 4009, P.Vindob.G. 2325, ostracon van Haelst 741, and the EG, which makes any correlation of these works precarious. The parallels between the Gos. Pet. and P.Oxy. 2949, Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, Sibylline Oracles, and Gos. Sav. do not necessitate the conclusion that one work was influenced by the other, especially when it is possible that each work may have been influenced by the canonical gospels for these common details. A date of composition for the Gos. Pet. near the middle of the second century CE may be the most sensible conclusion.8 5 T.J. Kraus – T. Nicklas, eds., Das Petrusevangelium und die Petrusapokalypse (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 16; P. Foster, “The Discovery and Initial Reaction to the So-Called Gospel of Peter,” in Kraus – Nicklas, Petrus, 16; P. van Minnen, “The Akhmîm Gospel of Peter,” in Kraus – Nicklas, Petrus, 60; I. Czachesz, “The Gospel of Peter and the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles,” in Kraus – Nicklas, Petrus, 247. 6 D. Lührmann and P. Foster have been engaged in a lively debate concerning early witnesses to the Gos. Pet.—Lührmann suggests there are multiple witnesses, while Foster doubts these claims. See Lührmann, Evangelien, 55–104; „Kann es wirklich keine frühe Handschrift des Petrusevangeliums geben?,“ NovT 48 (2006): 379–383; „Die Überlieferung des apokryph gewordenen Petrusevangeliums,“ in Kraus – Nicklas, Petrus, 31–51; P. Foster, “Are there any Early Fragments of the So-Called Gospel of Peter?,” NTS 52 (2006): 1–28; Peter, 57–91. D.F. Wright does not explicitly claim that the EG and Gos. Pet. are fragments of the same work, but concludes that their variation in style and literary composition does not exclude this possibility (D.F. Wright, “Papyrus Egerton 2 (the Unknown Gospel) – Part of the Gospel of Peter?,” SecCent 5 (1985/86): 150). Both Lührmann and Foster have not been convinced by Wright’s negative thesis. 7 This includes: Justin Martyr (P. Pilhofer, „Justin und das Petrusevangelium,“ ZNW 81 (1990): 60–78); Melito of Sardis (O. Perler, «L’Evangile de Pierre et Méliton de Sardes,» RB 71 (1964): 584–590); the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (F.S. Jones, “The Gospel of Peter in Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1,27–71,” in Kraus – Nicklas, Petrus, 237–244); the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Czachesz, “Peter,” 245–262); possibly the Sibylline Oracles (T. Nicklas, „Apokryphe Passionstraditionen im Vergleich,“ in Kraus – Nicklas, Petrus, 263–280); and possibly the Gos. Sav. (J. Hartenstein, „Das Petrusevangelium als Evangelium“ in Kraus – Nicklas, Petrus, 159– 182). 8 The composition of the Gos. Pet. is dated near the beginning of the second century CE by: J.A. Robinson – M.R. James, The Gospel according to Peter, and the Revelation of Peter (London: C.J. Clay and Sons, 1892), 32; C.H. Turner, “The Gospel of Peter,” JTS 14 (1913): 164; P. Gardner-Smith, “The Date of the Gospel of Peter,” JTS 27 (1926): 407; J. Denker, Die theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Petrusevangeliums (Frankfurt:

50

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Peter

4.2. The Gospel of Peter and the Canonical Gospels R. Cameron has suggested, “it is quite possible that the document [Gos. Pet.] as we have it antedates the four gospels of the New Testament and may have served as a source for their respective authors,”9 and P.A. Mirecki agrees that it “circulated in the mid-1 st century” and that an “earlier form of the gospel probably served as one of the major sources for the canonical gospels.”10 Cameron and Mirecki are unique in that they suggest the canonical gospels used the Gos. Pet. (or an earlier version), while other scholars who argue for independence frequently suggest that the Gos. Pet. and the canonical gospels were dependent on a common source/tradition. A. Hilgenfeld appears to be one of the first scholars to deny a literary relationship between the Gos. Pet. and the canonical gospels.11 This conclusion was partially affirmed the same year by H. von Soden and J.H. Moulton, and then by W.R. Cassels who explained the differences between the works as dependence on a “separate, but analogous, tradition.”12 This same conclusion was reached by P. Gardner-Smith in 1926 and J. Denker in 1975.13 Similar to the results of Denker, H. Koester has suggested that the Gos. Pet. is an independent, and more primitive, witness to the development of passion traditions.14 J.D. Crossan has argued that the Gos. Pet. is both dependent on and independent of the canonical gospels by discerning three layers in the text: (1) an independent, primitive layer coined ‘The Cross Gospel’ (§§1–22, 25–34, 35–39); (2) a redactional layer (§§3–5a, 26–27, 37 and 43–44) which served to weave together ‘The Cross Gospel’ with material from the canonical gospels; and (3) a dependent layer (§§23–24, 50–57, 58–60).15 Crossan’s theory was then developed by

Peter Lang, 1975), 57; R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994) 2:1342. A date in the middle of the second century CE is suggested by Swete, Akhmîm, 32. Foster suggests a date of composition between 150–190 CE (Foster, Peter, 172). 9 Cameron, Other, 77. 10 P.A. Mirecki, “The Gospel of Peter,” in D.N. Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 5:278. 11 A. Hilgenfeld, „Das Petrus-Evangelium über Leiden und Auferstehung Jesu,“ ZWT 36.1 (1893): 452. 12 H. von Soden, „Das Petrusevangelium und die kanonischen Evangelien,“ ZTK 3 (1893): 79; Moulton, “Peter,” 300; W.R. Cassels, The Gospel according to Peter (London: Longmans, Green, 1894), 51. 13 P. Gardner-Smith, “The Gospel of Peter,” JTS 27 (1926): 270; “Date,” 404; Denker, Petrusevangelium, 33–34. 14 Koester, “Apocryphal,” 128. 15 Crossan, Four, 134.

4.2. The Gospel of Peter and the Canonical Gospels

51

A. Dewey who discerned multiple layers in ‘The Cross Gospel,’ but denied dependence on the canonical gospels instead of a common source.16 Numerous scholars have concluded that the Gos. Pet. is dependent on one or more of the canonical gospels, with varying descriptions of this dependence.17 This conclusion was first reached before the close of the 19th century by the English scholars J.A. Robinson, H.B. Swete, J.R. Harris, and W.E. Barnes;18 French scholars A. Lods, P. Lejay and J.B. Semeria;19 and German scholars A. Harnack,20 T. Zahn, and H. von Schubert.21 This position has also been affirmed by multiple scholars throughout the 20 th century,22 although many have clarified that the Gos. Pet. is dependent 16

A.J. Dewey, “Resurrection Texts in the Gospel of Peter,” FF 10.3–4 (1994): 191. The description of how the Gos. Pet. was dependent on the canonical gospels appeared to shift with the work of R.E. Brown, who suggested that the differences between the works cannot be attributed to “deliberate redaction nor fluidity of written textual transmission,” but rather to an “oral communication that combined and confused details,” which suggests the “oral dependence of GP on some or all the canonical Gospels” (R.E. Brown, “The Gospel of Peter and Canonical Gospel Priority,” NTS 33 (1987): 335). This nuanced position is evident in more recent descriptions of how the Gos. Pet. is dependent on the canonical gospels (see S.E. Schaeffer, “The ‘Gospel of Peter,’ the Canonical Gospels, and Oral Tradition,” (Diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1990–1991); M.K. Stillman, “The Gospel of Peter,” ETL 73 (1997): 116; Klauck, Apocryphal, 88). 18 Robinson – James, Peter, 32; Swete, Akhmîm, xv; Harris, Popular, 72; W.E. Barnes, Canonical and Uncanonical Gospels (London: Longmans, Green, 1893), 112. 19 A. Lods, L’Évangile et l’Apocalypse de Pierre (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1893), 72; P. Lejay, «L’Évangile de Pierre,» REG (1893): 84; J.B. Semeria, «L’Évangile de Pierre,» RB (1894): 541–542. 20 Harnack appears to have repeatedly changed his mind regarding the relationship between the Gos. Pet. and the canonical gospels. Semeria notes that Harnack originally affirmed its dependence on the canonical gospels in 1892, but then retreats from this conclusion in 1893, only to return to it once again in 1894 (Semeria, «Pierre,» 541–42). In 1893, Harnack cautiously affirms, „unser Evangelium scheine auf den kanonischen Evangelien zu fussen,“ (A. Harnack, Bruchstücke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1893), 32), yet he also suggests the Gos. Pet. may have come from a time when „in der neben den kanonischen Evangelien der Strom der evangelischen Überlieferung und Legende noch frei gefluthet hat und man noch kühn aus ihm schöpfte, ohne sich um bereits fixirte evangelische Schriften zu kümmern“ (Harnack, Bruchstücke, 37), which suggests dependence upon traditional material. This vague conclusion may explain why scholars are able to appeal to Harnack in order to affirm a position of dependence and independence. 21 Harnack, Bruchstücke, 32–34; Zahn, Petrus, 55; H. von Schubert, Die Composition des pseudopetrinischen Evangelienfragments (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1893), 158. 22 Turner, “Peter,” 173; K.L. Schmidt, Kanonische und apokryphe Evangelien und Apostelgeschichten (Basel: Heinrich Majer, 1944), 46; M.G. Mara, Évangile de Pierre (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1973), 213; McCant, “Peter,” 267; J.B. Green, “The Gospel of Peter,” ZNW 78 (1987): 293. 17

52

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Peter

only on the Synoptics,23 or Matt and Mark specifically.24 R.E. Brown effectively rebutted Crossan’s thesis that the ‘Cross Gospel’ served as a source for the passion narrative in the canonical gospels by examining material from the passion accounts in Matt, Luke, and the FG that also occurs in the Gos. Pet. but is absent from Mark. Since this material in Matt, Luke, and the FG is divergent, Brown concluded, “It is most unlikely that such exclusive selectivity could have taken place if independently Matthew, Luke, and John used GP. The phenomenon is far easier to explain if the GP author combined details from the canonical Gospels.”25 Foster has recently examined the Matthean and Lukan redactional material and unique material from Mark that occurs in the Gos. Pet. and concluded that it was dependent on the Synoptics.26 In response to the challenge issued by Crossan and Koester that those who argue for the dependence of the Gos. Pet. on the canonical gospels must explicate the purpose of each alteration within the form, structure, and life situation of the Gos. Pet.,27 T.P. Henderson has convincingly argued that the Gos. Pet. has made many of these alterations as part of an anti-Jewish polemic or apologetic for Christian beliefs.28 While these scholars have provided valuable arguments for the influence of the Gos. Pet. on the Synoptics, the relationship between the Gos. Pet. and the FG is often relegated to a separate category. 29

23

M. Dibelius, „Die alttestamentlichen Motive in der Leidensgeschichte des Petrusund des Johannes-Evangeliums,“ in G. Bornkamm, ed., Botschaft und Geschichte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953), 1:243. 24 For Matt, see Resch, Aussercanonische, 2:46–47; É. Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus (Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 2:207; W.-D. Köhler, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenäus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 447–448. For Mark, see L.G. Rylands, The Beginnings of Gnostic Christianity (London: Watts, 1940), 279–280; Neirynck, “Apocryphal,” 736. K. Lake, states, “It seems certain that it [the Gos. Pet.] made use of Mark, and according to most writers probably of Matthew, but that it shows knowledge of Luke and John is doubtful (to my own mind improbable)” (K. Lake, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (London: Williams & Norgate, 1907) 149). 25 Brown, “Priority,” 333. 26 Foster, Peter, 138, 141, 145. 27 J.D. Crossan, The Cross that Spoke (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 14–15; Koester, “Apocryphal,” 127. 28 T.P. Henderson, The Gospel of Peter and Early Christian Apologetics (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 29 See L. Vaganay, L’Évangile de Pierre (Paris: Études Bibliques, 1930), 65; Mara, Pierre, 214; Nicklas, „Apokryphe,“ 265; Foster, Peter, 145.

4.3. The Gospel of Peter and the Fourth Gospel

53

4.3. The Gospel of Peter and the Fourth Gospel There is a lack of extended verbal parallels between the Gos. Pet. and FG, which dismisses any probable degree of influence. Rather, the minimal verbal overlap, combined with similar details, indicates the plausible and possible influence of the FG. The narrative of the Gos. Pet. will be followed, and the categories of plausible influence (displayed with synoptic charts) and possible influence (italicized enumeration) will be examined together.30 4.3.1. Joseph’s Request and the Handing Over of the Lord (§§3–5) §5b Herod, or possibly Pilate, ‘handed him over to the people (pare,dwken auvto.n tw/| law/|) before the first day of unleavened bread (pro. mia/j tw/n avzu,mwn), their feast (th/j e`orth/j auvtw/n).’ The canonical gospels all indicate that Pilate is responsible for the ‘handing over’ (paradi,dwmi) of Jesus—to the soldiers in Matt 27:26–27 and Mark 15:15–16—but Luke and the FG are considerably vague. In Luke 23:25–26, he is handed over ‘to their will’ and ‘they’ led him away to the crucifixion, which likely refers to the ‘the chief priests, the rulers, and the people (to.n lao.n)’ from 23:13. Similarly, in John 19:16, Jesus is handed over to ‘them’ and ‘they’ lead him away to the crucifixion, although the referent is clearly the Jews and specifically the chief priests from 19:15. The ‘people’ (lao,j) in §5b has verbal overlap with Luke 23:13, but the referent is likely ‘the Jews’ (§1), which is similar to John 19:15.31 Furthermore, the context of §5 is more similar to John 19:16 in that the ‘handing over’ does not occur during the Barabbas exchange. The date of Jesus’ crucifixion in the Gos. Pet. is also similar to the FG. The ‘first day of unleavened bread’ in Matt 26:17 and Mark 14:12 is the day that Jesus and his disciples eat the Passover meal, but he is handed over to be crucified before the Passover meal in §5 and the FG (see John 19:14, 31). The halakhic theme of §§5, 15, and John 19:31 also indicates a time prior to the Passover, since the Jewish opponents in both works are anxious about having an exposed corpse on the Sabbath.

30 The transcription of the Gos. Pet. below follows Kraus – Nicklas, Petrusevangelium; Foster, Peter. 31 It was not uncommon in the second and third centuries CE to claim that Jesus was handed over to the Jews (Tertullian, Apol. 18; Lactantius, Inst. 4.18) or even crucified by the Jews (Justin, 1 Apol. 35, 38; Hippolytus, Noet. 18).

54

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Peter

4.3.2. Mocking the Son of God as a King (§§6–8) §6b The Jewish mob in §6b begin the mockery by stating, ‘Let us drag along the son of God now that we have authority over him (su,rwmen to.n ui`o.n tou/ q$eo%u/ evxousi,an auvtou/ evschko,tej).’ The use of the title ‘son of God’ as an indictment and the claim to possess ‘authority’ over him as a basis for punishment is similar to John 19:7 where the Jews state that Jesus deserves death since he has made himself out to be the son of God (ui`o.n qeou/), and 19:10 where Pilate claims to have authority (evxousi,an) to release or crucify him. Pilate’s claim of authority leads to his mockery of the Jews by declaring Jesus their ‘king’ (John 19:14–15), while the Jews’ claim of authority leads to the mocking investiture of the Lord as ‘king of Israel’ (§§7–8).32 §7a kai. porfu,ran auvto.n perie,bal{l}on

John 19:2 i`ma,tion porfurou/n perie,balon auvto.n

Matt 27:28 clamu,da kokki,nhn perie,qhkan auvtw/|

Mark 15:17 evndidu,skousin auvto.n porfu,ran

Luke 23:11 peribalw.n evsqh/ta lampra.n

The Gos. Pet. and the canonical gospels all indicate that a garment was placed on Jesus during his trial as a form of mockery. The nominal form of porfu,ra occurs in §7a and Mark 15:17, while the indicative verb periba,llw occurs in §7a and John 19:2. It is more plausible that the Gos. Pet. was influenced by the FG for this detail, rather than Mark. Firstly, the Gos. Pet. and the FG do not indicate that the purple garment is ever removed as in Mark 15:20, and his own clothes are present and divided at his crucifixion (§12; John 19:23–24). Secondly, there is no significant difference between the ‘purple garment’ and the ‘purple.’ The omission of ‘garment’ from John 19:2 is understandable since the ‘purple’ is selfexplanatory and the author presents a pared account of the mockery. It is also possible the author was influenced by a version of John 19:2, like P60 and P90, that omitted i`ma,tion. Thirdly, the purple garment furthers the depiction of Jesus’ kingship in both the Gos. Pet. and FG (see below).33 32 Jesus is identified as the basileu/ tou/ VIsrah,l in §7c and the title is upon the titulus in §11. This title is positively attributed to Jesus in John 1:49 and 12:13, while mockers use the title disparagingly in Matt 27:42//Mark 15:32. Perhaps the Gos. Pet. was influenced by one of these passages, but it is more likely that the author has replaced the title basileu/ tw/n VIoudai,wn used in the canonical passion narratives (specifically Matt 27:29; Mark 15:18; John 19:3) with basileu/ tou/ VIsrah,l in order dissociate Jesus from the vilified Jews, while still affirming his kingship. This title is also used by Justin (Dial. 137) and Melito of Sardis (PP 96.716). 33 Ephrem’s interpretation of John 19:2 supports the second and third points: ‘Since they dressed him in a purple garment he removed the kingdom of Israel. . . . they wanted

55

4.3. The Gospel of Peter and the Fourth Gospel

Foster is likely correct that the Gos. Pet. “is most heavily influenced by the Johannine narrative at this point, but not necessarily directly dependent upon it.”34 §7b

kai. evka,qisan auvto.n evpi. kaqe,dran kri,sewj

and they sat him upon the seat of judgment

John 19:13 o` ou=n Pila/toj avkou,saj tw/n lo,gwn tou,twn h;gagen e;xw to.n VIhsou/n kai. evka,qisen evpi. bh,matoj eivj to,pon lego,menon liqo,strwton( ~Ebrai?sti. de. GabbaqaÅ

Then when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and he sat upon the judgment-seat at a place called ‘The Pavement,’ but in Hebrew, ‘Gabbatha.’

Justin, 1 Apol. 35.20–22 kai. ga.r( w`j ei=pen o` profh,thj [Isa 58:2]( diasu,rontej auvto.n evka,qisan evpi. tou/ bh,matoj kai. ei=pon kri/non h`mi/n)

For, as the prophet said [Isa 58:2], they dragged him, and sat him upon the judgment-seat, and said, ‘Judge for us.’

Prax. 16 . . .35 fortasse non credenda de patre, licet scripta, quem isti in vulvam Mariae deducunt, et in Pilati tribunal imponunt, et in monumento Ioseph reconcludunt. . . . possibly also they could not have been believed of the Father, even if they had been given in the Scriptures, since these men bring him down into Mary’s womb, and set him upon Pilate’s judgmentseat, and bury him in the sepulcher of Joseph.

Multiple scholars have produced divergent explanations of the relationship between §7b, John 19:13, and 1 Apol. 35. M. Dibelius argued

to kill him because of the purple, “See, he is making himself out to be a king” [John 19:7]’ (Comm. Diat. 20.17). 34 Foster, Peter, 263. 35 The preceding lines state, ‘Scilicet et haec nec de filio dei credenda fuisse, si scripta non essent (Surely even these things could not have been believed even of the Son of God, unless they had been given us in the Scriptures).’

56

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Peter

that John 19:13 historicized the tradition in the Gos. Pet.,36 but Brown is correct that the carefully constructed “inside-outside the praetorium pattern” in John 18:28–19:16 argues against its dependence on the Gos. Pet.37 Harnack and P. Pilhofer have argued that Jesus’ placement on the seat of judgment/judgment-seat in the Gos. Pet. and Justin indicates that Justin was dependent on the Gos. Pet. for this detail, while Swete and Foster suggest that if there was any dependence, it moved in the opposition direction.38 A. Kirk has claimed that Justin and the Gos. Pet. may each rely on an independent tradition for the placement of Jesus on the judgmentseat.39 Perhaps the most plausible explanation of this parallel is that the Gos. Pet. and Justin were both influenced by John 19:13 for this detail.40 The interpretation of John 19:13 depends on whether evka,qisen is intransitive or transitive. Both interpretations are grammatically possible, but the only other occurrence of kaqi,zw in the FG (John 12:14; also 8:2) must be intransitive. Regardless of the historicity of this event, there are at least three reasons why John 19:13 may have been interpreted by the author of the Gos. Pet. and Justin as an indication that Jesus sat upon the judgment-seat. Firstly, this interpretation agrees with an idiomatic feature of the FG. I. de la Potterie has argued for a transitive interpretation of John 19:13 because on 17 occasions, “when two coordinated verbs [h;gagen; evka,qisen] have a common direct object [to.n VIhsou/n] it is almost always placed between the two verbs.”41 Secondly, this would further the theme of Jesus’ kingship evident throughout the FG narrative and trial scene (John 1:49; 6:15; 12:13; 18:37; 19:14).42 Thirdly, Tertullian (or Praxeas) was dependent on John 19:13 and interpreted it transitively. In a debate with Praxeas, Tertullian argues that certain things are written in ‘Scripture’ about the Son, but Praxeas applies them to the Father—‘these men bring him down into Mary’s womb and set him upon Pilate’s judgment-seat and 36 Dibelius, „Motive,“ 229. This is based on the assumption that historical elements indicate a later development. See also Denker, Petrusevangelium, 53 who claims that §7b is more traditional than John 19:13. 37 Brown, Messiah, 2:1331. 38 Harnack, Bruchstücke, 39; Pilhofer, „Justin,“ 73; Swete, Akhmîm, xxxiv; P. Foster, “The Relationship between the Writings of Justin Martyr and the So-Called Gospel of Peter,” in S. Parvis – P. Foster, eds., Justin Martyr and His Worlds (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 110. 39 A. Kirk, “Examining Priorities,” NTS 40 (1994): 594. See also V.H. Stanton, “The ‘Gospel of Peter’,” JTS 2 (1900): 11–12. 40 The strongest argument for the influence of the FG on Justin is the parallel between 1 Apol. 61.15–18 and John 3:3–5. See Hill, “Orthodox,” 252–256. 41 I. de la Potterie, “Jesus King and Judge according to John 19:13,” Scr 13 (1961): 100. For a list of the 17 examples, see I. de la Potterie, «Jésus roi et juge d’après Jn 19,13,» Bib 41 (1960): 223–224. 42 See Meeks, Prophet-King, 76; Barrett, John, 544.

4.3. The Gospel of Peter and the Fourth Gospel

57

bury him in the sepulcher of Joseph’ (Prax. 16).43 Therefore, if Tertullian (or Praxeas), whose ‘Scripture’ is surely (or at least extremely likely) John 19:13, interprets it as Jesus being seated on the judgment-seat at the beginning of the third century CE, it is unnecessary to claim that there must be some form of dependence between the Gos. Pet. and Justin or that they were both dependent on a common source/tradition that was independent of the FG.44 There are three other similarities between the Gos. Pet. and Justin that may suggest some form of a relationship between these works, but it is possible to explain these similarities as independent redactions and additions by two authors writing within a similar milieu.45 Firstly, Harnack and Pilhofer argued that the terminology used for the judgment-seat indicates that Justin was influenced by the Gos. Pet., since it is more likely that Justin substituted the rare phrase kaqe,dran kri,sewj in the Gos. Pet. for bh,matoj, rather than vice versa.46 Swete and Foster have suggested that the Gos. Pet. may have been influenced by Justin, who in turn may have been influenced by John 19:13 (Swete) or Isa 58:2 (Foster) for this terminology. 47 Identifying Justin’s source for this detail is notoriously complicated. The appeal to ‘the prophet’ is presumably Isa 58:2, yet this passage does not mention the bh/ma. After listing further elements surrounding the crucifixion, Justin contends that these details can be ascertained from ‘the Acts of Pontius Pilate,’ which C.E. Hill suggests is a circumlocution for ‘the memoirs of the apostles’=the canonical gospels.48 Perhaps the most likely explanation for the description of the judgment-seat is that Justin was influenced by the FG for this detail. The only textual difference is that Justin adds the definite article before bh,matoj, which is also found in variant manuscripts of John 19:13 (W Q f13 M). It is also plausible that the author of the Gos. Pet. redacted the description of the judgment-seat from bh,matoj in John 19:13 to a kaqe,dran kri,sewj to further the depiction of Jesus’ kingship.49 The term kaqe,dra can refer to a common seat (see Matt 21:12; Mark 11:15), but it can also refer to a throne (see 1 Kings 10:19; 2 Chron 9:18; Sirach 7:4), and its 43

A. Souter comments on this passage, “From this reference it is obvious that Tertullian, or the version of Scripture used by him, took evka,qisen transitively here, with Pilate as subject” (A. Souter, Tertullian Against Praxeas (London: SPCK, 1919), 73). 44 Contra Kirk, “Priorities,” 594. 45 See K. Greschat, „Justins ‚Denkwürdigkeiten der Apostel‘ und das Petrusevangelium,“ in Kraus – Nicklas, Petrus, 212–213. 46 Harnack, Bruchstücke, 39; Pilhofer, „Justin,“ 73. 47 Swete, Akhmîm, xxxiv; Foster, “Justin,” 110. 48 C.E. Hill, “Was John’s Gospel among Justin’s Apostolic Memoirs?,” in Parvis – Foster, Justin, 89–91. 49 See Vaganay, Pierre, 225.

58

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Peter

description as one of ‘judgment’ also suggests the author has royal imagery in mind, which is clarified in the following line: ‘Judge justly, King of Israel’ (§7c). Secondly, the Gos. Pet. and Justin both indicate that Jesus’ abusers ‘dragged’ him along. There is a minor difference in terminology: Justin uses the compound diasu,rontej, whereas the Gos. Pet. uses the simplex form su,rwmen (§6b). Since both authors are intent on showing the hostility of Jesus’ Jewish abusers, they may have added this detail independently of one another. It was a common motif for Christians to be unceremoniously ‘dragged’ (su,rw) away by Jewish abusers (Acts 8:3; 14:19; 17:6).50 Instead of saying that Jesus was ‘led’ or ‘taken’ from place to place as he is during the trials in the canonical gospels, both authors have increased the hostility by saying he was ‘dragged’ around. Thirdly, both works indicate that Jesus’ abusers ask for judgment. In Justin, the kri/non h`mi/n statement is probably from Isa 58:2 which he has just quoted, and he incorporates it to show how the abuse of Jesus fulfilled prophecy. In §7c, this may simply relate to the mocking of Jesus as the ‘King of Israel,’ who as king, is prodded to declare judgment upon the throne of judgment on which he is now sitting. The similarities between the Gos. Pet. and Justin are important and the parallel material with the FG is minimal, but it still seems unnecessary to claim that there was some exertion of influence one way or the other, or that they were both dependent on a common source/tradition that was independent of the FG. The more economical solution is that they both interpreted John 19:13 the same way as Tertullian (or Praxeas), and made independent redactions and additions to align with their theological proclivities—emphasizing the hostility of Jesus’ abusers and representing Jesus as the ridiculed king (Gos. Pet.) or suffering one of Isa 58 (Justin). It is difficult to determine how unique this interpretation of John 19:13 was since it is rarely referenced in the second and third centuries CE.51 Nevertheless, the earliest interpreters of John 19:13—Justin, Gos. Pet., and Tertullian—indicate that Jesus sat on the judgment-seat.

50

See Foster, Peter, 258–260. In J. Allenbach, ed., Biblia patristica (Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975–2001), John 19:13 is referenced by three authors dating to the second and third centuries CE (Irenaeus, Melito, and Tertullian), while Tertullian is the only author to elucidate who sat upon the judgment-seat. Six authors (Peter of Alexandria; Eusebius; Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers) dating to the fourth century CE or later reference John 19:13, but many of these parallels are weak and do not clearly elucidate who sat upon the judgmentseat. The obvious exception is Cyril, Catech. 13.15, ‘Pilate sat in judgment, and he who sits at the right hand of the Father stood and was judged.’ 51

4.3. The Gospel of Peter and the Fourth Gospel

59

§8 The royal mockery continues: evnegkw.n ste,fanon avka,nqinon e;qhken evpi. th/j kefalh/j tou/ kuri,ou (§8). The adjective avka,nqinoj is used to describe the crown in John 19:5 and Mark 15:17 (both use avka,nqinon ste,fanon), while Matt 27:29 and John 19:2 use the noun a;kanqa to describe the crown that evpe,qhkan evpi. th/j kefalh/j auvtou/ (Matt); evpe,qhkan auvtou/ th/| kefalh/| (John). The combination of the adjective avka,nqinoj with the verb ti,qhmi may indicate the influence of John 19:2, 5 or Mark 15:17, although the prepositional phrase for the placement, as well as its occurrence after the investiture of the garment is more similar to Matt 27:29. 4.3.3. Abusing the Son of God (§9) §9a The detail that others standing there evne,ptuon auvtou/ tai/j o;yesi is similar to Matt 26:67 where evne,ptusan eivj to. pro,swpon auvtou/ (see also Matt 27:30; Mark 14:65; 15:19; Luke 18:32), but the only NT examples of the term o;yij are in John 7:24; 11:44; and Rev 1:16. §9b Others begin the physical abuse: ta.j siago,naj auvtou/ evra,pisan, which again is similar to Matt 26:67 (oi` de. evra,pisan), but soldiers also give Jesus ‘slaps’ (r`a,pisma) in John 19:3.52 §9c The abuse continues: kala,mw| e;nusson auvto,n. Abuse with a ka,lamoj also occurs in Matt 27:30 and Mark 15:19, but both use the verb tu,ptw. The only NT example of the verb nu,ssw is John 19:34 where Jesus’ side is ‘pierced’ with a ‘spear’ (lo,gch). Although the fleshly reality of these events are denied, Jesus appears to John in Acts John 97 and declares, ‘I am being crucified and pierced with spears and reeds (lo,gcaij nu,ssomai kai. kala,moij).’ It is likely that the Acts John is influenced here by John 19:34, so it is possible that the Gos. Pet. was also influenced by John 19:34 to indicate that the piercing was accomplished with a ka,lamoj.53 §9d As a final act of physical abuse against the Son of God: auvto.n evma,stizon. In the Synoptics, Jesus predicts that he will be ‘scourged’ (mastigo,w) (Matt 20:19; Mark 10:34; Luke 18:33), but its actualization uses the verb fragello,w (Matt 27:26; Mark 15:15). However, in John 19:1, Pilate has Jesus ‘scourged’ (mastigo,w) at the beginning of his mockery as the ‘king of the Jews,’ which is similar to the context of §§6– 52 The noun r`a,pisma also occurs in Mark 14:65 and John 18:22, while the only other NT occurrence of r`a pi,zw is Matt 5:39. 53 See also Sibylline Oracles 8.296 and 1.37.3–4 where it is predicted that Jesus will be ‘pierced’ (nu,ssw) with a ‘reed’ (ka,lamoj). Foster is likely correct that the combination of terms in §9c indicates that the author “is highly familiar with the canonical accounts, but is composing his narrative in a creative manner without directly consulting those texts which are shaping his thinking at this point” (Foster, Peter, 278).

60

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Peter

10, rather than as a precursor to the crucifixion as in Matt and Mark. While it is possible that §9d is influenced by John 19:1 for this detail, it is also possible the author has substituted the rare term fragello,w (which only occurs in these instances in Matt and Mark) for the more common mastigo,w (which occurs 7x in the NT). 4.3.3.1. Analysis of §§6–9 Koester has suggested that the mockery of Jesus in early Christian traditions developed out of an exegesis of the OT, specifically the scapegoat ritual of Lev 16. He argues that the unified narrative in §§6–9 is “older than its various stages in the canonical gospels” (Matt 26:67; 27:26– 30; Mark 14:65; 15:16–20; John 19:1–5, 13) since they have divided the unified narrative into multiple scenes.54 Yet this conclusion is based on the form-critical assumption that traditions develop from simple to complex; an assumption that has been severely criticized by Brown and Kirk.55 Furthermore, the Gos. Pet. divides episodes that are unified in the canonical gospels into multiple scenes. For example, the burial (§§23–24) and guarding of the tomb (§§29–34) is interrupted with the response to Jesus’ death by the Jews, elders, priests, and Peter, while the burial and guarding of the tomb is a unified narrative in Matt 27:57–66. Rather than suggest that the mockery in §§6–9 preserves an older tradition that is exclusively dependent on an exegesis of the OT, it is more plausible that the Gos. Pet. conflated details from the trial scenes in the canonical gospels, and the Lord’s adornment with the ‘purple’ and his placement on the ‘seat of judgment’ was influenced by the FG. 4.3.4. The Crucifixion of the Lord (§§10–14) The order of events in §§10–12 and the FG are the same: crucifixion of Jesus; placement of the titulus; parting of garments. In the Synoptics, the placement of the titulus follows the parting of the garments. §10a The Gos. Pet. depicts the crucifixion of the Lord with two criminals: kai. h;negkon du,o kakou,rgouj kai. evstau,rwsan avna. me,son auvtw/n to.n k$u,rio%n. One of these ‘criminals’ (kakou/rgoj) also defends the innocence of the ‘Savior of men’ in §13. The canonical gospels all agree that Jesus was crucified between du,o others, but their identification as ‘criminals’ (kakou/rgoj) only occurs in Luke (23:32–33, 39), as well as the detail that one of them defended Jesus (23:40–41). It is likely that the Gos. Pet. was 54

Koester, Ancient, 227. Brown, “Priority,” 325–327; A. Kirk, “Tradition and Memory in the Gospel of Peter,” in Kraus – Nicklas, Petrus, 139. 55

4.3. The Gospel of Peter and the Fourth Gospel

61

influenced by Luke for these details, although one element is peculiar to the FG. Luke 23:33, as well as Matt and Mark, describe the placement of the ‘criminals’ as ‘one on the right and one on the left;’ John 19:18 describes their placement as ‘on one side, on the other side,’ with the clarification, me,son de. to.n VIhsou/n.56 It is possible the Gos. Pet. was influenced by John 19:18 for this detail, although it may have been the author’s own independent gloss of Luke’s cumbersome description of the placement of those crucified.

56

The placement of Jesus in the ‘middle’ of the two criminals also occurs in Ep. Apost. 9.

62 §12

Kai. teqeiko,tej ta. evndu,mata e;mprosqen auvtou/ diemeri,santo kai. lacmo.n e;balon evpV auvtoi/j)

And having laid out the clothes before him, they divided [them] and cast a lot for them.

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Peter

John 19:24

Justin, Dial. 97.21– 26

ei=pan ou=n pro.j avllh,louj\ mh. sci,swmen auvto,n( avlla. la,cwmen peri. auvtou/ ti,noj e;stai\ i[na h` grafh. plhrwqh/| Îh` le,gousaÐ\ diemeri,santo ta. i`ma,tia, mou e`autoi/j kai. evpi. to.n i`matismo,n mou e;balon klh/ron [Psalm 21:19 LXX]. Oi` me.n ou=n stratiw/tai tau/ta evpoi,hsanÅ Then they said to one another, ‘Let us not tear it, but cast a lot for it, [to decide] whose it will be,’ so that the scripture would be fulfilled, [which says], ‘They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothing they cast a lot [Psalm 21:19 LXX].’ Then the soldiers did these things.

[Psalm 21:17–19 LXX paraphrase] diemeri,santo ta. i`ma,tia, mou e`autoi/j kai. evpi. to.n i`matismo,n mou e;balon klh/ron ) ) ) oi` staurw,santej auvto.n evme,risan ta. i`ma,tia auvtou/ e`autoi/j lacmo.n ba,llontej e[kastoj kata. th.n tou/ klh,rou evpibolh.n o] evkle,xasqai evbebou,lhto) [Psalm 21:17–19 LXX paraphrase] They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothing they cast a lot . . . Those who crucified him divided his garments among themselves, each casting a lot for what he chose to have, and receiving according to the decision of the lot.

Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 13.26

lacmo.j peri. tou,tou gi,netai . . . peri. tou,tou de. lagca,nousin . . . [Psalm 21:19 LXX quotation] . . . klh/roj de. h=n o` lacmo,j

A lot was cast for this [the tunic] … for this [the tunic] they cast a lot … [Psalm 21:19 LXX quotation] … Now the lot [from Psalm 21:19] was the lot [from John 19:24].

Psalm 21 (LXX) and its quotation in Justin and the canonical gospels all agree that the ‘garments’ (i`ma,tion) are ‘divided’ (diameri,zw), and the division is determined by the ‘casting’ (ba,llw) of a ‘lot’ (klh/roj). The Gos. Pet. also uses diameri,zw and ba,llw, but e;nduma instead of i`ma,tion and lacmo,j instead of klh/roj. The occurrence of lacmo,j is noteworthy since it does not occur in the NT, but it is used in Justin’s interpretation of Psalm 21:19 LXX (Dial. 97). Due to the rarity of lacmo,j in Greek literature before the second century, Pilhofer suggests its presence in Dial. 97

4.3. The Gospel of Peter and the Fourth Gospel

63

(lacmo.n ba,llontej) and §12 (lacmo.n e;balon) is „das stärkste Argument für eine literarische Abhängigkeit des Justin von dem Petrusevangelium.“57 However, Foster, following Swete, hypothesizes that the Gos. Pet. and Justin may have been dependent on a common source—a Greek translation of Psalm 21:19 that used lacmo,j instead of klh/roj, but is no longer extant.58 Although he probably composed this work two centuries after the Gos. Pet. and Justin, Cyril of Jerusalem provided an apology for how the ‘casting a lot’ for Jesus’ tunic in John 19:24 was the fulfillment of the ‘casting a lot’ for the clothing in Psalm 21:19.59 In order to do this, he correlates lagca,nw from John 19:24 with the nominal form lacmo,j, and then equates this lacmo,j with the klh/roj of Psalm 21:19. What Cyril has done is make the connection between Psalm 21:19 and its fulfillment in John 19:24 explicit by inserting the nominal term lacmo,j. If Cyril has transformed the verb lagca,nw from John 19:24 into the noun lacmo,j in his interpretation of klh/roj in Psalm 21:19, it is plausible that Justin made this same transformation, although without incorporating the verb.60 It is also plausible that the author of the Gos. Pet. altered klh/roj from the canonical gospels to lacmo,j based on lagca,nw from John 19:24, much in the same way that he changes i`ma,tion from the canonical gospels to e;nduma for no apparent theological purpose. While it is always possible that the Gos. Pet. and Justin may have glossed Psalm 21:19 or the Synoptics, or been influenced by an unknown common source/tradition, the appearance of lacmo,j in Cyril’s interpretation of John 19:24 suggests that it is more likely the Gos. Pet. and Justin were both attempting to interpret the «aussi presque inusité» verb lagca,nw in John 19:24, and both settled on ba,llw and lacmo,j independently.61 This appears to be another example of the traditional interpretation of a passage from the FG by the Gos. Pet. and Justin. §14 kai. avganakth,santej evpV auvtw/| evke,leusan i[na mh. skelokophqh/|( o[pwj basanizo,menoj avpoqa,noi)

57

John 19:33 evpi. de. to.n VIhsou/n evlqo,ntej( w`j ei=don h;dh auvto.n teqnhko,ta( ouv kate,axan auvtou/ ta. ske,lh

Pilhofer, „Justin,“ 74–75. Swete, Akhmîm, xxxiv; Foster, “Justin,” 111. 59 The parallel with Cyril of Jerusalem is noted by Stanton, “Peter,” 13. 60 Hill, “Justin,” 92–93. 61 Vaganay, Pierre, 60. If Cyril of Jerusalem was influenced by Justin for this interpretation of John 19:24, it would support the case that Justin was influenced by John 19:24, but this is speculative. 58

64

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Peter

There has been significant debate over the subject of skelokophqh/| in Gos. Pet. 14. Gardner-Smith, L. Vaganay, Crossan, and Foster suggest that it is the legs of the criminal that are not broken;62 Harnack, Zahn, M.G. Mara, T. Nicklas, and Kirk suggest that it is the legs of Jesus that are not broken.63 Gardner-Smith rests his case for independence solely on the claim that it is the legs of the criminal that are not broken,64 while Vaganay has argued that the Gos. Pet. is dependent on John 19:33 but confused the details.65 Although Kirk acknowledges that the wording is ambiguous, he has convincingly argued that Jesus is the subject since: (1) the prolongation of Jesus’ suffering is the last detail in a long catena of torments that stretch from §§6–14; (2) the prolongation of Jesus’ life explains the dilemma of §15 and the necessity of his poisoning with gall and vinegar in §16; (3) the animation of the cross in §39 emphasizes that the Gos. Pet. is specifically interested in the suffering of Jesus; and (4) this continues the characterization of the Jews as ruthless and heartless.66 Similar to Koester’s claim above, Crossan also argues that early passion narratives were based on an exegesis of the OT, and that the earliest passion narratives are more closely aligned with a ‘scriptural memory’ of the OT.67 He then argues that the FG was dependent on the Gos. Pet., and that the evangelist transferred the crurifragium detail from the criminal to Jesus in order to apply the fulfillment of scripture (Exod 12:46; Num 9:12; Psalm 33:21 LXX) to the events of Jesus (John 19:36).68 Firstly, as noted above, both works likely apply the crurifragium detail to Jesus. Secondly, according to Crossan’s criteria, it can be argued that John 19:33 is more primitive than §14 since it is closely aligned with the paschal lamb imagery of the OT. Thirdly, the fulfillment aspect in the Gos. Pet. is understandably omitted, since the author is intent on emphasizing the brutality of the Jews,69 and is not interested in presenting Jesus as the 62 Gardner-Smith, “Peter,” 256; Vaganay, Pierre, 60–61; Crossan, Four, 144; Foster, Peter, 306. 63 Harnack, Bruchstücke, 26; Zahn, Petrus, 55; Mara, Pierre, 121; T. Nicklas, „Die ‚Juden‘ im Petrusevangelium (PCair 10759),“ NTS 47 (2001): 217; Kirk, “Priorities,” 580–581. 64 Gardner-Smith, “Peter,” 256, “If we seek proof that ‘Peter’ did not know John surely we have it here.” 65 Vaganay, Pierre, 60–61. 66 Kirk, “Priorities,” 580–581. 67 Crossan, Four, 138–139. 68 Ibid., 144. 69 For the prominence of Jewish hostility in the Gos. Pet., see Brown, Messiah, 2:1330; A. Kirk, “The Johannine Jesus in the Gospel of Peter,” in R.T. Fortna – T. Thatcher, eds., Jesus in Johannine Tradition (Louisville, 2001), 317; T. Hieke, „Das Petrusevangelium vom Alten Testament her gelesen,“ in Kraus – Nicklas, Petrus, 101; Henderson, Peter, 69.

4.3. The Gospel of Peter and the Fourth Gospel

65

paschal lamb (John 1:29, 36). It is more plausible that the Gos. Pet. has reinterpreted the FG, rather than vice versa. It is also doubtful that the Gos. Pet. and FG were dependent on a common source/tradition for the crurifragium detail, since it can be seriously questioned whether any extant reference to the non-breaking of Jesus’ legs is completely independent of the FG. Gardner-Smith indicates that the Gos. Pet. and FG share the “common practice” of crurifragium, but he does not provide other references to this practice.70 I. Czachesz states that this “motif is not frequent in ancient literature” and suggests that Acts Andr. 51 has a “perfect parallel” to §14,71 yet Aegeates gives orders to leave Andrew’s ‘knees (sinews) uncut,’ which is different from the crurifragium envisaged in §14 and John 19:33.72 It is plausible that the Gos. Pet. was influenced by John 19:33, since the detail of Jesus’ unbroken legs does not appear in literary sources independent of the FG, and it is understandable that the Gos. Pet. would omit the OT fulfillment aspect of this event in order to focus on its brutality. 4.3.5. The Death of the Lord (§§15–19) §16 After darkness had overset Judea, the Jews are anxious that the Lord is still alive and that they may be in violation of Deut 21:22–23 (§§5, 15).73 In response, they offer the Lord colh.n meta. o;xouj (§16), which likely serves as a poison in the narrative of the Gos. Pet. that solves the dilemma of his prolonged suffering (§14) and the onset of darkness (§15).74 Some manuscripts of Matt 27:34 and John 19:29 contain ‘vinegar and gall,’75 but this information was part of a well known tradition that was based on

70

Gardner-Smith, “Peter,” 256. For classical references to crurifragium in general, see S.J. Harrison, “Cicero and ‘Crurifragium’,” CQ 33 (1983): 454. 71 Czachesz “Peter,” 251. 72 In reference to this practice in the Acts Andr., J.N. Bremmer states, “I have been unable as yet to find a parallel” (J.N. Bremmer, “Man, Magic, and Martyrdom in the Acts of Andrew,” in J.N. Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 34). 73 Deut 21:22 refers to the ‘execution’ (avpoqnh,|skw) of a felon; §§5 and 15 refer to the ‘murder’ (foneu,w) of Jesus. Hieke notes this as another example of the anti-Jewish tendency of the author who indicts the Jews for the murder of Jesus (Hieke, „Petrusevangelium,“ 95). 74 Kirk, “Priorities,” 581. For the view that the drink was intended to poison the Lord, see also Robinson – James, Peter, 20; Gardner-Smith, “Peter,” 257; McCant, “Peter,” 264; Hieke, „Petrusevangelium,“ 104; Hartenstein, „Petrusevangelium,“ 175; Foster, Peter, 319. 75 Matt 27:34 A W 0250 0281 M c f h q syp.h mae bo mss; John 19:29 f13 q syh ** Q 892s pc.

66

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Peter

Psalm 68:22 (LXX).76 The immediacy of Jesus’ death after the drink in §§16–19 may favor the influence of John 19:29, but the Gos. Pet. follows the drink with a cry from the cross, similar to the events after the second drink in Matt 27:48–50 and Mark 15:36–37. §17 After the drink is given: evplh,rwsan pa,nta kai. evtelei,wsan kata. th/j kefalh/j auvtw/n ta. a`marth,mata (§17). John 19:28 is the only NT occurrence of teleio,w used to indicate the fulfillment of Scripture. It is possible that §17 has taken the ‘completion’ of Scripture accomplished by Jesus’ suffering from John 19:28 and applied it as a judgment against the Jews who, since they are responsible for his suffering, have ‘completed’ (teleio,w) their sinful deeds.77 4.3.6. The Removal from the Cross and Burial of the Lord (§§20–24) §21 Once the Lord is dead: avpe,spasan tou.j h[louj avpo. tw/n ceirw/n tou/ k$uri,o%u. The mention of ‘nails’ in Jesus’ ‘hands’ also occurs in Thomas’ ultimatum in John 20:25: eva.n mh. i;dw evn tai/j cersi.n auvtou/ to.n tu,pon tw/n h[lwn. The only NT occurrences of h-loj are in John 20:25 (twice), and, as in the Gos. Pet., there is no mention of Jesus’ feet having been nailed. The absence of nails in Jesus’ feet in both the Gos. Pet. and FG is significant, since early Christian literature often indicates that it is both his hands and feet that were nailed, usually in reference to Psalm 21:17 LXX.78 It is possible that the Gos. Pet. and FG were both dependent on a common source/tradition for this detail,79 but Celsus appears to have obtained it from the FG when he claims that Jesus ‘showed how his hands had been pierced by nails’ and appeared to a ‘half-frantic woman’ (Cels. 2.59; 2.55), whom Origen interprets as a reference to Mary Magdalene (John 20:15). It is more likely that the details of ‘nails’ in the Lord’s ‘hands’ (and not feet) were due to the influence of John 20:25.80 §23 The Jews then offer the Lord’s body to Joseph: qeasa,menoj h=n o[sa avgaqa. evpoi,hsen (§23). It is possible that this detail is based on John 11:45, 76

See J. Carleton Paget, “The Epistle of Barnabas and the Writings that Later Formed the New Testament,” in Gregory – Tuckett, Reception, 235. Examples of ‘vinegar and gall’ being given to Jesus at his crucifixion are found in: Ep. Barn. 7.3, 5; Acts John 97; Gos. Sav. 91; Treat. Seth 56.7; Irenaeus, Epid. 82; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 10; Ephrem, Comm. Diat. 20.27. 77 Denker is correct that the parallel completion motif with minimal verbal overlap is not enough to guarantee dependence (Petrusevangelium, 53). 78 Implied in Luke 24:40; Apoc. Pet. (VII, 3) 71.26–31; explicit in Justin, 1 Apol. 35; Dial. 97. 79 Cassels, Peter, 77. 80 See McCant, “Peter,” 273; Massaux, Matthew, 202.

4.3. The Gospel of Peter and the Fourth Gospel

67

where many Jews believed in Jesus, qeasa,menoi a] evpoi,hsen, and it was then applied to Joseph.81 §24 Joseph then took the body of the Lord: e;louse kai. ei[lhse sindo,ni kai. eivsh,gagen eivj i;dion ta,fon kalou,menon Kh/pon VIwsh,f ’ (§24). The canonical gospels all agree that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus (Matt 27:59–60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:5–53; John 19:38–40). John 19:39 also indicates that Nicodemus was present, but it would not be unnatural to omit him from the account in §24 since he was a;rcwn tw/n VIoudai,wn (John 3:1). The canonical gospels do not indicate that Jesus’ body was ‘washed’ (lou,w) in preparation for burial, although Foster suggests that the “closest that any of the canonical accounts comes to this is the Johannine redactional detail which describes the application of spices to the corpse by Nicodemus and Joseph (19.40).”82 Again, it would not be unnatural to substitute this ritual for washing, since the former e;qoj evsti.n toi/j VIoudai,oij evntafia,zein (John 19:40). Matt 27:60 also indicates that the tomb belonged to Joseph, but §24 adds the unique detail that it was called Kh/pon VIwsh,f. Foster suggests that the claim that Joseph was a rich man (Matt 27:57) may explain the link between the tomb and garden with his own name in §24,83 yet the interesting detail is not the naming of the tomb, but that it signifies that the Lord was buried in a ‘garden’ (kh/poj), whose only canonical parallel is John 19:41.84 Another thematic parallel with the FG is that Jesus is buried in the garden tomb out of expediency in order to observe the Law (John 19:42), which is a driving motif in the Lord’s execution in the Gos. Pet. Although the Gos. Pet. may have used an independent tradition to locate Jesus’ burial in a kh/poj,85 it is possible that this detail was derived from John 19:41. 4.3.7. The Securing of the Tomb (§§28–33) §28 The scribes, Pharisees, and elders heard (avkou,santej) that all the people were grumbling (goggu,zei) due to the great signs (me,gista shmei/a) at the Lord’s death. The terminology is similar to John 7:31–32, where the Pharisees heard (h;kousan) that many in the crowd were grumbling

81 John 11:45 is the only instance in the NT where someone ‘sees’ (qea,omai) the things that Jesus ‘did’ (poie,w). 82 Foster, Peter, 345. 83 Ibid., 347. 84 Vaganay categorizes this similarity under the rubric «ressemblances frappantes» (Pierre, 63). 85 See Harnack, Bruchstücke, 28; Denker, Petrusevangelium, 53.

68

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Peter

(goggu,zontoj) and wondering if the Christ would perform more signs (plei,ona shmei/a) than Jesus. 4.3.8. The Report to Pilate (§§43–49) §48 They (presumably the ‘elders’ from §38) state: ‘It is better (sumfe,rei) for us to be charged with the greatest sin (megi,sthn a`marti,an) before God than (kai. mh,) to fall into the hands of the people (tou/ laou/) of the Jews and be stoned (liqasqh/nai).’ In John 11:50, Caiaphas claims that ‘It is better (sumfe,rei) for you that one man die for the people (tou/ laou/) than (kai. mh,) for the whole nation to perish’ (see also John 18:14). Besides the verbal parallels, both passages have a similar structure—‘it is better’ to do option A ‘than’ to experience option B; and a similar theme—authority figures involved in Jesus’ death choose expediency over justice. The reference to the ‘greatest sin’ in §48, which is either the murder of the son of God,86 or the suppression of the resurrection,87 uses terminology similar to John 19:11 where the one who handed Jesus over to Pilate is guilty of the greater sin (mei,zona a`marti,an). As noted in the previous chapter, the FG is the only canonical gospel to use the verb liqa,zw, and in each instance it is at the hands of the Jews, as in §48. 4.3.9. The Women’s Visit to the Tomb (§§50–57) §50 There are significant parallels between §§50–54 and the Markan account,88 although a few details suggest possible influence from the FG. The author explains why Mary Magdalene did not come to the tomb earlier: foboume,nh dia. tou.j VIoudai,ouj (§50). This motif had already been implied in §26 to explain why the disciples are in hiding and absent from the crucifixion, but it is emphasized three times in §§50–54.89 In John 20:19, the disciples are also hiding after Jesus’ burial dia. to.n fo,bon tw/n VIoudai,wn. It is possible that the motif of fear has been “borrowed from John 20:19,”90 and that the author purposely transposed the fear experienced by the disciples in John 20:19 onto Mary in §50 as an attempt to emphasize the viciousness of the Jews who were inflamed with anger (§50), as well as to exonerate the disciples for their seeming cowardice. §§52, 54 Mary and the women desire to ‘weep’ (klai,w) and ‘lament’ (ko,ptw) at the Lord’s tomb. These verbs are combined in Luke 8:52 and 86

Swete, Akhmîm, 21. Vaganay, Pierre, 313. 88 See Foster, Peter, 459–480. 89 Crossan, Cross, 285 and Neirynck, “Apocryphal,” 146, indicate that the fear of the Jews is the dominant theme in the tomb episode. 90 Crossan, Four, 159. 87

4.3. The Gospel of Peter and the Fourth Gospel

69

Rev 18:9, but the ‘weeping’ (klai,w) of Mary at Jesus’ tomb is emphasized four times in John 20:11–15. §55–56 There are numerous features in these passages that are paralleled in the FG. Firstly, the repeated detail that it is necessary for Mary and her companions to ‘stoop down’ (paraku,ptw) to inspect the tomb (§55–56) is also paralleled in John 20:11 where Mary ‘stooped down’ (paraku,ptw) to inspect the tomb.91 Secondly, a question offered by the young man to Mary and the women, ti,na zhtei/te (§56), is parallel to a question offered by Jesus to Mary, ti,na zhtei/j (John 20:15). Thirdly, the young man offers the women an opportunity to inspect the tomb in order to ameliorate their unbelief with the invitation: eiv de. mh. pisteu,ete (§56), which is similar to Thomas’ declaration: ouv mh. pisteu,sw (John 20:25), and the following inspection of Jesus’ wounds that extinguishes his unbelief. Lastly, the young man declares that ‘he is risen,’ and provides the clarifying addition: avph/lqen evkei/ o[qen avpesta,lh (§56), which is similar to the Jesus’ coming from (evxe,rcomai) and returning to (poreu,omai) the Father in John 16:28 (see also 13:1). 4.3.10. A Fishing Excursion to the Sea (§§58–60) §§58–59 These passages indicate that the disciples returned to their own ‘home’ (oi=koj) after the tomb had been inspected (only by the women in §§50–57), which is similar to the statement in John 20:10, where after the inspection of the tomb: avph/lqon ou=n pa,lin pro.j auvtou.j oi` maqhtai, . The disciples are described as ‘weeping’ (klai,w) and ‘grieving’ (lupe,w) in §59, and the only NT combination of these terms is John 16:20 where Jesus predicts that after his departure to the Father, the disciples will ‘weep’ (klai,w), ‘lament’ (qrhne,w), and ‘grieve’ (lupe,w), although a similar combination also occurs in Gos. Mary 9.6, 14–16 (see Chapter 10). §60 The Gos. Pet. ends unexpectedly with, ‘But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our nets and went to the sea (eivj th.n qa,{l}lassan). And there was with us Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord…’ There are multiple similarities with John 21, which may indicate dependence on a common tradition,92 or possibly the influence of the FG.93 91 The only occurrences of paraku,ptw in the canonical gospels occur with the inspection of the empty tomb: Luke 24:12 (Peter); John 20:5 (the other disciple), 11 (Mary). 92 See von Soden, „Petrusevangelium,“ 68; Denker, Petrusevangelium, 53; Dewey, “Resurrection,” 193. 93 Foster, Peter, 511, states, “While the details remain vague, even this fragmentary introduction to the story strengthens the case for knowledge of the fourth gospel by the author of the Gospel of Peter.” For a similar conclusion, see Zahn, Petrus, 51; Swete,

70

Chapter 4: The Gospel of Peter

Firstly, both works have a fishing excursion to the ‘sea’ (qa,lassa) by a defined group of disciples after the resurrection.94 Secondly, both works list the individual disciples, although John 21:2 names seven disciples while the extant portion of §60 only names three. 95 Thirdly, the frequent use of the double-name ‘Simon Peter’ in the FG (Matt once; Mark twice; Luke once; John 17x) may also provide support for its influence.

4.4. Conclusion There is reason to accept, with a measured level of confidence, that the Gos. Pet. was influenced by the FG. The examples that provide plausible evidence are: (1) the Lord’s adornment with a ‘purple’ garment (§7a); (2) his placement upon the ‘seat of judgment’ (§7b); (3) the ‘casting of a lot’ for his garments (§12); and (4) the crurifragium (§14). The most significant of these examples are (2) and (3), since it indicates that the Gos. Pet. and Justin may have produced the earliest traditional interpretations of these passages from the FG, which are later evident in Tertullian (or Praxeas) and Cyril of Jerusalem. This provides valuable evidence against the claim that the Gos. Pet. and FG were dependent on a common source. Other features unique to the Gos. Pet. and FG include: the date of the crucifixion (§5); the ‘nails’ in the Lord’s hands (§21); the ‘garden’ tomb (§24); the fear of the Jews by the women/disciples after the Lord’s death (§50); the need for Mary to ‘stoop down’ to inspect the tomb (§55–56); the appearance of the Lord to Simon Peter and others at the ‘sea’ (§60). There are also details that are more closely aligned with the FG than the Synoptics: the Lord being handed over to the people before their feast Akhmîm, xxvi; Schubert, Composition, 161; Vaganay, Pierre, 63–64; Crossan, Four, 178; Massaux, Matthew, 221; D. Lührmann, „POx 4009,“ NovT 35 (1993): 405. 94 It is ‘the Sea of Tiberias’ in John 21:1, while it is only ‘the sea’ in §60. This is not surprising since the Gos. Pet., and the extra-canonical gospels as a whole, generally lack topographical details. 95 The rationale for Koester’s claim, “the discrepancies in the list of names argues against any dependence” (Koester, Ancient, 240) is somewhat strained since he had already concluded that the women’s visit to the tomb (§§50–57) was dependent upon Mark or a pre-Markan source (238–239), yet the Gos. Pet. omits the names of Mary the mother of James, and Salome. If the absence of names does not negate dependence for the women’s visit to the tomb, why must it present an obstacle for suggesting dependence in this episode? (See Henderson, Peter, 201–202 for a similar critique.) Turner’s suggestion that Andrew and Levi may be the author’s interpretation of the two unnamed disciples in John 21:2 is, if not more convincing, at least more coherent (Turner, “Peter,” 185).

4.4. Conclusion

71

(§5); gaining ‘authority’ over the Lord (§6); o;yij (§9a); piercing with a reed (§9c); the Lord’s scourging (§9d); his crucifixion ‘in between’ two criminals (§10a); the immediacy of his death after the drink (§16) and the fulfillment it accomplished (§17); the identity of Joseph (§23); the grumbling of the people (§28); the elders’ report to Pilate (§48); and the women’s inspection of the tomb (§§55–56). Lastly, the FG and Synoptics have common details with the Gos. Pet.: the Lord’s identification as the King of Israel (§§7c; 11); the thorny crown (§8); and the slapping of the Lord (§9b). The lack of extended verbal parallels, combined with a dissimilar context in many of these examples, makes the influence of the FG only a possibility, yet their cumulative effect is noteworthy. It is impossible to determine exactly how the author of the Gos. Pet. was influenced by the FG. The lack of extended verbal parallels and the combination of details peculiar to the FG and Synoptics may indicate that the author knew these gospels by means of secondary orality, 96 or was remembering details from the gospels and combined them with extracanonical traditions in order to produce a ‘new’ gospel that was polemical against the Jews and provided an apologetic for Christian beliefs.

96

Brown originally suggested that secondary orality best explains the parallels between Matt and Luke with the Gos. Pet. (Brown, “Priority,” 335–338).

Chapter 5

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 5.1. Introduction A parchment fragment discovered by B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt was catalogued as Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 (P.Oxy. 840) and published in 1908.1 They dated the manuscript to the fourth or fifth century CE and suggested the work was originally composed between 150–200 CE.2 M.J. Kruger recently reevaluated this manuscript and dated it between 300–350 CE, with a proposed date of composition around 125–150 CE.3 The primary issues surrounding this work are its historical veracity and the nature of the debate between Jesus and Levi, which affects the dating of P.Oxy. 840, its interpretation, and its relationship to the FG. 5.1.1. The Historical Veracity of Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 Scholars have been divided over the historical veracity of the details mentioned in this work.4 The unhistorical features noted by Grenfell – 1

B.P. Grenfell – A.S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Volume 5 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1908), 1–10; Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel from Oxyrhynchus (Oxford: University Press, 1908). 2 Grenfell – Hunt, Oxyrhynchus, 1, 4; Fragment, 12. 3 M.J. Kruger, The Gospel of the Savior (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 62, 244–245. This chapter uses Kruger’s transcription of P.Oxy. 840. Kruger has produced other publications on this fragment (“Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840,” in Foster, Non-Canonical, 157–170; “Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840,” in Kraus – Kruger – Nicklas, Gospel Fragments, 123–215), but his initial monograph remains the most significant. 4 Scholars who have generally questioned the historical veracity of P.Oxy. 840 include: J. Dräseke, „Zum neuen Evangelienbruchstück von Oxyrhynchos,“ ZWT 50 (1908): 488; E.J. Goodspeed, “The New Gospel Fragment from Oxyrhynchus,” BW 31 (1908): 145; Grenfell – Hunt, Oxyrhynchus, 3; Fragment, 12; A. Jülicher, „Ein neues Jesuswort?,“ Christliche Welt 8 (1908): 203; E. Schürer, “Review of Grenfell – Hunt, Fragment,” TLZ 33 (1908): 172; D. Smith, Unwritten Sayings of Our Lord (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913), 139; A. Sulzbach, „Zum Oxyrhynchus-Fragment,“ ZNW 9 (1908): 175; H.B. Swete, Two New Gospel Fragments (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1908), 7–8; T. Zahn, „Neue Bruchstücke nichtkanonischer Evangelien,“ NKZ 19 (1908): 376–380; A. Harnack, „Ein neues Evangelienbruchstück,“ in Aus Wissenschaft und Leben, Band II (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1911), 246–249; F. Bovon, “Fragment

5.1. Introduction

73

Hunt include: (1) the improbability of a Pharisaic ‘high priest’ named Levi; (2) the location of the ‘place of purification’ and its proximity to the ‘holy vessels’; (3) the identification of the ‘pool of David’ with its doublestaircase; and (4) the need to perform ablutions and change garments before entering the temple.5 Kruger has provided the most thorough examination of this work and forcefully argues that it accurately represents the structure and practices of the Herodian temple, the typical Jewish attitude toward ceremonial cleanliness, and the role of bathing pools (miqva’ot) during the time of Jesus.6 Almost every scholar has evaluated the historical veracity of P.Oxy. 840 within the framework of first-century CE Judaism and the context of the Herodian temple.7 The similarities with Jewish and Samaritan synagogues from the Roman-Byzantine period are often overlooked.8 For example, Jewish synagogues are identified as temples (or at least as ‘holy places’) in the first through fourth centuries CE;9 Jewish priestly families may have already been responsible for synagogue leadership in the first century Oxyrhynchus 840, Fragment of a Lost Gospel, Witness of an Early Christian Controversy over Purity,” JBL 119 (2000): 706–707. Those scholars who have attempted to defend its historical veracity to some degree include: L. Blau, „Das neue Evangelienfragment von Oxyrhynchos buch- und zaubergeschichtlich betrachtet nebst sonstigen Bemerkungen,“ ZNW 9 (1908): 213; A. Büchler, “The New ‘Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel,’” JQR 20 (1908): 331; W.W. Davies, “A Fragment of another Gospel,” Methodist Review 90 (1908): 817–818; M.-J. Lagrange, «Nouveau fragment non canonique relatif a l’Évangile,» RB 5 (1908): 551; H. Lietzmann, „Das neugefundene Evangelienfragment und seine Vorgänger,“ Beilage zur allgemeinen Zeitung 31 (1908): 668–671; E. Preuschen, „Das neue Evangelienfragment von Oxyrhynchos,“ ZNW 9 (1908): 5–9; A. Marmorstein, „Einige Bemerkungen zum Evangelienfragment in Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. V, n. 840, 1907,“ ZNW 15 (1914): 338; E. Riggenbach, „Das Wort Jesu im Gespräch mit dem pharisäischen Hohenpriester nach dem Oxyrhynchus Fragment V Nr. 840,“ ZNW 25 (1926): 142; R. Dunkerley, “The Oxyrhynchus Gospel Fragments,” HTR 23 (1930): 30; Jeremias, Unknown, 46–47; D.R. Schwartz, “Viewing the Holy Utensils (P. Ox. V, 840),” NTS 32 (1986): 153–159; Kruger, Gospel, 94–144. 5 Grenfell – Hunt, Fragment, 12. 6 Kruger, Gospel, 95, 244. 7 The notable exceptions are D. Smith and F.C. Burkitt who suggest that the location is an Egyptian temple (Smith, Unwritten, 138–139; F.C. Burkitt, The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus (London: Constable, 1922), 21–22), and F. Bovon who notes similarities with ancient Christian basilicas (“Fragment,” 719). 8 For what follows, see L.R. Zelyck, “Recontextualizing Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840,” Early Christianity 4 (2013): 1–15 (forthcoming). 9 Josephus, C. Ap. 1.209; Philo, Prob. 81; “No. 187,” in A. Runesson et al., eds., The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E. (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 240–242. References to a ‘holy place’ appear in synagogues at Hammat Tiberias, Na‘aran, Kefar Hananiah, Ashkelon, and Gaza (see L.I. Levine, “Common Judaism,” in W.O. McCready – A. Reinhartz, ed., Common Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 31).

74

Chapter 5: Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840

CE,10 and a Samaritan high-priest named Levi may have reigned in the latter half of the second century CE.11 There is archaeological evidence for water installations and miqva’ot adjacent to Jewish and Samaritan synagogues from the first through fourth century CE, 12 including (perhaps) a double-stepped miqveh;13 and two Jewish and two Samaritan synagogues from the third and fourth centuries CE contain depictions of the holy vessels with a curtain pulled back to reveal the holy ark within a temple.14 The scarcity of archeological and literary evidence for Jewish and Samaritan synagogue practices in the Roman-Byzantine period makes it impossible to directly associate the literary context of P.Oxy. 840 with a synagogue. The extant evidence does, however, undermine the claim that 10

‘Theodotus, son of Vettenus, priest (i`ereu,j) and ruler of the synagogue (avrcisuna,gwgoj), son of a ruler of the synagogue, grandson of a ruler of the synagogue, built the synagogue for the reading of the law and the teaching of the commandments, and also the guest chamber and the upper rooms and the ritual pools of water for accommodating those needing them from abroad, which his fathers, the elders, and Simonides founded’ (“No. 26,” in Runesson, Ancient, 52–54). 11 M. Gaster, “The Chain of Samaritan High Priests,” JRAS (1909): 414 (#80). 12 R. Reich, “The Synagogue and the Miqweh in Eretz-Israel in the Second-Temple, Mishnaic, and Talmudic Periods,” in D. Urman – P.V.M. Flesher, eds., Ancient Synagogues (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 290; S. Haber, “Common Judaism, Common Synagogue?,” in McCready – Reinhartz, Common Judaism, 66; Y. Magen, “The Ritual Baths (Miqva’ot) at Qedumim and the Observance of Ritual Purity among the Samaritans,” in F. Mann – E. Alliata, eds., Early Christianity in Context (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing, 1993), 183. 13 The Theodotus inscription (see fn. 10) indicates that this synagogue had water installations, and two miqva’ot have been discovered several meters from the cistern where the inscription was found. Of particular interest is that one of these is the largest of its kind in Jerusalem. Reich notes, “The staircase of this installation was originally divided by a low partition which created two parallel lanes. (This style suggests that this installation constitutes a particular type of miqwaot—those with a double entrance . . .)” (Reich, “Synagogue,” 292). It is impossible to know the precise relationship between the Theodotus inscription and the immediate miqva’ot, but it may indicate the association of a double-stepped miqveh with a first-century CE synagogue in Jerusalem. 14 For the popularity of the depictions of the holy vessels (the seven-branched candelabrum; the façade of the Temple/Holy Ark; the ram’s horn; the incense shovel) in fourth-century CE synagogues, see R. Talgam, “Similarities and Differences between Synagogue and Church Mosaics in Palestine during the Byzantine and Umayyad periods,” in L.I. Levine – Z. Weiss, eds., From Dura to Sepphoris (Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000), 94. In an examination of the floor mosaics, panels, and frescoes in two Jewish synagogues (Dura Europos—third century CE; Hammat Tiberias—fourth century CE) and two Samaritan synagogues (El-Khirbe—fourth century CE; Khirbet Samara—fourth century CE), D. Amit noted this peculiar feature: each contained “pictures of an ark within a temple-like structure, with the curtain in front pulled aside to reveal the ark in detail” (D. Amit, “‘The Curtain would be Removed for Them’ (Yoma 54a),” in Levine – Weiss, Dura, 233).

5.2. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 and the Canonical Gospels

75

P.Oxy. 840 was composed in the first half of the second century CE because it depicts an “intimate awareness of pre-70 temple practices.”15 It could also depict synagogue practices from the second or third centuries CE. 5.1.2. The Nature of the Debate between Jesus and Levi There does not appear to be a scholarly consensus regarding the nature of the debate that is envisaged in this work. P. Shellberg has argued that it represents an intra-Jewish debate regarding the type of water and/or necessity of miqva’ot,16 while it reveals an intra-Christian debate for D. Tripp (about water baptism and spiritual baptism)17 and F. Bovon (about ritual, ethical, and spiritual purity).18 Other scholars suggest that P.Oxy. 840 reveals a Christian polemic against a priestly overemphasis on external purity, 19 a conflict between Jewish-Christians and Rabbinic Judaism regarding purity regulations at meals,20 or a Jewish/Christian debate about levitical cleansing and Christian baptism.21 Since Levi’s ‘bathing’ (lou,w) in the pool of David (ll. 23–24) is contrasted with the Savior’s and disciples’ ‘dipping’ (ba,ptw) in living waters from heaven (ll. 43–44), it is likely that this work reflects a contemporaneous Jewish/Christian debate about the efficacy of Jewish ablutions and Christian baptism to purify.

5.2. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 and the Canonical Gospels For almost a century after its publication, little attention was given to explicating the relationship between P.Oxy. 840 and the canonical gospels. Grenfell – Hunt, along with E.J. Goodspeed, suggested the work was an “elaboration” of Matt 15:1–20 and Mark 7:1–23.22 E. Preuschen noted that the issue of internal/external purity in P.Oxy. 840 coincides with Mark 7:1ff and Matt 23:27,23 and a similar conclusion was reached by E. Riggenbach in 1926.24 J. Jeremias also suggested this work was “closely 15

Kruger, Gospel, 244–245. P. Shellberg, “A Johannine Reading of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840,” in C.A. Evans – H.D. Zacharias, eds., Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 186. 17 D. Tripp, “Meanings of the Foot-Washing,” ExpTim 103 (1992): 238. 18 Bovon, “Fragment,” 721. 19 Schwartz, “Viewing,”157. 20 Kruger, Gospel, 218, 222, 229. 21 A. Stewart-Sykes, “Bathed in Living Waters,” ZNW 100 (2009): 286. 22 Grenfell – Hunt, Fragment, 12; Goodspeed, “Fragment,” 145. 23 Preuschen, „Evangelienfragment,“ 8. 24 Riggenbach, „Fragment,“ 143. 16

76

Chapter 5: Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840

akin in spirit to Mark 7.1ff.”25 A. Büchler considered P.Oxy. 840 more original than the Synoptics, but he does not elucidate how he envisages their relationship.26 There were no sustained arguments for these conclusions until 2005 when Kruger argued that P.Oxy. 840 was influenced by Luke 11:37–52; Matt 23:13–32; John 7:1–52; John 13:10; Mark 7:1–23.27 Despite the scarcity of Lukan and Matthean redactional material in P.Oxy. 840, Kruger presents a credible argument for the influence of Luke and Matt, while the arguments for the influence of the FG are less convincing.

5.3. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 and the Fourth Gospel 5.3.1. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel l.9 The conflict begins with a narrative description of the Savior taking the disciples into the place of purification (a`gneuth,rion) and walking in the temple (periepa,tei evn tw/| i`erw/|), which is similar to John 10:23 where Jesus is walking in the temple (periepa,tei o` VIhsou/j evn tw/| i`erw/|), and a particular location—the portico of Solomon—is specified. Mark 11:27–28 also indicates that Jesus was walking in the temple (evn tw/| i`erw/| peripatou/ntoj), and as in John 10:24, he is confronted by the authorities and questioned about his identity. In the canonical gospels, Jesus is never confronted in the temple for breaking halakah regulations, but he is confronted in the synagogue for disregarding Sabbath regulations,28 as in P.Oxy. 840 where the Savior is criticized for disregarding purity regulations. It is possible that the description of Jesus ‘walking in the temple’ was influenced by John 10:23, but Kruger is correct that the parallel “does not prove to be a conclusive textual link.”29 ll.14–16 Levi claims that the Savior has not ‘bathed’ (lou,w), nor have the disciples washed their feet (tw/n maqhtw/n sou tou.j p@o,daj ba#ptisqe,ntwn), which uses similar terminology as John 13:5 where Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (ni,ptein tou.j po,daj tw/n maqhtw/n ) (see also John 13:10). P.Oxy. 840 also uses the term lou,w frequently (ll.14, 19, 24, 32, 37), and the only occurrence of this term in the canonical gospels is John 13:10. 25

Jeremias, Unknown, 47 Büchler, “Fragment,” 345–346. 27 Kruger, Gospel, 147, 161–188. 28 Matt 12:9–14//Mark 3:1–6//Luke 6:6–11. In Luke 13:10–17, Jesus is confronted by the avrcisuna,gwgoj for healing on the Sabbath, which may suggest that the synagogue ruler regulated purity issues in the same capacity as Levi in our fragment. 29 Kruger, Gospel, 160. 26

5.3. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 and the Fourth Gospel

77

Kruger is correct that P.Oxy. 840 may be influenced by John 13 for these details, but the strength of his arguments can be questioned.30 Firstly, Kruger contends that John 13:10 and ll.14–16 both “share the theme of inner vs. outer cleanliness in the context of this ceremonial washing,”31 but this is not readily apparent. The accusation by Levi does not imply that the disciples are internally unclean, but rather ritually unclean, because they have neglected the required lustrations for entry into the temple.32 Likewise, it is questionable that John 13:10 presents a dichotomy between internal and external purity, rather than a symbolic foretelling of Jesus’ death: the disciples would only understand the footwashing after his death (13:7), it permits the disciples to have a part with Jesus (13:8), and it renders the disciples clean (13:10).33 Secondly, Kruger claims that both episodes mention “two distinctive washings.”34 P.Oxy. 840 does refer to two distinct washings—one required of the Savior (lou,w) and another required of the disciples (bapti,zw)—but this same contrast is not as evident in John 13:10. In John 13:10, Jesus claims, ‘the one who has bathed (o` leloume,noj) does not need to wash (ni,yasqai), except the feet.’35 It is possible that 13:10a is simply an axiomatic statement of first-century hygiene, 36 and that lou,w should not be interpreted as a literal washing previously undergone by the disciples that is now contrasted with ni,ptw. Jesus tells the disciples (except Judas), ‘you are all clean (u`mei/j kaqaroi, evste)’ in 13:10b, similar to 15:3 where he tells them, ‘you are already clean (h;dh u`mei/j kaqaroi, evste) because of the word that I have spoken to you.’ Since there is no mention of a previous literal washing and the disciples are clean in John 13:10, the footwashing episode does not appear to contrast two distinctive washings, but it provides one washing that symbolizes the efficacy of Jesus’ death.

30 Kruger extends the comparison to all of John 13 and P.Oxy. 840: ni,ptw occurs in Matt twice, Mark once, John 13x (10x according to Kruger), and l.34; kaqaro,j occurs in John 13:10 and ll. 18, 28; ba,ptw occurs in Luke 16:24 and John 13:26 in the canonical gospels, as well as l.43 (Kruger, Gospel, 179–182. 31 Kruger, Gospel, 180. 32 T. Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 258. 33 See J.C. Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 102–103; Brown, John, 1:562; J.D.G. Dunn, “The Washing of the Disciples’ Feet in John 13.1–20,” ZNW 61 (1970): 249–251; Shellberg, “Johannine,” 188. 34 Kruger, Gospel, 180. 35 Some manuscripts and witnesses exclude the phrase eiv mh. tou.j po,daj (‫א‬, itaur,c, Tertullian, Origen) so that lou,w and ni,ptw in John 13:10 appear synonymous and refer to the same washing. For a discussion of this variant see Thomas, Footwashing, 19–25. 36 Westcott, John, 191–192; J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 731.

78

Chapter 5: Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840

While these differences with Kruger’s interpretations may be splitting hairs, the strongest argument for the possible influence of John 13:5, 10 is that both works mention the washing of the disciples’ feet, and use two terms for washing including the rare term lou,w (lou,w and ni,ptw in John 13:10; lou,w and bapti,zw in ll.14–16). ll.43–45 The Savior responds to Levi’s claim to be clean by stating, ‘But, I and my disciples, who you say have not bathed (beba@pti,sqai#), have been dipped in living waters from heaven (@beba,#mmeqa evn u[dasi zw/@sin evk tou/ ouvrano#u/), which come down from the Father above.’ The only NT examples of ‘living water’ are John 4:10 (u[dwr zw/n), 11 (to. u[dwr to. zw/n), and 7:38 (u[datoj zw/ntoj), but this catchphrase also occurs in the OT and NHL.37 Kruger provides multiple examples that may indicate P.Oxy. 840 was influenced by John 7:1–52 (specifically 7:38), but again, some of these arguments can be questioned. Firstly, Kruger argues that both works depict a conflict in the Herodian temple during the Feast of Tabernacles (when the veil was pulled back so that the people could view the interior), and the Savior contrasts spiritual ‘living water(s)’ with earthly water.38 The literary context of P.Oxy. 840 has already been questioned, and there are some minor differences between the use and meaning of ‘living water(s)’ in both works. For example, ‘living water’ in the FG is for drinking, but ‘living waters’ in ll.43–45 are for dipping.39 The ‘living water’ in John 7:38–39 is correlated with the Spirit, but this is not explicit in ll.44–45—the ‘living waters’ come down from the Father above. Secondly, Kruger claims that “both texts use water imagery to contrast inner and outer cleanliness,” 40 but this is not explicit in the FG. The presupposed water libation ceremony in John 7:37–39 did not represent a cleansing for the people, but was rather a reminder of God’s provision of water for his people.41 Jesus’ statements contrast the efficacy of earthly and spiritual water to satisfy. 42 The contrast of inner and outer cleanliness 37

Jer 2:13; 17:13; Zech 14:8. ‘Living water’ occurs in Apoc. Adam 85.31; Gos. Eg. III 64.11–12; 66.11; Gos. Phil. 75.21; Treat. Seth 62.1; Trim. Prot. 37.35; 46.17; Zost. 48.5; and it is associated with baptism in Apoc. Adam 84.6–7; Zost. 6.10 (‘living waters’). 38 Kruger, Gospel, 176. 39 See Lagrange, «Fragment,» 550; Stewart-Sykes, “Bathed,” 284. 40 Kruger, Gospel, 177. 41 See G.W. MacRae, “The Meaning and Evolution of the Feast of Tabernacles,” CBQ 22 (1960): 269; H. Ulfgard, The Story of Sukkot (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 248– 249. 42 See Westcott, John, 123–124; J.N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 213; L. Morris, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 421; Barrett, John, 328; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 303; E. Haenchen, John 2

5.3. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 and the Fourth Gospel

79

is evident in P.Oxy. 840—the prostitutes and pipe-girls wipe their outer skin, but inside they are full of scorpions and all wickedness (ll. 40–41); Levi washed in the pool of David (which is presumably the same type of water used by the immoral women), but it is implied that he is still as unclean as the immoral women. However, the primary contrast elucidated by the Savior does not appear to be between inner and outer cleanliness, but rather between the efficacy of earthly, ‘running waters (ceome,noij u[@d#asi$n%’ (ll.32–33) and divine, ‘living waters (u[dasi zw/@sin#)’ to purify (ll.43–44).43 Lastly, Kruger suggests that the living waters in which the Savior and his disciples have been dipped implies an internal “cleansing by the Holy Spirit,”44 but this would imply that the Savior was in need of internal cleansing, which would be remarkable and «contraire au reste de la tradition évangélique.»45 5.3.2. Excursus: ‘Living Waters’ and Baptism Kruger has argued that ll.14–16 and 43–45 present a contrast between internal and external cleanliness that was influenced in part by John 13:10 and 7:1–52. He concludes that the entire work reflects a conflict between the author’s community (that had been expelled from the synagogue!) and rabbinic Judaism concerning ritual purity regulations, specifically table fellowship.46 Yet the primary issue does not appear to be between internal and external purity (as in the table fellowship conflicts in the Synoptics),47 but as noted above, the efficacy of earthly, ‘running waters’ or divine, ‘living waters’ to purify. This contrast may reflect a debate about the efficacy of Jewish ablutions or Christian baptism to purify. 48 Firstly, P.Oxy. 840 contrasts ‘running waters’ (ll.32–33), which may refer to the type of water used in Jewish miqva’ot,49 with ‘living waters’ (ll.43–44), which may refer to the type of water used in Christian (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 17; R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John (London: Burns & Oates, 1980) 2:156. 43 See Lagrange, «Fragment,» 551; Stewart-Sykes, “Bathed,” 283–284. 44 Kruger, Gospel, 177. 45 Lagrange, «Fragment,» 552. 46 Kruger, Gospel, 223–229. For those who see this as a conflict between internal and external purity similar to that found in the Synoptics: Grenfell – Hunt, Fragment, 22; Schürer, “Review,” 170; Jülicher, „Jesuswort,“ 202–203; Harnack, „Evangelienbruchstück,“ 243; Davies, “Fragment,” 815; Preuschen, „Evangelienfragment,“ 8; Riggenbach, „Fragment,“ 143; Kazen, Jesus, 260. This contrast has been questioned by Bovon, “Fragment,” 728; Shellberg, “Johannine,” 186; Stewart-Sykes, “Bathed,” 283. 47 Matt 23:25–26; Mark 7:1–23; Luke 11:37–39. 48 See Stewart-Sykes, “Bathed,” 285. 49 M. Miqw. 1–10; see Kruger, Gospel, 120–122.

80

Chapter 5: Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840

baptism.50 ‘Living water (u[dati zw/nti)’ is the most suitable type of water for baptism (Did. 7.1), and Justin presents a similar contrast to that depicted in P.Oxy. 840—Christian baptism in the water of life (to. u[dwr th/j zwh/j) is able to cleanse (kaqari,sai), while Jewish ablutions are only able to wash (faidru,nei) (Dial. 14.4–8).51 Secondly, ba,ptw probably refers to Christian baptism in l.43, and it is contrasted with the Jewish washing (bapti,zw) enforced by Levi (ll.15, 42).52 This is somewhat odd since bapti,zw often refers to Christian baptism in the early church, but it was occasionally used to describe Jewish ablutions. For example, Trypho acknowledges that the Jews can no longer offer sacrifices in the temple, but they are able ‘to keep the Sabbath, be circumcised, observe the months, and be washed (bapti,zesqai) after touching anything forbidden by Moses or after sexual intercourse’ (Justin, Dial. 46.14). Similar to P.Oxy. 840, Pseudo-Cyprian uses intinguo (likely equivalent to ba,ptw)53 for Christian baptism and baptizo for Jewish washing in his description of the role reversal experienced by Jews and Gentiles: ‘Those learn who one time taught; they keep commandments who once commanded; are dipped (intinguntur) who used to wash (baptizabant), and are circumcised who used to circumcise’ (Adv. Jud. 81).54 Thirdly, the Savior’s solidarity with his disciples, in that they have all been ‘dipped in living waters,’ suggests a baptismal interpretation. Multiple early Christian authors indicate that Jesus’ baptism purified the waters, and his baptism became the exemplar for later Christian baptisms.55 50 The ‘running waters’ and ‘living waters’ both refer to moving water, but the point here is that the author of P.Oxy. 840 appears to contrast the type of water used by Levi and that used by the Savior. 51 See also Dial. 19.5–9, 29.5–6; Didascalia Apostolorum 6.21.6–8. Similar to Justin in Dial. 14, Tertullian applies Jer 2:13 to the Jews, but he insinuates that these ablutions are performed in the synagogue: ‘Undoubtedly, by not receiving Christ, the “fount of water of life,” they have begun to have “worn-out tanks,” that is, synagogues (synagogas) for the use of the “dispersion of the Gentiles,” in which the Holy Spirit no longer lingers, as for the time past he would tarry in the temple before the advent of Christ, who is the true temple of God’ (Adv. Jud. 13.15). 52 E. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009), 269–271. 53 See Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, 7.2.20. It is possible that intinguo may also be a translation of bapti,zw, but since bapti,zw is transliterated by Pseudo-Cyprian in the following line, this is doubtful. 54 See Ferguson, Baptism, 271. For other patristic usages of ba,ptw as a reference to baptism, see G.W.H. Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010), 288b. 55 Clement, Paed. 1.6; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 8.14; Bapt. 4.1. See Ferguson, Baptism, 113–123.

5.4. Conclusion

81

A baptismal interpretation of ‘living waters’ in P.Oxy. 840 may be influenced by the ‘living water’ phrases in the FG, since this is how Cyprian interprets the catchphrase (Ep. 63(62).8). Other Christian authors also contrast baptism in the ‘water(s) of life’ with Jewish ablutions (Justin, Dial. 14.1–2; Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 13.15). Therefore, it is possible that the phrase ‘living waters’ in ll.43–44 was influenced by John 4:10, 11, or 7:38.

5.4. Conclusion Numerous unresolved questions surround P.Oxy. 840, particularly its historical veracity and date of composition. It has been argued that the intriguing similarities to Jewish and Samaritan synagogues, and to debates about the efficacy of Jewish ablutions and Christian baptism to purify (as in Justin, Tertullian, and Cyprian), may indicate a date of composition in the second or third century CE. The author appears to have created a conflict between Levi and Jesus that reflects a contemporaneous Jewish/Christian debate. Kruger has admirably enumerated multiple parallels with the FG, but the strength of these parallels can be questioned.56 The Savior’s ‘walking in the temple,’ the ‘washing’ of the disciples’ feet, and ‘living waters’ in P.Oxy. 840 are similar to the FG, but the minimal amount of verbal overlap and different interpretations of these terms makes it difficult to conclude with any degree of certainty that the extant fragment of this gospel was influenced by the FG. Harnack was correct—the parallels with the FG are simply too „unbestimmt“ to be conclusive.57

56

Kruger also notes parallels with terminology that occurs in the FG but not the Synoptics (Kruger, Gospel, 178–179): evkei/noj precedes a quote multiple times in the FG (P.Oxy. 840 l.24), and pro,teron occurs 3x in the FG including John 7:50 (P.Oxy. 840 l.1), but these parallels do not significantly strengthen the relationship between these works. 57 Harnack, „Evangelienbruchstück,“ 245.

Part III: Sayings Gospels

Chapter 6

The Gospel of Thomas (NHC II,2 + P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655) 6.1. Introduction The Gospel of Thomas (Gos. Thom.) is extant in three Greek fragments (P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655) and one Coptic manuscript from Nag Hammadi (II,2). The differences between the Greek and Coptic versions of the Gos. Thom. indicate that a direct correlation cannot be made between them, although the substantial commonality suggests a reasonable degree of similarity. 1 Scholars have argued that the Gos. Thom. may have been composed in Coptic, Syriac, or Aramaic, but Greek is most likely. 2 The Coptic manuscript is usually dated to the middle of the fourth century CE, while H.W. Attridge dates P.Oxy. 1 to “shortly after A.D. 200,” P.Oxy. 654 to the “middle of the third century,” and P.Oxy. 655 to “between A.D. 200 and 250.”3 Despite being the most discussed and researched extra-canonical gospel, there continues to be little scholarly agreement regarding its theology, date of composition, and relationship to the canonical gospels. Early scholars such as R.M. Grant – D.N. Freedman, R.McL. Wilson, and R.E. Brown identified the Gos. Thom. as a Gnostic work dating to the second or third century CE that was dependent on the canonical gospels.4 The influential 1 H.W. Attridge, “The Greek Fragments,” in B. Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 99–101. This volume is used for the transcription of the Gos. Thom. in this chapter. 2 See F. Fallon – R. Cameron, “The Gospel of Thomas,” ANRW 25.6 (1998): 4228– 4230; K.V. Neller, “Diversity in the Gospel of Thomas,” SecCent 7 (1989–1990): 7; N. Perrin, Thomas and Tatian (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 6–7; Gathercole, Composition, 17–125. 3 Attridge, “Fragments,” 96–99. 4 R.M Grant – D.N. Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus (London: Collins, 1960), 110–111; R.McL. Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (London: A.R. Mowbray, 1960), 15; R.E. Brown, “The Gospel of Thomas and St. John’s Gospel,” NTS 9 (1962): 155–177. For a list of early scholars who categorized the Gos. Thom. as “gnostic” or “proto-gnostic,” see C.W. Skinner, John and Thomas—Gospels in Conflict? (Eugene: Pickwick, 2009), 2. For a list of previous scholars who conclude that the Gos. Thom. is dependent on the canonical gospels, see S.J. Patterson, “The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptic Tradition,” Forum 8 (1992): 50–63.

86

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Thomas

research of H. Koester, S.J. Patterson, and S.L. Davies rightly disassociated the Gos. Thom. from Gnosticism. They then dated the work to the first century CE and argued that the Gos. Thom. and canonical gospels may both be dependent on traditional material, while some Sayings may be independent from, and more primitive than, their canonical counterparts.5

6.2. The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels A.D. DeConick has recently summarized five of the main arguments for the independence of Gos. Thom. from the Synoptics: Those who have argued for independence cite as evidence the fact that the logia in Thomas do not follow the same sequence as the sayings in the Synoptics. That the Thomasine parables are not allegorized like their Synoptic counterparts. That formcritically the logia in Thomas belong to an earlier stage of tradition than the Synoptic parallels. That there is present Synoptic-like material that is not paralleled in the Synoptics. That there is an absence of redactional activity traceable to Synoptic hands.6

The final argument is the most significant, but also the most suspect. In 1988, C.M. Tuckett acknowledged that the question of dependence may be “ultimately insoluble,” although after examining five Sayings (§§5, 9, 16, 20, 55) that contain redactional material from the Synoptics, he concludes, “the fact that Th sometimes shows parallels with redactional material in the synoptics indicates that there is a measure of dependence between our version(s) of Th and our synoptic gospels.”7 Patterson has also acknowledged that four (different) Sayings (§§32, 39, 45, 104) “surely suggest some knowledge of the synoptic tradition,”8 but contends that the Gos. Thom. is entirely independent of the Synoptics “most of the time.”9 5

Koester, Ancient, 75–124; S.J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1993), 9–16; S.L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom (Oregon House: Bardic Press, 2005), 106–116. For a list of scholars who propose a composition date in the first century CE, see A.D. DeConick, The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 13. 6 DeConick, Original, 16–17. For a list of scholars who conclude that the Gos. Thom. is independent of the canonical gospels, see Ibid., 17ff. 7 C.M. Tuckett, “Thomas and the Synoptics,” NovT 30 (1988): 133, 157. J.-M. Sevrin also affirms the presence of Synoptic redactional material in the Gos. Thom. (J.-M. Sevrin, «L’Interprétation de l’Évangile selon Thomas,» in J.D. Turner – A. McGuire, eds., The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 359. 8 S.J. Patterson, “The Gospel of Thomas and Historical Jesus Research,” in L. Painchaud – P.-H. Poirier, eds., Coptica, Gnostica, Manichaica (Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2006), 676. 9 Ibid., 679.

6.3. The Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel

87

S.J. Gathercole has provided an extensive reevaluation of the claims for its independence, and concludes that eleven Sayings (§§5, 13, 14, 31, 33, 44, 47, 65, 66, 99, 104) contain redactional material from Matt and Luke. Therefore, “any view of Thomas as thoroughly or essentially independent can be decisively ruled out.”10 The possibility of dating the entire work is difficult since it may have been a “rolling corpus” in which Sayings were easily added or omitted.11 However, if at least eleven Sayings are influenced by the Synoptics, then it is extremely difficult to date these Sayings to the first century CE. It is more likely that the Gos. Thom. was composed after the canonical gospels (there have been no substantial arguments that the Gos. Thom. was composed after the Synoptics but before the FG), and a date of composition in the early to mid-second century CE may be a better estimate.

6.3. The Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel As with the relationship between the Gos. Thom. and Synoptics, scholars have reached divergent conclusions regarding its relationship to the FG. 6.3.1. Influenced by the Fourth Gospel Almost fifty years ago, Brown published an influential article that examined the relationship between the Gos. Thom. and Johannine literature. He found that there were parallels with Johannine literature in 55 Sayings, but only 31 of these parallels demonstrate significant dependence.12 Since the Gos. Thom. has parallels with various sections within these discourses, Brown concludes that it was dependent on a ‘Gnostic’ source that was itself indirectly dependent on the FG.13 Brown does not argue that the FG originated in ‘Gnostic’ circles, but notes that the Johannine material in the Gos. Thom. is consistently altered towards a ‘Gnostic’ interpretation.14 Despite the value of Brown’s article, his

10

Gathercole, Composition, 213. M. Goodacre has recently arrived at a similar conclusion. See Thomas and the Gospels (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012). 11 U.–K. Plisch, The Gospel of Thomas (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2008), 16; I. Dunderberg, The Beloved Disciple in Conflict? (Oxford: University Press, 2006), 11; A.D. DeConick, Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 55–64; Patterson, “Historical Jesus,” 672–673. 12 Brown, “Thomas,” 175. 13 Ibid., 176–177. For Brown, ‘Gnostic’ is a gloss for heterodox. 14 Ibid., 176.

88

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Thomas

methodology has been regularly critiqued.15 Firstly, Brown assumes that the Gos. Thom. is a later Gnostic work, and therefore, dependent on the FG. Secondly, the title of the article suggests that Brown is comparing the Gos. Thom. with the FG, but his evaluation also includes the Johannine Epistles and Revelation which unfairly bolsters his claim for the dependence of the Gos. Thom. on the FG. Thirdly, Brown does identify ‘doubtful parallels,’ but he does not include a grading system to measure the probability of dependence for the 31 remaining parallels. M. Marcovich attempted to fortify Brown’s conclusions by arguing that §1 has twisted and distorted John 8:52, and that §11 and §77 were “inspired by John.”16 Yet his conclusion for §11 is doubtful since it depends on the supposed similarities between the phrase “to eat living things” and the “eucharistic homily” of John 6:31–58.17 J. Sell critiqued Brown’s conclusions and argued that the Gos. Thom. is directly dependent on the FG.18 Since the Prologue and §§8, 13, 28, 38, 43, 91, and 92 are dependent on 17 different chapters in the FG, this must indicate that the Gos. Thom. was dependent on the entire FG, and not just pericopae that were transmitted through an intermediate source. I. Dunderberg finds this argument unconvincing since the parallels do not betray knowledge of the Johannine literary structure, which permits one to make the opposite argument and conclude that the FG spread pieces of seven different Sayings throughout 17 of its chapters.19 Sell also argues that one Saying is dependent on numerous pericopae in the FG, which undermines his claim for direct dependence. If the dependence was direct, one would expect a clear correlation between a Saying and a specific pericope in the FG. K. Snodgrass concludes that the Gos. Thom. is indirectly dependent on the canonical gospels, since the “easier explanation” is to posit that the Gos. Thom. is a harmonization of Synoptic and Johannine material, rather than that the FG mined the Gos. Thom. for terminology and phrases that became known as Johannine without incorporating Synoptic-like material.20 However, his study does not evaluate specific Sayings that exhibit a measure of influence from the FG. T. Baarda concludes that §§42 and 43 presuppose the narrative sequence of John 8:25–48 by arguing that §42 is an exhortation to become 15 16

See Skinner, John, 26. M. Marcovich, “Textual Criticism on the Gospel of Thomas,” JTS 20 (1969): 72–

74. 17

Ibid., 72–73. J. Sell, “Johannine Traditions in Logion 61 of the Gospel of Thomas,” PRSt 7 (1980): 24–26. 19 Dunderberg, Beloved, 20. 20 K. Snodgrass, “The Gospel of Thomas,” SecCent 7 (1989–90): 24–25, 37–38. 18

6.3. The Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel

89

‘Hebrews,’ and when combined with §43, parallels the exhortation to the Jews to become true children of Abraham in 8:25–48.21 The interpretation of §42 is difficult, but the association of ‘passers-by’ with ‘Hebrews,’ which is needed to make the connection with the FG, is quite speculative. J.H. Charlesworth – C.A. Evans suggest that the presence of distinctive material from Matthew, Luke, and John in the Gos. Thom. indicates that it has been influenced by the canonical gospels.22 They do not evaluate the influence of the FG, but simply list its parallels with the Gos. Thom.23 J.H. Wood, Jr. also argues that the Gos. Thom. was dependent on all four gospels by comparing it with the use of the gospels in the longer ending of Mark, Justin Martyr, and the Diatessaron.24 He does not include specific examples of dependence on the FG, so his article is essentially a hypothesis of how the Gos. Thom. may have used the gospels. 6.3.2. Independent of the Fourth Gospel Davies has argued that the Gos. Thom. may have been a sayings collection that the Johannine community produced before it composed the FG, and before the Johannine and Synoptic trajectories separated.25 However, he also indicates that it is “incorrect to claim that Thomas is wholly a product of the Christianity that produced the Gospel of John.”26 It is difficult to align these views, unless one envisages that the Johannine community abandoned the proto-Gos. Thom. and it was adapted by the Thomasine community to produce the Gos. Thom. as we know it, which is purely speculative. Furthermore, Davies does not substantiate the assumption that “John and the synoptics are more divergent in their present forms than was the oral preaching of their respective communities in earlier times,”27 which is needed to explain why the FG has minimal parallels with the sayings common to the Gos. Thom and Synoptics. For at least the past 40 years, Koester has used R. Bultmann’s conclusions about form-criticism to maintain that the Gos. Thom. is

21 T. Baarda, “Jesus Said: Be Passers-by,” in Early Transmission of Words of Jesus (Amsterdam: VU Boekhandel/Uitgeverij, 1983), 196–197. 22 J.H. Charlesworth – C.A. Evans, “Jesus in the Agrapha and Apocryphal Gospels,” in B.D. Chilton – C.A. Evans, eds., Studying the Historical Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 498–499. 23 Ibid., 498. The parallels they list are: §24/John 1:9; §28/John 1:14; §13/ John 4:13– 15; §38/John 7:32–36; §77/John 8:12, 9:5. 24 J.H. Wood, Jr., “The New Testament Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas,” NTS 51 (2005): 579–595. 25 Davies, Thomas, 116. 26 Ibid., 116. 27 Ibid., 115.

90

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Thomas

independent of the canonical gospels.28 Based on the presupposition that sayings collections developed into larger compositions and finally dialogues, Koester argues that the Gos. Thom. and FG were dependent on a common source/tradition, but the Gos. Thom. preserved the source in its more primitive form.29 A generalized view of form-criticism, whereby the shortest saying is assumed to be most primitive, cannot be maintained for the Gos. Thom.—§36 in the Greek version (P.Oxy. 655) is much longer than its Coptic translation. Furthermore, when the Gos. Thom. and FG both interpret traditional sayings by “creating variants,” Koester assumes that the theology of the common source/tradition is preserved in the Gos. Thom., but rejected in the FG.30 This assumption cannot be maintained without making far-reaching conclusions about early Christology in nonextant sources. However, the claim that the FG evidences a reaction to traditional sayings preserved in the Gos. Thom. would become a major impetus for the community-conflict thesis. 6.3.3. The Community-Conflict Thesis Within the past decade, many scholars have been more interested in the relationship between the communities responsible for the Gos. Thom. and FG, than the relationship between the works themselves. G.J. Riley, DeConick, and E.H. Pagels have each argued that the Thomasine and Johannine communities were in conflict, although they are in disagreement over the nature of the conflict and the pericopae that reveal the dispute. They suggest the dispute is evidenced in the respective gospels by their variant interpretations of common traditions, and the negative portrayal of Thomas in the FG is the Johannine community’s response to the beliefs held by the Thomasine community, which are revealed in the Gos. Thom. 6.3.3.1. Variant Interpretations of Common Traditions and Themes Riley contends that the Thomasine and Johannine communities are in conflict over the bodily resurrection of Jesus.31 This dispute is expressed in divergent interpretations of the temple saying: John 2:19 relates Jesus’ statement, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it,’ to the resurrection of his body; Jesus’ statement in §71, ‘I will [destroy this] 28 See H. Koester, “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels,” in H. Koester – J.M. Robinson, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 158–204; “Gospels,” 27–44. 29 Koester, Ancient, 113–124. 30 For example, the idea of ‘listening to’ and ‘interpreting’ Jesus’ words is more primitive than the exhortation to ‘abide’ in Jesus’ word. See Koester, Ancient, 115–116, 119, 122, 263. 31 G.J. Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 2.

6.3. The Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel

91

house, and no one will be able to build it,’ is a denial of his bodily resurrection.32 The parallels between these passages are weak, 33 but even if they do reflect divergent interpretations of a common saying, it exceeds the evidence to claim that Johannine and Thomasine communities are “in close spiritual proximity” and “in conversation” with one another through their representative works.34 DeConick contends that the Thomasine and Johannine communities are in conflict over the basis of salvation: vision mysticism (a heavenly ascent and visio Dei)35 in the Gos. Thom.; faith mysticism (“a salvific mystical experience centered on faith rather than ecstatic vision”)36 in the FG. She argues that §59 affirms that salvation is obtained by a pre-mortem visionary experience,37 while the FG rails against the pre-mortem ascent theology expressed by Thomas in John 14:3–7, 20–23, and 20:24–29.38 However, it is questionable that Judas (whom she identifies as Thomas) expects Jesus’ theophany in John 14:21 to be a “mystical visionary encounter.”39 Judas is not concerned with the manner of the theophany (vision mysticism or faith mysticism), but whether the world will be able to experience it (John 14:22–23). It is also questionable whether the visio Dei accomplished by a heavenly ascent and affirmed in the Gos. Thom. is what Thomas demands in John 20:25,40 since he requests to see Jesus as the other disciples had seen Jesus—on earth. Despite her developed sociorhetorical methodology, the appeal to “intertraditions”41 and a “hidden controversy” does not provide enough evidence to substantiate the claim 32

Riley, Resurrection, 147–156. Riley overstates his interpretation of §71 when he claims “John and Thomas alone use the saying directly as a reference to the body of Jesus” (Ibid., 155). 34 Ibid., 5, 68. 35 A.D. DeConick, Voices of the Mystics (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 85. 36 Ibid., 110. 37 Ibid., 88–89. Dunderberg has questioned whether the Gos. Thom. contains a heavenly ascent soteriology since there is minimal evidence of ascension terminology, and §3 could be interpreted as a critique of heavenly journeys (Dunderberg, Beloved, 36– 37). 38 A.D. DeConick, “‘Blessed are Those who Have not Seen’ (JN 20:29)” in Turner – McGuire, Nag Hammadi, 382. 39 DeConick, Voices, 74. 40 Ibid., 82. 41 DeConick defines intertraditions as “an arena where specific language connections cannot be identified, but where we can see that people appear to be consciously talking to one another in their texts. The authors are using texts to dramatize actual dialogues which were engaging their communities. Thus we do not necessarily find the text recontextualizing statements from another text, but we hear voices reverberating aspects of a common discourse” (Voices, 19–20). However, this same claim could be made about any two ancient works that have similar vocabulary but different theologies. 33

92

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Thomas

that these communities are in conflict. Rather, she has proven what she assumes by stating that the soteriological point of discourse “exists only because there is discourse between two communities located within the general religious environment.”42 In 1999, Pagels agreed with Koester and Patterson that “the Johannine author polemicizes against certain traditions about Jesus and his message that we find in the Gospel of Thomas.”43 She does not explicitly claim that the Gos. Thom. and FG represent conflicting communities, but rather conflicting exegetical traditions of Genesis 1. For example, the exegesis of Genesis 1 offered in the Gos. Thom. reflects the basic theological premise offered in the Trim. Prot. and Odes Sol.—“that divine ‘light,’ existing from the beginning, is available to humanity from the time of creation, and ever since”—while the FG indicates that it “resides exclusively in the logos.”44 However, in 2003, Pagels contends that these divergent theologies, along with the negative portrayal of Thomas in the FG, indicates that the Gos. Thom. and FG are “gospels in conflict” and they “speak for different groups of Jesus’ followers engaged in discussion, even argument, toward the end of the first century.” 45 6.3.3.2. The Negative Portrayal of Thomas in the Fourth Gospel Riley, DeConick, and Pagels all agree that the negative portrayal of Thomas in the FG indicates there was a conflict between the Thomasine and Johannine communities. Riley and DeConick both argue that the conflict is manifested in Thomas’ portrayal as “ignorant” and a “fool” in John 14:3–7.46 However, Jesus’ response to Thomas in John 14:7 uses plural verbs, indicating that it is directed towards Thomas and the disciples, while the following rebuke of Philip’s statement with singular

42

DeConick, Voices, 21. E.H. Pagels, “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John,” JBL 118 (1999): 478. 44 Ibid., 496, 481. 45 E.H. Pagels, Beyond Belief (New York: Random House, 2003), 58, 38. 46 Riley, Resurrection, 79; DeConick, Voices, 73. E.E. Popkes also argues that the critical statements about Thomas in the FG, and his positive portrayal in the Gos. Thom., indicates a conflict. On this basis, he questions whether the Gos. Thom. was influenced by the FG, since it is difficult to understand how this criticized disciple of the FG was then promoted as the sole guarantor of the tradition in the Gos. Thom. (E.E. Popkes, “About the Differing Approach to a Theological Heritage,” in J.H. Charlesworth, ed., The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), 3:296). However, Thomas is redeemed in the FG (John 20:28), and Judas, Peter, and Philip are all criticized to some degree in the FG, but were promoted (at least to the level of having a gospel attributed to them) in the extra-canonical gospels. 43

6.3. The Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel

93

verbs is much more scathing (John 14:9). This has led Dunderberg to muse: Should we, then, posit early Christian groups behind all other followers of Jesus rebuked by him? If the characters of the Johannine story are representatives of communities, should we assume that Johannine Christians were in conflict not only with Thomasine Christians, but also with ‘Philip Christians’ . . . ?47

The community-conflict thesis has also failed to address the significance of Thomas’ redemption in the narrative. C.W. Skinner contends that Thomas, like Peter, is portrayed in a more positive light as the narrative progresses, and that the most “exalted christological confession in the narrative” belongs to Thomas (John 20:28).48 6.3.3.3. Analysis of the Community-Conflict Thesis The community-conflict thesis has attempted to analyze the relationship between the Gos. Thom. and FG, but a priori assumptions and questionable interpretations have undermined its ability to define this relationship. Firstly, the thesis assumes that the FG is a reaction to Thomasine traditions or the Gos. Thom.,49 but the argument is easily reversed—the Gos. Thom. could be a reaction to Johannine traditions or the FG. Secondly, none of the proposed arguments necessitates a dialogue between the communities before the gospels were written.50 If the pre-gospel Johannine and Thomasine interpretations of the temple saying are exactly the same as those presented in the FG and Gos. Thom.,51 it is just as likely that §71 is a reaction to John 2:19–21 or vice versa. Thirdly, this thesis relies too heavily on a ‘two-level drama’ reading of the FG.52 E.W. Klink has questioned J.L. Martyn’s reading, since it is “neither confirmed by his historical reconstruction nor made explicit by the narrative” and it “has distorted both the genre of the Gospel and how the first-century readers would have read the FG.”53 Lastly, Riley, DeConick, and Pagels rarely analyze the parallels between the Gos. Thom. and FG, but emphasize the general differences in ideology and theology. If the analysis operates at this level, then it is difficult to argue that the Johannine community is 47

Dunderberg, Beloved, 66. See also Skinner, John, 76. Skinner, John, 77. 49 See DeConick, Voices, 85; Riley, Resurrection, 178; Pagels, Beyond, 58. 50 Kazen, “Sectarian,” 567. 51 Riley, Resurrection, 155–156. 52 J.L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1979). Followed by Riley, Resurrection, 73, 82; DeConick, Voices, 23–25; Pagels, Beyond, 63–64. 53 E.W. Klink III, The Sheep of the Fold (Cambridge: University Press, 2007), 151, 119. 48

94

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Thomas

reacting to the Thomasine community, instead of the communities responsible for other works with similar traditions, such as the Trim. Prot. and Odes Sol. Perhaps these scholars have attempted to avoid the banal methodology and conflicting conclusions of earlier studies, but it is these studies that have focused on the literary connections between the works that are the most valuable for determining the relationship between the Gos. Thom. and FG. 6.3.4. Parallels between the Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel 6.3.4.1. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel P.Oxy. 654.3–5 || Gos. Thom. §1.2 kai. ei=pen\ @o]j a'n th.n e`rmhnei,#an tw/n lo,gwn tou,t@wn eu[rh|( qana,tou# ouv mh. geu,shtai) ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲁϩⲉ ⲉⲑⲉⲣⲙⲏⲛⲉⲓⲁ ⲛ︦ⲛⲉⲉⲓϣⲁϫⲉ ϥⲛⲁϫⲓϯⲡⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲙ̅ⲡⲙⲟⲩ

John 8:52e eva,n tij to.n lo,gon mou thrh,sh|( ouv mh. geu,shtai qana,tou eivj to.n aivw/naÅ ϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁϩⲁⲣⲉϩ ⲉⲡⲁϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛϥ̅ⲛⲁϫⲓϯⲡⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲙ̅ⲡⲙⲟⲩ ϣⲁ ⲉⲛⲉϩ

The most significant verbal parallel in these passages is the phrase ‘not taste death.’ In §1, Jesus is presumably the speaker, while in John 8:52, it is the Jews’ reiteration of Jesus’ statement in 8:51, qa,naton ouv mh. qewrh,sh|. ‘Taste death’ appears to be a relatively common euphemism for dying, 54 however, §1 and John 8:52 are unique in that the soteriological promise—‘not taste death’—is associated with the word(s) of Jesus. S.R. Johnson has argued that the FG is dependent on the Gos. Thom. for this saying and the placement of Jesus’ words from §1 into the mouth of the Jews in 8:52 is a purposeful denigration of the Thomasine community. His primary argument for the FG being dependent on the Gos. Thom. is a negative assessment of the Gos. Thom. being dependent on the FG: “If there was a choice of using John 8:51 or 8:52, it does not make sense for Thomas to have used the version of Jesus’ opponents as Jesus’ own.”55 Yet it does make sense for the Gos. Thom. to use ‘taste death’ from John 8:52 instead of ‘see death’ from 8:51, since the former is the author’s preferred idiom (§§1, 18, 19, 85(r)), while the latter only occurs once (§111). Furthermore, if John 8:51–52 was dependent on §1, it is difficult to explain why the evangelist altered ‘these words’ from §1 to ‘my word,’ since Jesus 54 Matt 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27; Heb 2:9; 4 Esdras 4:6; Gos. Eg. III 66.7–8, IV 78.9–10. For rabbinic references, see B.D. Chilton, “Not to Taste Death,” StudBib 2 (1978): 29–36. 55 S.R. Johnson, “The Gospel of Thomas 76.3 and Canonical Parallels,” in Turner – McGuire, Nag Hammadi, 323.

6.3. The Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel

95

is not averse to speaking of ‘my words’ (5x) or ‘my word’ (8x) in the FG.56 It is more plausible that the Gos. Thom. was influenced by John 8:52 and altered it to align with the author’s idiom and purpose—the Gos. Thom. never refers to Jesus’ ‘word,’ but always his ‘words’ (Prol., §§1, 13 (twice), 19, 38), and the placement of this phrase at the beginning of the work serves as an introductory, soteriological blessing to those who find the interpretation of Jesus’ ‘words’ included in the following collection of Sayings. P.Oxy. 655 ii.8–11 || Gos. Thom. §38.2 ka@i. evleu,sontai# h`m@e,rai o[te zhth,#se@te, me kai. ouv mh. eu`rh,sete, me#) ⲟⲩⲛ︦ ϩⲛ︦ϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲁϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ϣⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ︦ⲥⲱⲉⲓ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁϩⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲣⲟⲉⲓ

John 7:34a zhth,sete, me kai. ouvc eu`rh,sete, ÎmeÐ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁϣⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ︦ⲥⲱⲓ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲧⲙ︦ϩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ.

There is a more significant verbal parallel between §38 and John 7:34. In §38.1, Jesus indicates that he is the only revealer—‘Many times you have desired to hear these words of mine that I am saying to you, and you have no one else to hear them from,’ and §38.2 indicates that his revelation is only temporary since it will become inaccessible in future days. This theme of temporary access to Jesus is evident in §59, whereby this access is confined by one’s mortality. However, the inability to find Jesus during one’s life is somewhat surprising since seeking is usually associated with finding in the Gos. Thom. (§§2, 92, 94). If ‘you will seek me and not find me’ is addressed to the disciples in §38, it appears quite foreign to the context of the Gos. Thom. where the usual affirmation is that the disciples will succeed in their quest. In John 7:34, the chief priests, Pharisees, and officers are present, but the main dialogue partner is the Jews (7:36). Jesus warns those who seek to seize him that their access to him is temporary. The statement, ‘You will seek me and not find me,’ is an invective against the Jews because ‘where I am you cannot come’ (7:34)—a statement that is also directed towards the disciples in John 13:33. It is difficult to explain how this statement is first applied to the Jews in 7:34 and then the disciples in 13:33 if the FG was influenced by §38. It is more likely that the Johannine invective against the Jews in John 7:34 has been redirected towards the disciples in

56 Jesus refers to ‘my words’ in John 5:47; 12:47–48; 14:24; 15:7; ‘my word’ in 5:24; 8:31, 37, 43, 51, 52; 14:23; 15:20. It may be argued that the FG altered ‘words’ to ‘word’ to align with the author’s preference for the singular, although the FG seems to alternate between ‘keep my word’ and ‘keep my words’ with no significant difference in meaning (John 14:23–24).

96

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Thomas

§38 (as also in §43), in order to emphasize the importance of Jesus’ words at this present time.57 Gos. Thom. §43.1–3 1 ⲡⲉϫⲁⲩ ⲛⲁϥ ⲛ︦ϭⲓ ⲛⲉϥⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ϫⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲕ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲕϫⲱ ⲛ︦ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ⲛⲁⲛ 2 ϩⲛ︦ ⲛⲉϯϫⲱ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲩ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲉⲓⲙⲉ ⲁⲛ ϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲛⲓⲙ 3 ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲛ︦ⲧⲱⲧⲛ︦ ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛ︦ⲑⲉ ⲛ︦ⲛⲓⲓ̈ⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲥⲉⲙⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡϣⲏⲛ ⲥⲉⲙⲟⲥⲧⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲉϥⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲥⲉⲙⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ⲥⲉⲙⲟⲥⲧⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡϣⲏⲛ 1 His disciples said to him, “Who are you, that you should say these things to us?” 2 “You do not know who I am from what I say to you, 3 but you have become like the Jews, because they love the tree and hate its fruit, or they love the fruit and hate the tree.

John 8:25–27 25 ⲛⲉⲩϫⲱ ϭⲉ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲁϥ ⲡⲉ. ϫⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲟⲕ ⲛ︦ⲧⲕ︦ ⲛⲓⲙ. ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓⲥ︦ ⲛⲁⲩ. ϫⲉ ϫⲓⲛ ⲛ︦ϣⲟⲣⲡ︦ ϯϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲙ︦ⲙⲏⲧⲛ︦. 26 ⲉⲩⲛ︦ϯ ϩⲁϩ ⲉϫⲱ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︦ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲕⲣⲓⲛⲉ. ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲟⲩⲙⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲧⲁⲩⲟⲓ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲁⲓⲥⲟⲧⲙⲟⲩ ⲛ︦ⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ︦ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉϯϫⲱ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ. 27 ⲙ︦ⲡⲟⲩⲉⲓⲙⲉ ϫⲉ ⲉϥϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ. 25 e;legon ou=n auvtw/|\ su. ti,j ei=È ei=pen auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\ th.n avrch.n o[ ti kai. lalw/ u`mi/nÈ 26 polla. e;cw peri. u`mw/n lalei/n kai. kri,nein( avllV o` pe,myaj me avlhqh,j evstin( kavgw. a] h;kousa parV auvtou/ tau/ta lalw/ eivj to.n ko,smonÅ 27 ouvk e;gnwsan o[ti to.n pate,ra auvtoi/j e;legenÅ

The verbal and thematic overlap between these pericopae—the question ‘Who are you?,’ Jesus’ response which indicates that his identity is revealed by the ‘things that I say,’ the fact that they ‘did not know,’ and the negative characterization of the Jews—suggests that the misunderstanding of the Jews (oi` VIoudai/oi) in John 8:25–27 may have been applied to the disciples in §43. The mention of ‘the Jews’ in §43.3 is somewhat surprising—the term VIoudai/oj is rare in the NHL (Tri. Tract. 112.21; Gos. Phil. 75.33), and their negative characterization in the Gos. Thom. coincides with their typology in the FG (John 6:41, 52; 8:48, 52– 53). Koester contends that John 8:12–59 is dependent on a controversy source (preserved in the EG or a similar written source), and a traditional sayings source that was also used by Gos. Thom., Dial. Sav., and Ap. Jas.58 Koester attributes John 8:25–26a to the traditional sayings sources instead of the controversy source in order to preserve his thesis, but this is surely

57 H.W. Attridge argues that John 7:34 “is a specific Johannine redaction of a traditional sapiential antithesis,” therefore, “Gos. Thom. 38 is derivative from the Fourth Gospel” (H.W. Attridge, “‘Seeking’ and ‘Asking’ in Q, Thomas, and John,” in J.M. Asgeirson et al., eds., From Quest to Q (Leuven: University Press, 2000), 298, 300). 58 Koester, “Gnostic Sayings,” 104–106.

6.3. The Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel

97

incorrect—John 8:25–27 clearly relates to the controversy with the Jews.59 Instead of arguing that both works were dependent on a common source, it is more plausible that §43 was influenced by John 8:25–27 since the FG appears to be the earliest Christian work to consistently employ a negative characterization of the Jews.60 Gos. Thom. §77.1-3 1 ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓ︦ⲥ︦ ϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲡⲁⲉⲓ ⲉⲧϩⲓϫⲱⲟⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁ ⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ ⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁ ⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ ⲡⲱϩ ϣⲁⲣⲟⲉⲓ 2 (Coptic) ⲡⲱϩ ⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲩϣⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϯⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲩ 3 ϥⲓ ⲙ︦ⲡⲱⲛⲉ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁϩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲉⲓ ⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲩ 1 Jesus said, “I am the light which is above all things. I am the all. The all came forth from me and to me the all has come. 2 (Coptic) Split a piece of wood, and I am there. 3 Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.

John 8:12b ϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲙ︦ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ.

evgw, eivmi to. fw/j tou/ ko,smou

The association of a divine figure with light is a pervasive theme in ancient literature. In the NHL, ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ also occurs in Trim. Prot. 47.29–30, Ap. John II 30.33–34, and Paraph. Shem 10.21–22, but the phrase is not explicitly attributed to Jesus.61 Saying 77.1 and John 8:12 are distinctive in that it is Jesus who uses the self-predication to refer to himself as ‘the light.’ The primary difference between these phrases is that Jesus indicates, ‘I am the light that is above all things (ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ)’ in §77.1, 59 Dunderberg, Beloved, 111–112. However, Dunderberg and DeConick both conclude that the minimal amount of verbal overlap does not indicate dependence. See ibid. and DeConick, Original, 165. 60 Although P.J. Tomson fails to address §43 in his evaluations of the Gos. Thom., he proposes that Acts John, Gos. Pet., and Gos. Phil. extend the trajectory of the FG (P.J. Tomson, “‘Jews’ in the Gospel of John as Compared with the Palestinian Talmud, the Synoptics, and Some New Testament Apocrypha” in R. Bieringer et al., eds., AntiJudaism and the Fourth Gospel (London: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 176–212. 61 The phrase ‘I am the light’ is attributed to ‘the word (ⲡ̣[ⲗⲟⲅ]ⲟ̣ⲥ)’ in Trim. Prot. 46.5; ‘the perfect Pronoia of the all’ in Ap. John II 30.12; and Derdekeas in Paraph. Shem 1.4. E.E. Popkes suggests that both §77 and the Ap. John may have been dependent on John 8:12 for this phrase, and J.D Turner has argued that this section of Trim. Prot. is a later addition that has been Christianized “particularly by means of Johannine language” (E.E. Popkes, „,Ich bin das Licht‘ – Erwägungen zur Verhältnisbestimmung des Thomasevangeliums und der johanneischen Schriften anhand der Lichtmetaphorik,“ in J. Frey – U. Schnelle, eds., Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 667–669; J.D. Turner, “Introduction NHC XIII,I* Trimorphic Protennoia,” in C.W. Hedrick, ed., Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII (Brill: Leiden, 1990), 385–386, 393–395.

98

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Thomas

while he is the light of the ‘world’ (ko,smoj) in John 8:12. The interpretation of ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ partially depends on the interpretation of ⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ. Some scholars have suggested that ⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ in the Gos. Thom. (§§2 (Coptic), 67, 77) may refer to creation, the light substance that Jesus and the elect both possess, or simply everything. 62 It is difficult to decide (or differentiate) between these options, but §77.2–3 and the similar sayings in P.Oxy. 1.27–30 confirm Jesus’ omnipresence, and the materials ‘wood’ and ‘stone’ specify his presence in creation.63 If ⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ refers to the material world, then it is possible that ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ also refers to these same things. In this case, the Gos. Thom. may have interpreted the ‘world’ in John 8:12 as a reference to the created world,64 and substituted this term with ‘which is above all things’ in order to show the supremacy of Jesus, as well as to dissociate him from the overtly negative depiction of the ko,smoj in the Gos. Thom.65 Dunderberg has suggested that the closest parallels to §77 are found in the Pauline epistles (1 Cor 8:6; Rom 11:36; Col 1:16), not the FG, since “a lack of close verbal parallels speaks against a literary relationship between the two gospels.”66 This acknowledges the theological similarities with the Pauline works, but it does not account for the verbal parallel ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ 62

See A.H.B. Logan, “The Meaning of the Term, ‘the All’, in Gnostic Thought,” in E. Livingstone, ed., Studia Patristica 14 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1976), 205–207; A. Marjanen, “Is Thomas a Gnostic Gospel?”, in R. Uro, ed., Thomas at the Crossroads (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 107–139. 63 T. Onuki „Das Logion 77 des koptischen Thomasevangeliums und der gnostische Animismus,“ in J. Frey et al., eds., Das Thomasevangelium (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 294–317; Plisch, Thomas, 182–183; Koester, Ancient, 117–118; R. Valantasis, The Gospel of Thomas (London: Routledge, 1997), 156; A.D. DeConick, Seek to See Him (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 21–23; Pagels, “Exegesis,” 483–484; Davies, Thomas, 54. W.E. Crum also notes how “the all” (ⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ) refers to “the whole, all (creation)” (W.E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939), 424a). 64 The use of ‘world’ in John 8:12 is not on obvious reference to creation, yet all things (pa,nta) in John 1:3 is paralleled with the world (ko,smoj) in that both diV auvtou/ evge,neto (John 1:10). Hippolytus’ interpretation of John 1:3 is similar to §77, in that he associates the Word with ‘the All’ and creation: ‘And all things (pa,nta) were in Him, and He was the All (to. pa/n) . . . he showed forth his Word, through whom he made all things (ta. pa,nta)’ (Noet. 10). The theological parallel between §77a and John 1:3 does not necessitate some measure of influence, but it affirms that the Gos. Thom. may have interpreted the ‘world’ in John 8:12 as a reference to the created world. 65 Although the ko,smoj may be a neutral, material realm in the Gos. Thom. (possibly §§10, 16, 24, 51), it is surely a negative, spiritual realm that is to be guarded against (§21), fasted from (§27), full of intoxicated, blind, and empty people (§28), a corpse (§56), a body which is not worthy of the elect (§§80, 111), and to be renounced (§110). This does not imply that creation itself is necessarily evil; the ‘earth’ (ⲕⲁϩ) is either a neutral (§§3 (Greek), 9, 14, 20, 44, 91, 111) or positive realm (§§12, 113). 66 Dunderberg, Beloved, 108.

6.3. The Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel

99

ⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ. The correlation of Jesus with the light is a pervasive theme throughout the FG, which also makes it difficult to argue that John 8:12 was influenced by §77.1.67 6.3.4.2. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel Prologue The evangelist is identified as ⲇⲓⲇⲩⲙⲟⲥ ⲓ̈ⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ ⲑⲱⲙⲁⲥ in the Coptic prologue, while he is named @VIou,da o`# kai. Qwma/ in the reconstructed text of P.Oxy. 654.2–3. ‘Judas not Iscariot’ from John 14:22 is identified as ‘Thomas’ (sys) and ‘Judas Thomas’ (syc), which may have influenced the Greek prologue, although the double-name ‘Judas Thomas’ appears to be an early Syrian tradition that cannot necessarily be traced back to the FG.68 Thomas is identified as Qwma/j o` lego,menoj Di,dumoj three times in the FG (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), so it is possible that the Coptic prologue was influenced by the Johannine double-name ‘Thomas Didymos’ and the Syrian double-name ‘Judas Thomas.’69 §§3, 50 The phrase ‘living Father (ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ)’ occurs in §3 (P.Oxy. 654.19 tou/ patro.j tou/ ẓ@w/ntoj#) and §50; the only NT occurrence of this phrase is John 6:57 (o` zw/n path.r || ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ︦). §12 The disciples declare, ‘We know (ⲧⲛ︦ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ) that you will depart (ⲕⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ) from us,’ which contrasts with Thomas’ claim in John 14:5, ‘Lord, we do not know (oi;damen || ⲛ︦ⲧⲛ︦ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ︦) where you are going (pou/ u`pa,geij || ⲉⲕⲛⲁ ⲉⲧⲱⲛ).’ If the Greek Vorlage of §12 used both oi;damen and u`pa,geij,70 then it is possible that it was influenced by John 14:5. §13 Jesus tells Thomas, ‘I am not your teacher (ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉⲕⲥⲁϩ ⲁⲛ),’ which contrasts with Jesus’ statement in John 13:13: ‘You call me teacher (dida,skaloj || ⲡⲥⲁϩ) and Lord. And you say it well, for I am (eivmi. ga,r || ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉ).’71 Saying 13 continues, ‘because you have drunk (ⲁⲕⲥⲱ), you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring (ⲧⲡⲏⲅⲏ ⲉⲧⲃⲣ︦ⲃⲣⲉ) which I have measured out.’ The theme of ‘drinking’ from the ‘bubbling spring’ is also found in John 4:14: ‘Whoever drinks (pi,h| || ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲥⲱ) from the water that I will give to him will never thirst, but the water that I will give to him will become in him a spring (phghv) of water springing up 67

John 1:4–5, 7–9; 3:19–21; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9–10; 12:35–36, 46. Thom. Cont. (138.2, 142.7–8); Acts Thom.; the Abgar correspondence in Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 1.13.10). For the traditional usage of this name, see J.J. Gunther, “The Meaning and Origin of the Name ‘Judas Thomas’,” Mus 93 (1980): 113–148. 69 P.-H. Poirier, “The Writings Ascribed to Thomas and the Thomas Tradition,” in Turner – McGuire, Nag Hammadi, 301. 70 Plisch, Thomas, 60. 71 The denigration of the role of the teacher in the teacher/disciple relationship is also evident in Luke 6:40//Matt 10:24–25, which may be closer in meaning to §13. 68

100

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Thomas

(a`llome,nou || ⲉϥϥⲱϭⲉ) to eternal life.’72 Despite the common theme, the different terminology for a ‘bubbling’ (ⲃⲣ︦ⲃⲣ︦) spring and a spring that ‘springs up’ (ϥⲱϭⲉ) undermines the strength of this parallel. §19 The theme of pre-existence is evident in §19.1, ‘Blessed is he who came into being (ⲛⲧⲁϩϣⲱⲡⲉ) before he came into being (ⲉⲙⲡⲁⲧⲉϥϣⲱⲡⲉ),’ and John 8:58, ‘Before Abraham came into being (gene,sqai || ϣⲱⲡⲉ), I am (evgw. eivmi, || ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϯϣⲟⲟⲡ).’ The verbal overlap is primarily with the double use of ϣⲱⲡⲉ in the Coptic translations of both pericopae and the reference to a time before existence, which, if referring to Jesus in §19, is also a thematic similarity. 73 In §19.2, Jesus states, ‘If you become (ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ϣⲁⲛϣⲱⲡⲉ) my disciples (ⲛⲁⲉⲓ ⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ) and listen to my words (ⲁⲛⲁϣⲁϫⲉ), these stones will minister to you,’ which has verbal overlap with John 8:31, ‘If you abide (eva.n u`mei/j mei,nhte || ⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲱⲧⲛ︦ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ϣⲁⲛϭⲱ) in my word (tw/| lo,gw| tw/| evmw/| || ⲡⲁϣⲁϫⲉ), truly you are my disciples (maqhtai, mou || ⲛⲁⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ).’ Koester suggests that §19.2 preserves “a more original form” of the traditional saying and John 8:31 has replaced ‘listen’ (ⲥⲱⲧⲙ︦) with the Johannine term ‘abide’ (me,nw || ϭⲱ).74 However, the opposite argument could also be made since the Gos. Thom. never refers to ‘abiding’ (ϭⲱ) in Jesus’ words,75 but it does refer to ‘listening’ (ⲥⲱⲧⲙ︦) to the words of Jesus (§38) and the Father (§79). §24 Jesus responds to a question from the disciples, ‘There is light within a man of light, and he/it gives light to the whole world (ϥⲣ︦ ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲉⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲧⲏⲣϥ). If he/it does not shine, he/it is darkness (ⲟⲩⲕⲁⲕⲉ).’ The potential parallel with the FG depends on the interpretation of §24. If Jesus is the ‘man of light’ who ‘gives light to the whole world,’ then if he (Jesus) does not shine, it (the world) is in darkness. This interpretation is similar to §77a and has verbal parallels with John 8:12—‘I am the light of the world (ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲙ︦ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ). The one who follows me shall not walk in darkness (ⲡⲕⲁⲕⲉ).’ If the Thomasine Christian is the ‘man of light’ who ‘gives light to the whole world,’ then if he (the Thomasine Christian) does not shine, he and/or the world is in darkness.76 This interpretation is similar to §67 and has parallels with Matt 6:22–23//Luke 11:34–36, as well as possibly John 11:10; 12:35. §28 (P.Oxy. 1v.11–14) Jesus says, ‘I stood in the midst of the world and I appeared to them in the flesh (sarki. w;fqhn auvtoi/j || ⲁⲉⲓⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛⲁⲩ 72

See also John 7:37–39; Odes 11, 30; Gos. Sav. 83, 19H. See also Gos. Phil. 64.9–12; Irenaeus, Epid. 43; Lactantius, Inst. 4.8. 74 Koester, Ancient, 115–116. 75 ϭⲱ only occurs in §6, and §79 refers to ‘keeping’ (ϩⲁⲣⲉϩ) the word of the Father. 76 Plisch, Thomas, 89–90.

73

6.3. The Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel

101

ϩⲛ︦ ⲥⲁⲣⲝ).’ This has a minimal conceptual parallel with John 1:14; ‘The word became flesh (sa.rx evge,neto || ⲁϥⲣ︦ⲥⲁⲣⲝ︦) and dwelt among us.’ Both pericopae indicate the fleshly appearance of Jesus in the earthly realm, but this is surely not unique to these works.77 §37 (P.Oxy. 655 i.17–21) Jesus’ disciples question him, ‘When will you become revealed to us (po,te h`mei/n evmfanh.j e;sei || ⲁϣ ⲛ︦ϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲕⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛⲁⲛ) and when will we see you (kai. po,te se ovyo,meqa || ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁϣ ⲛ︦ϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲛⲁⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ)?’ In John 14:22, Judas (not Iscariot) asks, ‘What has happened that you are going to reveal yourself to us (h`mi/n me,lleij evmfani,zein seauto.n || ⲕⲛⲁⲟⲩⲟⲛϩⲕ︦ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) and not to the world?’ The disciples also question Jesus’ claim in John 16:17, ‘A little while and you will not see me, and a little while more you will see me (o;yesqe, me || ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ)?’ In these pericopae, the disciples question Jesus about his ‘revealing’ and their ‘seeing’ him, but the primary difference is that §37 is concerned with its timing, while the FG is concerned with its circumstances. §91 The disciples (?) demand, ‘Tell us who you are (ⲛ︦ⲧⲕ ⲛⲓⲙ) so that we may believe in you (ϣⲓⲛⲁ ⲉⲛⲁⲣ︦ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ).’ The first clause may reflect another example (see §43 above) of the Jews’ question asked in John 8:25 (su. ti,j ei= || ⲛ︦ⲧⲟⲕ ⲛ︦ⲧⲕ︦ ⲛⲓⲙ), while the second clause is similar to that posed by the crowds in John 6:30, ‘What sign do you do so that we may see and believe in you (i[na i;dwmen kai. pisteu,swme,n soi || ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲛⲉⲛⲁⲩ ⲛ︦ⲧⲙ︦ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ)?’ §92.2 Jesus states, ‘The things that you asked me (ⲛⲉⲧⲁⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ϫⲛⲟⲩⲉⲓ) in those days, I did not tell you (ⲉⲙ︦ⲡⲓϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦) then, but now (ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ) I desire to tell them, but you do not seek after them.’ This has verbal and thematic similarities with Jesus’ statement in John 16:4–5, ‘I did not tell you these things (tau/ta lela,lhka u`mi/n || ⲛⲁⲓ ⲁⲓϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦) from the beginning because I was with you. But now (nu/n || ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ) I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you is asking me (u`mw/n evrwta/| me || ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︦ ϫⲛⲟⲩ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲓ), “Where are you going?”’ Both pericopae are concerned with the timing of hearing Jesus’ words. In §92, Jesus desires to answer the previously unanswered questions of the disciples, yet they do not seek after the answer now. In John 16:4–5 Jesus desires to tell the disciples about his departure, which implies their previous questions in 13:36 and 14:5, yet they do not ask the question now. What is implicit in

77

Specifically, 1 Tim 3:16 describes Jesus as the one who ‘appeared in flesh (evfanerw,qh evn sarki, || ⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ︦ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ︦ ⲧⲥⲁⲣⲝ︦).’

102

Chapter 6: The Gospel of Thomas

John 16:4–5 appears explicit in §92—the disciples do not know these ‘things’ because they have failed to ask/seek at the appropriate time.78

6.4. Conclusion The methodology of the community-conflict thesis has been addressed above, yet there appears to be little textual evidence to substantiate this theory. Multiple sayings that are supposed to reveal the conflict (Prologue, §12, and §37) only exhibit a possible degree of influence from the FG, and this minimal evidence does not necessitate an inter-community dialogue or dispute.79 Brown has observed that many of the parallels with the Gos. Thom. are concentrated in the discourse at the end of the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:37–8:56).80 This is confirmed by most of the Sayings that exhibit plausible influence from the FG (§1//John 8:52; §38//7:34; §43//8:25–27; §77//8:12), along with three Sayings with a possible influence from the FG (§19.1–2//8:58, 31; §24//8:12; §91//8:25).81 Brown also suggests that the “discourse at Tabernacles represents a polemic collection of what Jesus said in replies to attacks by the Jewish authorities on his claims.”82 Koester acknowledges Brown’s claim, but he argues that “John is here discussing a tradition of sayings which proclaim salvation that is based upon the knowledge of one’s origin.”83 What Koester is suggesting is that the original tradition of sayings had an anthropocentric focus that was preserved by the Gos. Thom. and transformed by the FG in a Christocentric direction. Not only is there no extant evidence to support this claim, but Heracleon’s commentary suggests the opposite and reveals how the FG can

78 Grant – Freedman, Secret, 186, call this saying in §92b a “garbled” version of John 16:4–5, and Plisch notes that it has a “Johannine style” (Plisch, Thomas, 206). 79 Riley also notes the thematic similarities between §71 and John 2:19, but this Saying was not examined because of the paucity of verbal similarities between the pericopae. 80 Brown, “Thomas,” 175–176. He also notes parallels with the Farewell Discourses (John 14:1-17:26), but these are not as strong. 81 It is interesting that DeConick does not attribute the Sayings that have a plausible measure of influence from the FG to the “kernel gospel” of the Gos. Thom. She dates the “kernel gospel” to 30–50 CE, but considers §38b and §43 to be later accretions from 60– 100 CE, and §1 and §77 to be the latest accretions from 80–120 CE. See DeConick, Recovering, 98. 82 Brown, John, 1:315. 83 Koester, Ancient, 122.

6.4. Conclusion

103

be interpreted in an anthropocentric direction.84 It is difficult to determine why the plausible parallels are concentrated in the Feast of Tabernacles discourse, but it is doubtful that this is the result of dependence on two common sources (Koester’s traditional sayings source and conflict source), since Gos. Phil. §110a is probably influenced by John 8:32 (from Koester’s traditional sayings source) and 8:34 (from Koester’s conflict source).85 It is also doubtful that the FG was influenced by the Gos. Thom. for these parallels, since many of the differences can be explained as an adaptation to the preferred idiom of the Gos. Thom. The four Sayings that exhibit plausible influence and the eleven Sayings that exhibit possible influence from the FG indicate that, along with Matt and Luke (and perhaps other NT writings),86 it is plausible that the Gos. Thom. was influenced by the FG. It is impossible to determine the means by which the canonical gospels influenced the Gos. Thom., but multiple, short parallels may indicate that the canonical gospels influenced the Gos. Thom. by means of secondary orality—through the reading of Matt, Luke, and the FG in Christian assemblies, Matthean, Lukan, and Johannine details about the life and/or teachings of Jesus entered into the Christian discourse and shaped the traditions or sources used by the author of the Gos. Thom.87

84

See P. Létourneau, «Traditions johanniques dans Le Dialogue du Sauveur (NH III, 5),» Mus 110 (1997): 59–60; E. Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 117–118. 85 Koester, “Gnostic Sayings,” 104. R. Nordsieck and Valantasis are more impressed by the differences between the FG and Gos. Thom. and they also suggest that both works were composed in a common milieu and dependent on common traditions, but they do not adequately explain the unique similarities between the FG and §§1, 38, 43, 77 (R. Nordsieck, Das Thomas-Evangelium: Einleitung – Zur Frage des historischen Jesus – Kommentierung aller 114 Logien (Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006), 37, 166, 180, 298; Valantasis, Thomas, 54, 114, 118, 155). 86 Gathercole, Composition, 227–262. 87 Gathercole concludes that Matt and Luke may have influenced the Gos. Thom. by means of secondary orality (Ibid., 269).

Chapter 7

The Gospel of Philip (NHC II,3) 7.1. Introduction The Gospel of Philip (Gos. Phil.) is one of the most enigmatic works examined in this study. There are multiple questions surrounding its genre, as well as its structural and theological coherence.1 H.-M. Schenke first described this work as a „Florilegium“ and divided it into 127 sayings that are occasionally connected by catchwords,2 while L. Painchaud has argued that inclusios divide the work into six discernible sections that address particular themes.3 The presence of teachings that appear contradictory may indicate dependence on sources with divergent theologies,4 although most scholars agree that the theology of the Gos. Phil. is generally Valentinian, even if it is a unique form of Valentinianism.5 Our view of the author, structure, and theology of the Gos. Phil. clearly influences our interpretation of the work. While this study does not attempt to resolve these issues, the following interpretations of the Gos. Phil. presuppose that 1 See G.L. Borchert, “An Analysis of the Literary Arrangements and Theological Views in the Coptic Gospel of Philip” (Diss., Princeton Theology Seminary, 1967); M.L. Turner, The Gospel according to Philip (Leiden: Brill, 1996). These topics are consistently addressed in significant publications on the Gos. Phil., most recently by H. Lundhaug, Images of Rebirth (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 155–162. 2 H.-M. Schenke, „Das Evangelium nach Philippus,“ in J. Leipoldt – H.-M. Schenke, Koptisch-gnostische Schriften aus den Papyrus-Codices von Nag-Hamadi (Hamburg: Herbert Reich, 1960), 33. The enumeration of sayings in this chapter follows H.-M. Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium (Nag-Hammadi-Codex II,3) (Berlin: AkademieVerlag), 1997. 3 L. Painchaud, «La Composition de l’Évangile selon Philippe (NH II,3),» SBLSP 35 (1996): 50. 4 B. Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures (London: SCM Press, 1987), 326; I. Dunderberg, “The School of Valentinus,” in A. Marjanen – P. Luomanen, eds., A Companion to Second-Century ‘Heretics,’ (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 88. 5 See Turner, Philip, 184; E. Thomassen, “How Valentinian is the Gospel of Philip?,” in Turner – McGuire, Nag Hammadi, 279; I. Dunderberg, “Valentinian Views about Adam’s Creation,” in A. Mustakallio et al., eds., Lux Humana, Lux Aeterna (Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society, 2005), 525; Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 8; B. van Os, “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber: The Gospel of Philip as a Valentinian Baptismal Instruction,” Diss., Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (2007), 192–196.

7.2. The Gospel of Philip and the Fourth Gospel

105

the person responsible for this work was an editor/author who combined various sayings and traditions to produce a relatively coherent theological work that has similarities with Valentinianism. The work was likely composed in Greek by the end of the second century CE. 6

7.2. The Gospel of Philip and the Fourth Gospel There is a widespread scholarly consensus that the Gos. Phil. was influenced by the canonical gospels, specifically Matt and the FG.7 G. Röhl and T. Nagel have each examined the reception of the FG in the Gos. Phil., and both concluded that the Gos. Phil. was influenced by the FG.8 They acknowledge that the Gos. Phil. used the FG to support its own theological propositions, but little attention is given to exploring how the author used and interpreted the FG. The structural and theological coherence of the Gos. Phil. is at many times unclear, but this chapter will elucidate (when possible) how the author used and interpreted the FG, and compare that usage to other interpretations of the FG in early Christian literature.

6 R. McL. Wilson, The Gospel of Philip (London: A.R. Mowbray, 1960), 3; J.É. Ménard, L’Évangile selon Philippe (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1967), 35; H.-G. Gaffron, Studien zum koptischen Philippusevangelium unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sakramente (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1969), 70; Röhl, Rezeption, 145; Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 5; Nagel, Rezeption, 394–396. However, W.W. Isenberg has suggested that it was composed in “the second half of the third century CE” (W.W. Isenberg, “The Gospel of Philip,” in B. Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2–7 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 1:134–135). This chapter uses Isenberg’s transcription of the Gos. Phil. 7 R.M. Grant, “Two Gnostic Gospels,” JBL 79 (1960): 4–9; Wilson, Philip, 7; “The New Testament in the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Philip,” NTS 9 (1963): 291–294; Ménard, Philippe, 29–36; Gaffron, Philippusevangelium, 32–54; C.M. Tuckett, “Synoptic Tradition in Some Nag Hammadi and Related Texts,” VC 36 (1982): 173–178; E. Segelberg, “The Gospel of Philip and the New Testament,” in A.H.B. Logan – A.J.M. Wedderburn, eds., The New Testament and Gnosis (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983), 204– 212; W.J. Stroud, “New Testament Quotations in the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Philip,” SBLSP 29 (1990): 68–81; Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, throughout. It is noteworthy that no one has argued that the Gos. Phil. is independent from the canonical gospels. 8 Röhl, Rezeption, 131–163; Nagel, Rezeption, 394–407.

106

Chapter 7: The Gospel of Philip

7.2.1. Probable Influence of the Fourth Gospel 7.2.1.1. Flesh and Blood (§23b) §23b (57.3–5)

ⲇⲓⲁ ⲧⲟⲩⲧⲟ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲁⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲁⲛ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲥⲁⲣⲝ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ︦ϥⲥⲱ ⲙ︦ⲡⲁⲥⲛⲟϥ⳿ ⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲁϥ ⲱⲛϩ ϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧϥ︦

Because of this he said, “The one who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood does not have life in him.”

John 6:53b–6:54 53b ϫⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲧⲙ︦ⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲛ︦ⲧⲥⲁⲣⲝ︦ ⲙ︦ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲥⲱ ⲙ︦ⲡⲉϥⲥⲛⲟϥ ⲙ︦ⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲏⲧⲛ︦ ⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲩ ⲙ︦ⲡⲱⲛϩ︦ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︦. 54 ⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲥⲁⲣⲝ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧⲥⲱ ⲙ︦ⲡⲁⲥⲛⲟϥ. ⲟⲩⲛ︦ⲧⲁϥ ⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲩ ⲙ︦ⲡⲱⲛϩ︦ ϣⲁ ⲉⲛⲉϩ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϯⲛⲁⲧⲟⲩⲛⲟⲥϥ︦ ϩⲙ︦ ⲡϩⲁⲉ ⲛ︦ϩⲟⲟⲩ. 53b eva.n mh. fa,ghte th.n sa,rka tou/ ui`ou/ tou/ avnqrw,pou kai. pi,hte auvtou/ to. ai-ma( ouvk e;cete zwh.n evn e`autoi/j 54 o` trw,gwn mou th.n sa,rka kai. pi,nwn mou to. ai-ma e;cei zwh.n aivw,nion( kavgw. avnasth,sw auvto.n th/| evsca,th| h`me,ra|Å

It is probable that John 6:53–54 influenced Gos. Phil. 57.3–5, and the introduction may indicate that the author is quoting the FG. This saying appears to blend John 6:53–54, where the initial clause, ⲡⲉⲧⲁⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲁⲛ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲥⲁⲣⲝ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ︦ϥⲥⲱ ⲙ︦ⲡⲁⲥⲛⲟϥ⳿, reproduces 6:54 as a negative statement, while the resultant negative clause, ⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲁϥ ⲱⲛϩ ϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧϥ︦, is similar to 6:53.9 The parallel with John 6:53–54 is within a larger argument related to resurrection in the ‘flesh’ (56.26–57.22). The author disagrees with those who claim that human flesh and blood will be resurrected, as well as those who contend that only the indwelling spirit/light will ascend. The former position is rejected with a reference to 1 Cor 15:50, and the latter because the spirit/light is still in the flesh. The author states his own position—it is necessary to be resurrected in the flesh of Jesus which is appropriated through the sacraments—with an appeal to John 6:53–54. Regardless of the authorial intent of the evangelist, John 6:53–54 is interpreted in §23b as a reference to the Eucharist.10 Just as the brokenbread of the ‘Eucharist’ is interpreted as the crucified Jesus (63.21–24),11 9 For the influence of John 6:53/54, see: Wilson, Philip, 87–89; Gaffron, Philippusevangelium, 40–41; Röhl, Rezeption, 150–152; Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 233–235; Nagel, Rezeption, 397–399. 10 It is not apparent that “the quotation from John 6 is interpreted in explicitly nonsacramental terms” (Contra Turner, Philip, 233), rather, the author goes beyond a sacramental interpretation of the Eucharist as only the ‘flesh and blood’ of Jesus (see H. Schmid, Die Eucharistie ist Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 156–205; 171–178). 11 W.C. van Unnik, “Three Notes on the ‘Gospel of Philip,’” NTS 10 (1964): 468–469.

7.2. The Gospel of Philip and the Fourth Gospel

107

and the ‘cup’ is the blood of the perfect man that conveys the Holy Spirit (75.14–21), the ‘food’ and ‘drink’ of the Eucharist is the ‘flesh’ and ‘blood’ of Jesus that conveys the ‘Word (ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ)’ and ‘Holy Spirit.’ A Eucharistic interpretation of John 6:53–54 is unsurprising (Irenaeus, Haer. 5.2.3; Cyprian, Dom. or. 18), yet the author differs from most other interpretations by emphasizing the role of the Word and Holy Spirit in the Eucharist, and claiming that resurrection in the flesh of Jesus is a present reality for the participants. The sacramental system of the Gos. Phil. goes beyond a metaphorical interpretation of the elements since ‘the mysteries of truth’ are revealed in ‘type and image’ (85.20–21; 67.9–11). The water and chrism (§§25, 66, 75), bread and mixed wine (§§23, 53, 100) are interpreted as water and fire, flesh and blood, but their real value is that they convey the heavenly water and fire and light, the Word and Holy Spirit.12 The emphasis on the Word and Holy Spirit conveyed through a Eucharistic interpretation of John 6:53–65 is also found in Clement of Alexandria. After a paraphrase of John 6:53–54 where the flesh and blood is compared to milk and interpreted as nourishment for infants, he provides an alternative interpretation: ‘The flesh figuratively represents (avllhgorei/) to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life’ (Paed. 1.43.2; see also 1.38.2). The association of the flesh with the Holy Spirit and blood with the Word in a Eucharistic interpretation of John 6:53–54 is strikingly similar to the Gos. Phil., except Clement indicates that the flesh and blood are symbolic of the Holy Spirit and Word respectively, whereas the Gos. Phil. suggests that the flesh and blood conveys the Word and Holy Spirit.13 An appeal to eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus in the context of a discussion of the resurrection is also not unique to the Gos. Phil. Irenaeus argues on the basis of Jesus’ incarnation and resurrection that through the Eucharist we partake of his flesh and blood and are assured of the ‘salvation of the flesh’ (Haer. 5.2.2).14 This connection may already be present in John 6:54b with the promise of ‘being raised on the last day,’ but it is understandably omitted in the Gos. Phil. since the author is intent on showing the necessity of being resurrected now, in this world (56.15–20; 66.16–21; 73.1–4).15 Irenaeus and the Gos. Phil. disagree about 12

Schmid, Eucharistie, 368–370. See A.H.C. Van Eijk, “The Gospel of Philip and Clement of Alexandria,” VC 25 (1971): 118. 14 However, Irenaeus does not use John 6 in Haer. 5.3–16 where he correlates Jesus’ resurrection in the flesh with our resurrection in the flesh. 15 Nagel, Rezeption, 399. 13

108

Chapter 7: The Gospel of Philip

the timing of the resurrection, as well as the object of the resurrection. For Irenaeus, those who partake of the flesh and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist will experience a resurrection of their own flesh and blood, while in the Gos. Phil., those who receive the Word and Holy Spirit in the Eucharistic flesh and blood of Jesus experience his resurrection and inherit the kingdom of God (56.32–57.3).16 The use and interpretation of John 6:53–54 in the Gos. Phil. has an interesting parrallel with the Naassenes. Hippolytus indicates that they claim the Savior taught his disciples: ‘If you do not drink my blood, and eat my flesh [John 6:53], you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven [Matt 5:20; 18:3]; but even though,’ He says, ‘you drink of the cup which I drink of [Mark 10:38 par.], where I go, you cannot enter there [John 8:21; 13:33]’ (Haer. 5.8.11).17

The Gos. Phil. and the Naassenes both relate John 6:53/54 to inheriting/entering the kingdom of God/heaven, which may indicate a traditional interpretation of this passage. However, the Gos. Phil. combines it with 1 Cor 15:50 to affirm the value of the Eucharist, while the Naassenes string it together with Matt 5:20 and other passages to denigrate the disciples and the Eucharist; only the Naassenes who are acquainted with the celestial Anthropos and mysteries of the Spirit can enter the kingdom of heaven.18 The emphasis on the hidden reality of the Word and Holy Spirit in the Eucharist, placed in the context of a discussion concerning the resurrection of flesh and blood, reveals the author’s purpose for this use and interpretation of John 6:53–54. The author appeals to 1 Cor 15:50 to reject those (like Irenaeus) who would claim that an individual will experience the future resurrection of their own flesh and blood by means of the vivifying Eucharist, and he appeals to John 6:53–54 to reject those (like the Naassenes) who would claim that flesh and blood, including the flesh and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, has no bearing on the resurrection. The author does not simply piece together 1 Cor 15:50 and John 6:53–54 with 16 In this sense, Gaffron is imprecise to claim: „Die eucharistischen Ausführungen von §23 wären einschließlich der Deutung von Joh 6,53f. keinem Katholiken der damaligen Zeit anstößig gewesen“ (Gaffron, Philippusevangelium, 180). 17 This language is similar to the discussion in the Gos. Phil., although ‘entering’ the ‘kingdom of heaven’ draws on Matthean instead of Pauline language. 18 M.G. Lancellotti, The Naassenes (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), 302–303. J. Frickel, „Naassener oder Valentinianer?,“ in M. Krause, ed., Gnosis and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 95–119, has suggested that similar interpretations of Johannine passages (John 1:1–4; 4:10, 14, 23) indicates a common tradition or possibly a common lineage for the Naassenes and Valentinians, but the Naassenes should probably be considered Gnostics, and their use and interpretation of John 6:53 does not coincide with Gos. Phil. 23.

7.2. The Gospel of Philip and the Fourth Gospel

109

the catchwords ‘flesh and blood’, but uses and interprets these passages to emphasize the importance of the Eucharist—it conveys the Word and Holy Spirit, and it has present implications for the resurrection—it incorporates the participant into Jesus’ resurrection. The latter idea was not uncommon in Valentinianism (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.15.2; Tertullian, Praescr. 33; Treat. Res. 45.14–46.2) but the former, especially as an interpretation of John 6:53–54, appears to be one of the unique features of the Gos. Phil. 7.2.1.2. Knowledge and Truth, Freedom and Enslavement (§§110a and 123d) It is probable that §110a and §123d were influenced by John 8:32, 34 and both sayings interpret the FG pericope in a similar manner. Knowledge of the truth produces freedom from enslavement to sin (§110a) and ignorance (§123d).19 Knowing the truth in John 8:32–34 repeats and builds upon Jesus’ mission and relationship with the Father (8:26–28), which produces freedom from the slavery of sin that leads to death (8:21, 24). The object of truth in §110a and §123d is unclear. It has been suggested that ‘knowledge of the truth’ is self-knowledge of one’s divine origin (see §§44, 105),20 but in §110 and §123, the author is more interested in elucidating the results of ‘knowledge of the truth’—love for others and moral purity. 21

19

Painchaud has suggested that the theme of ‘knowledge of the truth’ from John 8:32–34 forms an inclusio of §110a and §123a (Painchaud, «Composition,» 48), and B. van Os has argued these these passages in the Gos. Phil. are a Valentinian homily on John 8:30–36 (van Os, “Baptism,” 67–69). While this may be correct, the themes of hiddeness and slavery in §125d is similar to §123a, which again indicates the complicated structure of the Gos. Phil. 20 K. Niederwimmer, „Die Freiheit des Gnostikers nach dem Philippusevangelium— Eine Untersuchung zum Thema,“ in O. Böcher – K. Haacker, eds., Verborum Veritas (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1970), 365–368; G.L. Borchert, “Insights into the Gnostic Threat to Christianity as gained through the Gospel of Philip,” in R.N. Longenecker – M.C. Tenney, eds., New Dimensions in New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 91. 21 This is likely intentional since truth has come to this world in ‘types and images’ (67.9–11; 86.11–12). The claim that ‘Truth is the mother, knowledge the father’ (77.19– 20) does not clarify the situation. J. Sell has argued that ‘knowledge of the truth (ⲧⲅⲛⲱⲥⲓⲥ ⲛ︦ⲧⲙⲉ)’ is a technical term since it also occurs in Thom. Cont. 138.14 and the Pastoral Epistles and implies a correct understanding of ‘Christian doctrine’ (J. Sell, The Knowledge of the Truth—Two Doctrines (Bern: Peter Lang, 1982), 45–57), but he does not clarify the content of this ‘Christian doctrine’ in the Gos. Phil. beyond its intended results—love for others and moral purity.

110

Chapter 7: The Gospel of Philip

§110a (77.15–19) ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲩⲛ︦ⲧⲁϥ⳿ ⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲩ ⲛ︦ⲧⲅⲛⲱⲥⲓⲥ ⲛ︦ⲧⲙⲉ ⲟⲩⲉⲗⲉⲩⲑⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲗⲉⲩⲑⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲙⲁϥⲣ︦ⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲡⲉϯⲣⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲙ︦ⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲡϩⲙϩ︦ⲁ︦ⲗ︦ ⲙ︦ⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲡⲉ The one who has knowledge of the truth is a free man, now the free man does not sin, for the one who does sin is the slave of sin.

John 8:32, 34 32 ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁⲥⲟⲩⲛ︦ ⲧⲙⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲙⲉ ⲛⲁⲣ︦ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︦ ⲛ︦ⲣⲙ︦ϩⲉ. 34 ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ︦ ⲛ︦ϭⲓⲓⲥ︦. ϫⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ ϯϫⲱ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦. ϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ ϥⲟ ⲛ︦ϩⲙϩⲁⲗ ⲙ︦ⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ. 32 kai. gnw,sesqe th.n avlh,qeian( kai. h` avlh,qeia evleuqerw,sei u`ma/jÅ 34 avpekri,qh auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j\ avmh.n avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti pa/j o` poiw/n th.n a`marti,an dou/lo,j evstin th/j a`marti,ajÅ

The primary difference between Gos. Phil. 77.16 and John 8:32 is that the former uses the nominal forms of ‘knowledge’ and ‘free man,’ while the latter uses the verbal forms.22 The postpositive ⲅⲁⲣ in 77.18 likely functions as an introduction to the quote from John 8:34, just as it does in 78.11 for the quotation of 1 Pet 4:8.23 Similar to §23b above, §110a combines passages from the FG and 1 Cor. The author appears to conflate passages in §110 to elucidate the connection between knowledge and freedom, slavery and love.24 ‘Knowledge’ of the truth (John 8:32a) is correlated with ‘knowledge’ (1 Cor 8:1a); the promise of freedom (John 8:32b) is correlated with being ‘arrogant’ (1 Cor 8:1b); ‘slavery’ is applied to ‘love’ (1 Cor 8:1c) and contrasted with the ‘slave of sin’ (John 8:34) so that those without ‘knowledge’ may obtain ‘freedom’ (John 8:32b). The first unique feature of this use and interpretation of John 8:32, 34 is the positive correlation of ‘freedom’ (John 8:32b) with being ‘arrogant’ (1 Cor 8:1). The combination of these two passages does not appear in early Christian literature, but their connection in the Gos. Phil. elucidates the relationship between knowledge and freedom.25 The freedom obtained 22

For the influence of John 8:32, 34, see: Wilson, Philip, 169; Ménard, Philippe, 227; Gaffron, Philippusevangelium, 43, 45; Röhl, Rezeption, 157–159; Schenke, PhilippusEvangelium, 476; Nagel, Rezeption, 399–401. 23 Stroud, “Quotations,” 76. 24 The rest of the pericope states: ‘Truth is the mother; knowledge is the father. Those who think they do not sin are called free by the world. Those who think they do not sin have knowledge of the truth [John 8:32a; 1 Cor 8:1a], which makes them arrogant [1 Cor 8:1b]—it makes them free [John 8:32b]—and they are superior to the whole world. But love builds up [1 Cor 8:1c]. The one who is made free through knowledge is a slave because of love, on behalf of those who have not yet attained the freedom of knowledge, for knowledge makes them capable of becoming free’ (77.19–31) 25 Clement also has a positive evaluation of being ‘arrogant’ from 1 Cor 8:1 (or possibly 1 Cor 4:18–19) and relates it to loving others (Strom. 7.104.5–105.2) (see Ménard, Philippe, 227). Schenke suggests this may be indicative of a traditional interpretation of 1 Cor 8:1 (Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 477–478), but the Gos. Phil.

7.2. The Gospel of Philip and the Fourth Gospel

111

through knowledge of the truth is to be used in love of others, which removes any of the negative connotations associated with being ‘arrogant.’ The second unique feature of this interpretation is the comparison of a ‘slave of sin’ (John 8:34) with a ‘slave because of love.’ The contrast of the ‘slave of sin’ with a slave to something wholesome is not unique (Rom 6:16–18), but its contrast with love for others does appear to be a novel interpretation and application of John 8:32, 34.26 The initial parallel with John 8:32, 34 (77.15–19) is then joined with 1 Cor 8:1 by the catchword ‘knowledge’, and these three passages are used to interpret one another (77.22–24), which produces a unique exegesis that links knowledge of the truth and freedom with an exhortation to love others. Irenaeus condemns the Valentinian converts who become exceptionally arrogant because of their knowledge (Haer. 3.15.2), but the exhortation in the Gos. Phil. to use this knowledge and freedom to love others is not uncommon in Valentinian literature. 27 §123d (84.7–9) ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ⳿ ⲛ︦ϭⲓ ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ϣⲁⲛ⳿ ⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲧⲁⲗⲏⲑⲉⲓⲁ ⲧⲁⲗⲏⲑⲉⲓⲁ ⲛⲁⲣ︦ ⲧⲏⲛⲉ ⲛ︦ⲉⲗⲉⲩⲑⲉⲣⲟⲥ The Word said, “If you know the truth, the truth will make you free.”

John 8:32 ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁⲥⲟⲩⲛ︦ ⲧⲙⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲙⲉ ⲛⲁⲣ︦ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︦ ⲛ︦ⲣⲙ︦ϩⲉ. kai. gnw,sesqe th.n avlh,qeian( kai. h` avlh,qeia evleuqerw,sei u`ma/jÅ

The only significant difference between these passages is that the first clause in 84.8 uses the conditional (ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ϣⲁⲛ⳿ ⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ) instead of future form (ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁⲥⲟⲩⲛ︦ || gnw,sesqe), which may be a conflation with the conditional clause in John 8:31b. Similar to the parallel with John 8:34 in §110a, §123d aligns more closely with the Greek of John 8:32.28 The is unique in that it specifically relates this passage to freedom. The quotation of 1 Cor 8:1 in §110 leads into a further discussion of love in §111, with a paraphrase of 1 Cor 13:4–8 (which is logical based on the connection of love and the use of fusio,w), followed by an allusion to the Samaritan (Luke 10:34), and a quotation of 1 Pet 4:8. While the author appears to string together quotations, paraphrases, and allusions in a unique way, the combination of 1 Cor 13:4–8 and 1 Pet 4:8 is evident in other early Christian literature (1 Clem. 49.5; Clement, Strom. 4.18; Quis div. 38). 26 The slavery/freedom analogy recurs in Gos. Phil. §§2, 13, 49, 87, 114, 123d, and 125b, but the probable influence of John 8:32, 34 does not suggest that every reference to ‘slave’ or ‘freedom’ indicates the influence of the FG. 27 Love for the Father and Son, their love for the Valentinians, and the Valentinians love for one another is a motif expressed in the Gos. Truth, Treat. Res., Tri. Trac., Interp. Know., Val. Exp., but the Gos. Phil. is the most explicit in its exhortation to love nonValentinians. 28 For the influence of John 8:32, see: Wilson, Philip, 187; Ménard, Philippe, 240; Gaffron, Philippusevangelium, 41–42; Röhl, Rezeption, 160–161; Nagel, Rezeption, 401– 402.

112

Chapter 7: The Gospel of Philip

introduction of this saying with the formula, ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ⳿ ⲛ︦ϭⲓ ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ϫⲉ, may indicate that the author is appealing to the words of Jesus spoken in John 8:32.29 Within the larger discussion of how the freedom of the knowledge of the truth relates to moral purity, the author appears to quote Matt 3:10 in 83.11–13 (‘That is why the word says, “Already the axe is laid at the root of the tree”’) to show the importance of exposing the root of evil so that it will no longer produce its fruit, and so the fruits of truth will be found within us. The correlation of Matt 3:10 with ‘knowledge of the truth’ and the production of good fruit is also found in a fragment of Irenaeus: ‘“The axe unto the root,” he says, urging us to the knowledge of the truth, and purifying us by means of fear, as well as preparing [us] to bring forth fruit in due season.’30 Similar to Irenaeus, the Gos. Phil. makes the same progression from a quotation of Matt 3:10 to an ethical exhortation based on ‘knowledge of the truth,’ but a parallel with John 8:32 in the Irenaeus’ fragment is not explicit. The use of John 8:32 as an ethical exhortation to moral purity is already apparent in its opposition to the ‘slave of sin’ in John 8:34. However, the church fathers do not appear to have used John 8:32 in this way. In his quotations of John 8:31–32, Cyprian emphasizes the conditional clause in 8:31 (‘if you remain in my word’) as an exhortation to persevere in the midst of temptations and persecution (Pat. 15; Fort. 8), and Origen quotes these same passages to contrast belief and knowledge (Comm. Matt., 12.15). It is somewhat surprising that, apart from the Gos. Phil., it does not appear that the axiom in John 8:32 was specifically quoted in Christian literature from the first four centuries CE as an exhortation to moral purity. 29

It is unclear whether ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ in 84.8 refers to Jesus, the divine Logos, or Scripture. A speaking role is attributed to the ⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ in 80.5, 83.11, and 84.8. The antecedent in 80.5 is not clarified, so it could refer to any of the three options. The quotation of the words of John the Baptist in Matt 3:10 is introduced in 83.11 in the present tense, ‘the word says (ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ϫⲱ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲥ),’ which may be a reference to Matt, although it is possible that the author thought these were the words of Jesus (a similar error is found in Origen, Comm. Jo. 13.400). The introduction of the words of Jesus in 84.8 in the past tense, ‘the word said (ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ⳿ ⲛ︦ϭⲓ ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ),’ may be an appeal to traditional words of Jesus, but the author’s knowledge of the NT makes it likely that this is a reference to the words of Jesus known from Scripture. If the author is being consistent, ‘the word says’ in 84.8 is a reference to Matt 3:10, while ‘the word said’ is a reference to Jesus’ words in John 8:32 (see Painchaud, «Composition,» 48; Lundhaug, Images, 171). However, this should not imply that the author is appropriating a Logos-Christology from John 1:1–18 (see Nagel, Rezeption, 401). 30 ~H avxi,nh pro.j th.n r`i,zan( fhsi,\ diegei,rwn pro.j evpi,gnwsin th/j avlhqei,aj( kai. tw/| fo,bw| kaqai,rwn( kai. paraskeua,zwn karpo.n w[rimon fe,rein) Irenaeus, “Fragment 28,” in W.W. Harvey, ed., Sancti Irenaei episcope Lugdunensis Libros quinque adversus Haereses (Ridgewood: Gregg Press, 1965), 493–494.

7.2. The Gospel of Philip and the Fourth Gospel

113

The interpretation and application of Matt 3:10, as well as many of the other statements in §123, have parallels in early Christian literature,31 but the combination with John 8:32, as well as this particular use and interpretation of John 8:32, is unique. This is similar to the author’s combination of 1 Cor 8:1 with a unique use and interpretation of John 8:32, 34 in §110a. Even though the Gos. Phil. does not incorporate the context or theology of John 8:30–36, the parallels with John 8:32, 34 are more sophisticated than a stringing together of passages with suitable terminology (‘knowledge of the truth,’ ‘slave of sin,’ ‘freedom,’).32 These passages appear to be quoted, interpreted, and combined with other NT passages in order to elucidate how the freedom obtained from the knowledge of the truth applies to loving others and moral purity. 7.2.2. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel §9c (53.6–9) ⲟⲩ ⲙⲟⲛⲟⲛ ϫⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲣⲉϥ⳿ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁϥⲕⲱ ⲛ︦ⲧⲯⲩⲭⲏ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲣⲉϥ⳿ⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ϫⲓⲙ ⲫⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ϣⲟⲟⲡ⳿ ⲁϥⲕⲱ ⲛ︦ⲧⲯⲩⲭⲏ ⲙ︦ⲡⲥⲟⲡ⳿ ⲉⲧⲉϥ⳿ⲟⲩⲱϣ⳿ It was not only when he appeared that he voluntarily laid down his life, but from the day the world came into being, he laid down his life at that time voluntarily.

John 10:17–18a 17 ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲙⲉ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲓ. ϫⲉ ϯⲛⲁⲕⲱ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲯⲩⲭⲏ. ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲟⲛ ⲉⲓⲉϫⲓⲧⲥ︦. 18 ⲙ︦ⲙⲛ︦ ⲗⲁⲁⲩ ϥⲓ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲥ ⲛ︦ⲧⲟⲟⲧ. ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲉⲧⲕⲱ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲥ ϩⲁⲣⲟⲓ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁⲧ. 17 Dia. tou/to, me o` path.r avgapa/| o[ti evgw. ti,qhmi th.n yuch,n mou( i[na pa,lin la,bw auvth,nÅ 18a ouvdei.j ai;rei auvth.n avpV evmou/( avllV evgw. ti,qhmi auvth.n avpV evmautou/Å

The claim that Christ laid down his life (ⲁϥⲕⲱ ⲛ︦ⲧⲯⲩⲭⲏ) voluntarily in §9c has verbal overlap with John 10:17–18 where Jesus states, ‘I lay down my life (evgw. ti,qhmi th.n yuch,n mou || ϯⲛⲁⲕⲱ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲯⲩⲭⲏ),’ and thematic overlap with Jesus’ action of voluntarily laying down his life, ‘I lay it down of myself.’ The first clause in the Gos. Phil. interprets ⲕⲱ + ⲯⲩⲭⲏ as a reference to Jesus’ crucifixion ‘when he appeared,’ which aligns with its meaning in the FG. However, the second clause may not refer to his death, but rather the depositing of his soul into others ‘from the day the

31 ‘Jesus pulled out the root of the whole place, while others did it only partially’ (83.16–18) // ‘Of these wounds the only physician is Jesus, who cuts out the passions thoroughly by the root,—not as the law does the bare effects, the fruits of evil plants, but applies His axe to the roots of wickedness.’ (Clement, Quis div. 29); ‘Ignorance is the mother of [all evil]’ (83.30–31) // ‘But ignorance, the mother of all these [=sins], is driven out by knowledge’ (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.5.2); the idea that knowledge of the truth removes ignorance (Clement, Paed. 1.6; Strom. 5.3; Ps-Clem., Rec. 2.25, 5.5). 32 Contra Nagel, Rezeption, 400; Röhl, Rezeption, 158.

114

Chapter 7: The Gospel of Philip

world came into being.’33 This would align with Valentinian theology and the Savior’s intimate identification with the Valentinians (see §15 below). The combination of characteristic language from the FG (ti,qhmi + yuch, || ⲕⲱ + ⲯⲩⲭⲏ),34 with a similar theme, and in a similar context, indicates a plausible influence from John 10:17–18a. §15 (55.10–14) ⲛⲉⲣⲉ ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲥⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛ︦ⲑⲉ ⲛ︦ⲛ︦ⲑⲏⲣⲓⲟⲛ⳿ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲣⲉ ⲡⲉⲭ︦ⲥ︦ ⲉⲓ⳿ ⲡⲧⲉⲗⲓⲟⲥ ⲣ︦ⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲁϥⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ︦ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲕ⳿ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ︦ ⲧⲡⲉ ϣⲓⲛⲁ ⲉⲣⲉ ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲛⲁⲣ︦ⲧⲣⲉⲫⲉⲥⲑⲁⲓ ϩⲛ︦ ⲧⲧⲣⲟⲫⲏ ⲙ︦ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ Man used to feed like the animals, but when Christ came, the perfect man, he brought bread from heaven so that man may be nourished with the food of man.

John 6:51 ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲟⲉⲓⲕ ⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ︦. ⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ︦ ⲧⲡⲉ. ⲉⲣϣⲁⲛ ⲟⲩⲁ ⲟⲩⲱⲙ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲉⲓⲟⲉⲓⲕ ϥⲛⲁⲱⲛϩ︦ ϣⲁ ⲉⲛⲉϩ. ⲡⲟⲉⲓⲕ ⲇⲉ ⲉϯⲛⲁⲧⲁⲁϥ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲧⲁⲥⲁⲣⲝ︦ ϩⲁ ⲡⲱⲛϩ︦ ⲙ︦ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ. evgw, eivmi o` a;rtoj o` zw/n o` evk tou/ ouvranou/ kataba,j\ eva,n tij fa,gh| evk tou,tou tou/ a;rtou zh,sei eivj to.n aivw/na( kai. o` a;rtoj de. o]n evgw. dw,sw h` sa,rx mou, evstin u`pe.r th/j tou/ ko,smou zwh/jÅ

The verbal overlap between these passages is ‘bread from heaven,’ as well as a thematic overlap of Jesus identifying himself as ‘the living bread that came down out of heaven’ in John 6:51, and the Gos. Phil. indicates that ‘when Christ came, the perfect man, he brought bread from heaven’ (55.11–13).35 This saying is also similar to §93 (73.23–27), ‘It was from that place that Jesus came and brought food. To those who so desired he gave [life, that]36 they might not die.’ There are a number of parallels that suggest the ‘bread’ in §15 is to be understood as the Eucharist: the association of the ‘bread’ with the ‘cup’ (75.1; 77.3–5); the ‘perfect man’ with the ‘cup’ (75.19); Jesus brought ‘bread’ and ‘food,’ and ‘food’ is associated with his ‘flesh’ (57.8). A Eucharist interpretation of the ‘bread from heaven’ (John 6:51) in §15

33 Wilson, Philip, 71–72. This interpretation also explains the recovery motif in §9, specifically 53.10–14. 34 The Synoptics indicate that Jesus will ‘give his life’ (ϯ + ⲯⲩⲭⲏ || di,dwmi + yuch,) (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45), but the description that he will ‘lay down his life’ (ti,qhmi + yuch, || ⲕⲱ + ⲯⲩⲭⲏ) is characteristic of the FG (John 10:11, 15, 17; 13:37–38; 15:13; see also 1 John 3:16; Gos. Sav. vs.19, 21a, and 21b (Chapter 8)). A measure of influence from John 10:17 is noted by: Wilson, Philip, 71–72; Schenke, Phlippus-Evangelium, 175. 35 For a measure of influence from John 6:51–58 see: Wilson, Philip, 79; Ménard, Philippe, 135; Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 203–206; Nagel, Rezeption, 404. 36 C.J. De Cantazoro suggests that the lacuna should read ‘bread of life’ (C.J. De Cantazoro, “The Gospel according to Philip,” JTS 13 (1962): 57), but the lacuna does not appear large enough to fit this statement.

7.2. The Gospel of Philip and the Fourth Gospel

115

aligns with the author’s interpretation of John 6:53–54 (§23b above), along with the promise that this ‘food’ provides life (see John 6:50).37 While a Eucharistic interpretation of John 6:51 in §15 is likely, it does not explain the difference between Jesus being the ‘living bread that came down from heaven’ (John 6:51) where the bread is associated with his flesh, and the Christ who ‘brought bread from heaven’ (55.12–13) where the bread appears to be distinct from himself.38 Perhaps the ‘bread from heaven’ should be understood as the spiritual body of Christ, since Epiphanius claims that the Valentinians teach that Christ ‘has brought his body down from above and passed through the Virgin Mary like water through a pipe’ (Pan. 31.7.4). Based on parallels with other Valentinian literature, E. Thomassen has also suggested that in the Gos. Phil., “the spiritual body of the Saviour is the totality of the spiritual church, which the Saviour puts on as he descends into the world.”39 If these ideas are combined—the Eucharistic ‘bread from heaven’ is the spiritual body of Christ and spiritual church that he brought down from heaven—then there is a strikingly parallel with the interpretation of John 6:51 in Exc. 13: He is ‘heavenly bread (a;rtoj evpoura,nioj)’ and ‘spiritual food (pneumatikh. trofh,)’ furnishing life by food and knowledge, ‘the light of men,’ that is, of the Church. Therefore those who ate the heavenly bread died, but he who eats the true bread of the Spirit shall not die. The Son is the living bread which was given by the Father to those who wish to eat. ‘And my flesh is the bread which I will give’ [John 6:51], he says, that is, to him whose flesh is nourished by the Eucharist; or better still, the flesh is his body, ‘which is the Church,’ ‘heavenly bread (a;rtoj ouvra,nioj),’ a blessed Assembly. And perhaps just as the elect are essentially derived from the same substance, and as they will also attain the same end.40

37

For a Eucharistic interpretation, see Ménard, Philippe, 135; Gaffron, Philippusevangelium, 180–182; Röhl, Rezeption, 148–150; Schenke, PhilippusEvangelium, 203; Nagel, Rezeption, 404–405. 38 Röhl has suggested that this difference, along with the lack of Johannine Christology in §15, may indicate that the author was influenced by an independent tradition, Exod 16, or Gen 2 (Röhl, Rezeption, 149–150). Yet the absence of Johannine Christology does not negate dependence on the FG (see Nagel, Rezeption, 405), and the appeal to Exod 16 does not adequately explain why Christ is associated with ‘the bread from heaven.’ While §15 does have similarities with Gen 1–3 and L.A.E. 1–21 (see Wilson, Philip, 79; J. Dochhorn, „Warum gab es kein Getreide im Paradies? Eine jüdische Ätiologie des Ackerbaus in Ev Phil 15,“ ZNW 89 (1998): 125–133), again, these do not explain the association of Christ with the ‘bread of heaven’ apart from John 6:51. 39 Thomassen, Spiritual, 93; see also M.F. Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1960), 53. Clement indicates that Theodotus makes a similar claim: ‘The visible part of Jesus was Wisdom and the Church of the superior seeds and he put it on through the flesh’ (Exc. 26). 40 Quotation from R.P. Casey, The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria (London: Christophers, 1934), 50–53.

116

Chapter 7: The Gospel of Philip

H.-G. Gaffron has suggested that §15 may not be influenced by John 6:51, since the description of the ‘bread from heaven’ as trofh, (55.14) also occurs in Exc. 13, but is absent from John 6:51.41 However, Exc. 13 is surely dependent on John 6:51, so the most economical solution is that the similarities with §15—the Eucharistic bread from heaven is associated with the body of Jesus and the spiritual church—indicate a traditional interpretation of John 6:51.42 The verbal overlap is admittedly minimal, but the probable influence of John 6:53–54 in §23b, a Eucharistic interpretation of ‘the bread from heaven,’ and parallels with the interpretation of John 6:51 in Exc. 13 suggests that it is plausible that the author of the Gos. Phil. was influenced by John 6:51 for this statement. §96b (74.22–23) ⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛ︦ϭⲓ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ϩ/ ⲡϣ̣[ⲏ]ⲣ̣ⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ The Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father.

John 10:38b ϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ϣⲟⲟⲡ ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϯϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ. evn evmoi. o` path.r kavgw. evn tw/| patri,Å

The minor differences between these passages are due to authorial perspective, while the structure remains the same: ‘the Father in the Son/me’; ‘the Son/I in the Father.’43 John 10:38 emphasizes the unity of the Father and Son (see 14:10–11; 17:21), but it is used in §96b to claim that those who are anointed in the bridal chamber have the same possessions of Jesus, particularly the Holy Spirit. The verbal overlap is admittedly small, but it is significant in that it describes the relationship between the Father and Son using the same structure as John 10:38.44 §123a (82.26–29) ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲣⲉ ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ⳿ [...] ⲉⲧⲣⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲁⲡⲉⲧ⳿ ϥⲛⲁⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟϥ⳿ [ⲁϥⲥ]4ⲃⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲥⲁⲣⲝ⳿ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲕⲣⲟⲃⲩⲥⲧⲓⲁ ⲉϥⲧⲁ[ⲙⲟ] /ⲙⲟⲛ ϫⲉ ϣϣⲉ ⲉⲧⲁⲕⲟ ⲛ︦ⲧⲥⲁⲣⲝ⳿ When Abraham [...] to see that which he would see, [he circumcised] the flesh of the foreskin, teaching us that it is proper to destroy the flesh. 41

John 8:56 ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ ⲡⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲁϥⲧⲉⲗⲏⲗ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉϥⲉⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡⲁϩⲟⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲁϥⲣⲁϣⲉ.

VAbraa.m o` path.r u`mw/n hvgallia,sato i[na i;dh| th.n h`me,ran th.n evmh,n( kai. ei=den kai. evca,rh

Gaffron, Philippusevangelium, 53. Casey has suggested that Exc. 10–16 is non-Valentinian (Casey, Excerpta, 9), but the similar interpretations of John 6:51 in the Gos. Phil. and Exc. 13 does not support this claim. 43 For a measure of influence from John 10:38, 14:10, or 17:21, see: Wilson, Philip, 158; Ménard, Philippe, 214–215; Gaffron, Philippusevangelium, 54; Röhl, Rezeption, 156–157; Nagel, Rezeption, 405. 44 See Nagel, Rezeption, 406. 42

7.2. The Gospel of Philip and the Fourth Gospel

117

The minimal amount of verbal overlap indicates that Abraham (possibly) reacted to something that he would see, but the lacuna in 82.27 limits the certainty of this parallel with John 8:56. It is also unclear what Abraham ‘would see.’ According to John 8:56, he saw Jesus’ day, and this ‘day’ likely refers to the ‘last day’ when Jesus will raise up those who: are given to him by the Father; believe in him; are drawn by the Father; and eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54). In seeing this day, Abraham anticipated the resurrection and did not see death (John 8:51).45 Since the Gos. Phil. is concerned with the present resurrection, perhaps the author wanted to emphasize that Abraham experienced the resurrection in seeing ‘that which he would see,’ and in response, cirumcised his flesh. This response aligns with the previous discussion of the resurrection and flesh (§23b), where the readers are to unclothe themselves of the flesh (56.26–34), as well as the exhortation to not fear or love the flesh (66.4–6), and to acquire the resurrection in this world and strip off the flesh (66.18– 19). Ep. Barn. also connects Abraham’s vision with his cirucmcision: ‘Learn then, my children, concerning all things richly, that Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practiced that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters’ (Ep. Barn. 9.7). It is difficult to prove that the Ep. Barn. was influenced by the FG,46 but we can be more confident with the Gos. Phil. There is a minimal amount of verbal overlap, and much depends on the reconstruction of the lacuna and interpretation of this passage, but the probable influence of John 8:32, 34 (§§110a and 123d) suggests that the influence of John 8:56 is plausible.47 Therefore, the author may haved interpreted this passage to mean that Abraham saw Jesus’ resurrection, experienced it himself, and circumcized himself, which is an example of self-mortification for all those who have also experienced the resurrection in this world. 45

Brown, John, 1:360; Ramsey Michaels, John, 529–532. Carleton Paget, “Barnabas,” 237–239; Epistle of Barnabas (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 225–230; F.R. Prostmeier, Der Barnabasbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 94–97. 47 This argument may be strengthened if §§110 and 123 form an inclusio with references to John 8:32, 34 (Painchaud, «Composition,» 48), and if the ‘destroy the flesh’ statement in 82.29 is „praktisch identisch“ to the moral exhortation in §110a (Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 501). For a measure of influence from John 8:56, see: Ménard, Philippe, 240; Gaffron, Philippusevangelium, 53–54; Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 501; van Os, “Baptism,” 146. It has been suggested that §123a may be influenced by Gen 17 or Jewish tradition (Wilson, Philip, 186; Röhl, Rezeption, 161; Nagel, Rezeption, 402– 403; Lundhaug, Images, 262), but the author’s scarce knowledge of the OT (apart from traditions surrounding Adam and Eve; Gen 1–3), and lack of interest in Abraham apart from this passage, makes it more likely that §123a was influenced by John 8:56. 46

118

Chapter 7: The Gospel of Philip

7.2.3. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel §4a (52.15–18) This saying indicates that ‘the one who has believed the truth has lived (ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϩⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲧⲙⲉ ⲁϥ⳿ⲱⲛϩ).’ The terms pisteu,w, avlh,qeia, and za,w occur more frequently in the FG than the Synoptics, and the author may have been influenced by the language of John 8:45–46 for the combination of pisteu,w and avlh,qeia, since the influence of John 8:32, 34 is probable and 8:56 is plausible. However, similar combinations are found in the NT and early Christian literature.48 §18 (56.1–2) This saying uses the phrase ‘the house of the Father (ⲡⲏⲉⲓ ⲙ︦ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ),’ which is similar to John 14:2 (ⲡⲏⲓ ⲙ︦ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ || th/| oivki,a| tou/ patro,j mou).49 §27 (58.14–17) The parallel with John 10:9 partially depends on whether the scribe of the Gos. Phil. made an error. The text states, ‘Do not despise the lamb, for without it, it is impossible to see the door (ⲉⲡⲣⲟ),’ but some scholars have emended the text to read ‘the king (ⲉⲡⲣⲟ),’ since the following lines state, ‘No one will be able to go in to the king (ⲉⲡⲣ︦ⲣⲟ) if he is naked.’ In the first reading, it is possible that the author used the term ‘door’ from John 10:9 (ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲣⲟ) and ‘the lamb’ relates to the pastoral imagery of John 10:1–19.50 The ‘lamb’ is the basis for seeing and entering to the king, and it may be associated with the Eucharist (ⲧⲉⲩⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥⲧⲉⲓⲁ) in 58.11, but also the idea that the ‘lamb’ covers up nakedness (58.14) is similar to 57.8 where the Eucharist provides ‘clothing.’ 51 In the second reading, seeing and going to the ‘king’ has similarities with the parable of the Wedding Feast (Matt 22:11–14).52 Regardless of the interpretation and

48

John 19:35; Eph 1:13; 2 Thess 2:12; 1 Tim 4:3; Dial. Sav. 121.2; Thom. Cont. 142.11. This parallel is noted by: Wilson, Philip, 66; Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 153. 49 This parallel is noted by: Wilson, Philip, 83; Ménard, Philippe, 138; Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 219. 50 Clement, Exc. 26 appears to quote John 10:9 to show that Jesus is the door through which the spiritual seed enter into the Pleroma, but there is no explicit reference to seeing ‘the king.’ The potential correlation of Jesus with the ‘lamb’ may also be from John 1:29, 36, but this is a frequent theme in Rev. 51 In a similar way, Origen equates the paschal ‘lamb’ with the Eucharist of John 6:53 (Origen, Peri Pascha, 12.25–14.13), and Justin connects the Eucharist with seeing the king (Dial. 70). 52 Schenke combines these two readings to suggest the author is claiming that one must partake of the Eucharist now to partake of the future wedding banquet (PhilippusEvangelium, 253–255).

7.2. The Gospel of Philip and the Fourth Gospel

119

references to the Eucharist, it is only a possibility that the author was influenced by John 10:9.53 §32 (59.6–11) This saying states, ‘There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and her sister (ⲧⲉⲥⲥⲱⲛⲉ) and the Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister (ⲧⲉϥⲥⲱⲛⲉ) and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.’ This is similar to John 19:25, where the women around the cross are identified as, h` mh,thr auvtou/ kai. h` avdelfh. th/j mhtro.j auvtou/( Mari,a h` tou/ Klwpa/ kai. Mari,a h` Magdalhnh,. There are considerable difficulties in interpreting both passages. Firstly, ‘her sister (ⲧⲉⲥⲥⲱⲛⲉ)’ may be a scribal error and should be corrected as ‘his sister (ⲧⲉϥⲥⲱⲛⲉ)’ in order to align it with the second reference, or possibly the first list of Marys is influenced by John 19:25 and the second list is the author’s interpretation of this passage.54 Secondly, the number of women in John 19:25 may be: two—Jesus’ mother is Mary of Clopas and her sister is Mary Magdalene; three—Jesus’ mother, her sister Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene; four—Jesus’ mother, her sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. H.-J. Klauck has strongly argued that the author of the Gos. Phil. interpreted John 19:25 as a reference to three Marys, whereby the two occurrences of kaiv separate them.55 Regardless of the interpretation of both passages, the influence of John 19:25 on §32 is only one possible explanation of the parallel, since there is no direct indication that these women ‘always walked’ with the Lord, and Matt 27:55–56//Mark 15:40–41 also name three women near the cross (including two Marys) who ‘followed’ Jesus.56 §42a (61.5–10) This saying alludes to the adulterous conception of Cain, who is the son of the serpent and became a murderer (ϩⲁⲧⲃ̅ⲣⲱⲙⲉ) like his father. This is similar to John 8:44 where Jesus indicates that the Jews who seek to kill him have the devil as their father, and he was a murderer (ϩⲉⲧⲃ̅ⲣⲱⲙⲉ || avnqrwpokto,noj) from the beginning. It is possible §42a was influenced by John 8:44 since the examples above (§§110a, 123d) indicate the probable influence of John 8 and the description of the serpent/devil as

53

These parallels are noted by: Wilson, Philip, 93; Ménard, Philippe, 147; Röhl, Rezeption, 152–153; Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 253–255. 54 H.-J. Klauck, „Die dreifache Maria,“ in F. Van Segbroeck et al., eds., The Four Gospels (Leuven: University Press/Peeters, 1992), 3:2353. 55 Ibid., 3:2343–2358. Gaffron suggests a measure of influence from John 19:25 (Philippusevangelium, 54), as does A. Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 150. This parallel is also noted by: Wilson, Philip, 97; Ménard, Philippe, 150; Röhl, Rezeption, 153; Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 272; Nagel, Rezeption, 403. 56 See Tuckett, “Synoptic,” 176.

120

Chapter 7: The Gospel of Philip

a murderer and father is similar in both passages, but 1 John 3:12–15 also relates Cain to the ‘evil one’ and includes the term avnqrwpokto,noj.57 §100 (75.14–21) In this saying, the cup of prayer that contains ‘wine and water’ is correlated with the type of ‘blood’ for which thanks (ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲣ︦ⲉⲩⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥⲧⲉⲓ) is given. The mention of ‘water’ and ‘blood’ in a Eucharistic context is somewhat similar to Eucharistic interpretations of John 19:34 where ‘blood and water’ flowed from Jesus’ pierced side (see Gos. Bart. 17a; PS 369.1–2).58 However, ‘wine and water’ is correlated with the Eucharistic cup of Jesus’ blood, which may simply reflect the Eucharistic praxis of the author.59 §122b (82.10–17) The ‘friend of the bridegroom (ⲡϣⲃⲏⲣ⳿ ⲙ︦ⲡⲛⲩⲙ︦ⲫⲓⲟⲥ)’ is mentioned in a description of the events within the bridal chamber. John 3:29 is the only NT passage that mentions the ‘friend of the bridegroom (o` fi,loj tou/ numfi,ou || ⲡⲉϣⲃⲏⲣ ⲙ︦ⲡⲁⲧϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ),’ although it also occurs in Exc. 65.1.60 We can be confident that Theodotus was influenced by John 3:29, since the ‘friend of the bridegroom’ stands, hears the voice of the bridegroom, rejoices, and has fullness of joy (Exc. 65.1), but the Gos. Phil. parallel is less developed.

7.3. Conclusion The majority of scholars agree that the Gos. Phil. was influenced by the FG for at least some of its sayings (§§23b, 110a, 123a), and they have been fairly judicious in their evaluation of the weaker parallels and note that they are not significant enough to indicate clear dependence on the FG. However, the less significant parallels appear to have marred their 57 This parallel is noted by: Wilson, Philip, 106; Ménard, Philippe, 158; Röhl, Rezeption, 155; Schenke, Philippus-Evangelium, 300; Nagel, Rezeption, 403. Heracleon quotes John 8:44, but he does not emphasize the ‘murder’ aspect of this passage. Rather, he argues that these words were spoken to those whose have the same ‘substance’ (ouvsi,a) or ‘nature’ (fu,sij) as the devil (see Fragments 44–47 in A.E. Brooke, The Fragments of Heracleon (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004), 97–100). 58 This parallel is noted by: Wilson, Philip, 161; Ménard, Philippe, 218; Gaffron, Philippusevangelium, 54; Röhl, Rezeption, 158–159. A.D. DeConick is too ambitious to claim that §100 “must be a reference to John 19:34” (A.D. DeConick, “The True Mysteries,” VC 55 (2001): 242). 59 See Justin, 1 Apol. 65; Clement, Paed. 1.42; Cyprian, Ep. 62.5, 13. 60 This parallel is noted by: Wilson, Philip, 184; Ménard, Philippe, 239; Gaffron, Philippusevangelium, 52–53; Röhl, Rezeption, 159–160; Nagel, Rezeption, 403–404. Gaffron is correct to note the Valentinian background of this saying, but Exc. 65.1 does not weaken the possibility for the influence of John 3:29 on §122b, since Exc. 65.1 was probably influenced by John 3:29.

7.3. Conclusion

121

evaluation of the author and his use and interpretation of FG. For example, Röhl questioned whether the quotations of the FG actually indicate the „Rezeption“ of the FG, since the author appropriates terminology from the FG without its theology, and then uses this terminology to bolster his ‘Gnostic’ argument.61 Nagel drew the same conclusion, and suggested that the author of the Gos. Phil. used the FG because its terminology was easily malleable to a ‘Gnostic’ interpretation.62 This dual definition of reception—terminological and theological correspondence—is too restrictive because it does not permit the author of the Gos. Phil. to be influenced by the FG and still alter its theology, and it requires the author to be a copyist, rather than an interpreter of the FG. The apparent quotations of the FG in Gos. Phil. 23b, 110a, and 123d may indicate that the author was appealing to these passages to bolster the authority of his argument, but the author’s use, interpretation, and application of these passages also reveals a sophisticated exegesis that attempts to go beyond their meaning in the FG.63 The Eucharist is not only the flesh and blood of Jesus, but it conveys the Word and Holy Spirit (§23b); the knowledge of the truth is freedom from the slavery to sin, but this freedom is to be used in love for others and to promote moral purity (§§110a, 123a). Some interpretations of the FG are unique and may confirm Valentinian presuppositions (§§9c, 96b, 123a), while other interpretations do not appear drastically different from other theologians and interpreters of the FG in the first four centuries CE. For example, the Eucharistic interpretation of the ‘bread from heaven’ that represents the body of Jesus and the spiritual church (§15) may have been a traditional interpretation of John 6:51 that is also evident in Exc. 13. Despite outstanding questions regarding the structural and theological coherence of this work, it is probable that the Gos. Phil. was directly influenced by the FG, and the author’s use and interpretation of the FG indicates the reception of this work, even if the Johannine theology is muted.

61

Röhl, Rezeption, 162. The purpose of Röhl’s study was to determine whether the evangelist was influenced by Gnosticism and whether the Gnostics had a particular affinity for the FG. In the five works from Nag Hammadi that he examined, he concluded that most of the allusions to and quotations of the FG appear „akzidentell“ (Rezeption, 206). This may be true for the parallels with a possible influence from the FG, but it does not adequately explain the parallels with a probable and plausible influence. 62 Nagel, Rezeption, 407. For a similar conclusion, see Wilson, Philip, 7; Niederwimmer, „Freiheit,“ 371–372. 63 See van Os, “Baptism,” 144–145.

Part IV: Dialogue/Discourse Gospels

Chapter 8

The Gospel of the Savior (P.Berol. 22220 + Strasbourg Coptic Papyrus 5–7) 8.1. Introduction A Coptic parchment collection of seven codex leaves and a number of fragments was purchased by the Berlin Egyptian Museum in 1967 and catalogued as P.Berol. 22220. C.W. Hedrick and P.A. Mirecki published the editio princeps in 1999,1 while S. Emmel provided a helpful corrective in 2002 by reordering the manuscript pages.2 Emmel also concluded that P.Berol. 22220 and Strasbourg Coptic Papyrus 5–7 are two distinct manuscripts of a single work,3 which will be referred to as the Gospel of the Savior (Gos. Sav.).4 P.Berol. 22220 has been dated to the sixth century CE and the Strasbourg Coptic Papyrus to the fourth or fifth century CE. It is possible that these are Coptic translations of a Greek original that may have been composed in the third century CE, or possibly later.5 1

C.W. Hedrick – P.A. Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior (Santa Rosa, California: Polebridge Press, 1999). 2 S. Emmel, “The Recently Published Gospel of the Savior ‘Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium,’” HTR 95 (2002): 51. Hedrick proposed emendations to Emmel’s reconstructed order, but they are not entirely convincing (C.W. Hedrick, “Caveats to a ‘Righted Order’ of the Gospel of the Savior,” HTR 96 (2003): 229–238). 3 S. Emmel, “Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium = The Strasbourg Coptic Gospel,” in H.-G. Bethge – H.-M. Schenke, eds., For the Children, Perfect Instruction (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 354–374. 4 The transcription and versification of the ‘new’ Gos. Sav. (P.Berol. 22220 + Strasbourg Coptic Papyrus 5–7) follows Emmel, “Preliminary,” 9–53. In this article, Emmel suggested the then unpublished Nubian and Coptic ‘Stauros-Texts’ may provide other witnesses to the Gos. Sav. (see now P. Hubai, Koptische Apokryphen aus Nubien (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009)). These works have significant parallels with the Gos. Sav. that may help reconstruct lacunae in the text, but it is difficult to determine their precise relationship to the Gos. Sav. since they may reflect the reception of the Gos. Sav. (or a similar source/tradition), similar to the Acts John and the Gos. Bart., and not the Gos. Sav. itself. Therefore, they will not be examined in this study. 5 Hedrick – Mirecki, Savior, 22–23 dated the work to the second half of the second century CE at the latest, based on the presupposition that the Gos. Sav. was not influenced by the canonical gospels, but rather independent oral traditions. The majority of scholars initially indicated that the Gos. Sav. was originally composed in Greek and

126

Chapter 8: The Gospel of the Savior

8.2. The Gospel of the Savior and the Canonical Gospels All scholars who have examined the Gos. Sav. have noted the striking parallels between its content and that of the canonical gospels. In the editio princeps, Hedrick – Mirecki claim that the author “knows both the Matthean and Johannine tradition,” but is not dependent upon these gospels since: (1) “the canonical gospels are never quoted as literary texts;” (2) “the Gospel of the Savior vests the authority for the sayings of the savior in the savior himself, rather than in gospels as religious texts that had achieved parity with the Jewish Bible in the faith of the church”; and (3) “The author is not quoting authoritative canonical texts, since he freely recasts the material in various ways.”6 These conclusions will be addressed below, but it should be noted that Hedrick – Mirecki’s criteria for dependence are unreasonably restrictive, and do not permit the author to shape and adapt his sources. The primary criterion for measuring the probability of influence is the presence of significant verbal parallels. It is these parallels that have convinced most scholars that the Gos. Sav. was influenced by the canonical gospels, specifically Matt and the FG.7

8.3. The Gospel of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel H.-M. Schenke accurately concluded that the Gos. Sav. has developed „eine souveräne, eigenständige Theologie“ by piecing together „Alt“ may be dated to around the third century CE: H.-M. Schenke, „Das sogenannte ‚Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium‘ (UBE),“ ZAC 2 (1998): 200; Emmel, “Recently,” 47; J. Frey, „Leidenskampf und Himmelsreise,“ BZ 46 (2002): 73; Emmel, “Unbekanntes,” 370; U.-K. Plisch, „Zu einigen Einleitungsfragen des Unbekannten Berliner Evangeliums (UBE),“ ZAC 9 (2005): 69–72. It is possible that a Coptic translator of the Gos. Sav. assimilated the text with Coptic versions of the canonical gospels, although P. Nagel was one of the few scholars to suggest P.Berol. 22220 was originally a Coptic composition from the fourth century CE or later (P. Nagel, „Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jüngern vor der Auferstehung,“ ZNW 94 (2003): 226), which has now appeared convincing to other scholars (P. Piovanelli, “Thursday Night Fever,” Early Christianity 3 (2012): 236). There continues to be numerous questions surrounding the genre, date of composition, and the relationship between the Gos. Sav. and other works, but, as noted in the Introduction, it will be included in this study for the sake of completeness. 6 Hedrick – Mirecki, Savior, 20–23. See also C.W. Hedrick, “An Anecdotal Argument for the Independence of the Gospel of Thomas from the Synoptic Gospels,” in Bethge – Schenke, Children, 121–123. 7 Schenke, „Unbekannte,“ 201–202; Frey, „Leidenskampf,“ 75; Emmel, “Preliminary,” 29–30; T. Nagel, „Das ‚Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium‘ und das Johannesevangelium,“ ZNW 93 (2002): 252; Nagel, „Gespräche,“ 224; Plisch, „Einleitungsfragen,“ 72–73; Hartenstein, „Petrusevangelium,“ 169.

8.3. The Gospel of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel

127

material that is similar to the NT, specifically the FG, to create something „Neu.“8 The following analysis examines the influence of the ‘old’ FG on the ‘new’ Gos. Sav., and attempts to elucidate how the author used the FG to glorify the Savior and diminish his fleshly suffering. 8.3.1. Probable and Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel (vs.12–23) The highest concentration of probable and plausible parallels between the Gos. Sav. and FG is within vs.12–23 where the Savior predicts the disciples’ defection and foretells his sacrificial role. Except for vs.12, this section is structured on Matt 26:31: vs.13//Matt 26:31a and vs.17//Matt 26:31b,c are each followed by a string of passages from the FG arranged by catchwords. vs.12 a ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲉⲓ̈ⲙⲁ “Arise, let us go from this place b ⲁϥϩⲱⲛ ⲅⲁⲣ⳿ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲛ︦ϭⲓ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲡ̣ⲁ̣ⲣⲁⲇⲓⲇⲟⲩ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲓ̈· for the one who will betray me has drawn near.”

John 14:31e ⲧⲟⲩⲛ︦ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︦. ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲉⲓⲙⲁ. evgei,resqe( a;gwmen evnteu/qenÅ

Matt 26:46 a ⲧⲟⲩⲛ︦ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︦ ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲛ.

Mark 14:42 a,b ⲧⲟⲩⲛⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ̅. ⲙⲁⲣⲟⲛ.

evgei,resqe a;gwmen\

evgei,resqe a;gwmen\

b ⲉⲓⲥ ϩⲏⲏⲧⲉ ⲁϥϩⲱⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲛϭⲓ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲡⲁⲣⲁⲇⲓⲇⲟⲩ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲓ. ivdou. h;ggiken o` paradidou,j meÅ

c ⲉⲓⲥ ϩⲏⲏⲧⲉ ⲁϥϩⲱⲛ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲛ̅ϭⲓ ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲡⲁⲣⲁⲇⲓⲇⲟⲩ ⲙ̅ⲙⲟⲓ. ivdou. o` paradidou,j me h;ggikenÅ

These three canonical gospels agree that Jesus orders the disciples, ‘Arise, let us go,’ but only John 14:31 adds the additional detail that the departure is to be ‘from this place.’ The reason for the departure in vs.12b is probably influenced by Matt 26:46//Mark 14:42, which suggests that the author of the Gos. Sav. has added a Johannine element to an otherwise Synoptic passage. Besides the verbal parallels, the contextual similarities suggest it is plausible the author was influenced by John 14:31. The statement in Matt 26:46//Mark 14:42 is immediately followed by Jesus’ arrest, while vs.12 and John 14:31 are followed by an extended section of the Savior’s teaching without a change of scene.9

8

Schenke, „Unbekannte,“ 202. John 14:31 is followed by 86 verses of extended teaching before the scene change is noted in John 18:1. Likewise, vs.12 is followed by at least 16 verse of extended teaching before a lacuna, which may have indicated a change of scene. 9

128

Chapter 8: The Gospel of the Savior

vs.13–15 13 ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ︦ⲧⲱⲧⲛ︦ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁⲡⲱⲧ ⲧⲏⲣ̣ⲧ̣"︦ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲥⲕⲁⲛⲇⲁⲗⲓⲍⲉ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧ· “And you will all flee and fall away from me.

John 16:32

14a ⲧ̣ⲉⲧⲛ̣ⲁⲡ̣ⲱⲧ ⲧⲏⲣ̣ⲧⲛ︦

c ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⲡⲟⲩⲁ ⲉⲡⲉϥⲙⲁ. i[na skorpisqh/te e[kastoj eivj ta. i;dia d ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̅ⲕⲁⲁⲧ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁⲧ. kavme. mo,non avfh/te\ e ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲛ̅ϯϭⲉⲉⲧ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁⲧ ⲁⲛ. kai. ouvk eivmi. mo,noj( f ϫⲉ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛⲙ̅ⲙⲁⲓ. o[ti o` path.r metV evmou/ evstinÅ John 10:30 ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲙⲛ︦ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲟⲩⲁ evgw. kai. o` path.r e[n evsmenÅ

You will all flee

b ⲛⲧⲉ[ⲧ]ⲛ︦ⲕ[ⲁⲁⲧ] ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁⲧ· and [leave] me alone. 15a ⲁⲗⲗⲁ "ϯϭ̣ⲉⲉⲧ̣ ⲙⲁⲩⲁⲁⲧ ⲁⲛ But I am not alone b ϫⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ̈ⲱ̣ⲧ ϣⲟⲟⲡ̣ ⲛⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲓ̈· for my Father is with me. vs.16 ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲙ︦ⲛ ⲡⲁⲓ̈ⲱⲧ⳿ ⲁⲛⲟⲛ ⲟⲩⲁ⳿ "︦ⲟ̣ⲩⲱⲧ· I and my Father are one and the same.”

Matt 26:31, 56 31a ϫⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲱⲧⲛ︦ ⲧⲏⲣⲧⲛ︦ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁⲥⲕⲁⲛⲇⲁⲗⲓⲍⲉ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧ ϩⲛ︦ ⲧⲉⲓⲟⲩϣⲏ. pa,ntej u`mei/j skandalisqh,sesqe evn evmoi. evn th/| nukti. tau,th| 56c,d ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲛⲉϥⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲕⲱ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲩ ⲛ︦ⲥⲱⲟⲩ. ⲁⲩⲡⲱⲧ. To,te oi` maqhtai. pa,ntej avfe,ntej auvto.n e;fugonÅ

Mark 14:27, 50 27b ϫⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲱⲧⲛ︦ ⲧⲏⲣⲧⲛ︦ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁⲥⲕⲁⲛⲇⲁⲗⲓⲍⲉ. pa,ntej skandalisqh,sesqe

50 ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩⲕⲁⲁϥ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲡⲱⲧ.

Kai. avfe,ntej auvto.n e;fugon pa,ntejÅ

Gos. Sav. 13 has the greatest amount of verbal parallels with Matt 26:31, although vs.13 and 14a add the detail that the disciples will ‘flee.’ This is actualized in Matt 26:56, which may indicate that the author conflated Matt 26:31, 56.

8.3. The Gospel of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel

129

Gos. Sav. 14b–16 contains the longest sequence of verbal parallels between the Gos. Sav. and the canonical gospels.10 The extended parallels with John 16:32 in vs.14b–15b and John 10:30 in vs.16 (a string of 15 terms in the Coptic FG)11 suggests that the Gos. Sav. was probably influenced by the FG, and the author has strung together passages from Matt and the FG by catchwords: ‘flee’ (vs.13) → ‘flee/alone’ (vs.14) → ‘alone/Father’ (vs.15) → ‘Father’ (vs.16). It may be argued that the repetition and catchwords reveal an easily memorable unit about the betrayal of the Savior that was not influenced by the canonical gospels, or the author inserted “Johannine elements” and “Johannine traditions” into a scene from Matt without being influenced by the FG.12 Although the sheer number of verbal parallels with the FG stretches the credulity of the argument for dependence on a source/tradition that was independent of the FG, this argument is made even more doubtful by later Christian authors who combine similar passages from the FG to make a similar theological point that is revealed in the Gos. Sav.—the assimilation of the Savior and the Father. For example, vs.15 uses ‘with me (ⲛⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲓ̈)’ (John 16:32) instead of ‘in me (ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧ)’ (John 14:10) to explain the unified relationship between the Father and the Savior,13 but the inclusion of "︦ⲟ̣ⲩⲱⲧ after John 10:30 effectively equates them.14 This is similar to the Christology of Praxeas who used John 10:30 and 14:9–10 to assert that Jesus and the Father are ‘one and the same’ (Prax. 11, 14, 18, 27). Tertullian states: For as in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than, “I am God, and beside me there is no God” [Isa 45:5]; so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lord’s answer to Philip, “I and my Father are one” [John 10:30]; and, “He that has seen me has seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me” [John 14:9–10]. They would have the entire revelation of both Testaments yield to these three passages (Prax. 20). 10

10 Coptic terms are paralleled in vs.14b–15b and John 16:32; 9 Coptic terms are paralleled in vs.17 and Matt 26:31. Hedrick – Mirecki are incorrect in their assertion that vs.17//Matt 26:31 and vs.3//Matt 5:13a are the only passages that have exact parallels with the NT (Savior, 20–21). 11 It is noteworthy that vs.15b and vs.16 agree with Coptic John 16:32f and John 10:30 in the use of ‘my Father,’ as opposed to the more prevalent ‘the Father’ in Greek. ‘My Father’ for John 16:32 only occurs in 28*, 54, 69, 788, 1346, and for John 10:30, W, D, 32*, 37, 700. This may indicate that the author used a Greek version that contained ‘my Father,’ or a Coptic version of the FG, or more likely, the Coptic translator of the Gos. Sav. had a predilection for possessive pronouns (see Gathercole, Composition, 76). 12 Hedrick – Mirecki, Savior, 93. 13 While both John 14:10 and 16:32 elucidate Jesus’ relationship to the Father, he is ‘in’ (evn) Jesus in 14:10 and ‘with’ (meta,) Jesus in 16:32. 14 For a parallel usage of ⲟⲩⲁ ⲛ︦ⲟⲩⲱⲧ, see Mark 10:9 and Soph. Jes. Chr. BG 122.10– 11.

130

Chapter 8: The Gospel of the Savior

Ephrem also strings together material from John 16:32, 14:10, and 10:30 to elucidate the relationship between Jesus and the Father in his interpretation of John 20:17: When he sent [Mary] to his disciples, saying, “I am going to him,” he called him “my God” to show that he was similar to him. He also said, “I am not alone, for my Father is with me” [John 16:32], and, “I am in my Father, and my Father is in me” [John 14:10], and also, “We are one” [John 10:30] (Ephrem, Comm. Diat. 21.29).15

Since Praxeas and his followers combined John 10:30 with 14:9–10 to equate the Father with the Son, and Ephrem (possibly) made a similar conclusion with the addition of John 16:32, it is more likely that the author of the Gos. Sav. combined 16:32 and 10:30 (with "︦ⲟ̣ⲩⲱⲧ) to make a similar Christological claim, rather than being dependent on an unknown source/tradition that was influenced by ‘Johannine elements’ or ‘traditions.’

15

C. McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron (Oxford: University Press, 1993).

8.3. The Gospel of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel

vs.17–19 17 ϥⲥⲏϩ ⲅⲁⲣ ϫ̣ⲉ̣ ϯⲛⲁⲣⲱϩⲧ︦ 7ⲡ̣ϣⲱⲥ ⲛ︦ⲥ̣ⲉϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ︦ϭⲓ ⲛⲉⲥⲟ̣ⲟⲩ ⲙ︦ⲡⲟϩⲉ· “For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ 18 ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϭⲉ ⲡⲉ ⲡϣⲱⲥ ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ. So I am the good shepherd. 19 ϯⲛⲁⲕⲱ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲯⲩⲭⲏ ϩⲁⲣⲱⲧⲛ︦[·] I will lay down my life for you.”

John 10:11

131

Matt 26:31 b,c ϥⲥⲏϩ ⲅⲁⲣ ϫⲉ ϯⲛⲁⲣⲱϩⲧ︦ ⲙ︦ⲡϣⲱⲥ. ⲛ︦ⲥⲉϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ︦ϭⲓ ⲛ︦ⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ ⲙ︦ⲡⲟϩⲉ.

Mark 14:27 c,d ϫⲉ ϥⲥⲏϩ ϫⲉ ϯⲛⲁⲣⲱϩⲧ︦ ⲙ︦ⲡϣⲱⲥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ︦ⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ ⲥⲉⲛⲁϫⲱⲱⲣⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ.

ge,graptai ga,r\ pata,xw to.n poime,na( kai. diaskorpisqh,sontai ta. pro,bata th/j poi,mnhjÅ

o[ti ge,graptai\ pata,xw to.n poime,na( kai. ta. pro,bata diaskorpisqh,sontaiÅ

a ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡϣⲱⲥ ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ. VEgw, eivmi o` poimh.n o` kalo,jÅ b ⲡϣⲱⲥ ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲛⲟⲩϥ ϣⲁϥⲕⲁ ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ ϩⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲉⲥⲟⲟⲩ. o` poimh.n o` kalo.j th.n yuch.n auvtou/ ti,qhsin u`pe.r tw/n proba,twn\

Gos. Sav. 17 contains a quotation of Zech 13:7 via Matt 26:31, and vs.18–19 continues the pastoral imagery with a probable influence from John 10:11. The postpositive ϭⲉ elucidates the connection between vs.17 and 18 whereby the ‘shepherd’ of Matt 26:31 is associated with the ‘good shepherd’ of John 10:11. Numerous works of the second and third centuries CE affirm that Jesus is the ‘good shepherd,’16 and this imagery was regularly correlated with the shepherd of pastoral parables in the Synoptics (Matt 18:12–14//Luke 15:4–7).17 However, it does not appear that the correlation of the ‘good shepherd’ with the ‘shepherd’ of Matt 26:31 occurs before the end of the fourth century CE (Jerome, Comm. Matt. 4.26.32). Matt 26:31//Mark 14:27 is also the one instance where the 16

Ign. Rom. 9; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.6, 7, 9, 11; Protr. 11; Strom. 1.26; Tertullian, An. 13; Cyprian, Theod. 73.2; Const. ap. 2.1.20; Origen, Comm. Jo. 1.6; Teach. Silv. 106.28; Acts Thom. 25; 17 Clement, Strom. 1.26; Tertullian, Res. 34; Pud. 7.

132

Chapter 8: The Gospel of the Savior

Synoptics relate shepherding with death, so the author may have connected these passages because of the common terminology (‘shepherd’) and theme (sacrifice). The only significant difference between vs.19 and John 10:11b is that vs.19 has substituted ‘sheep’ for ‘you’ (=the disciples). John 10:11b does not explicitly identify the ‘sheep’ with the disciples, but the author of the Gos. Sav. has specified what the FG has left generalized. vs.20–21a 20a ⲛ︦ⲧⲱⲧⲛ︦ ϩⲱⲧⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︦ ⲕⲱ ⲛ︦ⲛⲉⲧⲙ︦ⲯⲩⲭⲏ ϩⲁⲛⲉⲧ"︦ϣⲃⲉ̣[ⲉ]ⲣ· “You also, lay down your lives for your friends b ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ [ⲉ]ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲉⲣ︦ⲁⲛⲁϥ ⲙ︦ⲡⲁⲓ̈ⲱⲧ· so that you may please my Father. 21a ϫⲉ ⲙⲛ︦ⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ ⲉⲛ[ⲁ]ⲁⲁϥ ⲉⲧⲁⲓ̈ Because there is no commandment greater than this”

John 15:13; 8:29; 15:12–13 13b ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉϥⲉⲕⲱ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ ϩⲁ ⲛⲉϥϣⲃⲉⲉⲣ. i[na tij th.n yuch.n auvtou/ qh/| u`pe.r tw/n fi,lwn auvtou/Å 29c ϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϯⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲛ︦ⲛⲉⲧⲣ︦ⲁⲛⲁϥ ⲛ︦ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲛⲓⲙ. o[ti evgw. ta. avresta. auvtw/| poiw/ pa,ntoteÅ 12a ⲧⲁⲓ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲁⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ 13a ⲙ︦ⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲉ ⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲁⲅⲁⲡⲏ ⲉⲛⲁⲁϥ ⲉⲧⲁⲓ. 12a Au[th evsti.n h` evntolh. h` evmh, 13a mei,zona tau,thj avga,phn ouvdei.j e;cei

Matt 22:38

Mark 12:31

ⲧⲁⲓ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲛⲟϭ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧϣⲟⲣⲡⲉ ⲛ︦ⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ. au[th evsti.n h` mega,lh kai. prw,th evntolh,Å

ⲙ︦ⲙⲛ︦ ϭⲉ ⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ ⲉⲛⲁⲁϥ ⲉⲛⲁⲓ. mei,zwn tou,twn a;llh evntolh. ouvk e;stinÅ

Gos. Sav. 20–21 provide a complex set of parallels, but it is plausible that John 15:12–13 has been conflated with John 8:29. Gos. Sav. 20a continues the theme of laying down one’s life from vs.19//John 10:11b and now applies it to the disciples (John 15:13b). The axiomatic statement to ‘lay down your lives for your friends’ has parallels with ancient rules of friendship and may indicate that vs.20 is drawing on a traditional saying,18 but the previous verbal parallels with the FG mitigates this claim. Again, the author applies a more generalized statement from the FG directly to the disciples; ‘one’ lays down his life (John 15:13b) has

18

See classical references for ‘lay down life’ that parallel John 15:13: Bultmann, John, 542; Keener, John, 2:1005.

8.3. The Gospel of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel

133

been transformed to ‘you’ lay down your lives (vs.20a).19 The use of ⲣ︦ⲁⲛⲁ= in vs.20b has verbal overlap with Matt 11:26, Luke 10:21, and John 8:29, except a sacrificial theme is not explicitly evident in Matt 11:26 or Luke 10:21, while it may be implied in John 8:29 from 8:28 (‘when you lift up the Son of Man’). It is also plausible that vs.20b is influenced by John 8:29 because of its similarities to John 16:32 used in vs.14 and 15 above—Jesus does that which is pleasing to the Father because the one who sent him is ‘with me’ (vs.15b) and he has not ‘left me alone’ (vs.14b, 15a). However, the Gos. Sav. has applied Jesus’ ‘pleasing’ of the Father to the disciples. It is also plausible that vs.21 has been influenced by John 15:12a, 13a. The concept of a great commandment is paralleled in Matt 22:38 and Mark 12:31, but the referents are different.20 In John 15:12–13, Jesus indicates that ‘my commandment’ is ‘that you love one another,’ and ‘there is no greater love than this’—to ‘lay down one’s life for his friends.’ Stating the comparative in the negative and referring to a single commandment corresponds to vs.21a, and the concept of laying down one’s life for others corresponds to vs.20a and 21b. While vs.21 correlates the greatest commandment with laying down one’s life for humankind, John 15:12–13 indicates that the commandment is to love one another and its greatest expression is laying down one’s life for one’s friends. vs.21b–22 21b ⲉⲧⲣⲁ ⲕ̣ⲱ "︦ⲧ̣ⲁⲯⲩⲭⲏ̣ [ϩⲁⲛ︦]ⲣⲱ[ⲙ]ⲉ̣ “that I should lay down my life [for humankind]. 22 ⲉⲧⲃⲉ̣[ⲡⲁⲓ̈] ⲡⲁⲓ̈ⲱⲧ ⲙⲉ ⲙⲙⲟⲓ̣̈ Because of [this] my Father loves me.”

John 10:17 b ϫⲉ ϯⲛⲁⲕⲱ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲯⲩⲭⲏ. o[ti evgw. ti,qhmi th.n yuch,n mou( a ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲙⲉ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲓ. Dia. tou/to, me o` path.r avgapa/|

After describing how the disciples are to ‘lay down’ their lives, vs.21b– 22 now return back to the theme of the Savior ‘laying down’ his life. The usage of ‘commandment,’ ‘lay down life,’ and ‘love’ in vs.20–22 appears to be a condensed mixture of John 15:12–13 and 10:17. ‘Love’ is not mentioned with ‘laying down life’ in vs.21a (as in John 15:13), but the author includes this theme in vs.21b–22, which exhibits the probable influence of John 10:17. The author appears to clarify John 10:17 and make Jesus’ generalized statement more specific by indicating that the 19

The coupling of Jesus ‘laying down his life’ with an exhortation to the disciples to do the same also occurs in 1 John 3:16 (u`pe.r tw/n avdelfw/n), but John 10:11 and 15:13 have a greater amount of verbal parallels. 20 Matt 22:38 is positive (‘this is the great and first commandment’), and although the comparison is negative in Mark 12:31 (‘there is no other greater commandment than these’), it refers to a couplet of commandments instead of a single commandment.

134

Chapter 8: The Gospel of the Savior

Savior lays down his life for humankind. The repetitious theme of ‘laying down life’ in vs.19, 21a, and 21b, which uses language characteristic of the FG (ti,qhmi + yuch, || ⲕⲱ + ⲯⲩⲭⲏ) (see above),21 with parallels to three different passages (John 10:11; 15:13; 10:17), makes it extremely doubtful that the Gos. Sav. and the FG were dependent on a common source/tradition. The more economical solution is that the Gos. Sav. was influenced by Matt and the FG, and the author has strung together these passages by catchwords: ‘shepherd’ (vs.17) → ‘shepherd / lay down life’ (vs.18/19) → ‘lay down life / please the Father’ (vs.20) → ‘lay down life / loved by the Father’ (vs.21b–22). 8.3.2. Probable and Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel (vs.91–93; 69–70) The following passages appear to be influenced by the FG, but the order is reversed—the events of the resurrection/parousia (vs.69–70) precede the foretelling of the crucifixion (vs.91–93). Therefore, it is difficult to determine if this is a pre- or post-resurrection appearance of the Savior, or if these categories are all wrong and the Savior is in a glorified state before and after these events. For the sake of clarity, the events surrounding the crucifixion will be examined first, followed by those concerning the resurrection/parousia.

21

John 10:11, 15, 17; 13:37–38; 15:13; 1 John 3:16; Gos. Phil. 53.6–9 (Chapter 7).

8.3. The Gospel of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel

vs.91–93 91 [ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲥⲉⲛ]ⲁ̣ⲧⲥⲟⲓ̣̈ ⲛ︦[ⲟⲩϩ︦ⲙ︦ϫ ⲙ]"︦ⲟⲩⲭ̣ⲟ[ⲗⲏ ⲛ︦ⲧⲱⲧ︦]ⲛ︦ ⲇⲉ ϫⲓ [ⲛ]ⲏ̣[ⲧ︦ⲛ︦ ⲙ︦ⲡ]ⲱⲛϩ︦ ⲙ︦ⲛ︦ ⲡⲉ̣ⲙ̣[ⲧⲟ]ⲛ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ. “[I will be] given [vinegar and gall] to drink. But [you], acquire life and [rest for yourselves]!” — “Amen!” 92 ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲕ[ⲟⲛ]ⲥⲧ︦ ⲛ︦ⲟⲩⲗⲟⲅⲭⲏ [ⲙ︦ⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲥⲡⲓⲣ· ‘I will be [pierced] with a spear [in my] side.

93a ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲛ̣ⲁⲩ· ⲙⲁⲣⲉϥⲣ︦ⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲣⲉ· “The one who saw, let him bear witness.” b ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲙⲉ⳿ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲣⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ· “And his testimony is true. Amen”

John 19:29, 34–35 29c ⲟⲩⲥⲡⲟⲅⲅⲟⲥ ϭⲉ ⲉϥⲙⲉϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛ︦ϩⲙ︦ϫ ⲁⲩⲕⲁⲁϥ ϩⲓϫⲛ︦ ⲟⲩϩⲩⲥⲥⲱⲡⲟⲥ. spo,ggon ou=n mesto.n tou/ o;xouj u`ssw,pw| periqe,ntej

135

Matt 27:34 a ⲁⲩϯ ⲛⲁϥ ⲛ︦ⲟⲩⲏⲣⲡ︦ ⲉⲥⲟⲟϥ ⲉϥⲧⲏϩ ϩⲓ ⲥⲓϣⲉ.

e;dwkan auvtw/| piei/n oi=non meta. colh/j memigme,non\

34a ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲟⲩⲁ ⲛ︦ⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲧⲟⲓ ⲁϥⲕⲱⲛⲥ︦ ⲙ︦ⲡⲉϥⲥⲡⲓⲣ ⲛ︦ⲟⲩⲗⲟⲅⲭⲏ. avllV ei-j tw/n stratiwtw/n lo,gch| auvtou/ th.n pleura.n e;nuxen 35a ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲁϥⲣ︦ⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲣⲉ. kai. o` e`wrakw.j memartu,rhken b ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲙⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲙⲛ︦ⲧⲣⲉ. kai. avlhqinh. auvtou/ evstin h` marturi,a

The reconstructed text of vs.91 indicates that the Savior will be given ‘vinegar and gall’ to drink. As previously noted (Chapter 4), some manuscripts of Matt 27:34 and John 19:29 contain ‘vinegar and gall,’ which was likely based on Ps 68:22 LXX. Despite a minimal amount of verbal overlap, it is plausible that the author was influenced by John 19:29 for this detail, since the following passages indicate a probable influence from the FG. The description of the crucifixion in the Gos. Sav. does not mention that the Savior was mocked, beaten, and crucified with thieves (details common to the canonical gospels and the Gos. Pet.). Rather, the crucifixion is summarized with a catalogue of ‘vinegar,’ ‘gall,’ and ‘pierced’ side (omitting ‘blood and water’) (vs.91–92). What is striking about this summary is that it also occurs in Acts John 97, but the fleshly reality of these events is denied—‘John, for the people below in Jerusalem I am being crucified and pierced with spears (lo,gcaij nu,ssomai) and reeds and given vinegar and gall to drink.’22 The omission of ‘blood and water’ 22

Apoc. Paul (not NHC V,2) 44 mentions ‘vinegar’, ‘gall’, and ‘pierced side’ together, but it also catalogues details concerning the ‘scourging and mocking’ and

136

Chapter 8: The Gospel of the Savior

in vs.92 may be due to a conflation of John 19:34–35, however, it appears to be theologically significant. Christian literature from the second and third centuries CE indicates that the ‘blood and water’ from John 19:34 was usually interpreted as: (1) an affirmation of Jesus’ fleshly body; 23 or (2) a symbol of the sacraments.24 T. Nagel suggests that the Gos. Sav. omits the „Wundflüssigkeiten“ in order to avoid its sacramental connotations,25 but it seems more likely that this detail was omitted to avoid the portrayal of a suffering Savior with a fleshly body. Acts John 101 subtly denies the reality of the ‘piercing’ and the ‘blood,’ but two other works that also allude to the ‘piercing’ of Jesus in John 19:34 and do not include ‘blood and water,’ subtly deny the fleshly suffering of Jesus.26 Exc. 62.2 indicates that ‘they pierced his appearance, which is the flesh of the psychic (evxeke,nthsan de. to. faino,menon o] h=n sa.rx tou/ yucikou/),’ so that the spiritual nature of Christ does not suffer.27 Ephrem does interpret the ‘blood and water’ allegorically as the church, but his reference to the piercing without the ‘blood and water’ is telling: Saul hurled his spear against David, and, although it did not strike him, the wall was witness to its blow. The crucifiers struck the Son of David with a lance, and, although his power was not injured, his body was a witness to their blow. David was not struck, nor was the Son of David injured (Comm. Diat. 21.12).28

‘crown of thorns.’ Gos. Bart. also lists ‘vinegar,’ ‘spear,’ and ‘gall,’ but the spear appears to be confused with the reed used to raise the sponge to Jesus’ lips (Matt 27:48; Mark 15:36), not the spear used to pierce his side (Gos. Bart. 22b). 23 Irenaeus, Haer. 3.22.2., 4.33.2, 4.35.3; Origen, Comm. Jo. 10.13; Hippolytus, Noet. 18. 24 Related to baptism: Tertullian, Bapt. 9. Related to the Eucharist: Gos. Bart. 17a; PS 369.1–2. Related to martyrdom: Tertullian, Bapt. 16; Pud. 22. For later patristic references, see Wiles, Spiritual, 62–63. 25 Nagel, „Unbekannte,“ 263. It is doubtful that the Gos. Sav. is anti-sacramental, since the Savior claims, ‘Whoever does not [partake] of my body [and] my blood is a stranger to me. Amen’ (vs.96). 26 There are also two possible references to the ‘pierced side’ without the ‘blood and water’ in the Sibylline Oracles: 8.296 ‘they will pierce his sides with a reed on account of their law (pleura.j nu,xousin kala,mw| dia. to.n no,mon auvtw/n);’ 1.37.3–4 ‘they will pierce his side with reeds (pleura.n nu,xwsin kala,moisin).’ They do not mention the ‘blood and water,’ but they probably conflate the stabbing of Jesus’ side in John 19:34 with the beating of Jesus with a reed in Matt 27:30//Mark 15:19, which appears to be what the Gos. Pet. and Gos. Bart. have also done. 27 Hillmer, “John,” 114–115. 28 P.M. Head indicates that Tatian removed material related to Jesus’ flesh, “Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that Tatian intended to produce a form of the gospels which denied the humanity of Jesus” (P.M. Head, “Tatian’s Christology and its Influence on the Composition of the Diatessaron,” TynBul 43 (1992): 132). However, it appears that Ephrem’s interpretation of John 19:34 is a movement in that direction.

8.3. The Gospel of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel

137

The mention of the ‘piercing’ without the ‘blood and water’ in vs.92 is difficult to explain (especially in light of vs.93), but the similar detail in the Exc. and Ephrem may indicate that the Savior would not be harmed by this abuse. The strongest evidence for the literary influence of the FG on the Gos. Sav. is found in vs.93.29 If the parenthetical comment of John 19:35 is a “secondary addition,”30 then this would indicate that the Gos. Sav. was not dependent on a common source/tradition or influenced by an early version of the FG, but rather the final redaction of the FG. Regarding the referents in vs.93, it may be asked, who is the eyewitness (vs.93a) and what is his testimony (vs.93b)? The disciple John is mentioned in vs.68, so Nagel is likely correct that the eyewitness is John, the Beloved Disciple and author of the FG, but he also suggests that ‘his testimony’ in vs.93b is a reference to the FG.31 It is not entirely clear that vs.93b is an affirmation of the FG, for the Savior could be affirming that the Gos. Sav. is itself a true eyewitness testimony (since John 19:35 serves this same function in the FG), or similarly, it could indicate that John’s eyewitness account recorded in the FG is true as long as it is properly edited/interpreted (which appears to be what the author of the Gos. Sav. has done). Either way, it appears that the Gos. Sav. appeals to John, the eyewitness of the events of the crucifixion, and his testimony is authoritative since the Savior affirms that it is true. The use of John 19:34–35 together in the first four centuries CE is extremely rare, 32 but Origen quotes John 19:34–35 against Celsus to prove that the ‘blood and water’ flowing from ‘the dead body of Jesus’ was a miraculous event (Cels. 2.36). Origen does not emphasize the testimony aspect of these passages, but rather the ‘blood and water’ and Jesus’ death; the Gos. Sav. does emphasize the testimony aspect, but both the ‘blood and water’ and Jesus’ death are omitted. Perhaps the author knew that John 19:34–35 affirmed Jesus’ fleshly death, and omitted ‘blood and water’ to explicitly avoid applying this same fate to the Savior. It is not possible to fully analyze the Christology of the Gos. Sav. here, but vs.91–93 appear to point in the same direction—the Savior does not actually suffer in a fleshy body. J. Frey has accurately shown that the combination of the transfiguration with the Gethsemane tradition in the Gos. Sav. has effectively neutralized any claim that the Savior actually

29

Emmel, “Recently”, 59. Bultmann, John, 677. 31 Nagel, „Unbekannte,“ 263–264. 32 Allenbach, Biblia patristica, list 3 references for John 19:35, and no references for John 19:34–35. 30

138

Chapter 8: The Gospel of the Savior

suffered.33 Despite the multiple references to the Savior laying down his life, the events of the crucifixion, and the cross, it must be remembered that the crucifixion is never actualized in the extant text. It does not appear that the Gos. Sav. is particularly interested in the fleshly suffering of the Savior, even though the author was plausibly influenced by John 19:29 and probably influenced by John 19:34–35 for the description of the events surrounding the (hypothetical) crucifixion. This conclusion would also be logical, since the Savior appears to be assimilated with the Father in vs.16. vs.69–70 69a ⲁϥⲟⲩ[ⲱϣⲃ︦︦ ⲛ︦ϭⲓ ⲡⲥⲱ]ⲧⲏⲣ· ϫⲉ̣ ϯ̣[ⲛⲁϥ]ⲓ̣ ⲉ̣[ⲃⲟ]ⲗ̣ ⲙ︦ⲙⲱⲧⲛ︦ [ⲛ︦ⲑ]ⲟ̣ⲧⲉ ⲧⲁⲓ̈ ⲉⲧⲉ̣[ⲧ]"ⲟ̣ ⲛ︦ϩⲟⲧⲉ ϩⲏⲧ̣[ⲥ︦] [The Savior replied], “I [will] take from you this [fear] that [you] are afraid of, b ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧ"ⲛⲁⲩ· ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ· so that you might see and believe. 70a ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲙ︦ⲡⲣ︦ϫⲱϩ ⲛ︦ⲧⲟϥ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ̈ But do not cling to me b ϣⲁⲛϯⲃⲱⲕ⳿ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ϣⲁ[ⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲓ̈ⲱ̣[ⲧ ⲉ]ⲧⲉⲡⲉⲧ̣[ⲛ︦ⲓ̈]ⲱ̣ⲧ̣ [ⲡⲉ] until I have ascend to [my Father and your Father] c ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡ[ⲁⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉ]ⲧⲉⲡⲉⲧ︦ⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ̣ ⲡ̣ⲉ· and [my God and] your God d ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲁϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲉⲡⲉⲧⲛ︦ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲡⲉ· and my Lord and your Lord.” 33

John 20:29, 17

29b,c ϫⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϫⲉ ⲁⲕⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ ⲁⲕⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ. ⲛⲁⲉⲓⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲛ︦ⲛⲉⲧⲉⲙ︦ⲡⲟⲩⲛⲁⲩ ⲁⲩⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ. o[ti e`w,raka,j me pepi,steukajÈ maka,rioi oi` mh. ivdo,ntej kai. pisteu,santejÅ 17b ϫⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲣ︦ϫⲱϩ ⲉⲣⲟⲓ. mh, mou a[ptou f ϫⲉ ϯⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ ϣⲁ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲡⲉ. avnabai,nw pro.j to.n pate,ra mou kai. pate,ra u`mw/n g ⲁⲩⲱ ⲡⲁⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ. kai. qeo,n mou kai. qeo.n u`mw/nÅ

Frey, „Leidenskampf,“ 87–92.

Luke 24:37, 39 37a,b ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ︦ ⲇⲉ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲩⲣ︦ϩⲟⲧⲉ ⲉⲩⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ϫⲉ ⲛⲉⲩⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲩⲡⲛ︦ⲁ. ptohqe,ntej de. kai. e;mfoboi geno,menoi evdo,koun pneu/ma qewrei/nÅ 39 ⲁⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲛⲁϭⲓϫ ⲛⲙⲛⲁⲩⲉⲣⲏⲧⲉ i;dete ta.j cei/ra,j mou kai. tou.j po,daj mou

8.3. The Gospel of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel

139

Within a discussion concerning the parousia and departure of the Savior (vs.61–72), the Savior tells the disciples to not be ‘startled’ (ϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ︦) when they see him (vs.66), and John expresses his ‘fear’ (ϩⲟⲧⲉ) that the Savior will appear to them in a glorified form that they cannot bear (vs.66– 68). This context for the Savior’s response in vs.69a is similar to Luke 24:37, where Jesus appears to the disciples and they are ‘startled’ (ptoe,w || ϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ︦) and ‘frightened’ (e;mfoboj || ⲣ︦-ϩⲟⲧⲉ), but the following passages indicate a measure of influence from the FG. In John 20:27, Thomas is exhorted to examine the wounds of Jesus and ‘believe,’ and it is plausible that Jesus’ statement in John 20:29 about ‘seeing’ and ‘believing’ influenced vs.69b. The most likely interpretation of John 20:29 is that Thomas saw and touched Jesus’ wounds and believed that he had a physical, resurrected body. This is evident in Ep. Apost. 11– 12, where Jesus invites Thomas to put his finger ‘into the wound of the spear in my side,’ and the disciples state, ‘we touched him that we might truly know whether he had risen in the flesh, and we fell on our faces confessing our sin, that we had been unbelieving.’ However, the Gos. Sav. does not associate ‘see and believe’ with the wounds of the Savior. Nagel suggests that the disciples, like Thomas, are to observe the Savior’s ‘pierced side’ so that they can identify him as the earthly Savior,34 but this may be assuming too much about a physical, bodily resurrection of the Savior in the Gos. Sav. The exhortation to ‘see and believe’ without mentioning the apprehension of his physical body (which is not explicitly stated in John 20:27 either), may suggest that the author is more concerned with a spiritual apprehension of the glorified Savior. Furthermore, if the Gos. Sav. was concerned with the physical apprehension of the resurrected Savior, vs.70a seems like an odd addendum to vs.69. It is probable that John 20:17 has influenced vs.70; the only significant difference is that vs.70d includes ‘to my Lord and your Lord.’ 35 Mary is not permitted to ‘cling’ to Jesus in John 20:17 because he has not yet ascended to the Father, but vs.70a delays the clinging ‘until’ (ϣⲁⲛϯ-) the Savior has ascended. This may be a subtle indication that the Savior is in fact already ascended and glorified, and clinging to him is temporally mitigated—they cannot cling now but they will in the future. This interpretation is similar to Ephrem’s interpretation of John 20:17: ‘[he did not want anyone to touch him] in order to show that his body was [already] 34

Nagel, „Unbekannte,“ 263. This statement may be due to the influence of Thomas’ statement ‘my Lord and my God’ in John 20:28 (see Nagel, „Unbekannte,“ 260; Emmel, “Recently”, 57; “Preliminary,” 33), but it is more likely that it was a common addendum to John 20:17. For example, the disciples ask Jesus in Ep. Apost. 33, ‘when will you go to your Father and to our God and Lord?’ 35

140

Chapter 8: The Gospel of the Savior

glorified and magnified’ (Comm. Diat. 21.26), and it may be supported by vs.71: ‘I am the blazing fire. Whoever is close to me is close to the fire. Whoever is far from me is far from life.’36 A.D. DeConick argues that the fire imagery refers to a manifestation of God, and although the disciples are currently unable to touch him, “When they reach heaven, they too will have spiritual bodies of like substance and will be able to touch him without harm.”37 vs.145–14838 145 ⲁⲣⲓⲡⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲛ︦[ⲛⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲓ̈ϫⲟ]ⲟⲩ ⲛⲏⲧ︦ⲛ︦ ⲧⲏⲣⲟ[ⲩ] Remember everything that [I said] to you. 146 [ⲉ̣ⲓ̣ⲙ̣ⲉ̣ ⲛ̣ⲏ̣N"] ϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ︦ⲥ[ⲱ̣ⲓ̣ "ⲑ̣ⲉ̣] ["ⲧ̣ⲁ̣ⲩ̣]ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ︦ⲥⲁⲧⲏⲩ[---] [Know] that (if) they persecuted [me, in the same way they (will)] persecute you. 147 ["ⲧ̣ⲱ̣N"] ϭⲉ ⲣⲁϣⲉ So, [as for you], rejoice. 148 ϫⲉ ⲁⲓ̈[ϫ̣ⲣ̣ⲟ̣ ⲉⲡⲕⲟⲥ]ⲙⲟⲥ. For I have [overcome the world.]

John 15:20; 16:33 20a ⲁⲣⲓⲡⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲓϫⲟⲟϥ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦. mnhmoneu,ete tou/ lo,gou ou- evgw. ei=pon u`mi/n\ c ⲉϣϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ︦ⲥⲱⲓ ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ︦ⲥⲁⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︦. eiv evme. evdi,wxan( kai. u`ma/j diw,xousin\ 33d ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲧⲱⲕ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧ. avlla. qarsei/te e ϫⲉ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲁⲓϫⲣⲟ ⲉⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ. evgw. neni,khka to.n ko,smonÅ

If the reconstructed material of vs.145–148 is accurate, it is probable that John 15:20 has influenced vs.145–146, although there are a few minor differences: vs.145 has the more generalized ‘everything’ instead of ‘the word’ in John 15:20a; vs.146 is not conditional as in John 15:20, and adds the imperative ‘know’ and ‘in the same way.’ It is not apparent why John 15:20b, ‘a slave is not greater than his master,’ is omitted, but the author may have wanted to emphasize the importance of remembering ‘everything’ the Savior said to the disciples, and not just ‘the word’ of John 15:20b. It is also probable that John 16:33 influenced vs.147–148. The primary difference is that vs.147 has ‘rejoice’ (ⲣⲁϣⲉ) instead of ‘take heart’ (qarse,w || ⲧⲱⲕ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧ). Despite this, the meaning of both passages is synonymous—the disciples are not to fear persecution because the Savior has overcome the world.39 The combination of John 15:20 with John 16:33 is not unique; they are also joined together and conflated with other passages in discussions of martyrdom in Cyprian, Fort. 11 and Const. ap. 36

A similar statement is also found in Gos. Thom. §82; Origen, Hom. Jer. 3.3. DeConick, Voices, 148. 38 Transcription from Kopt. 5. Rückseite, 19–24 in A. Jacoby, Ein neues Evangelienfragment (Strasbourg: Trubner, 1900), 10. 39 The concept of overcoming the world is also found in 1 John 5:4, 5, but the reconstructed material in vs.147–148 has a greater verbal parallel with John 16:33e. 37

8.3. The Gospel of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel

141

5.1.3. This may suggest that the Gos. Sav. was composed within a context of persecution or conflict, and the author finds comfort in the words of Jesus and applies them to the Savior. 8.3.3. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel vs.23 After a string of parallels to the FG (vs.12–22), the Savior claims that the Father loves him, ‘because I accomplished his will (ϫⲉ̣ ⲁⲓ̈ϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙ︦ⲡⲉ̣ϥ̣ⲟⲩⲱϣ).’ This is similar to John 17:4 where Jesus claims to have glorified the Father on earth, because ‘I accomplished the work (to. e;rgon teleiw,saj || ⲉⲁⲓϫⲉⲕ ⲡϩⲱⲃ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) that you gave me to do.’ The ‘work’ and ‘will’ of the Father are quite similar in John 4:34, but if the ‘work’ that Jesus refers to in John 17:4 is an encapsulation of his entire ministry, as well as his crucifixion and resurrection,40 then vs.23 may have been influenced by John 17:4, including the enigmatic concept that the Savior has already accomplished the ‘will’ of the Father without yet enacting these ‘works.’ vs.25 The disciples question the Savior about his departure, ‘How soon [will you…] or remember us, send for us, bring us out of the [world] (ⲛⲅ︦ⲛ︦ⲧⲛ︦ ⲉⲃⲟ̣ⲗ̣ ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟ̣[ⲥ·])…?’ This is similar to John 17:15 where Jesus does not request that the Father ‘take them out of the world (a;rh|j auvtou.j evk tou/ ko,smou || ⲉⲕⲉϥⲓⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ).’ vs.54 The Savior is praying to the Father and mentions ‘the glory that was given to me (ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁ̣ⲩⲧⲁⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲓ̈) on the earth,’ which is similar to John 17:22 where Jesus is praying to the Father and mentions ‘the glory that you gave to me (th.n do,xan h]n de,dwka,j moi || ⲙ︦ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲕⲧⲁⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲓ).’ The additional phrase, ‘on the earth (ϩⲓ̣ϫ̣7ⲡ̣ⲕⲁϩ̣),’ may be from John 17:4 (see vs.23 above) where Jesus tells the Father, ‘I have glorified you on the earth (evpi. th/j gh/j || ϩⲓϫⲙ︦ ⲡⲕⲁϩ).’ This would be another example where the author has conflated passages from the FG based on a catchword (ⲉⲟⲟⲩ). vs.75 The Savior tells the disciples, ‘A little while I am in your midst (ⲕⲉⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲓ̈ϩⲛ︦ ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲙⲏⲧⲉ),’41 which is similar to John 13:33 where Jesus tells the disciples, ‘yet a little while I am with you (e;ti mikro.n meqV u`mw/n eivmi || ⲉⲧⲓ ⲕⲉⲕⲟⲩⲓ ⲡⲉ ϯⲛⲙ︦ⲙⲏⲧⲛ︦).’ The refrain ⲕⲉⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈ ⲡⲉ also occurs in vs.112–114, as well as John 7:33; 16:16–19.

40 R.E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (xiii–xxi) (Garden City: Doubleday, 1970), 2:742; Barrett, John, 504. 41 Kasr el-Wizz Kodex (KeWK) 25.7–9 is similar to both the Gos. Sav. and the FG at this point, ‘A little while I am with you in your midst (ⲕⲉⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈ ⲡⲉ ⲉⲓϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛⲙ︦ⲙⲏⲧⲛ︦ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲙⲏⲧⲉ).’

142

Chapter 8: The Gospel of the Savior

vs.78 It is possible that the phrase ‘sins of the world (ⲛ︦ⲛⲟ[ⲃⲉ] ⲙ︦ⲡⲕ̣ⲟ̣ⲥⲙⲟⲥ)’ may be influenced by John 1:29, which uses the singular ‘the sin of the world (th.n a`marti,an tou/ ko,smou || ⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ),’ since P.Berol. 11710 ll.16–17 probably quotes John 1:29 as ta.j̣ a`mra tou/ ko,smo. It is also possible that the Gos. Mary was influenced by John 1:29 for the catchphrase ‘sin of the world’ (see Chapter 10). vs.83; 19H In vs.83, the Savior declares ‘I [am the spring of water],’ and fragment 19H has ‘the spring of [the water] of life (ⲧⲡⲅⲏ ⲙ︦[ⲡⲙⲟⲟⲩ] ⲙ︦ⲡⲱⲛ︦ϩ︦).’ The phrase ‘spring of water (ⲟⲩⲡⲏⲅⲏ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲟⲩ)’ occurs in John 4:14, but it is not unique to the FG.42 vs.86 The Savior tells the disciples: ⲥⲉϫⲟⲟⲩ [ⲙ︦]ⲙ̣ⲟⲓ̈ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϩⲱ ϯ[ⲟ]ⲩⲱϣ̣ ⲉϫⲉⲩⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︦. The idea that Jesus and the disciples are each ‘sent’ (ϫⲟⲟⲩ) also occurs in John 17:18, where Jesus is ‘sent’ (avposte,llw || ⲧⲁⲩⲟ) into the world and he has ‘sent’ (avposte,llw || ϫⲟⲟⲩ) the disciples into the world. 24H43 This fragment is extremely damaged, yet ⲗⲓⲧⲣⲁ appears four times and the only occurences of this term in the NT are John 12:3; 19:39. Since it is probable that John 19:34–35 influenced vs.92–93, it is possible that John 19:39 influenced the terminology of 24H.

8.4. Conclusion We can now return to the three arguments made by Hedrick – Mirecki to claim that the Gos. Sav. was dependent on Matthean and Johannine traditions, instead of Matt or the FG. Firstly, it is true that the canonical gospels are never quoted with introductory formulae in the Gos. Sav., but this does not indicate that the author was not influenced by these gospels, rather, it reveals how the author used these gospels. The author did not appeal to these gospels to validate doctrinal statements, but used them as a source for the teachings of the Savior. This is evident in vs.13–22 where the teachings of Jesus in Matt and the FG are strung together by catchphrases. Secondly, it is inaccurate to claim that the Gos. Sav. exclusively places the authority of the Savior’s teaching in the Savior himself, when the Savior appeals to the testimony of the one who saw his pierced side—likely John, the Beloved Disciple, and author of the FG— and the Savior affirms that John’s testimony is true (vs.93). Thirdly, it is 42

See Isa 35:7; John 7:38; 19:34; Rev 21:6; 22:1, 17; Odes 11, 30; Gos. Thom. §13. Emmel does not transcribe the fragments in “Preliminary;” see Hedrick – Mirecki, Savior, 83. 43

8.4. Conclusion

143

true that the author recasts the canonical material in various ways, but this does not indicate independence from the canonical gospels, rather, it reflects the ingenuity of the author—the clause order in John 15:13 and 10:17 are reversed to make catchword connections (vs.19–22). Furthermore, the addition and omission of words, and the conflation and reordering of passages, are the alterations one would expect when an author in this period is quoting a text.44 The arguments of Hedrick – Mirecki do not adequately explain the significant parallels between these works. There are nine parallels that indicate a probable influence from the FG (vs.14b–15b, 16, 18–19, 21b– 22, 70, 92, 93, 145–146, 147–148), six plausible parallels (vs.12a, 20a, b, 21a, 69b, 91), and eight possible parallels (vs.23, 25, 54, 75, 78, 83–19H, 86, 24H). One of the strongest arguments for the influence of the FG is that the Gos. Sav. contains multiple traditional interpretations of the FG: (1) John 10:30 and 16:32 were combined to essentially equate the Father with the Son (vs.15b–16), similar to Praxeas’ use of John 10:30 and 14:10, and perhaps Ephrem’s use of John 10:30, 14:10, and 16:32; (2) the ‘shepherd’ of Matt 26:31 is combined with the ‘good shepherd’ of John 10:11 (vs.17–18), similar to Jerome calling the ‘shepherd’ of Matt 26:31 the ‘good shepherd;’ (3) the summation of the crucifixion with a catalogue of ‘vinegar,’ ‘gall,’ and ‘pierced’ side in vs.91–92 is similar to the Acts John, and the omission of ‘blood and water’ from John 19:34 to indicate that the Savior is inviolable is similar to the claims in Exc. and Ephrem; (4) the combination of John 15:20 with John 16:33 in vs.145–148 also occurs in Cyprian and Const. ap. Therefore, it is probable that the author was not only influenced by the ‘old’ text of the FG (and probably Matt and Luke), but also influenced by traditional interpretations of the FG and incorporated these into the Gos. Sav. in order to produce a ‘new’ gospel that glorified the salvific role of the Savior and minimized his fleshly suffering.

44

Whittaker, “Indirect,” 94–95; Inowlocki, Eusebius, 40.

Chapter 9

The Sophia of Jesus Christ (NHC III,4; BG 8502,3; P.Oxy. 1081) 9.1. Introduction Two works entitled Eugnostos the Blessed (Eugnostos) appear in NHC III,3 and V,1. The most complete version of the Sophia of Jesus Christ (Soph. Jes. Chr.) is in BG 8502,3,1 but it is also extant in NHC III,4 and the Greek fragment P.Oxy. 1081. After an initial debate concerning the relationship between Eugnostos and the Soph. Jes. Chr., there now appears to be a consensus. Most scholars agree that Eugnostos III is basically a non-Christian work,2 and Eugnostos V appears to be a later edition with a few possible Christian redactions.3 The primary source of the Soph. Jes. Chr. was a version of Eugnostos similar to that found in NHC III, 4 but the 1

Pages 109–110 and 115–116 are missing from the Soph. Jes. Chr. III version, but extant in the BG version. Unless noted otherwise, all references are to the BG version of the Soph. Jes. Chr. in D.M. Parrott, ed., Nag Hammadi Codices III,3–4 and V,1 (Leiden: Brill, 1991). 2 C.M. Tuckett, Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 15; Parrott, Nag Hammadi III,3–4, 4; Marjanen, Woman, 57; R. van den Broek, Studies in Gnosticism and Alexandrian Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 23; J. Hartenstein, Die zweite Lehre (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2000), 41; Nagel, Rezeption, 411; M. Krause, “The Christianization of Gnostic Texts,” in Logan – Wedderburn, New Testament, 190. 3 G. Wurst and A. Pasquier have recently claimed that redactional material in Eugnostos V was influenced by the Johannine prologue, particularly the reconstructed text of 5.19–29 and John 1:1, 9 (G. Wurst, „Das Problem der Datierung der Sophia Jesu Christi und des Eugnostosbriefes,“ in Frey – Schröter, Jesus, 384; A. Pasquier, “Influence and Interpretation of the Gospel of John in Ancient Christianity,” in Rasimus, Legacy, 222). However, they note that many of these same terms and concepts also appear in other works (Gen, Prov, Philo, and other works of Hellenistic Judaism). The lack of unique parallels clearly undermines their certainty for the influence of the Johannine prologue on Eugnostos V (see also A. Pasquier, Eugnoste (NH III,3 et V,1) (Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2010), 186, 227–236). Perhaps a more significant example of the ‘Christianization’ of Eugnostos V is the final line: ‘For everyone who has, more will be added’ (Matt 13:12//Mark 4:25//Luke 8:18). 4 M. Tardieu, Codex de Berlin (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1984), 56–60; Parrott, Nag Hammadi III,3–4, 16–18; C. Barry, La Sagesse de Jésus-Christ (BG,3; NH III,4)

9.1. Introduction

145

Soph. Jes. Chr. explicitly ‘Christianizes’ Eugnostos by transforming the epistle into a dialogue/discourse gospel that has similarities with other Gnostic works.5 There is a widespread consensus that this redactional material in the Soph. Jes. Chr. was influenced by the canonical gospels— specifically Matt and the FG—although scholars disagree on the number of parallels and their significance.6 The date of composition for both works is uncertain, but if Eugnostos was originally composed in the first half of the second century CE, then Soph. Jes. Chr. should be dated around the middle or second half of the second century CE at the earliest.7

(Laval: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1993), 2; Marjanen, Woman, 56–57; Hartenstein, Lehre, 35; Nagel, Rezeption, 411–412; J. Hartenstein, „Anmerkungen zu den vier koptischen Versionen von ‚Eugnostos‘ und der ‚Sophia Jesu Christi,‘“ in M. Immerzeel – J. van der Vliet, eds., Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 758. For the rebuttal of Till and Schenke’s earlier argument regarding the priority of the Soph. Jes. Chr. over the Eugnostos, and the support for Doresse and Puech’s argument for the priority of Eugnostos, see M. Krause, „Das literarische Verhältnis des Eugnostosbriefes zur Sophia Jesu Christi,“ in A. Stuiber – A. Hermann, eds., Mullus (Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964), 215– 223. 5 Barry has suggested that the Soph. Jes. Chr. is closest to Sethianism because of its similarities with Ap. John, and to a lesser extent, Hyp. Arch., although she acknowledges it is difficult to identify a particular ‘Gnostic school’ based on the eclectic nature of this work (Sagesse, 33–35). These similarities include: the blind and ignorant creator (BG 103.17–104.7) called Yaldabaoth (119.16), the fall of Sophia (III 114.14–18), and the descent of the divine drops of light (103.10–16). See also J.D. Turner, “Typologies of the Sethian Gnostic Treatises from Nag Hammadi,” in L. Painchaud – A. Pasquier, eds., Les textes de Nag Hammadi et le problème de leur classification (Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval), 212–213. 6 See R.McL. Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968), 114–115; Tardieu, Berlin, 347–410; Tuckett, Nag Hammadi, 31–35; G.P. Luttikhuizen, “The Evaluation of the Teaching of Jesus in Christian Gnostic Revelation Dialogues,” NovT 30 (1988): 158–168, 165; Barry, Sagesse, 191–275; Marjanen, Woman, 60; Hartenstein, Lehre, 56–62; Nagel, Rezeption, 412; Wurst, „Problem,“ 378. It is noteworthy that no one has argued for the independence of the Soph. Jes. Chr. from the canonical gospels. 7 For a second century CE date of composition for the Soph. Jes. Chr., see Parrott, Nag Hammadi, 6; Marjanen, Woman, 60; Hartenstein, Lehre, 44–46; Nagel, Rezeption, 412. Barry and Wurst suggest it may have been composed in the second or third century CE (Barry, Sagesse, 35–36; Wurst, „Problem,“ 378.). No one appears to have followed Parrott’s suggestion that Eugnostos may be dated to the first century BCE (Parrott, Nag Hammadi III,3–4, 5–6).

146

Chapter 9: The Sophia of Jesus Christ

9.2. The Sophia of Jesus Christ and the Fourth Gospel 9.2.1. Probable Influence of the Fourth Gospel BG 79.10–12 ϯⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦ ϯⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲧⲱⲓ̈ ⲧⲉ ϯϯ ⲙⲙⲟ`ⲥ´ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦ ‘Peace to you. My peace I give to you.’

John 14:27 ϯⲕⲱ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦ ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ. ⲧⲁⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲱⲓ ⲧⲉ ϯϯ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦. Eivrh,nhn avfi,hmi u`mi/n( eivrh,nhn th.n evmh.n di,dwmi u`mi/n

The Soph. Jes. Chr. begins with a scene of the twelve disciples and seven women gathered together on a mountain in Galilee. Before he appears, the disciples are perplexed about the universe and the Savior’s plans for them (77.8–79.9). This setting has multiple parallels with the canonical gospels, specifically Matt 28:16–20, and likely serves to correlate the revelatory Savior with the resurrected Jesus.8 This peace-saying in 79.10–12 provides the first words of the Savior when he appears to the disciples, which is contextually similar to the canonical gospels where the ‘peace to you (eivrh,nh u`mi/n || ϯⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦)’ saying is often the resurrected Jesus’ first words when he appears to the disciples (Luke 24:36; John 20:19, 21, 26). The glaring exception to this rule is John 14:27—Jesus pronounces this peace-saying during his Farewell Discourses with the disciples. On one level, the context of John 14:27 may not be entirely different from the Soph. Jes. Chr., since the Farewell Discourses (John 14:1–17:26) mark Jesus’ departure from the disciples by his death, as well as his departure to the Father by his ascension.9 However, the author may have simply conflated the context of Luke 24 and John 20 with the terminology of John 14:27. The verbal parallels between 79.10–12 and John 14:27 are significant.10 The first ‘peace to you (ϯⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦)’ is slightly different than John 14:27 where Jesus ‘leaves’ (avfi,hmi || ⲕⲱ) peace with the disciples, but both agree that it is his peace ‘I give to you (ϯϯ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦).’ The more striking parallel is that the substantival possessive pronoun th.n evmh,n is translated with the relative clause ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲱⲓ ⲧⲉ in 79.10, which is „die präzise

8

Hartenstein, Lehre, 57–62. The Father has committed everything into his hands (John 13:3) and given him authority over all flesh (17:2); he is on his way to God (13:3; 17:13), has been glorified (13:31), has overcome the world (16:33), and has finished his work (17:4). See Frey, “Eschatology,” 67–72; Eschatologie, 2:247–252. 10 Noted by Wilson, Gnosis, 114; W.C. Till – H.-M. Schenke, Die gnostischen Schriften des koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1972), 199; Tardieu, Berlin, 349; Tuckett, Nag Hammadi, 33; Barry, Sagesse, 196–197; Marjanen, Woman, 61; Hartenstein, Lehre, 58–59; Nagel, Rezeption, 413–414. 9

9.2. The Sophia of Jesus Christ and the Fourth Gospel

147

Nachahmung der joh. Konstruktion“ used to indicate that this peace is from Jesus.11 It is also noteworthy that in Soph. Jes. Chr. 79.10–12, Gos. Mary 8.14– 15, and Ep. Apost. 30, the resurrected Savior offers ‘my peace’ to the gathered disciples who are experiencing some form of anxiety or perplexity about what they are to do, which usually includes preaching the gospel.12 The early church fathers applied John 14:27 to multiple situations in the second and third centuries CE,13 but its usage in these three works is unique. This may indicate a traditional interpretation/application of John 14:27, although none of the works claim to be dependent on the FG.

11

Nagel, Rezeption, 414. See Soph. Jes. Chr. 127.7–9; Gos. Mary 8.12–9.12; Ep. Apost. 29–30 (as well as 19 and 23). This same theme of the disciples’ fear of persecution, the appearance of the Savior, the offer of peace (but not ‘my peace’), and the disciples’ departure to preach also occurs in Ep. Pet. Phil. 138.17–28; 140.15–27. 13 For example, to promote unity (Cyprian, Unit. eccl. 24; Test. 3.3), or argue that Christianity is a peaceful religion (Origen, Cels. 8.14), or show that Jesus’ peace is always accessible (Origen, Comm. Jo. 6.3). 12

148

Chapter 9: The Sophia of Jesus Christ

9.2.2. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel BG 104.12–105.6 ⲁⲓ︦ⲥⲱⲗⲡ ⲙⲫⲱⲃ ⲙ︦ⲡⲙ︦ϩⲁⲟⲩ ⲛ︦ⲥⲟⲛⲉ ⲁⲓ̈ⲧⲟⲩⲛⲟⲥϥ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲟⲧ ⲛϭⲓ ϯⲧⲗ︦ϯⲗⲉ ⲉⲧⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲩ ⲧⲁⲓ̈ ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲟⲩⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲟⲟⲧⲥ ⲛ︦ⲧⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ ⲛⲥ︦ϫⲱⲕ ⲛⲥ︦ⲧⲙϣⲱⲡⲉ ϭⲉ [ⲛ︦]ϣⲧⲁ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲉⲩⲉⲛⲁϩⲃⲉⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲟⲟⲧ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲛⲟϭ ⲛⲥⲱⲧⲏⲣ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲉϥⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ

I have cut off the work of the robber tomb. I have raised up the drop that was sent from Sophia, so that it may give much fruit through me, be complete, and not again become deficient, but be joined through me (I am the great Savior), so that his glory may be revealed.

BG 122.5–123.1 ⲉⲧⲃⲉ ⲡⲁⲓ̈ ϭⲉ ⲁⲓ̈ⲉⲓ ⲉⲡⲓⲙⲁ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥ ⲉⲩⲉⲛⲟⲩϩⲃ︦ ⲙⲛ︦ ⲡⲓⲡ︦ⲛ︦ⲁ︦ ⲉⲧⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲩ ⲙⲛ︦ ⲡⲛⲓϥⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲉⲥⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲩⲁ ⲛⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲑⲉ ϫⲓⲛⲛ︦ ϣⲟⲣⲡ ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁϯ ⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱϥ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲃⲱⲕ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉⲡⲉⲧϣⲟⲟⲡ ϫⲓⲛⲛ︦ ϣⲟⲣⲉⲡ ⲙⲛ︦ ⲟⲩⲣⲁϣⲉ ⲛⲁⲧϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲙⲛ︦ ⲟⲩⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲙⲛ︦ ⲟⲩⲧⲁⲓ̈ⲟ ⲙⲛ︦ ⲟⲩⲭⲁⲣⲓⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲙⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ Because of this, therefore, I came to this place, so that they may be joined with that Spirit and breath and the two may become a single one (as it was from the beginning), so that you may give much fruit and go to the one who is from the beginning, with an unspeakable joy, glory, honor, and grace, of the Father of the All.

John 15:2, 5, 8 2 ϣⲗϩ︦ ⲛⲓⲙ ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧ ⲉⲧⲉⲛ︦ϥⲛⲁϯⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ⲁⲛ ϥⲛⲁⲥⲟⲗⲡϥ︦. ⲁⲩⲱ ϣⲗϩ︦ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧⲛⲁϯⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ϥⲛⲁⲧⲃ︦ⲃⲟϥ. ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉϥⲉϯ ϩⲟⲩⲉ ⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ. 5 ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲧⲃⲱ ⲛ︦ⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ. ⲛ︦ⲧⲱⲧⲛ︦ ⲛⲉ ⲛ︦ϣⲗϩ︦. ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁϭⲱ ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧϥ︦. ⲡⲁⲓ ϥⲛⲁϯ ⲛ︦ⲟⲩⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱϥ. ϫⲉ ⲁϫⲛ︦ⲧ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁϣⲣ︦ ⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲁⲛ ⲛ︦ϩⲱⲃ. 8 ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲁϥϫⲓⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ︦ϭⲓⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ. ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛⲉϯ ⲛ︦ⲟⲩⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱϥ. ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ. 2 pa/n klh/ma evn evmoi. mh. fe,ron karpo.n ai;rei auvto,( kai. pa/n to. karpo.n fe,ron kaqai,rei auvto. i[na karpo.n plei,ona fe,rh|Å 5 evgw, eivmi h` a;mpeloj( u`mei/j ta. klh,mataÅ o` me,nwn evn evmoi. kavgw. evn auvtw/| ou-toj fe,rei karpo.n polu,n( o[ti cwri.j evmou/ ouv du,nasqe poiei/n ouvde,nÅ 8 evn tou,tw| evdoxa,sqh o` path,r mou( i[na karpo.n polu.n fe,rhte kai. ge,nhsqe evmoi. maqhtai,Å John 15:5, 8 5 ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲧⲃⲱ ⲛ︦ⲉⲗⲟⲟⲗⲉ. ⲛ︦ⲧⲱⲧⲛ︦ ⲛⲉ ⲛ︦ϣⲗϩ︦. ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁϭⲱ ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧϥ︦. ⲡⲁⲓ ϥⲛⲁϯ ⲛ︦ⲟⲩⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱϥ. ϫⲉ ⲁϫⲛ︦ⲧ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁϣⲣ︦ ⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲁⲛ ⲛ︦ϩⲱⲃ. 8 ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲁⲓ ⲁϥϫⲓⲉⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ︦ϭⲓⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ. ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛⲉϯ ⲛ︦ⲟⲩⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱϥ. ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ. 5 evgw, eivmi h` a;mpeloj( u`mei/j ta. klh,mataÅ o` me,nwn evn evmoi. kavgw. evn auvtw/| ou-toj fe,rei karpo.n polu,n( o[ti cwri.j evmou/ ouv du,nasqe poiei/n ouvde,nÅ 8 evn tou,tw| evdoxa,sqh o` path,r mou( i[na karpo.n polu.n fe,rhte kai. ge,nhsqe evmoi. maqhtai,Å

Soph. Jes. Chr. 104.13–105.6 and 122.5–123.1 contain parallel themes—the light drop (representative of the ‘Gnostic’?) was sent into the world, but the Savior has come so that it may ‘give much fruit,’ be ‘joined’

9.2. The Sophia of Jesus Christ and the Fourth Gospel

149

(ⲛⲟⲩϩⲃ︦) through the Savior, reveal the Father’s ‘glory’ (ⲉⲟⲟⲩ), and go to him. The most significant verbal parallels between these pericopae and John 15 is that the phrase ‘give much fruit’ (ϯ + ⲕⲁⲣⲡⲟⲥ + ⲛⲁϣⲱ=) does not occur elsewhere in the NHL or the NT except John 12:24.14 Other verbal parallels also suggest the author may have known the context of John 15:1–11. In 104.13–105.6, the Savior claims, ‘I have cut off (ⲁⲓ︦ⲥⲱⲗⲡ) the work of the robber tomb. I have raised up (ⲁⲓ̈ⲧⲟⲩⲛⲟⲥϥ) the drop . . . so that it may give much fruit through me.’ In John 15:2, the Father cuts off (ai;rei || ϥⲛⲁⲥⲟⲗⲡϥ︦) every branch that does not give fruit, and cleans (kaqai,rei || ϥⲛⲁⲧⲃ︦ⲃⲟϥ) every branch that does give fruit ‘so that it may give more fruit.’ In both works, something is described as ‘cut off’ (ⲥⲱⲗⲡ) using relatively uncommon terminology, 15 and something is encouraged to ‘give fruit’ more abundantly by being ‘raised up’ (ⲧⲟⲩⲛⲟⲥ) or ‘cleansed’ (kaqai,rw || ⲧⲃ︦ⲃⲟ). The latter term does not occur in the Soph. Jes. Chr., but it is possible the author applied a dual meaning of ai;rw (from John 15:2) as ‘cut off’ or ‘raised up,’16 in order to describe how the ‘work’ (ϩⲱⲃ)17 of the robber tomb was ‘cut off,’ and the drop was ‘raised up’ to ‘give much fruit.’ There is also a parallel idea of being ‘joined’ (ⲛⲟⲩϩⲃ︦) and ‘abiding’ (me,nw || ϭⲱ). The ability of the drop to ‘give much fruit through me’ is one corollary of being ‘joined through me’ (105.1), and being ‘joined’ with the Spirit and breath results in the drop being able to ‘give much fruit’ (122.7).18 This is a similar concept to the mutual ‘abiding’ in John 15:5 that results in the branch being able to ‘give much fruit.’ When the drop is ‘joined’ through the Savior to ‘give much fruit,’ the ‘glory’ (ⲉⲟⲟⲩ) of the Father of the All is revealed (105.4), just as when the branches ‘abide’ in Jesus and ‘give much fruit’ (John 15:7–8), the Father is ‘glorified’ (doxa,zw || ϫⲓ-ⲉⲟⲟⲩ). The Savior also indicates that the drop will be ‘complete’ (ϫⲱⲕ) when joined through him (104.18), which uses the same terminology as Jesus’ desire that the disciples’ joy may be ‘complete’ (plhro,w || ϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) through abiding in his love (John 15:10–11). 14

This parallel is noted by Tardieu, Berlin, 200. ⲥⲱⲗⲡ is also used for ‘cut off’ in Matt 5:30; Mark 5:4; John 18:26; Acts 27:32; and Trim. Prot. 41.6. 16 BDAG, s.v. ai;rw. 17 This term also occurs in John 15:5, although the context is significantly different— the branch is unable to do any ‘work’ (ϩⲱⲃ) apart from the vine. 18 Barry suggests that ‘Spirit and breath’ in BG 122.8–9 may be an «écho» of John 20:22 (Sagesse, 270), but the statement, ‘the two may become a single one (as it was from the beginning)’ (BG 122.9–11), along with the previous references to ‘breath’ in an anthropogonic context (BG 119.19; 120.4, 13; 121.5), have closer parallels with Gen 2. The possible parallel with John 20:22 is also doubted by Nagel, Rezeption, 418–419. 15

150

Chapter 9: The Sophia of Jesus Christ

The verbal parallels with the phrase ‘give much fruit,’ and the verbal overlap with the term for ‘cut off/raise up,’ suggest a plausible degree of influence from John 15:2, 5, 8. The verbal overlap with the terms for ‘glory’ and ‘complete,’ along with the thematic similarities between being ‘joined’ and ‘abiding,’ strengthens this case and may indicate that the author also knew the surrounding context (John 15:1–11). 9.2.3. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel BG 77.9–10 After the incipit title, the Soph. Jes. Chr. begins with the phrase, ‘after he rose from the dead (ⲙⲛⲛ︦ⲥⲁ ⲛⲧⲣⲉϥⲧⲱⲟⲩ︦ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ︦ ⲛⲉⲧⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧ),’ which is similar to John 2:22 and 21:14 (ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ︦ ⲛⲉⲧⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧ), as well as Acts 10:41, but a similar construction also occurs in the Synoptics.19 BG 79.17–18 The Savior appears to the disciples and asks them three questions, the last being, ‘What are you seeking (ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ϣⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ︦ⲥⲁ ⲟⲩ)?,’ which has verbal parallels with John 1:38 (ti, zhtei/te || ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ϣⲓⲛⲉ ⲛ︦ⲥⲁ ⲟⲩ).20 III 93.10–11 The Savior claims, ‘But I, who came from infinite light, I am in this place, for I know him (ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲅⲁⲣ ϯⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙ̅ⲙⲟϥ).’21 The only other occurrence of the phrase ‘I know him (evgw. oi=da auvto,n || ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϯⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙ̅ⲙⲟϥ)’ in the NHL and the NT is John 7:29 and 8:55, where Jesus also proclaims his knowledge of the Father. BG 82.9–18 The Savior tells the disciples, ‘But to you it is given to know, and the ones worthy of knowing will receive it (ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲧⲁⲁⲥ ⲛⲁⲩ), ones who have not been begotten by (ⲉⲧⲉ ⲙⲡⲟⲩϫⲡⲟⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ) the seed (ⲧⲉⲥⲡⲟⲣⲁ) of unclean rubbing, but by (ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ) the first one who was sent, for this one is an immortal in the midst of mortal men.’ Nagel has suggested that the Soph. Jes. Chr. may be influenced by John 1:12–13 since believers are given/receive something (e;dwken auvtoi/j evxousi,an || ⲁϥϯ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲝⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ) based on their origin, which is described using the verb ‘begotten’ (genna,w || ϫⲡⲟ), and contrasted with an alternative origin using the construction ‘not from – but from’ (ouvk evk – avllV evk || ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲛ ϩⲙ︦ – ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ︦).22 19

John 2:22 o[te ou=n hvge,rqh evk nekrw/n ; 21:14 evgerqei.j evk nekrw/n. See Matt 17:9//Mark 9:9–10; Matt 27:64; 28:7; Mark 12:25; Luke 16:31; John 20:9. This parallel is noted by Tardieu, Berlin, 167; Hartenstein, Lehre, 59. 20 Hartenstein notes the possible parallels between 79.15–18 and Luke 24:5, 38, and John 20:15 (Lehre, 59). While the post-resurrection context of these passages is more similar to the Soph. Jes. Chr., John 1:38 has the greatest amount of verbal parallels. 21 BG 81.19 ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲉⲧⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟϥ. 22 Nagel, Rezeption, 414–415. This parallel is also noted by Wilson, Gnosis, 115; Till – Schenke, Schriften, 205; P. Perkins, The Gnostic Dialogue (New York: Paulist Press,

9.2. The Sophia of Jesus Christ and the Fourth Gospel

151

While this is possible, these details and constructions are not unique to the FG. 1 Pet 1:23 describes the believer’s origin using the verb ‘begotten’ (avnagenna,w || ϫⲡⲟ), this origin is ‘not from a perishable seed (ouvk evk spora/j fqarth/j || ⲁⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ︦ ⲟⲩϫⲡⲟ ⲉϣⲁϥⲧⲁⲕⲟ)’—the only NT occurence of spora,, and it is contrasted with an alternative origin using the construction ‘not from – but from’ (ouvk evk – avlla, || ⲁⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ︦ – ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ︦). BG 98.7–13 Bartholomew asks, ‘How was he called in the gospel (ⲡⲱⲥ ⲁⲩⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ), “the man (ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ)” and “the Son of Man (ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ)?” Which of them is this son from?’ The phrase ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ is likely a reference a written gospel, and not the gospel message proclaimed by the disciples at the end of the work (127.5–8),23 but it is difficult to determine what gospel (or gospels) Bartholomew had in mind since these same titles are applied to Jesus in the canonical gospels and other extra-canonical works.24 Throughout the canonical gospels, o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou is a self-referential title used almost exclusively by Jesus and it occurs most often in Matt, while it is others who call Jesus o` a;nqrwpoj and it occurs slightly more often in the FG than Matt (Matt 26:72, 74; John 5:12; 9:11; 19:5).25 J. Hartenstein has suggested that the author was influenced by John 9, since Jesus is called o` a;nqrwpoj (9:11) and a;nqrwpoj (9:16, 24), and it becomes apparent that he is o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou (9:35), but this is only one possible explanation of Soph. Jes. Chr. 98.7–13.26

1980), 95; Tardieu, Berlin, 170; Barry, Sagesse, 204. The ‘unclean rubbing’ in 82.21 is surely a reference to sexual intercourse, which also forms a conceptual parallel with John 1:12 where believers are not begotten by the ‘will of flesh and blood nor the will of man.’ 23 Hartenstein suggests that this phrase indicates the Soph. Jes. Chr. must have been composed after the first half of the second century CE, since this term was used in 2 Clem 8.5 and Did. 8.2, 15.3 to refer to the canonical gospels (Lehre, 45). 24 Ialdabaoth hears a voice claim, ‘the man exists, and the son of man’ in Ap. John II 14.14–15 (see also Gos. Egypt III 59.2–4 and Irenaeus, Haer. 1.30.6). Jesus is also referred to as ‘the man’ and ‘the son of man’ in various sayings in the Gos. Thom. and Gos. Phil. F.H. Borsch has suggested that ‘the gospel’ may be the Gos. Phil. or Gos. Eg. (F.H. Borsch, The Christian and Gnostic Son of Man (London: SCM Press, 1970), 100), but it is questionable whether the author knew these works, or would have considered them ‘the gospel.’ 25 However, Jesus is identified as an a;nqrwpoj significantly more often in the FG than the Synoptics (Matt twice; Mark twice; Luke 4x; John 11x). 26 Hartenstein, Lehre, 45–46. Barry suggests Soph. Jes. Chr. is referring to the Synoptics where ‘the son of man’ statements that predict Jesus’ death presuppose his humanity (Matt 17:22; 20:18–29; Mark 8:31; Luke 24:6–7) (Sagesse, 234), but these same features are also expressed with the ‘lifting up’ of ‘the son of man’ in John 3:14; 8:28; 12:34.

152

Chapter 9: The Sophia of Jesus Christ

III 104.20–23 The first-begetter is called the Christ, since he has authority from his Father (ⲉⲩⲛ︦ⲧⲁϥ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲝⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ ϩⲓⲧⲙ︦ ⲡⲉϥⲉⲓⲱⲧ).27 A similar phrase also occurs in the in the reconstructed material of Eugnostos V 9.7–9 (ⲉⲩⲛ︦[ⲧⲁϥ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉϥⲉ]ⲝ̣ⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲙ︦ [ⲡⲉ]ϥ̣[ⲉⲓⲱⲧ]). In John 10:18, Jesus claims, ‘I have authority (evxousi,an e;cw || ⲟⲩⲛ︦ϯ ⲧⲉⲝⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ) . . . this commandment I received from my Father (para. tou/ patro,j mou || ϩⲓⲧⲙ︦ ⲡⲁⲉⲓⲱⲧ).’ Since this phrase does not appear in Eugnostos III, and is therefore redactional material in Eugnostos V, it is possible that the authors of Eugnostos V and the Soph. Jes. Chr. were both influenced by John 10:18, or it may simply indicate that the Savior receiving authority from the Father was a common depiction of their relationship (see Irenaeus, Haer. 1.4.5). BG 103.10–14 The Savior states that ‘everyone who has come into the world (ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ) has been sent by him (ⲁⲩⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲟⲩⲥⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲙ︦ ⲡⲁⲉⲓ), like a drop from the light (ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲙ ⲡⲟⲩⲟⲓ̈ⲛ), to the world of the Almighty.’ The description of Jesus ‘coming into the world’ (e;rcomai + eivj to.n ko,smon) occurs frequently in the FG,28 and the claim that he has been ‘sent into the world’ (avposte,llw + eivj to.n ko,smon) (John 3:17; 10:36), and he has ‘sent’ the disciples ‘into the world’ (avposte,llw + eivj to.n ko,smon) (John 17:18), is present in the FG. Jesus is also the light who has ‘come into the world’ (e;rcomai + eivj to.n ko,smon) (John 1:9; 3:19; 12:46), and the world was made through him (John 1:9).29 It is difficult to determine what (if any) passage(s) the author may have had in mind, but it is possible that the Soph. Jes. Chr. used the language of ‘coming’ and being ‘sent into the world’ from the FG in order to indicate the solidarity between the disciples and the Savior (see 104.7–10). BG 105.11–14 The Savior tells the disciples that they may ‘go up to their Father and know the way (ⲛ︦ⲥⲉⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲧⲉϩⲓ̈ⲏ) of the words of the light.’ This is similar to John 14:4 where Jesus claims that the disciples know the way (oi;date th.n o`do,n || ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ︦ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉϩⲓⲏ) where he is going.30 BG 105.14–17 The Savior then claims, ‘you yourselves were sent by the son who was sent (ⲛ︦ⲧⲱⲧⲛ︦ ⲁⲩⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲟⲩ ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︦ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ ⲙ︦ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲩⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲟⲩϥ).’ The Savior is described as one who is ‘sent’ (ⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲟⲩ; ⲧⲁⲩⲟ) in 82.16, 94.16, and 125.12, and the disciples are also ‘sent’ (ⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲟⲩ) in 103.11 and 104.16. Jesus is described as being ‘sent’ in the Synoptics (6x), but this theme is prevalent in the FG (41x). The disciples are also ‘sent’ in the Synoptics (9x) and the FG (4x). Only in John 13:20, 27

BG 99.17 ⲉⲟⲩⲛ︦ⲧⲉϥ ⲧⲉⲝⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁ ϩⲓ̈ⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ ⲙ︦ⲡⲉϥⲉⲓⲱⲧ. John 1:9; 6:14; 9:39; 11:27; 16:28; 18:37. 29 Wilson, Gnosis, 115 notes the parallel with John 1:9. 30 The claim that the disciples ‘know the way’ also occurs in Dial. Sav. 139.3–6; 145.14–24. 28

9.3. Conclusion

153

17:18, and 20:21 are Jesus and the disciples both described as ‘sent’ (pe,mpw; avposte,llw).’31 BG 117.12–15 Mary asks, ‘Holy Christ, where did your disciples come from (ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲩⲉⲓ ⲧⲱⲛ), where will they go (ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲧⲱⲛ), and what are they to do here?’ Jesus claims to know where he comes from (ⲉⲓ + ⲧⲱⲛ) and where he is going (ⲛⲁ + ⲧⲱⲛ) in John 8:14 (see also 3:8), and that he comes from (ⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) the Father and is going to (ⲃⲱⲕ ϣⲁ) the Father in John 16:28,32 but this question has a greater amount of verbal parallels with the qualitative forms of ⲉⲓ + ⲧⲱⲛ and ⲃⲱⲕ + ⲧⲱⲛ in Gos. Mary 16.14–16, and it appears to be a common question.33 BG 126.12–16 The Savior states, ‘I have given you authority over all things as sons of the light (ϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉ ⲡ`ⲟ´ⲩⲟⲓ̈ⲛ), to tread upon their power with your feet.’ This saying has multiple verbal parallels with Luke 10:19, and the phrase ‘sons of the light (tou.j ui`ou.j tou/ fwto,j || ⲛ︦ϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲟⲩⲟⲓ̈ⲛ)’ occurs in the parable of the Shrewd Servant in Luke 16:8. This phrase also occurs in John 12:36, where Jesus tells the disciples to believe in the light so that they may become ‘sons of light (ui`oi. fwto.j || ⲛ︦ϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉ ⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ).’ While the context and verbal parallels are more similar to John 12:36, this phrase is not uncommon.34

9.3. Conclusion There have been no serious objections to the claim that the Soph. Jes. Chr. was influenced by the FG for its ‘Christianization’ of Eugnostos. The verbal parallels between BG 79.10–12 and John 14:27 validate this conclusion, and the statement by the resurrected Savior about ‘my peace’ to the gathered disciples who are perplexed about the Savior’s plans for them, which may be related to a commission to preach the gospel (127.6– 10), is perhaps a traditional interpretation of this passage (see Gos. Mary 8.14–15; Ep. Apost. 30). Yet Hartenstein and Nagel have suggested that this peace-saying does not indicate direct dependence on the FG, since they consider many of the other parallels quite vague and insignificant.35 It 31

The Coptic parallel is not exact since the verb ⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲟⲩ is not repeated to describe the sending of the disciples and Jesus—John 13:20 ⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲟⲩ and ⲧⲁⲩⲟ; 17:18 ⲧⲁⲩⲟ and ϫⲟⲟⲩ; 20:21 ⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲟⲩ and ϫⲟⲟⲩ. These parallels are noted by Barry, Sagesse, 244; Nagel, Rezeption, 416–417. For a similar theme, see Gos. Sav. 86 (Chapter 8). 32 See Barry, Sagesse, 261; Nagel, Rezeption, 417–418. 33 See Chapter 10. 34 1 Thess 5:5; Apoc. Peter 78.25–26; 1 Apoc. Jas. 25.17–18; Trim. Prot. 37.19–20; 41.1, 16; PS 124.1–2; 359.7; Qumran fragments. 35 Hartenstein, Lehre, 58–59; Nagel, Rezeption, 414, 419–420.

154

Chapter 9: The Sophia of Jesus Christ

is possible that the author was indirectly influenced by the FG through an intermediate source, but this source would have also contained terminology and details unique to the FG: ‘give much fruit’ (John 15:5, 8) (which Hartenstein and Nagel do not discuss), and less significant, ‘I know him’ (John 7:29; 8:55), and Jesus and the disciples are ‘sent’ (John 13:20; 17:18; 20:21). It would also contain terminology and details that appear more often in the FG than the Synoptics: ‘after he rose from the dead’ (John 2:22; 21:14); ‘what are you seeking?’ (John 1:38); those who receive him are ‘begotten’ (John 1:12–13); Jesus’ ‘authority’ is from the ‘Father’ (John 10:18); he has ‘come’ from, been ‘sent’ by, and is ‘going’ to the Father (see John 16:8). Since it is probable that this intermediate source also contained redactional material from Matt (and likely Luke), it soon becomes difficult to distinguish this source from the canonical gospels themselves. Furthermore, Bartholomew’s appeal to ‘the gospel’ (98.7–13) suggests that the author is purposely attempting to maintain a degree of continuity between the depiction of Jesus and the disciples in the canonical gospels (possibly the FG) and his own work. An intermediate source cannot be ruled out, but it seems unnecessary. Regardless, it is probable that the Soph. Jes. Chr. was influenced by the FG (as well as Matt and likely Luke) for the ‘Christianization’ of Eugnostos.

Chapter 10

The Gospel of Mary (BG 8502,1; P.Ryl. 493; P.Oxy. 3525) 10.1. Introduction The primary manuscript for the Gospel of Mary (Gos. Mary) is Coptic Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, which has been dated to the fifth century CE.1 It is possible that this work originally covered 19 pages in the manuscript, but only pages 7–10 and 15–19 are extant. It contains: a dialogue between the Savior and his disciples regarding the nature of matter (7.1–9.4); a discussion of the Savior’s words (9.5–24); Mary’s vision (10.1–22) of the ascent of the Savior’s (?) soul past the archons (15.1–17.9); a dispute between Mary and Levi, and Andrew and Peter regarding the veracity of Mary’s vision (17.10–18.21); and a final report of their missionary activity (18.21–19.2). There are also two Greek fragments that contain portions of the Gos. Mary—P.Ryl. 493 and P.Oxy. 3525 that are dated to the third century CE.2 It is likely that the Gos. Mary was originally composed around the middle of the second century CE,3 and it has similarities with other Gnostic works, primarily in the names of the powers in Gos. Mary 16.8–12 and Ap. John BG 43.6–44.4.4 1

Till – Schenke, Schriften, 7. The transcription of the Gos. Mary used in this chapter is from R.McL. Wilson – G.W. MacRae, “The Gospel according to Mary,” in D.M. Parrott, ed., Nag Hammadi Codices V,2–5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1979). 2 C.H. Roberts, “463,” in Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Volume 3 (Manchester: University Press, 1938), 20; P.J. Parsons, “3525,” in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Volume 50 (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1983), 12–14; 12. See also Lührmann, Evangelien, 120–122. 3 For a second century CE date, see S. Petersen, ‘Zerstört die Werke der Weiblichkeit!’ (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 57; A. Pasquier, L’Evangile selon Marie (Laval: Presses de l’Université, 2007), 4. K.L. King and C.M. Tuckett argue for the first half of the second century CE (K.L. King, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 2003), 184; Tuckett, Mary, 12); Marjanen for the middle of the second century CE (Woman, 98); the end of the second century CE by Tardieu (Berlin, 25) and Hartenstein (Lehre, 137). 4 See Marjanen, Woman, 94; Hartenstein, Lehre, 133; Tuckett, Mary, 42–54. E.A de Boer has argued that the Gos. Mary is closer to Stoicism rather than Gnosticism (E.A. de

156

Chapter 10: The Gospel of Mary

10.2. The Gospel of Mary and the Canonical Gospels The majority of scholars have concluded that the Gos. Mary was influenced by the canonical gospels,5 although a few have presented other possibilities.6 K.L. King, J. Schaberg, and E.A. de Boer have each suggested that the portrayal of Mary in the Gos. Mary is influenced by early traditional material, rather than the canonical gospels.7 The method employed by King must first be addressed, since it determines how she views the relationship between the Gos. Mary and canonical gospels. King evaluates the relationship between the canonical gospels, early traditions, and the Gos. Mary with an intertextual approach that examines “the ways in which authors absorb, transform, or transgress the traditions they appropriate.”8 This is a reasonable method for evaluating how one author used or interpreted earlier texts or traditions, but it is inconceivable how this method can be employed to deny the reception of the canonical gospels. For example, it is difficult to understand how the author of the Gos. Mary attempts to confront and “displace prior readings” of the canonical gospels without prior knowledge of these gospels, or that a second-century reader of the Gos. Mary could be expected to perceive allusions to “other early Christian literature,” while the author was unaware of these literary allusions and only knew independent traditions.9 Boer, “A Gnostic Mary in the Gospel of Mary?,” in Immerzeel – van der Vliet, Coptic, 695–708), while King rejects the Gnostic rubric because “there was no such thing as Gnosticism” (Mary, 156). 5 R.McL. Wilson, “The New Testament in the Gnostic Gospel of Mary,” NTS 3 (1957): 236–243; Till – Schenke, Schriften, 64–65; Wilson – MacRae, “Mary,” 454–455; Tardieu, Berlin, 225–237; Marjanen, Woman, 98; Petersen, Zerstört, 60–61; Hartenstein, Lehre, 156–159; E. Mohri, Maria Magdalena (Marburg: Elwert, 2000), 272–273; Nagel, Rezeption, 464–469; de Boer, “Gnostic,” 704; Pasquier, Marie, 23, 57–58; Tuckett, Mary, 55–74. 6 G. Quispel argued that the Gos. Mary was dependent on an apocryphal source such as the Gospel of the Hebrews instead of the Synoptics, but this view has not won support (G. Quispel, „Das Hebräerevangelium im gnostischen Evangelium nach Maria,“ VC 11 (1957): 142). A. Graham Brock has claimed, “the text as a whole lacks any certain literary dependence on the New Testament,” although she does not expound this viewpoint or discuss what ‘certain literary dependence’ would entail (A. Graham Brock, Mary Magdalene, The First Apostle (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 82). 7 King, Mary, 93–118; J. Schaberg, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene (New York: Continuum, 2004), 194; E.A. de Boer, The Gospel of Mary (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 14, 208. 8 King, Mary, 98. 9 Ibid., 98, 109. J. Schröter also expresses concerns with King’s methodology in his review of her monograph (J. Schröter, “Review of King, Mary,” TLZ 131 (2006): 865). Schaberg mentions the “interpretive possibilities and opportunities” for Jesus’ appearance to Mary in John 20:18 and the Gos. Mary, but concludes that they “do not

10.3. The Gospel of Mary and the Fourth Gospel

157

Part of the methodological problem is related to the definition of ‘traditions’ and ‘dependence.’ King suggests that the author of the Gos. Mary was “familiar with traditions found in the Gospel of John,” and then concludes that the Gos. Mary must have been composed after 90 or 100 CE—the date of composition usually suggested for the FG.10 If the Gos. Mary was influenced by traditions that are also found in the FG, then King is faced with the difficult task of showing that these traditions circulated independently of the FG, or that the author of the Gos. Mary and the evangelist of the FG were dependent on a common source/tradition. King also appears to hold a strict definition of dependence, whereby dependence would have to be direct literary dependence, and the author would have to agree with its sources.11 This study has used a broader definition of influence, and allows for the possibility that the author of the Gos. Mary was influenced by the canonical gospels through some medium (oral or literary), disagreed with these sources, and provided alternative interpretations. Furthermore, the claim that the Gos. Mary contains no redactional material from the canonical gospels must be rejected.12 In multiple publications, C.M. Tuckett has drawn attention to the Matthean and Lukan redactional material in the Gos. Mary: 8.15–17//Luke 17:23, 8.18–19//Luke 17:21, 8.21–22//Matt 24:14, along with numerous other parallels.13

10.3. The Gospel of Mary and the Fourth Gospel 10.3.1. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel BG 8.14–15 ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦ ⲧⲁⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ϫⲡⲟⲥ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦ Peace to you. My peace acquire for yourselves.

John 14:27 ϯⲕⲱ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦ ⲛⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲧⲁⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲱⲓ ⲧⲉ ϯϯ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦. Eivrh,nhn avfi,hmi u`mi/n( eivrh,nhn th.n evmh.n di,dwmi u`mi/n

show literary connection” (Schaberg, Mary, 194). De Boer also notes the “many echoes” of NT texts in the Gos. Mary and instances where a saying “reminds one” of a NT passage, but she too doubts that the Gos. Mary was dependent on the NT (de Boer, Mary, 22–27). 10 King, Mary, 184. 11 Ibid., 111, 97. Schaberg and de Boer also appear to equate the influence of the FG on the Gos. Mary with direct literary dependence on the FG, although there are numerous other ways to describe how the FG may have influenced the Gos. Mary 12 Contra Ibid., 97, 115 13 Tuckett, “Synoptic,” 178–182; Nag Hammadi, 35–42; Mary, 55–74; C.M. Tuckett, “The Gospel of Mary,” in Foster, Non-Canonical, 43–53. Unfortunately, King’s monograph does not interact with Tuckett’s two earliest publications.

158

Chapter 10: The Gospel of Mary

This brief saying begins a section of the Savior’s teaching (8.14–22) that has parallels with the Synoptics (see above), which may serve the purpose of identifying the Savior (‘blessed one’ in 8.12) with Jesus.14 As noted in the previous chapter, the ‘peace to you (eivrh,nh u`mi/n || ϯⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦)’ saying often occurs at the beginning of a scene where the resurrected Jesus appears to his disciples (Luke 24:36; John 20:19, 21, 26; Soph. Jes. Chr. BG 79.10–12), but in 8.14–15, the peace-saying comes at the end of a dialogue with the disciples (7.1–8.11).15 He provides further teaching and commissions the disciples (8.15–9.4), then departs (9.5). Since these words are likely spoken by the resurrected Savior, 8.14–9.5 is contextually the closest to Luke 24:36–51 where Jesus pronounces ‘peace to you,’ provides further teaching and commissions the disciples, then departs. Yet the greatest evidence for suggesting that 8.14–15 is influenced by John 14:27 is that the first peace-saying (ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦)16 is repeated with a reference to ‘my peace (ⲧⲁⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ).’17 This alternation between ‘peace’ and ‘my peace’ occurs in John 14:27, although Jesus ‘leaves’ (avfi,hmi || ⲕⲱ) and ‘gives’ (di,dwmi || ϯ) his peace to the disciples, while the disciples are to ‘acquire’ (ϫⲡⲟ) his peace in 8.14–15. This difference in meaning may be attributed to the theological emphasis of the Gos. Mary, where the peace that the disciples are exhorted to ‘acquire’ is similar to the encouragement to follow, seek, and find ‘the Son of Man’ that is within them (8.18–19), and the parallel claim that the disciples are to ‘put on the perfect man and acquire (ⲛ̣ⲧϫⲡⲟ̣ϥ̣) him for ourselves’ (18.16–17).18 The supposedly unique application of ‘my peace’ in 8.14–15 and the prevalence of the ‘peace to you (eivrh,nh u`mi/n)’ saying in Jewish and Christian literature has led some scholars to conclude that the Gos. Mary was dependent on traditional material for this saying. M.R. Hillmer and King both suggest that the parallels with the FG, along with Luke 24:36, Ep. Pet. Phil. 140.17, and Soph. Jes. Chr. 79.10–12, indicate that the 14

See Hartenstein, Lehre, 130; Tuckett, Mary, 150. The beginning of the dialogue is no longer extant, so it is impossible to know if the Savior also spoke the peace-saying when he first appeared. 16 Till – Schenke suggest that ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ is „sprachwidrig“ and it should be ϯⲣⲏⲛⲏ as in the other multiple parallels (Luke 24:36; John 20:19, 21, 26; 1 Pet 5:14; vgl. Luke 10:5; Rom 1:7; 2:10; 1 Cor 1:3; Soph. Jes. Chr. 79.10) (Till – Schenke, Schriften, 64). However, this is understandable if the translator of the Gos. Mary was influenced by Coptic John 14:27, since the combination of ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ with ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦ is extremely rare—the only other occurrence in the NHL and NT is Eph 2:17. 17 Marjanen notes that ‘my peace’ is “clearly a typical Johannine trait” (Woman, 98). See also Wilson – MacRae, “Mary,” 458; Tardieu, Berlin, 228; Hartenstein, Lehre, 158– 159; Nagel, Rezeption, 465–466; Pasquier, Marie, 57; Tuckett, Mary, 58. 18 See Hartenstein, Lehre, 158–159; Pasquier, Marie, 59; Tuckett, Mary, 152. 15

10.3. The Gospel of Mary and the Fourth Gospel

159

peace-saying in the Gos. Mary was a traditional greeting.19 It can be argued that the first two examples were influenced by the FG. The greeting, eivrh,nh u`mi/n in Luke 24:36b, is missing from Codex D and some Old Latin manuscripts, and is therefore a Western non-interpolation. M.W. Martin has convincingly argued that the shorter reading is to be favored, and suggests that an early scribe inserted Luke 24:36b based on John 20.20 In Ep. Pet. Phil. 140.17, Jesus appears to the apostles and says, ‘Peace to you [all] and everyone who believes in my name (ϯⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ [ⲧⲏⲣ]ⲧⲛ ⲙⲛ ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧⲛⲁϩⲁⲧⲉ ⲉⲡⲁⲣⲁⲛ).’ The commissioning scene (140.22–23) has parallels with at least Matt 28:20, but the pronouncement of peace is similar to its three occurrences in John 20, and its extension to ‘everyone who believes in my name’ is also similar to John 20:31.21 Despite the similarities between the Gos. Mary and these works, 8.14–15 is still closer to John 14:27 in that it refers to ‘my peace.’ This same detail occurs in Soph. Jes. Chr. BG 79.10–12 (see Chapter 9) and Ep. Apost. 30 (26.11) (not mentioned by Hillmer and King), where the Savior tells the disciples, ‘I am in you, and I will give you my peace (ϯ̣ⲛⲁⲧⲉ ⲛⲏⲧⲛⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ).’ These examples undermine the claim that the Gos. Mary was dependent on traditional material for the peace-saying, but the Soph. Jes. Chr. and Ep. Apost. reveal, with a probable degree of certainty, how John 14:27 was applied to a post-resurrection commissioning scene. This same measure of certainty cannot be applied to the Gos. Mary (since it has fewer verbal parallels), but, as already mentioned, these three works may provide evidence for a traditional interpretation/application of John 14:27.

19

Hillmer, “John,” 131; King, Mary, 99. M.W. Martin, “Defending the ‘Western Non-Interpolations’,” JBL 124 (2005): 284–285. Even if the author of the Gos. Mary had been influenced by a version of Luke 24:36b with the ‘peace to you’ saying, it still does not explain the inclusion of ‘my peace’ in 8.14–15. 21 See M.W. Meyer, “The Letter of Peter to Philip,” in J.H. Sieber, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex VIII (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 229. 20

160

Chapter 10: The Gospel of Mary

BG 10.7–15; P.Oxy. 3525, ll.17–20 ⲁⲥⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ︦ ⲛϭⲓ ⲙⲁⲣⲓϩⲁⲙ ⲡⲉϫⲁⲥ ϫⲉ ⲡⲉⲑⲏⲡ ⲉⲣⲱⲧⲛ︦ ϯⲛⲁⲧⲁⲙⲁ ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ︦ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲥⲁⲣⲭⲉⲓ ⲛ︦ϫⲱ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲛ︦ⲛⲉⲓ̈ϣⲁϫⲉ ϫⲉ ⲁ{ⲓ̈}ⲛⲟⲕ ⲡⲉϫⲁⲥ ⲁⲓⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡϫ︦ⲥ︦ ϩⲛ ⲟⲩϩⲟⲣⲟⲙⲁ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁⲉⲓϫⲟⲟⲥ ⲛⲁϥ ϫⲉ ⲡϫ︦ⲥ︦ ⲁⲓ̈ⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲙ︦ⲡⲟⲟⲩ ϩⲛ ⲟⲩϩⲟⲣⲟⲙⲁ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱϣⲃ ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ ϫⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ̈ⲁⲧⲉ ϫⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲕⲓⲙ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲣⲉⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲉⲓ ụp̣ẹ@labe Mariammh legousa osa um#ạj lanqanei kai apomnhmoneuw ạp̣ạ@ggelw umin kai hrcen autoij tou#tẉn twṇ log em@oi# pote en oromati id@oush ton kurion kai eipoush# ḳụṛịẹ shmeron

John 20:18 ⲁⲥⲉⲓ ⲛ︦ϭⲓ ⲙⲁⲣⲓϩⲁⲙ ⲧⲙⲁⲅⲇⲁⲗⲏⲛⲏ. ⲁⲥⲧⲁⲙⲉ ⲙ︦ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ. ϫⲉ ⲁⲓⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲁϥϫⲉ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲁⲓ.

e;rcetai Maria.m h` Magdalhnh. avgge,llousa toi/j maqhtai/j o[ti e`w,raka to.n ku,rion( kai. tau/ta ei=pen auvth/|Å

It is plausible that the Gos. Mary was influenced by John 20:18 for the detail that Mary told the disciples, ‘I have seen the Lord’ (BG 10.10–11; P.Oxy. 3525, l.19).22 The repetition of this claim with the somewhat complicated use of the past tense that obfuscates the timing of this vision (10.12–13), may suggest that the author has reiterated Mary’s claim in John 20:18 for emphasis.23 The title ‘Lord’ in this passage is also noteworthy, since he is the ‘blessed one’ in 8.12, and the ‘Savior’ throughout the rest of the Gos. Mary. Perhaps one additional verbal similarity is that 9.14 indicates that Mary spoke to ‘her brothers (ⲛⲛⲉⲥ`ⲥ´ⲛⲏⲩ),’ while Jesus commands Mary to go tell ‘my brothers (tou.j avdelfou,j mou || ⲛⲁⲥⲛⲏⲩ)’ about his ascension (John 20:17).24 The content of Mary’s proclamation to the disciples in John 20:18 is not explicit, although it likely contained Jesus’ announcement in 20:17, ‘I am ascending to the Father.’ The extant contents of her vision in Gos. Mary 15.1–17.7 are much more intricate, but it is similar to John 20:17 in that it too describes an ascension, which is likely the ascension of the Savior’s soul.25 The variations between the canonical gospels and 1 Cor 15:3–8 indicate that there were multiple traditions about Jesus’ resurrection appearances. 22 See Tardieu, Berlin, 20; Marjanen, Woman, 117; Petersen, Zerstört, 133, 153–154; Hartenstein, Lehre, 130, 157; Nagel, Rezeption, 468–469; Pasquier, Marie, 23; Tuckett, Mary, 71, 170. The Coptic translations of Gos. Mary 10.10–11 and John 20:18 have verbal parallels (ⲁⲓⲛⲁⲩ ⲉⲡϫ︦ⲥ︦), while the Greek is less precise—the reconstructed P.Oxy. 3525, l.19 has the Aorist id@oush ton kurion#, while John 20:18 has the Perfect e`w,raka to.n ku,rion. 23 Petersen, Zerstört, 153. For a discussion of the issues related to the timing of the vision, see Tuckett, Mary, 169–171. 24 Hartenstein, Lehre, 158. The disciples are also called ‘brothers’ in Jesus’ resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary in Matt 28:10. 25 A. Taschl-Erber, Maria von Magdala – erste Apostolin? Joh 20,1–18 (Freiburg: Herder, 2007), 504.

10.3. The Gospel of Mary and the Fourth Gospel

161

King has suggested that Mary’s vision in the Gos. Mary was based on early traditional material instead of John 20:18, since the disciples’ response to her vision is different, and the timing of the vision is different in relation to Jesus’ commissioning of the disciples.26 These differences should not, however, overshadow the verbal and contextual similarities with John 20:14–18: Mary alone received a vision of the Savior, reported it to the ‘brothers’ by declaring, ‘I have seen the Lord,’ and then recounts this vision of ascension. It is difficult to contend that all these details were part of a tradition that was independent from the FG. Mark 16:9 indicates that Jesus appeared to Mary alone and she reported this to the disciples, but the author of the Longer Ending of Mark may be influenced by the FG for this detail.27 In his polemic against Jesus’ resurrection, Celsus claims, ‘he showed himself secretly only to one woman’ (Origen, Cels. 2.70). Since Origen claims that Celsus (and/or his Jewish interlocutor) used extracts from the canonical gospels, including the FG (2.36–37), and Celsus claimed to take his information ‘from your own books’ (2.74, 77), it is likely that the detail of Jesus’ appearance to a woman in secret was either from John 20:14–18 or Mark 16:9. The claim that this woman (whom Origen acknowledges is Mary Magdalene) was ‘half-frantic’ (2.55, 59, 60) is likely a reference to Mary’s emotional state—she is weeping in John 20:11–15, rather than an inference about her demon possession in Mark 16:9. This would suggest that Celsus knew that Jesus appeared to Mary alone from John 20:14–18, rather than Mark 16:9 or an independent tradition.28 Due to the contextual and verbal parallels between John 20:18 and Gos. Mary 10.7–15 (plus the reconstructed P.Oxy. 3525, l.19), along with Celsus’ likely knowledge of John 20:14–18 around 170 CE, it is more plausible that the author of the Gos. Mary was influenced by the FG, rather than by an independent tradition.

26

King, Mary, 116–117; 130. J.A. Kelhoffer lists 10 parallels between the Longer-Ending of Mark and FG, and suggests that the appearance to Mary alone “probably reflects an allusion to John 20:18” (J.A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 149). However, Dodd and Brown previously concluded that the evidence was insufficient to indicate dependence (C.H. Dodd, “The Appearance of the Risen Christ,” in D.E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), 9–35, 32–33; Brown, John, 2:1003). 28 See Kelhoffer, Miracle, 171; Hill, Johannine, 309–311. It is doubtful that Celsus knew this tradition from an independent source, since Origen affirms that he has taken it from ‘statements in the Gospels’ (Cels. 2.59). 27

162

Chapter 10: The Gospel of Mary

10.3.2. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel BG 7.12 Peter asks, ‘What is the sin of the world? (ⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲙⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟ̣ⲥ̣),’ which, as discussed in Chapter 8, is similar to John 1:29 where John the Baptist identifies Jesus as the lamb of God who takes away ‘the sin of the world (th.n a`marti,an tou/ ko,smou || ⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ).’29 This may indicate the influence of language from the FG rather than an attempt to undermine Johannine Christology, 30 but this pithy phrase also occurs in other early Christian literature that is not explicitly dependent on John 1:29 (Origen, Cels. 6.34; Tertullian, Spect. 1). BG 7.14 The Savior indicates that the disciples ‘do sin’ (ⲡⲉϯⲣⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ) when they do things that are not congruent with their nature. This is similar to ‘doing sin’ (o` poiw/n th.n a`marti,an || ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ) in John 8:34 and 1 John 3:4, 8. While this is not strong evidence for the influence of the FG, the same construction also occurs in Gos. Phil. 77.18, where the phrase ⲡⲉϯⲣⲉ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲙ︦ⲡⲛⲟⲃⲉ is probably a quotation of John 8:34 (see Chapter 7). BG 9.6, 14–16 After the departure of the Savior, the disciples were grieving (ⲛⲉⲩⲣ︦ⲗⲩⲡⲉⲓ) and wept greatly (ⲁⲩⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡϣⲁ) (9.6), and Mary then exhorts the disciples, ‘do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute (ⲙⲡⲣ︦ⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲙⲡⲣ︦ⲣ︦ⲗⲩⲡⲉⲓ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲣ︦ⲣ︦ ϩⲏⲧ̣ ⲥⲛⲁⲩ)’ (9.14–16).31 The only NT combination of ‘weep’ and ‘grieve’ is John 16:20 where Jesus predicts that after his departure to the Father, the disciples will ‘weep’ (klai,w || ⲣⲓⲙⲉ), ‘lament’ (qrhne,w || ⲧⲟⲉⲓⲧ), and ‘grieve’ (lupe,w), but this same combination of terms also occurs after Jesus’ death in Gos. Pet. 59 (evklai,omen kai. evlupou,meqa) (see Chapter 4). BG 9.10–12 In John 15:20, Jesus states, ‘if they persecuted me, they will persecute you also,’ while the disciples in the Gos. Mary react to the prospect of preaching to the Gentiles by lamenting, ‘if they did not spare him, how will they spare us’ (9.10–12)?32 However, there is a scarcity of verbal overlap, and a similar comparison also occurs in Ep. Pet. Phil.

29 Tardieu, Berlin, 226; Pasquier, Marie, 51. De Boer indicates that it “reminds one” of John 1:29, 35 (de Boer, Mary, 23), while Hillmer and Tuckett suggest dependence on John 1:29 as a possibility (Hillmer, “John,” 132; Tuckett, Mary, 67–68). It is possible that Gos. Sav. 78, and probable that P.Berol. 11710, ll.9–18 were influenced by John 1:29. 30 Contra King, Mary, 127. 31 This is reconstructed in P.Oxy. 3525 as ‘[oi de luphqhsan dakrountej polla]’ (ll.5–6) and ‘[mh dakruete mh lup]eisqe mhde distazetẹ’ (l.10). 32 See Tardieu, Berlin, 230; Petersen, Zerstört, 141; Hartenstein, Lehre, 158; King, Mary, 129–130.

10.3. The Gospel of Mary and the Fourth Gospel

163

138.15–16 where the apostles say, ‘if he, our Lord, suffered, how much more must we?’ BG 10.2–3; 18.14–15 Peter claims that the Savior loved Mary ‘more than (ⲛϩⲟⲩⲟ) the rest of women’ (10.2–3), and Levi also states that ‘he loved her more than (ⲛ︦ϩⲟⲩⲟ) us’ (18.14–15).33 It has been suggested that the Savior’s love for Mary may be based on John 11:5,34 but this does not emphasize Jesus’ exceptional love for Mary (of Bethany!) alone. Rather, the Savior’s greater love for Mary is paralleled in Gos. Phil. 63.34–35 and 64.2 where the Savior loves Mary more than (ⲛ︦ϩⲟⲩⲟ) the rest of the disciples.35 It has also been suggested that the role of Mary in the Gos. Mary is similar to that of the disciple ‘whom Jesus loved’ in the FG.36 Both are uniquely loved by Jesus, receive private instruction from him (BG 10.1–17.9; P.Oxy. 3525, ll.14–20; John 13:26; 20:21), and are the guarantors of Jesus’ teachings (BG 18.2–5, 12–15; P.Ryl. 463, v.5–8; John 21:24). However, James also has a similar function in the 2 Apoc. Jas., where the Lord kisses him and states, ‘My beloved! Behold, I will reveal to you those things that the heavens and archons have not known . . . Behold, I will reveal to you everything, my beloved’ (56.16–20; 57.4–5). It is difficult to ascertain the source of this tradition of Jesus’ unique love for Mary—perhaps it was from an independent tradition, but it may also be an inference from John 20:14–18.37 33

P.Ryl. 463, v.7–8 ‘eidwj auṭḥn ạṣf@al#ẉ@j# hgaphsen.’ See Wilson, “Mary,” 243; Tardieu, Berlin, 231; Schaberg, Mary, 200. 35 In PS, Mary and the disciples are ‘blessed above all men’ (15.15–17; 352.3–5), although Jesus notes her unique status by claiming that her heart is ‘more directed to the kingdom of heaven than all your brothers’ (26.17–20). Jesus calls Mary and the disciples ‘beloved’ (358.13), but this term is not applied to Mary alone, as it is to John (129.9; 204.18), James (149.7), and Matthew (161.23). 36 John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2–10; 21:7, 20–24. See Marjanen, Woman, 116–117; Tuckett, Mary, 71, 192; de Boer, Mary, 190–193, although her conclusion that Mary may be “concealed” in the beloved disciple in the FG is too speculative and does not successfully explain away their presence together in John 19:25–27; 20:1–11. See Taschl-Erber, Maria, 328–338, 486. 37 F. Bovon has suggested that Mary Magdalene’s special status in extra-canonical literature of the second and third centuries CE was influenced by John 20:14–18 (F. Bovon, «Le privilège pascal de Marie-Madeleine,» NTS 30 (1984): 51–52), and other scholars have argued that her positive portrayal in the Gos. Mary was also likely influenced by John 20:14–18 (Petersen, Zerstört, 150; Mohri, Maria, 277; Pasquier, Marie, 23; Tuckett, Mary, 17–18; Taschl-Erber, Maria, 503–505). Multiple scholars have noted that Mary’s portrayal in the FG is positive (Mohri, Maria, 129–152; S. Ruschmann, Maria von Magdala im Johannesevangelium (Münster: Aschendorff, 2002), 108–120; J. Hartenstein, Charakterisierung im Dialog (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 121–124; Taschl-Erber, Maria, 301–316), but King has argued that her portrayal in the Gos. Mary was not influenced by the FG since her status is diminished in 34

164

Chapter 10: The Gospel of Mary

BG 10.4–5 Peter’s request of Mary, ‘tell us the words of the Savior that you remember (ϫⲱ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲛⲛ︦ϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲥ︦ⲱ︦ⲣ︦ ⲉⲧⲉⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲙⲡⲉⲩⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ),’38 is similar to John 15:20 where Jesus discusses the enmity of the world against the disciples, and encourages them to ‘remember the word that I said to you (mnhmoneu,ete tou/ lo,gou39 ou- evgw. ei=pon u`mi/n || ⲁⲣⲓⲡⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡϣⲁϫⲉ ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲓϫⲟⲟϥ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦).’ The remembrance of Jesus’ word is not unique to John 15:20,40 although the context is similar in that the remembrance of Jesus’ word is intended to calm the fears of the disciples.41 BG 16.14–16 During the ascent of the soul, the seven powers of wrath inquire, ‘Where do you come from (ⲉⲣⲉⲛⲏⲩ ϫⲓⲛ ⲧⲱⲛ), killer of men, or where are you going (ⲏ ⲉⲣⲉⲃⲏⲕ ⲉⲧⲱⲛ) conqueror of space.’ This question is similar to Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus about the Spirit in John 3:8 (see also John 8:14), in that he does not know ‘where it comes from and where it is going (po,qen e;rcetai kai. pou/ u`pa,gei || ⲛ︦ⲧⲁϥⲉⲓ ⲧⲱⲛ ⲏ ⲉϥⲛⲁ ⲉⲧⲱⲛ).’42 However, similar questions occur in the description of the soul’s ascent in 1 Apoc. Jas. 33.15–16 and 34.16 (see also Soph. Jes. Chr. BG John 20:14–18: (1) she mistakes Jesus for the gardener; (2) calls him r`a bbouni, (which King suggests is an inferior Christological title in the FG); (3) clings to him out of ignorance of his ascension; and (4) is subordinate to the male disciples since she is only commissioned to testify to them (Mary, 131). Each of these conclusions can be questioned: (1) mistaking Jesus as the gardener serves an apologetic purpose in that it places Mary at the correct location—the garden where Jesus was buried (John 19:41); (2) the verbal parallels between John 20:14–18 and the first disciples in John 1:37–38 (stre,fw; qewre,w / qea,omai; ti,na zhtei/j / ti, zhtei/te; rabbouni o] le,getai dida,skale / r`abbi, o] le,getai meqermhneuo,menon dida,skale) serve to identify Mary as the first disciple of the resurrected Jesus. This is confirmed in John 20:25 where the disciples, following the precedent of Mary, declare to Thomas, e`wra,kamen to.n ku,rion; (3) this is an apologetic for the bodily resurrection, and possibly an assimilation with Matt 28:9–10; and (4) she has the same role of testifying to the ‘brothers’ in the Gos. Mary and FG—it is not explicit that Mary is sent out to preach at the conclusion of the Gos. Mary. 38 P.Oxy. 3525, ll.16–17 are slightly different: “‘Tell us [those words you know] of the Savior that we did not hear.’ [Mary replied saying, ‘What is for you] hidden and I remember, I will [tell you]’” (eipon oun hmein ọ@souj su ginwskeij logo#ụj tou swthroj @ouj# ḥṃẹịj ouk hkousamẹṇ ụp̣ẹ@labe Mariammh legousa osa um#ạj lanqanei kai apomnhmoneuw ạp̣ạ@ggelw umin#). What is significant for this discussion is that Mary ‘remembers’ the ‘[words]’ of the Savior. 39 D has tou.j lo,gouj. 40 Matt 26:75; Mark 14:72; Luke 24:8; John 2:22; Acts 11:16; 20:35. 41 Petersen has overstated the comparison with the FG by claiming that Mary fulfills the role of Paraclete in John 14:16; 16:13 (Zerstört, 141). Rather than taking on the role of the Paraclete or Beloved Disciple from the FG, Mary is depicted in the Gos. Mary as taking on the role of the Savior (8.6–9.4, 9.12–24). See Marjanen, Woman, 106; Petersen, Zerstört, 139; Mohri, Maria, 273; King, Mary, 129–130; Schaberg, Mary, 172; de Boer, Mary, 24; Hartenstein, Charakterisierung, 135; Pasquier, Marie, 69; Tuckett, Mary, 71. 42 Nagel, Rezeption, 467, 489–491.

10.3. The Gospel of Mary and the Fourth Gospel

165

117.13–16 (Chapter 9)), and questions about one’s origin and future destination are surely not unique to these works (Clement, Exc. 78.2). BG 17.18–22 After Mary recounts her vision, Andrew rejects it because the content is strange (17.10–15), while Peter questions, ‘Did he speak with a woman (ⲁϥϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲛ︦ ⲟⲩⲥϩⲓ̈ⲙⲉ) without our knowing it and not openly (ϩⲛ ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ)? Shall we turn around (ⲉⲛⲛ̣ⲁ̣ⲕⲧⲟⲛ ϩⲱⲱⲛ) and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?’ (17.18–22).43 The theme of Jesus speaking with a woman without the disciples’ knowledge is similar to John 4:27, where the disciples return and are amazed that Jesus was speaking with a woman (meta. gunaiko.j evla,lei || ⲛⲉϥϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲛ︦ ⲟⲩⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ).44 Peter’s doubt that the Savior would have spoken ‘not openly’ is similar to Jesus’ statement in John 18:20–21 that he has spoken openly to the world (evgw. parrhsi,a| lela,lhka tw/| ko,smw| || ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲛ︦ⲧⲁⲓϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲛ︦ ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ϩⲛ︦ ⲟⲩⲡⲁⲣⲣⲏⲥⲓⲁ) and it was not in secret (evn kruptw/|; ϩⲙ︦ ⲡϩⲱⲡ). Peter also questions whether they are now expected to ‘turn around’ and listen to Mary, which is similar to the odd feature in John 20:14, 16 where Mary ‘turned’ twice (evstra,fh eivj ta. ovpi,sw || ⲁⲥⲕⲟⲧⲥ︦ ⲉⲡⲁϩⲟⲩ; strafei/sa || ⲁⲥⲕⲟⲧⲥ︦) to see Jesus. If the author was influenced by the FG for these details, then Peter’s lack of knowledge that Jesus spoke with a woman in private (John 4:27), the tension between his previous and present claim regarding Mary’s knowledge (see 10.1–6), and his reluctance to turn and listen to Mary as she turned and listened to Jesus (John 20:14, 16), may emphasize his ignorance.45 Although the context of these sayings differ from the Gos. Mary, the terminological parallels may indicate the possible influence of language from the FG. BG 18.1 In response to Peter’s accusatory questions, Mary ‘wept’ (ⲣⲓⲙⲉ). Regardless of the meaning of Mary’s weeping in the Gos. Mary,46 it is possible that the author was influenced by John 20:11–15, where Mary’s

43

P.Ryl. 463, r.12–15 ‘ọ sw@thr# laqṛa g@una#ịki elalei kai @ou fa#nerwj ina pantej akous@wmen mh a#xiologwterạṇ ḥ@)#ẉṇ @)))#.’ 44 See Wilson, “Mary,” 243; Till – Schenke, Schriften, 75; Wilson – MacRae, “Mary,” 466. 45 See Hartenstein, Lehre, 133; Taschl-Erber, Maria, 522. For a recent discussion on the portrayal of Peter and the nature of the conflict envisaged in the Gos. Mary, see Tuckett, Mary, 185–203. 46 King suggests that this does not weaken her portrayal as a “model disciple and apostle” (King, Mary, 131), while Tuckett suggests that it at least portrays her weakness similar to the disciples who are weeping after the Savior’s departure in 9.6 (Tuckett, Mary, 189).

166

Chapter 10: The Gospel of Mary

‘weeping’ (klai,w || ⲣⲓⲙⲉ) is noted four times.47 This is the only occurrence of Mary Magdalene’s weeping in the canonical gospels,48 although she also weeps in Dial. Sav. 126.17–20 and PS 218.11, and weeps with other women at Jesus’ tomb in Gos. Pet. 52 and Ep. Apost. 9–10.

10.4. Conclusion The difference in the order, arrangement, and contexts of parallel material in the Gos. Mary and canonical gospels has led King to conclude: “Although word-for-word similarities between the Gospel of Mary and other early Christian writings are evident, these are best accounted for by source criticism in terms of independent transmission through unknown oral or literary works.”49 Surely it is possible that the Gos. Mary was dependent on ‘unknown oral or literary works,’ but this is a counsel of despair. The more plausible solution is that the presence of Matthean and Lukan redactional material, along with material unique to the FG, indicates that the author was influenced by these gospels. (1) The Savior comforts his disciples with words about his peace—a unique detail in John 14:27 that probably influenced Soph. Jes. Chr. BG 79.10–12 and Ep. Apost. 30; (2) the resurrected Savior appeared to Mary alone—a detail unique to John 20:14–18 (with the exception of Mark 16:9 in the Longer-Ending of Mark) that is probably used by Celsus; then imparted teaching to her alone and commissioned her alone to go to the brothers to relay information about his ascension—distinctive to John 20:17–18; and (3) Mary announced to the disciples, ‘I have seen the Lord’—a phrase unique to John 20:18. The presence of common terminology and themes in the Gos. Mary may also strengthen the plausibility of the FG’s influence: ‘sin of the world’ (7.12//John 1:29); ‘doing sin’ (7.14//John 8:34); the ‘grieving and weeping’ of the disciples (9.6, 14–16//John 16:20); the ‘remembrance’ of the Savior’s words and the prospect that the disciples will be persecuted like the Savior (10.14–15; 9.10–12//John 15:20); the question ‘where do you come from . . . or where are you going’ (16.14–15//John 3:8); the Savior spoke with Mary in private without the disciples’ knowledge and they are now expected to ‘turn’ and follow her (17.18–22//John 4:27; 18:20–21; 20:14–16); Mary is portrayed as ‘weeping’ (18.1//John 20:11– 15). It is more plausible that the verbal and contextual parallels between 47 See Tardieu, Berlin, 236; Petersen, Zerstört, 165; Hartenstein, Lehre, 158; Tuckett, Mary, 72. The Manichean Psalm Book II, 187, which is probably dependent on John 20:1–18, also notes that Mary ‘had tears in her eyes.’ 48 Mary of Bethany also ‘weeps’ (klai,w) in John 11:33. 49 King, Mary, 117.

10.4. Conclusion

167

the Gos. Mary and FG, along with a similar portrayal of Mary—she is the most loved disciple who possessed unique knowledge of the Savior that she then imparted to the disciples—indicates that the author was influenced by the FG, rather than an independent source/tradition.

Chapter 11

The Gospel of Judas (Codex Tchacos, 3) 11.1. Introduction A Coptic papyrus codex containing the Gospel of Judas (Gos. Jud.) was first published in 2006 amidst a circus of media hype and scholarly speculation that this discovery would provide an alternative view of early Christianity. 1 The initial publications suggested that Judas was the hero of this work,2 while other scholars argued the opposite since he is a ‘demon’ (Gos. Jud. 44.15–23), deceived by his star (45.11–19), and excluded from the holy generation reserved for saints (46.14–47.29).3 Some scholars have wisely taken an intermediate position, saying Judas is between the holy and earthly generations where he is capable of receiving revelation.4 1

Details about the discovery are produced in H. Krosney, The Lost Gospel (Washington: National Geographic, 2006); R. Kasser – G. Wurst, eds., The Gospel of Judas together with the Letter of Peter to Philip, James, and a Book of Allogenes from Codex Tchacos (Washington: National Geographic, 2007). Other fragments from Codex Tchacos, termed the Ohio Fragments, have recently been published by H. Krosney et al., “Preliminary Report on New Fragments of Codex Tchacos,” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 282–294. This chapter follows the transcription of the Gos. Jud. and the Ohio Fragments by L. Jenott, The Gospel of Judas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 2 R. Kasser et al., eds., The Gospel of Judas (Washington: National Geographic, 2006); 9, 102; B.D. Ehrman, The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot (Oxford: University Press, 2006), 180; M.W. Meyer, Judas (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 52. 3 L. Painchaud, «À propos de la (re)découverte de l’Évangile de Judas,» LTP 62 (2006): 553–568; S. Emmel, “The Presuppositions and the Purpose of the Gospel of Judas,” in M. Scopello, ed., The Gospel of Judas in Context (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 33–39; J.D. Turner, “The Place of the Gospel of Judas in Sethian Tradition,” in Scopello, Judas, 187–237; A.D. DeConick, “The Mystery of Betrayal,” in Scopello, Judas, 239–264; G. Schenke Robinson, “The Gospel of Judas in Light of the New Testament and Early Christianity,” ZAC 13 (2009): 98–107. 4 S.J. Gathercole, The Gospel of Judas (Oxford: University Press, 2007), 112–113; S. Petersen, „Warum und inwiefern ist Judas ein ‚Daimon,‘?“ in Scopello, Judas, 108–26; J.-P. Mahé, «Mise en scène et effets dramatiques dans L’Évangile de Judas,» in Scopello, Judas, 23–32; I. Dunderberg, “Judas’ Anger and the Perfect Human,” in A.D. DeConick, ed., The Codex Judas Papers (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 201–221. M.W. Meyer appears to have modified his previous claims about Judas and contends that he is more of an intermediary being, similar to Sophia (M.W. Meyer, “When the Sethians Were Young,” in DeConick, Codex Judas, 73).

11.2. The Gospel of Judas and the Canonical Gospels

169

Irenaeus is the earliest author to mention a gospel attributed to Judas (Haer. 1.31.1), but his knowledge of this gospel may have been quite superficial.5 Codex Tchacos was carbon-dated to a mean date of 280 CE ± 60 years, and the Greek original of the Gos. Jud. was likely composed in the middle of the second century CE.6 The exaltation of Seth (49.1–7) and presence of other deities is similar to other Gnostic works, although the myth employed in the Gos. Jud. is somewhat unique.7

11.2. The Gospel of Judas and the Canonical Gospels The majority of scholars contend that the Gos. Jud. presupposes the canonical gospels and Acts, although there is disagreement regarding the precise relationship between these works. Some studies have not employed a sophisticated methodology to evaluate the parallels,8 and even scholars who have historically applied a strict redactional-methodology when evaluating the relationship between the extra-canonical and canonical gospels have set it aside when evaluating the Gos. Jud.9 In contrast, S.J. Gathercole, K. Sullivan, M. Grosso, and J.M. Robinson have each provided coherent arguments for the influence of the Synoptic gospels on

5

See Gathercole, Judas, 116–125; P. Nagel, „Das Evangelium des Judas,“ ZNW 98 (2007): 222–227; G. Schenke Robinson, “The Relationship of the Gospel of Judas to the New Testament and to Sethianism,” Journal of Coptic Studies 10 (2008): 79; Turner, “Place,” 228–229. J. van Oort has argued that Irenaeus must have read the Gos. Jud. since he claims to have made a ‘collection’ of other Gnostic writings (Haer. 1.31.2) immediately after mentioning the Gos. Jud. (J. van Oort, “Irenaeus on the Gospel of Judas,” in DeConick, Codex Judas, 51.), but this does not necessarily imply that an edition of the Gos. Jud. must have been part of this collection. 6 See Gathercole, Judas, 140; P.M. Head, “The Gospel of Judas and the Qarara Codices,” TynBul 58 (2007): 16; Turner, “Place,” 227; E.H. Pagels – K.L. King, Reading Judas (New York: Viking Penguin, 2007), 128; S.E. Porter – G.L. Heath, The Lost Gospel of Judas (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), 91; Schenke Robinson, “Relationship,” 81; R. Roukema, “The Historical Context of the Gospel of Judas and its Presentation to the Wider Audience with an Appendix on its Dependence on the Canonical Gospels,” Journal of Coptic Studies 12 (2010): 16; Jenott, Judas, 44. 7 See J. Brankaer – H.-G. Bethge, eds., Codex Tchacos (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 258–260; J.D. Turner, “The Sethian Myth in the Gospel of Judas,” in DeConick, Codex Judas, 95. 8 See Porter – Heath, Judas, 90–95; F. Williams, “The Gospel of Judas,” VC 62 (2008): 371–403; Roukema, “Historical,” 12–18. These studies are beneficial in that they provide extensive lists of the similarities between the Gos. Jud. and the canonical gospels. 9 Pagels – King, Reading, 123; A.D. DeConick, The Thirteenth Apostle (London: Continuum, 2009), 107; Ehrman, Lost Gospel, 144.

170

Chapter 11: The Gospel of Judas

the Gos. Jud.10 Perhaps the strongest evidence for the influence of Matt and Luke is that the description of the scribes’ attempt to arrest Jesus in Gos. Jud. 58.13–19 combines redactional material from Matt 21:45–46 and Luke 20:19–20. Like many of the extra-canonical gospels already examined, the parallels between the Gos. Jud. and FG are “far less conspicuous” than parallels with the Synoptic gospels.11

11.3. The Gospel of Judas and the Fourth Gospel 11.3.1. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel (Thematic Parallels) The first possible thematic parallel is that Judas’ betrayal of Jesus may be interpreted as a faithful act in the FG and Gos. Jud. For example, W. Klassen has argued that John 13:27 (‘What you are about to do, do it quickly’) “explicitly indicates that Jesus sent Judas forth on his mission,”12 and B.D. Ehrman suggested that Gos. Jud. 56.19–21 (‘You will sacrifice (ⲕⲛⲁⲣ ⲑⲩⲥⲓⲁⲥⲉ) the man who bears me’) indicates that Judas “turned Jesus over to the authorities because Jesus wanted him to do so.”13 Both interpretations are exaggerated. Firstly, Jesus does not manipulate Judas and send him forth on a mission in John 13:27,14 but recognizes what Judas is planning to do (o] poiei/j), and then commands him to do it quickly (poi,hson ta,cion). Jesus is also ‘troubled in spirit’ before announcing the betrayal in John 13:21, which precludes any sense that the evangelist was attempting to portray the betrayal as a morally neutral act.15 Secondly, Jesus does not impel Judas to betray him in Gos. Jud. 56.17–21 as some form of assisted suicide, but simply predicts that it will happen.16 The denigration of ‘sacrifice,’ including human sacrifice in Gos. Jud. 38.1– 41.8 also indicates that Judas’ act of betrayal should not be viewed positively. 17 The parallel between the works is not that Judas’ betrayal was 10 Gathercole, Judas, 133–138; K. Sullivan, “You Will Become the Thirteenth,” in DeConick, Codex Judas, 183–188; M. Grosso, “Three Days and Eight Days,” in DeConick, Codex Judas, 464–469; J.M. Robinson, “The Sources of the Gospel of Judas,” in Scopello, Judas, 59–63. 11 Roukema, “Historical,” 16. 12 W. Klassen, Judas (London: SCM, 1996), 203. 13 B.D. Ehrman, “Christianity Turned on Its Head,” in R. Kasser et al., Judas, 80. 14 Contra G.W. Most, “The Judas of the Gospels and the Gospel of Judas,” in Scopello, Judas, 78. 15 See Roukema, “Historical,” 14–15. 16 See Emmel, “Presuppositions,” 38; E. Thomassen, “Is Judas Really the Hero of the Gospel of Judas?,” in Scopello, Judas, 166. 17 Thomassen, “Judas,” 166; B. van Os, “Stop Sacrificing!,” in DeConick, Codex Judas, 385.

11.3. The Gospel of Judas and the Fourth Gospel

171

a faithful act, but that Jesus knew Judas would betray him. It is possible that Gos. Jud. 56.19–21 was influenced by John 13:27, or Matt 26:25, for this detail. Another possible similarity between the works is the negative portrayal of Judas. He is identified as the thirteenth ⲇⲁⲓⲙⲱⲛ (Gos. Jud. 44.21), which may associate him with a malevolent spiritual being, but this is likely a neutral term used to depict Judas’ intermediate position between the two generations.18 Luke 22:3 claims that Satana/j entered Judas and compelled him to betray Jesus, while the most sinister portrayal of Judas is in the FG: he is a ‘devil’ (dia,boloj) (John 6:70); a ‘thief’ (kle,pthj) (12:6); compelled by the ‘devil’ to betray Jesus (13:2); and is eventually possessed by ‘Satan’ (13:27). B.A. Pearson has suggested that the depiction of Judas as a ‘demon’ in 44.21 may be influenced by John 6:70, while L. Painchaud notes it may be based on John 13:27 and Luke 22:3.19 It is possible that Gos. Jud. 44.21 was influenced by Judas’ depiction in John 6:70, or 13:2, 27, but there is the obvious lack of verbal parallels, and his depiction in the Gos. Jud. is much more nuanced. Another supposed parallel theme, noted by E.H. Pagels – K.L. King, is that Jesus’ sacrificial death is rejected by the author of the Gos. Jud. and by Judas in the FG. They suggest that Jesus’ critique of the disciples’ vision in Gos. Jud. 39.18–41.8 is the author’s critique of those who view the death of Jesus and the martyrs as a sacrifice. 20 They then argue that references to Judas’ betrayal in John 6:64–71, after Jesus’ teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood (6:53–55), indicates that the Judas of the FG also rejected the notion that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice. After quoting John 6:61–63 (which they claim “sounds amazingly similar” to his teaching in the Gos. Jud.), they propose, “It may be that the author of the Gospel of Judas read this passage in the Gospel of John, and thought that Judas alone understood what Jesus really meant here, and that was why he handed Jesus over, following Jesus’s command at the last supper (John 13:27).”21 They also note, “In the Gospel of Judas, as well as the Gospel of John, Jesus taught that ‘the spirit gives life, but the flesh is useless [John 6:63].’”22 While their interpretation of the Gos. Jud. is coherent, the comparisons with the FG are far too general to make any sustained argument that the author of the Gos. Jud. had ‘read’ the FG and was influenced by it for a positive evaluation of Judas’ knowledge, and a 18

Petersen, „Warum,“ 121–126. B.A. Pearson, “Judas Iscariot in the Gospel of Judas,” in DeConick, Codex Judas, 140; Painchaud, «Propos,» 559. 20 Pagels – King, Reading, 50. 21 Ibid., 52. 22 Ibid., 52–53. 19

172

Chapter 11: The Gospel of Judas

negative view of Jesus’ death. Firstly, Pagels – King assume that the notice about Judas’ betrayal in John 6:60–71 is related to Jesus’ teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in 6:51–59, when it is more likely related to his teaching about ‘coming down from heaven’ in 6:35–50. There is no mention of flesh and blood in John 6:60–71, and just as the Jews ‘murmur’ (goggu,zw) about his descent statements in 6:41–42, so too his disciples ‘murmur’ (goggu,zw) in 6:61. Jesus’ question about seeing the Son of Man ‘ascending to where he was before’ (John 6:62) presumes that the disciples, just like the Jews, were also troubled by his descent statements (6:33, 38, 51, 58).23 Secondly, Judas is not singled out as having understood Jesus’ enigmatic statements. He is grouped with the chosen twelve (John 6:67, 70), but his unbelief is noted to emphasize Jesus’ foreknowledge of the betrayal (6:64), just as his uncleanness is connected to the betrayal and Jesus’ foreknowledge in 13:10–11. Thirdly, the contrast between the (Holy) Spirit and flesh in John 6:63 does not exist in the Gos. Jud.24 The Spirit is the divine entity that can give eternal life and the flesh is the natural entity that cannot give eternal life in John 6:63 (3:6),25 while the spirit and soul are the spiritual entities of humankind and the flesh and body are the natural entities in the Gos. Jud. (43.14–23; 53.16–54.12). Therefore, it is altogether doubtful that Gos. Jud. 39.18– 41.8 was influenced by the FG. Lastly, S. Emmel has argued that the events of the betrayal transpire in Gos. Jud. 58.9–26 according to John 13:27–30. Emmel states, “Judas’s exit from the upstairs guest room in John 13:30 implies his entrance somewhere else, namely into the street outside, where – according to the Gospel of Judas (more or less) – he meets some of the scribes, and they make the financial transaction that sets the betrayal in motion.”26 Judas’ departure from the final meal in John 13:30 is unique, but it does not indicate that he met with the authorities to strike a deal (here, or anywhere in the FG). It is just as likely that the author was influenced by Mark 14:10–11 or Luke 22:4–6, where Judas ‘departs’ (avpe,rcomai), presumably from Jesus and the other disciples, to meet with the authorities and make the monetary arrangement.

23

Brown, John, 1:299–300. Pagels – King do not provide references to the Gos. Jud. where this occurs, so it is difficult to assess their argument. If they intend to claim that the Gos. Jud. puts greater emphasis on a person’s spiritual constitution than their physical body, then this is surely correct (Gos. Jud. 56.19–20). However, this is not the same contrast in John 6:63. The ‘great invisible Spirit’ does play a revelatory role in the Gos. Jud. (47.8–9), but it is not explicitly contrasted with the flesh. 25 Brown, John, 1:300. 26 Emmel, “Presuppositions,” 35; see also Pagels – King, Reading, 164. 24

11.3. The Gospel of Judas and the Fourth Gospel

173

11.3.2. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel (Verbal Parallels) 33.2–3; 35.9–10; 42.23–24 The reconstructed name ⲓ̈ⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ ⲡⲓⲥⲕⲁⲣⲓⲱⲧⲏⲥ parallels the spelling in John 12:4 and 14:22 (VIou,daj o` VIskariw,thj || ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ ⲡⲓⲥⲕⲁⲣⲓⲱⲧⲏⲥ), but this same spelling also occurs in Matt 10:4. 34.11–15 The disciples state, ‘O Teacher, you [. . .] are the son of our God (ⲡ ⲛⲧⲟⲕ⳿ . . [. .] . . ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ ⲡ̣ϣ̣ⲏ̣ⲣ̣ⲉ̣ ⲡ̣ⲉⲛⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ̣)’ (34.11–13). The demoniacs, unclean spirits, and demons identify Jesus as the ‘Son of God’ in the Synoptics,27 but this same identification is made by Jesus’ followers in Matt 16:16 and John 1:49; 11:27. The negative portrayal of the disciples in the Gos. Jud. may suggest that this incorrect identification was influenced by the testimony of the most preeminent disciple—Peter—in Matt 16:16. However, only Nathanael addresses Jesus with a title in John 1:49, ‘Rabbi, you are the son of God (r`abbi,( su. ei= o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ || ϩⲣⲁⲃⲃⲉⲓ ⲛ︦ⲧⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ︦ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ),’ and the translation of ‘rabbi’ as ‘teacher’ (dida,skaloj || ⲥⲁϩ) was already made in 1:38. Jesus responds to the disciples’ statement by asking, ‘In what way do you know me? (ⲉ̣[ⲧⲉⲧ]ⲛⲥⲟ̣ⲟ̣ⲩⲛⲉ̣ ⲙ̣ⲙ̣ⲟⲉⲓ ϩ̣' ⲟⲩ)’ (34.14–15), which is similar to Nathanael’s question, ‘How do you know me? (po,qen me ginw,skeij || ⲉⲕⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟⲓ̈ ⲧⲱⲛ)’ (John 1:48). It is possible that 34.11–15 was influenced by John 1:48–49, but the lacuna in 34.12 and the claim that it is ‘our God’ in 34.12–13 makes the parallel imprecise.28 35.15–16 Judas claims, ‘I know (ϯⲥⲟ[ⲟ]ⲩ̣ⲛⲉ) who you are and where you have come from,’ which is similar to Jesus’ statement to the Jerusalemites in John 7:28, ‘You know (oi;date || ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ︦) me and you know (oi;date || ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ︦) where I am from,’ although there is a minimal amount of verbal overlap. 37.17–19 When Jesus tells the disciples that they will not see ‘the great generation,’ each of them was ‘disturbed in their spirit (ⲁⲩϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ︦ ϩ︦ⲙ ⲡⲉⲩⲡ︦︦ⲛ︦ⲁ︦),’ which is similar to John 13:21 where Jesus foretells his betrayal and is ‘disturbed in spirit (evtara,cqh tw/| pneu,mati || ⲁϥϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ︦ ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲉⲡⲛ︦ⲁ).’ The only other NT occurrence of this catchphrase is John 11:33.29 58.21–22 The scribes approach Judas and ask, ‘What are you doing here? You are the disciple of Jesus (ⲛ︦ⲧⲟⲕ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ ⲛ︦ⲓ̈ⲥ︦)’ (58.21–22). Only John 12:4 explicitly identifies Judas as one of Jesus’ disciples (evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ || ⲟⲩⲁ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ︦ ⲛⲉϥⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ),30 but this is an obvious fact. 27

Matt 8:29; Mark 3:11; 5:7; Luke 4:41; 8:28. P.Berol. 11710, ll.1–4 also parallels the statement in John 1:49. 29 John 11:33: evnebrimh,sato tw/| pneu,mati || ⲁϥϣⲧⲟⲣⲧⲣ︦ ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲉⲡⲛ︦ⲁ. The closest Synoptic parallel is Mark 8:12 (avnastena,xaj tw/| pneu,mati || ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥⲁϣⲁϩⲟⲙ ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲉϥⲡⲛ︦ⲁ). 30 In the Synoptics, he is ‘one of the twelve’ (Matt 26:14, 47; Mark 14:10, 43; Luke 22:3 (‘belonging to the number of the twelve’), 47. 28

174

Chapter 11: The Gospel of Judas

The interrogation of a disciple in an unexpected location is also similar to John 18:25 where Peter is warming himself by the fire and is asked, ‘Are you not one of his disciples? (mh. kai. su. evk tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ ei= || ⲙⲏ ⲛ︦ⲧⲟⲕ ϩⲱⲱⲕ ⲟⲛ ⲛ︦ⲧⲕ︦ ⲟⲩⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ︦ ⲛⲉϥⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲏⲥ).’31

11.4. Conclusion The introduction (33.1–14) and conclusion (58.9–26) of the Gos. Jud. have the greatest amount of parallels with the canonical gospels, but few of the parallels are lengthy or precise. Even when the Gos. Jud. contains redactional material from Matt or Luke, it is often conflated with either gospel and placed in a different context. Gathercole is correct to suggest that some episodes reflect “Matthew’s phraseology,” 32 and this same conclusion may also be applied to Luke’s phraseology. However, partly due to methodological constraints, we cannot be as optimistic in our conclusions for the influence of the FG. There are interesting thematic similarities between the portrayal of Judas and the disciples in the Gos. Jud. and FG (John 13:27–30), along with a minimal amount of verbal parallels (Jesus’ identity in 34.11–15//John 1:48–49), but they do not appear significant enough to go beyond claiming that it is only possible that the author of the Gos. Jud. was influenced by the FG for these details.

31

See J.-D. Dubois, «L’Évangile de Judas et la tradition basilidienne,» in Scopello, Judas, 146; Roukema, “Historical,” 16; Brankaer – Bethge, Tchacos, 372. Peter is accused of being ‘one of them’ (evx auvtw/n) in the Synoptics (Matt 26:73; Mark 14:69; Luke 22:58). 32 S.J. Gathercole, “Matthean or Lukan Priority?,” in E.E. Popkes – G. Wurst, eds., Judasevangelium und Codex Tchacos (Tübingen: WUNT, 2012), 301–302.

Chapter 12

The Dialogue of the Savior (NHC III,5) 12.1. Introduction The Dialogue of the Savior (Dial. Sav.) is extant in one fragmentary Coptic manuscript (NHC III,5). The obscure narrative structure and variegated style and content throughout the Dial. Sav. may indicate that the author was dependent on numerous sources and traditions.1 Besides the introduction (120.2–124.24) and conclusion (146.18–22), the Dial. Sav. is apparently comprised of four intertwined sections: the Savior’s dialogue with Matthew, Judas, and Mary (125.1–127.18; 129.1–15; 131.19–133.24; 137.3–146.17); a creation myth related to Gen 1–2 (127.19–128.23; 129.16–131.18); possibly an elemental wisdom list of fire, water, wind, and body (133.3–134.25); and a vision at the edge of heaven and earth (135.1–137.3).2 The depiction of Jesus and the universe in the Dial. Sav. has the greatest similarities with Valentinian works (although the correlation is imprecise),3 and it was probably composed around the middle of the second century CE at the earliest.4

1

H. Koester – E.H. Pagels, “The Dialogue of the Savior,” in S. Emmel, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex III,5 (Leiden: Brill, 1984), 1. This chapter uses Emmel’s transcription for the Dial. Sav. 2 Koester – Pagels, “Dialogue,” 2. 3 For Valentinian similarities, see P. Létourneau, Le Dialogue du Sauveur (NH III,5) (Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2003), 8. 4 S. Petersen suggests the second half of the second century CE („Zitate im Dialog des Erlösers (NHC III,5),“ in S. Emmel et al., eds., Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1999), 2:521). Létourneau agrees this may be an appropriate date for the Valentinian source, but concludes that the final composition of Dial. Sav. was between 250–275 CE (Létourneau, Dialogue, 38). Koester argues that the final redaction of Dial. Sav. may have occurred in first half of the second century CE, but the dialogue source used by the author should be dated to the last decades of the first century CE, “and certainly not later than the gospel of John” (Koester – Pagels, “Dialogue,” 16). This latter claim will be addressed in the conclusion.

176

Chapter 12: The Dialogue of the Savior

12.2. The Dialogue of the Savior and the Canonical Gospels H. Koester has claimed that there is no evidence that the Dial. Sav. was dependent on the canonical gospels,5 but the majority of scholars have noted that it contains redactional material from Matt and probably Luke.6 For example, in Dial. Sav. 139.8–11, Mary refers to ‘the wickedness of each day’ (Matt 6:34), ‘the laborer is worthy of his food (ⲛ︦ⲧⲉϥⲧⲣⲟⲫⲏ)’ (Matt 10:10 trofh,), and ‘the disciple resembles his teacher’ (Matt 10:25). Since the second reference is to redactional material in Matt, it is more likely that the first and third references are also to Matt rather than an independent source. Dial. Sav. 122.5–7 and 144.14–15 also have parallels with material that is likely redactional in Luke 21:8 and 11:1.7 There is no scholarly consensus regarding the relationship between the Dial. Sav. and FG. It has been proposed that both works were dependent on a common source,8 the Dial. Sav. was influenced by the FG,9 or the Dial. Sav. was indirectly dependent on the FG through an intermediate source.10 It is necessary to address these previous conclusions by examining the common themes and terminology between the Dial. Sav. and FG.

12.3. The Dialogue of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel 12.3.1. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel 120.19–121.4 The Savior indicates that the disciples have received these words (ⲁⲩϫⲓ ⲛ︦ⲛⲉⲉⲓϣⲁϫⲉ) (120.19), known the Father (ⲧ̣ⲁⲩ̣ⲥ̣ⲟ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲛ̣ ⲡ̣ⲓ̣ⲱⲧ̣) (121.1), believed the truth (ⲉ̣ⲁⲩ[ⲡ]ⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲉⲧⲙⲏⲉ) (121.2), and give glory (ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ϯ ⲛ︦ⲟⲩⲉⲟⲟⲩ) to the Father (121.3; ‘to the Lord’ in 136.10–13). This is similar to John 17:8, where Jesus indicates that the disciples have received (e;labon || ⲁⲩϫⲓⲧⲟⲩ) his words (ta. r`h,mata || ⲛ︦ϣⲁϫⲉ), truly know 5

Koester – Pagels, “Dialogue,” 15; Koester, Ancient, 174–175. See M. Krause, „Der Dialog des Soter in Codex III von Nag Hammadi,“ in M. Krause, ed., Gnosis and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 26; Perkins, Gnostic, 11; Tuckett, Nag Hammadi, 130; Petersen, „Zitate,“ 2:518–519; Klauck, Apocryphal, 189. J.V. Hills, “The Three ‘Matthean’ Aphorisms in the Dialogue of the Savior 53,” HTR 84 (1991): 44–45 notes these parallels, but his complicated reconstruction of a primitive collection of aphorisms that may have influenced the Dial. Sav., which are supposedly evidenced in Epiphanius, Pan. 80.5.4, is not convincing. 7 See Tuckett, Nag Hammadi, 132. 8 H. Koester, “Gnostic Writings as Witnesses for the Development of the Sayings Tradition,” in B. Layton, ed., The Rediscovery of Gnosticism I (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 245, 251–253. 9 Krause, „Dialog,“ 25; Perkins, Gnostic, 107–108. 10 Létourneau, «Traditions,» 58. 6

12.3. The Dialogue of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel

177

(e;gnwsan avlhqw/j || ⲁⲩⲉⲓⲙⲉ ⲛⲁⲙⲉ) that he came from the Father, and believe (evpi,steusan || ⲁⲩⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ) that the Father sent him, and in 17:10, Jesus indicates that he has been glorified (dedo,xasmai || ⲁⲓϫⲓⲉⲟⲟⲩ) by them. The disciples have received Jesus’ words and glorified Jesus (FG), or the Savior and the Father (Dial. Sav.), but these themes are not unique.11 Although the common terminology is noteworthy, each passage has a divergent meaning. Jesus’ prayer in John 17:8–10 indicates that the disciples understand he has come from the Father, while the Savior has come to teach the elect about the frightful passage they must traverse in Dial. Sav. 120.23–25 (see also 135.1–137.3).12 121.4–7 The Savior then teaches the disciples to pray by stating, ‘Hear us, Father, just as you heard your only-begotten son (ⲉⲡⲉⲕⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ ϣⲏⲣⲉ) and received him.’ The claim that the Father has heard the prayer of the Savior is affirmed by Jesus in John 11:41–42, and the identification of the Savior as the ‘only-begotten son’ (monogenh,j + ui`o,j) occurs at least twice in the FG (John 1:18 (some mss); 3:16, 18), as well as other canonical and extra-canonical literature.13 P. Létourneau has argued that the prayer of the Savior has significant structural and thematic parallels with Jesus’ prayer in John 17: (1) the bipartite structure of the prayer that is based on the example of the Savior (121.5–18) and then the elect (121.18–20) is similar to Jesus’ prayer about his mission (John 17:1–8) and then the mission of the disciples (17:9–26); (2) the already-but-not-yet fulfillment of these prayers in that the disciples have ‘saved their souls’ (121.22–23) but are in need of instruction, just as the disciples’ faith is realized in John 17:8–26 but not fulfilled until Jesus returns to the Father and sends the Spirit; and (3) the Savior’s desire for the disciples to enter the place of rest with him and the Father (121.9–21) is similar to Jesus’ request in John 17:24.14 However, the absence of verbal parallels weakens the significance of these thematic similarities. 122.1–6; 127.1–6 Both these passages in the Dial. Sav. refer to ‘darkness’ (ⲕⲁⲕⲉ). The Savior teaches the disciples what to say when ‘the first power of darkness (ⲡⲕⲁⲕⲉ) will come upon you’ (122.1–6). The malevolent force of darkness is comparable to John 12:35 where Jesus exhorts the disciples 11

See Gos. Truth 16.31–35; 19.27–36; Testim. Truth 31.7–8; Treat. Seth 51.14–15; Trim. Prot. 38.16–30. 12 A.D. DeConick contends that this is a post-mortem journey. See A.D. DeConick, “The Dialogue of the Savior and the Mystical Sayings of Jesus,” VC 50 (1996): 178–199; Voices, 157–162. 13 1 John 4:9; Gos. Eg. III 68.25; Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex 7, 10, 11. Koester – Pagels note, “‘Only-begotten son’ represents the only relationship to John in this introductory section” (Koester – Pagels, “Dialogue,” 10). 14 Létourneau, «Traditions,» 43–45.

178

Chapter 12: The Dialogue of the Savior

to walk in the light ‘so that the darkness (skoti,a || ⲡⲕⲁⲕⲉ) will not seize you.’ However, the antidote to ‘darkness’ in the Dial. Sav. is the teaching of the Savior, while it is walking and believing in the light personified in Jesus in John 12:35–36. The lacunose statement about standing in the ‘darkness’ (ⲕⲁⲕⲉ) and seeing the ‘light’ (ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ) in 127.1–6 (see also 133.23–134.1) is also similar to the contrast in John 12:35. It is possible that the Dial. Sav. was influenced by John 12:35 for a dualistic representation of light and darkness, but the different antecedents of light undermines their relationship—Jesus himself is identified with the light in the FG (John 8:12; 12:35, 46), while it is the disciples’ inner light that is revealed through the teaching of the Savior in the Dial. Sav.15 126.3–5, 14–17 There are two possible parallels between the Dial. Sav. and FG concerning the role of the Spirit. A lacunose statement of the Lord contains the terms, ‘I will go (ϯⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ) . . . my word (ⲙ︦ⲡⲁϣⲁϫⲉ) . . . I send (ϯⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲟⲩ)’ (126.3–5). Two of these terms each occur in John 16:7 and 14:26—if Jesus ‘goes’ (poreu,w || ⲃⲱⲕ) to the Father, he will ‘send’ (pe,mpw || ⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲟⲩ) the Spirit (16:7); the Spirit that is ‘sent’ (pe,mpw || ⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲟⲟⲩ) will remind the disciples of ‘all things || [Jesus’] words’ (pa/j || ϣⲁϫⲉ) (John 14:26).16 Then after a series of fragmentary questions and answers surrounding the terms ‘seek,’ ‘reveal,’ ‘speak,’ and ‘listen,’ the Lord states, ‘The one who speaks (ⲡⲉⲧϣⲁϫⲉ) is also the one who [hears] (ⲡⲉⲧⲥ[ⲱⲧⲙ︦]), and the one who sees (ⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁⲩ) is also the one who [reveals] ([ⲡⲉ]ⲧϭⲱⲗⲡ)’ (126.14–17). In John 16:13, Jesus indicates that the coming Spirit of truth ‘will not speak from himself, but whatever he hears (avkou,sei || ⲡⲉⲧϥ︦ⲛⲁⲥⲟⲧⲙⲉϥ) he will speak (lalh,sei || ⲉϥⲛⲁϫⲉ) and he will announce to you the things to come.’ Since these passages in the Dial. Sav. are concerned with the role of the ‘mind’ (nou/j) in enlightenment (125.19; 126.23), they are likely indebted to Platonic traditions instead of the FG. 17 It is possible that the author of the Dial. Sav. used terminology about the role of the Spirit in John 16:7, 14:26, and 16:13 to describe the role of the mind, but these terms and themes are not unique to the FG.18 126.17–20 The question of Mary is lacunose, but the reconstructed text suggests that she weeps ([ⲉⲉⲓ]ⲣⲓⲙⲉ), which is similar to John 20:11–15 where Mary’s ‘weeping’ (klai,w || ⲣⲓⲙⲉ) is noted four times, although she 15

Létourneau, «Traditions,» 52–54. Létourneau, Dialogue, 15, 163–164. John 14:26 Coptic ⲛϥ︦ⲧⲣⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲣⲡⲙⲉⲉⲩⲉ ⲛ︦ϣⲁϫⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲛⲧⲁⲓϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ︦ specifies the Greek u`pomnh,sei u`ma/j pa,nta a] ei=pon u`mi/n Îevgw,Ð. 17 Létourneau, Dialogue, 167. 18 The terms pneu/ma and nou/j appear in close proximity to one another in Dial. Sav., but it is difficult to determine their relationship due to multiple lacunae (see 126.23– 127.1; 128.7–18). 16

12.3. The Dialogue of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel

179

also ‘weeps’ in the Gos. Pet., Gos. Mary, and other extra-canonical literature (see Chapters 4 and 10).19 129.8–12; 141.24–142.3 Both these passages in the Dial. Sav. refer to an ability to ‘overcome’ (ϫⲣⲟ). The Lord tells the disciples, ‘For just as your hearts (ⲛⲉⲧⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧ) […] so […] you will overcome (ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁϫⲣⲟ) the powers [above] as well as those below’ (129.8–12), and he states a macarism in 141.24–142.3 about the man who competes in the contest and comes forth victorious (ⲉϥϫⲣⲁⲉⲓⲧ). In John 16:33, Jesus encourages his disciples, ‘take heart (qarsei/te || ⲧⲱⲕ ⲛ︦ϩⲏⲧ), for I have overcome (neni,khka || ⲁⲓϫⲣⲟ) the world.’20 Since the FG identifies a malevolent power as ‘the ruler of this world’ (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), there may be a similar theme of steeling one’s heart to overcome a malevolent power and win the contest, but the ability to do so in the Dial. Sav. is anthropocentric, while it is Christocentric in the FG. Furthermore, the idea of ‘overcoming’ evil powers also exists in Gos. Mary 16.1ff. 132.2–19 There are multiple parallels between the Dial. Sav. and FG regarding the heavenly ‘place’ (ⲙⲁ; ⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ). Koester has argued that the parallels between Dial. Sav. 132.2–19 and John 14:2–12 are “evident,” and the Dial. Sav. preserves an older interpretation of a traditional saying about entering the place of life.21 The parallels are as follows: (1) Matthew requests to [see] ([ⲉⲛⲁⲩ]) the place of life (ⲉⲡⲙⲁ ⲙ︦ⲡⲱⲛϩ) (132.7); Jesus says he will prepare a place (to,pon || ⲟⲩⲙⲁ) for the disciples (John 14:2), and Philip requests, ‘show us (dei/xon h`mi/n || ⲙⲁⲧⲥⲁⲃⲟⲛ) the Father’ (John 14:8); (2) Matthew claims that if he cannot ‘see it’ he still wants to ‘[know it]’ and the Lord replies, ‘[Everyone] who has known (ⲉⲧⲁϩⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛϥ︦) himself has seen (ⲁϥⲛⲁⲩ) it’ (132.13–16); Jesus indicates that disciples now know (ginw,skete || ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ︦) and have seen (e`wra,kate || ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲁⲩ) the Father based on their knowledge of him (John 14:7); (3) the Lord makes a lacunose statement about every ‘work’ (ϩⲱⲃ) given to him to do (132.17); Jesus claims that those who believe in him will do the works (ta. e;rga || ⲛⲉϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ) that he does (John 14:12). These parallels are quite insignificant, and again, they represent divergent ideas.22 Firstly, the ‘place of life’ only has a parallel with the ‘place’ of John 14:2, while the former phrase occurs in Gos. Thom. §4. Secondly, Matthew and the Lord discuss 19

PS 218.11; Ep. Apost. 9–10. The term ϫⲣⲟ only occurs in Luke 11:22 and John 16:33 in the canonical gospels, and Gos. Sav. 147–148 is probably influenced by John 16:33 (see Chapter 8). Gos. Mary 16.1, 19 uses the verb ⲟⲩⲱⲥϥ︦. 21 H. Koester, “The History-of-Religions School, Gnosis, and Gospel of John,” ST – Nordic Journal of Theology 40 (1986): 129–130. See also Koester, Ancient, 179–181. 22 Létourneau, Dialogue, 209. 20

180

Chapter 12: The Dialogue of the Savior

seeing and knowing the ‘place of life,’ while John 14:7 is focused on seeing and knowing the Father. Furthermore, access is based on knowledge of oneself in the Dial. Sav., while it is based on knowing Jesus in John 14:7. Koester assumes that the common source/tradition that both works were dependent on contained an anthropocentric soteriology that was then transformed by the FG,23 but, as noted in Chapter 6, Heracleon’s commentary reveals how the FG was interpreted to coincide with an anthropocentric soteriology. 24 Although the influence in one direction or the other is only possible, it is more likely that the Dial. Sav. was influenced by the FG for this terminology and diverted the theological emphasis towards knowledge of oneself. 133.18–21 The Savior states, ‘Even if it [likely a referent to ‘a Word (ⲟⲩⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ)’ in 133.5] comes forth in [the body] of the Father among men, [and] it is not recieved (ⲛ︦ⲥⲉⲧⲙ︦ϫⲓⲧϥ︦), it [returns] to its place’ (133.18–21). This is similar to John 1:1–14, specifically the claim that the Word is not received (pare,labon || ϫⲓⲧϥ︦) in John 1:11,25 and the idea that Jesus has come from and is returning to the Father occurs in John 8:14; 16:28. 134.14–15; 145.17–19 The relationship between the Father and Son in the Dial. Sav. is also similar to their relationship in the FG. The Savior asks, ‘And how will someone who does [not] know [the Son] (ⲡⲉⲧⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲁ[ⲛ ⲙ︦ⲡϣⲏ]ⲣⲉ) know the [Father] (ϥⲛⲁⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ ⲡⲉ̣[ⲓⲱⲧ])’ (134.14–15)? If the proposed reconstruction is accepted, this is similar to Jesus’ statement in John 14:7, ‘If you have known (evgnw,kate || ⲁⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛⲧ︦) me, you would know my Father (to.n pate,ra mou gnw,sesqe || ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲁⲥⲟⲩⲛ︦ ⲡⲁⲕⲉⲉⲓⲱⲧ).’26 The unity of the Father and Son may also be indicated by the reconstructed material of 145.17–19 where the ‘way’ belongs to ‘the Father and the Son (ⲧⲁ̣ⲡ[ⲉⲓ]ⲱⲧ ⲙⲛ︦ⲡϣⲏ[ⲣⲉ]) because both are one of . . . (ⲙ︦ⲡ̣[ⲉ]ⲥⲛⲁⲩ ⲟⲩⲁ ⲛ︦ [. . .] ⲛⲉ).’ The lacunae make it difficult to discern the precise relationship, but it appears that the Father and Son are ‘one’ (e[n || ⲟⲩⲁ) as in John 10:30; 17:11, 21. The disciples’ glorification of both the Father and Savior may also support this conclusion (Dial. Sav. 121.3; 136.10–13). 139.3–6; 145.14–24 Both these passages in the Dial. Sav. refer to knowing the ‘way’ (ϩⲓⲏ). The Lord states, ‘the garments of life were given to man 23 Koester, “History-of-Religions,” 130–131; see also H. Koester, “Dialogue and the Tradition of Sayings in the Gnostic Texts of Nag Hammadi,” in H. Koester, From Jesus to the Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 169. 24 See Létourneau, «Traditions,» 59–60; Thomassen, Spiritual, 117–118. 25 A similar idea is expressed in Prov 1:20–33; 1 Enoch 42.1–2; Gos. Thom. 38.20–31. 26 Matt 11:27 and Luke 10:22 describe the Son’s knowledge of the Father—no one knows (ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ︦) the Son (ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ) except the Father (ⲡⲉⲓⲱⲧ)—while Dial. Sav. and John 14:7 indicate that knowledge of the Son is equivalent to knowledge of the Father.

12.3. The Dialogue of the Savior and the Fourth Gospel

181

because he knows the way (ϥⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉ ϩⲓⲏ) by which he will go’ (139.3– 6), and this is paralleled with reconstructed material in 145.14–24 where the Lord tells the disciples, ‘you know the way ([ϣⲁⲧⲉ]ⲧ̣ⲛ︦ⲥⲟⲩⲱⲛ [ⲧⲉϩⲓ]ⲏ)’ and ‘you will go in the way that you have known ([ⲧⲉϩⲓ]ⲏ̣ ⲉⲧⲁⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲥⲟⲩ[ⲱⲛⲥ︦]).’27 This catchphrase occurs in John 14:4—Jesus goes to prepare a place for the disciples, and they know the way (oi;date th.n o`do,n || ⲧⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ︦ ⲛ︦ⲧⲉϩⲓⲏ) where he is going. The ‘way’ (ϩⲓⲏ) is a description of the soteriological process in other works,28 but the only other occurrence of the claim that the disciples ‘know the way’ is in Soph. Jes. Chr. 105.11– 14, which was also possibly influenced by John 14:4 (Chapter 9). 140.19–23; 142.16–19 Both these passages in the Dial. Sav. refer to a ‘place’ (ⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ; ⲙⲁ). Mary asks, ‘Lord, is there then a place (ⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ) that is . . . or lacking in truth (ⲧⲙⲏⲉ)?,’ and the Lord responds, ‘The place where I am not (ϫⲉ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲉⲧⲉⲛ︦ϯ ⲙ︦ⲙⲟϥ ⲁⲛ)’ (140.19–23). Similar terminology occurs in John 14:3 where Jesus goes (poreuqw/ || ⲉⲓϣⲁⲛⲃⲱⲕ) to prepare a place (to,pon || ⲟⲩⲙⲁ) for the disciples ‘so that the place where I am (o[pou eivmi. evgw. || ⲡⲙⲁ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲉϯⲙ︦ⲙⲟϥ) you may be too,’29 and he indicates that he is the truth (h` avlh,qeia || ⲧⲙⲉ) in John 14:6. The disciples also ask, ‘What is the place (ⲡⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ) to which we are going ([ⲉ]ⲧⲛ︦ⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲣⲟϥ)?,’ and the Lord responds, ‘The place (ⲡⲙⲁ) you can reach . . . stand there’ (142.16– 19). Jesus’ statement in John 14:3 uses these same terms for ‘go’ and ‘place.’ It is possible that these passages indicate that the author was influenced by John 14:3 for the description of ‘the place where I am’ as a place of ‘truth,’ as well as the idea that the disciples will ‘go’ to this ‘place,’ but this is not entirely significant since reaching the heavenly ‘place’ is a foundational soteriological quest.30 147.19–22 The fragmentary conclusion of the work includes the statements, ‘he will live forever (ϥⲛⲁⲱⲛϩ ϣⲁ [ⲉⲛⲉϩ]),’ and ‘I say to [you . . . ] . . . so that you will not lead [your] spirits and your souls into error (ⲛ︦ⲛⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲥⲱⲣⲙ︦ [ⲛ︦ⲛⲉⲧⲙ︦]1ⲛ︦ⲁ︦ ⲙⲛ︦ⲛⲉⲧⲙ︦ⲯⲩⲭⲟⲟⲩⲉ).’ The terminology for ‘live forever/eternal life,’ ‘soul/life,’ and ‘err/lose’ also occurs in John 12:25 where Jesus states, ‘The one who loves his life loses it (th.n yuch.n auvtou/ avpollu,ei auvth,n || ⲛ︦ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ ϥⲛⲁⲥⲟⲣⲙⲉⲥ), and the one who hates his life in this world will keep it to eternal life (eivj zwh.n aivw,nion || ⲉⲩⲱⲛϩ︦ ϣⲁ ⲉⲛⲉϩ).’ 27

Judas also asks about the ‘beginning of the path (ⲛ︦ⲧⲉϩⲓⲏ)’ in 142.4–5. Treat. Res. 45.23; 2 Apoc. Jas. 55.10; Gos. Phil. 66.21; Trim. Prot. 43.23. See also Gos. Truth 18.19–22. 29 The same idea is reiterated in Jesus’ prayer in John 17:24 (o[pou eivmi. evgw. || ⲡⲙⲁ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲉϯⲙ︦ⲙⲟϥ). 30 Gos. Jud. 45.18; Soph. Jes. Chr. 124.7–8. See Létourneau, Dialogue, 285. 28

182

Chapter 12: The Dialogue of the Savior

12.4. Conclusion It is well-known that the Dial. Sav. has numerous possible parallels with the Farewell Discourses (John 14:1–17:26): the structure of 120.2–124.22 including the Savior’s prayer (121.5–23; John 17:1–26);31 the disciples receive the Savior’s words and glorify him (120.19–121.3; 136.10–13; John 17:8–10); similar terminology is used to describe the role of the mind (126.3–5, 14–17) and the role of the Spirit (John 16:7, 13); the ability to ‘overcome’ malevolent powers (129.8–12; 141.24–142.3; John 16:33); the description of the ‘place’ (132.2–19; John 14:2–12) as the ‘place where I am’ (140.19–23; John 14:3); the disciples ‘know the way’ (139.3–6; 145.14–24; John 14:2–4); and knowledge of the Father and Son (134.14– 15; John 14:7), including their possible unity (145.17–19; John 10:30; 17:11, 21). Koester has concluded that the Dial. Sav. and Farewell Discourses were both dependent on a common source/tradition, but this is based primarily on assumptions regarding the development of the form, structure, and theology of sayings traditions.32 This theory also does not adequately explain other parallels that occur outside the Farewell Discourses: the Father hears the prayer of the Savior (121.4–7; John 11:42) who is the ‘only-begotten son’ (John 1:18 (some mss); 3:16, 18); the malevolent power of darkness (122.1–6) and the light/dark dualism (127.1–6; 133.23–134.1; John 12:35); the portrayal of Mary as ‘weeping’ (126.17–20; John 20:11–15); the rejection of the ‘Word’ (147.19–22; John 1:11); the terms for ‘live forever/eternal life,’ ‘soul/life,’ and ‘err/lose’ (147.19–22; John 12:25). Furthermore, if both the Dial. Sav. and FG were dependent on a common source for their dialogue material, we would have to make the untenable conclusion that the FG purposefully removed every reference to ‘light’ and ‘darkness’—these terms do not appear in John 14:1–17:26 but over 30 times throughout the rest of the FG—while the

31

Létourneau, «Traditions,» 38–39. Koester, “Gnostic Writings,” 245, 251–253. At the conclusion of his paper, Koester states, “My original intention for this paper was to assess the likelihood that the Nag Hammadi texts contain gospel materials which have not gone through the medium of a written gospel, at least not one which we know. I abandoned this broad project because I found it so difficult to be precise about what traditional gospel material is used in the Gnostic dialogues” (Koester, “Gnostic Writings,” 256). Yet throughout the paper, he is able to discern pre-Johannine traditions paralleled in the Dial. Sav. with little difficulty, using a methodology that is admittedly imprecise. Koester’s method is rightly questioned by P. Perkins, Gnosticism and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 130–131; B. Blatz, “Dialogue of the Savior,” in Schneemelcher, Apocrypha, 303; Petersen, „Zitate,“ 514. 32

12.4. Conclusion

183

Dial. Sav. remained faithful to the source/tradition and included the 15 references to ‘light’ and 9 references to ‘darkness.’33 In the most significant analysis of the relationship between the Dial. Sav. and FG, Létourneau compared the discourse frameworks, soteriology, and dualism of light and darkness in both works.34 He concluded that the cumulative effect of these similarities indicates that the Dial. Sav. was indirectly dependent on the FG through a Valentinian source. The problem with this conclusion is that it is difficult to distinguish the non-extant Valentinian source from the FG itself; it is just as likely that the author of the Dial. Sav. was influenced by the FG itself and interpreted it in a Valentinian direction.35 Despite these thematic and verbal parallels, it can only be concluded that the influence of the FG on the Dial. Sav. is possible since many of these parallels are prevalent in other works, which makes it difficult to conclude that the FG was the source of these parallels. The Valentinian proclivity for the FG in the second century CE may strengthen this position, but without Heracleon’s commentary on the Johannine discourses or further evidence for the Valentinian interpretation of these passages,36 the influence of the FG on the Dial. Sav. must remain only a possibility.

33

On one occasion, Koester appears to acknowledge that the extant version of Dial. Sav. 132.2–19 could have been influenced by John 14:2–12 (discussed above), but then returns to his general argument that both works were dependent on a common source: “The typical Johannine features are missing in the Dialogue of the Savior here as also elsewhere (only the compiler of the extant document seems to have known the Gospel of John). It is therefore advisable not to speak of literary dependence but rather of a parallel development of the same material of sayings” (Koester, “Dialogue,” 169). 34 Létourneau, «Traditions,» 38–61. 35 Létourneau does acknowledge this possibility (ibid., 61). 36 For Heracleon’s exegesis of John 1; 2; 4; and 8, see E.H. Pagels, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis (New York: Abingdon Press, 1973).

Chapter 13

The Book of Thomas the Contender (NHC II,7) 13.1. Introduction The majority of The Book of Thomas the Contender (Thom. Cont.) is a dialogue/discourse between the Savior and Thomas (138.4–143.7). The work concludes with a lengthy monologue of twelve woes and three beatitudes (143.8–145.16). The incipit indicates that the work contains the ‘secret words’ of the Savior, and the colophon contains a double-title: ‘The Book of Thomas’ and ‘The Contender Writing to the Perfect’ (145.17–19). J.D. Turner has suggested that a redactor pieced together two sources—a revelation dialogue (138.4–142.21) that may be identified with the colophon titles, and an older sayings collection (142.21–145.16) that may be identified with the incipit description.1 H.-M. Schenke suggests a redactor transformed a letter (perhaps entitled ‘The Contender Writing to the Perfect’) into its present form and entitled the work ‘The Book of Thomas.’2 This approach appears more convincing and is similar to the relationship between Eugnostos and the Soph. Jes. Chr., especially if the author of the Thom. Cont. ‘Christianized’ its original source.3 Schenke has nebulously described the Thom. Cont. as timeless,4 but Turner and R. Kuntzmann have suggested a final composition around the latter half of the third century CE.5 The Thom. Cont. shares multiple themes with Platonic, 1

J.D. Turner, “The Book of Thomas the Contender Writing to the Perfect” in B. Layton, ed. Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7 (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 2:174–176. 2 H.-M. Schenke, “The Book of Thomas (NHC II.7),” in Logan – Wedderburn, New Testament, 226–227. Turner’s two-source theory is also questioned by Perkins, Gnostic, 103; R. Kuntzmann, Le Livre de Thomas (NH II,7) (Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1986), 10–11. 3 See Krause, “Christianization,” 191; H.-M. Schenke, Das Thomas-Buch (NagHammadi-Codex II,7) (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1989), 72–73, 194–199; J.D. Turner, “The Book of Thomas and the Platonic Jesus,” in L. Painchaud – P.-H. Poirier, L’Évangile selon Thomas et les textes de Nag Hammadi (Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2007), 631. 4 Schenke, Thomas-Buch, 20. 5 J.D. Turner, “The Book of Thomas the Contender from Codex II of the Cairo Gnostic Library from Nag Hammadi (CG II,7),” (Diss., Duke University, 1970), 219; Kuntzmann, Thomas, 21. Turner also suggests that the dialogue and sayings sources

13.2. The Book of Thomas the Contender and the Canonical Gospels

185

Hermetic, Hellenistic, Judaic, and Christian literature.6 The Thom. Cont. should probably not be categorized as a Gnostic work (the demiurgical myth is neither mentioned nor presupposed),7 and there are only a few Christian markers: the Savior is twice called Jesus; the named disciples are Thomas and Mathaias; and the dialogue/discourse and woe/blessing forms occur in the canonical gospels.

13.2. The Book of Thomas the Contender and the Canonical Gospels The Savior promotes sexual asceticism in the Thom. Cont. by disclosing anthropological and cosmological realities, but there are few thematic and verbal parallels with the canonical gospels. The third beatitude, ‘Blessed are you who weep’ (145.5–6), presupposes the redactional material of Luke 6:21, while the second beatitude, ‘Blessed are you who are reviled’ is closest to Matt 5:11.8 Turner, P. Perkins, and Kuntzmann have suggested that the Thom. Cont. was influenced by the FG,9 while Schenke contends that parallels with the canonical gospels may be the result of dependence on a common source/tradition.10 The following examination of the common terminology and themes between the Thom. Cont. and FG will address these previous conclusions.

could date to between 200–250 CE (Turner, “Book of Thomas,” Diss., 219). Similar to Turner, U. Schoenborn places the Thom. Cont. between the Gos. Thom. and Acts Thom., but then claims a second century CE date for the Thom. Cont. without qualification (U. Schoenborn, „Vom Weinstock,“ in H. Preissler – H. Seiwert, eds., Gnosisforschung und Religionsgeschichte (Marburg: Diagonal-Verlag, 1994), 267. 6 See Turner, “Book of Thomas,” Diss., throughout; Perkins, Gnostic, 104; Schenke, “Thomas,” 223–225; Kuntzmann, Thomas, 6–9; Schenke, Thomas-Buch, throughout; Turner, “Book of Thomas,” 176; Schoenborn, „Weinstock,“ 272; Klauck, Apocryphal, 176–184. 7 Turner, “Book of Thomas,” Diss., 206–214; Kuntzmann, Thomas, 22–24; Klauck, Apocryphal, 184. 8 Turner, “Book of Thomas,” Diss., 184–189; Kuntzmann, Thomas, 167; Tuckett, Nag Hammadi, 85. 9 Turner, “Book of Thomas,” Diss., 122; Perkins, Gnostic, 101–102; Kuntzmann, Thomas, 8. 10 Schenke, Thomas-Buch, 189.

186

Chapter 13: The Book of Thomas the Contender

13.3. The Book of Thomas the Contender and the Fourth Gospel 13.3.1. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel 138.2; 142.7–8 The incipit of this work has obvious parallels with the prologue of the Gos. Thom. (secret words, spoken by the Savior, written down by a disciple), including the name ⲓ̈ⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ ⲑⲱⲙⲁⲥ (138.2).11 As noted in Chapter 6, this double-name occurs in John 14:22 syc, but it is more likely that the author was influenced here by the Gos. Thom. or a Syrian tradition. The double-name also occurs in 142.7–8 where he is identified as ⲓ̈ⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ ⲡⲁⲓ̈ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϫⲉ ⲑⲱⲙⲁⲥ. This formulation is similar to Qwma/j o` lego,menoj Di,dumoj || ⲑⲱⲙⲁⲥ ⲡⲉⲧⲉϣⲁⲩⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϫⲉ ⲇⲓⲇⲩⲙⲟⲥ in the FG (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2),12 but a more precise parallel is ‘Judas who is called Thomas’ in Acts Thom. 11, 20–21. 138.7–10 The Savior then calls Thomas ‘my brother,’ ‘my twin,’ and ‘my true friend.’ Jesus calls all the disciples ‘my brothers’ in the canonical gospels,13 and ‘twin’ (ⲥⲟⲉⲓϣ) may be a unique interpretation and translation of Di,dumoj from the FG (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), or the Gos. Thom., but it is more likely that the author was influenced by the twin symbolism in the Acts Thom.14 Schenke has suggested that ‘my true friend (ⲡⲁϣⲃⲣ︦ⲙ︦ⲙⲏⲉ)’ is equivalent to o` fi,loj mou o` avlhqino,j, which he considers “very close to the designation of the Johannine Beloved Disciple.”15 Yet the parallels with the FG are imprecise. Only in John 20:2 is this disciple called o]n evfi,lei (file,w not fi,loj) o` VIhsou/j, while he is usually o]n hvga,pa o` VIhsou/j (John 13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 20). Jesus calls the disciples ‘my friends (ⲛⲁϣⲃⲉⲉⲣ)’ in Luke 12:4 and John 15:14–15, and the latter passage may be closest to the Thom. Cont. since it also deals with the imparting of ‘knowledge’ (John 15:15; Thom. Cont. 138.15), but the terms and objects of knowledge are different. Furthermore, in the Acts Thom., Thomas is called a ‘brother’ (11–12), ‘twin’ (31, 39), and ‘friend’ (109).16

11

The evangelist is identified as ⲇⲓⲇⲩⲙⲟⲥ ⲓ̈ⲟⲩⲇⲁⲥ ⲑⲱⲙⲁⲥ in the Coptic prologue of the Gos. Thom., while he is named @VIou,da o`# kai. Qwma/ in the reconstructed text of P.Oxy. 654, ll.2–3. 12 Poirier, “Writings,” 303–304. 13 Matt 12:49–50//Mark 3:34–35//Luke 8:21; Matt 28:10; John 20:17. 14 Poirier notes that the Thom. Cont. “takes for granted a twin symbolism which must have been already familiar to its readers. The Acts Thom. is the only text where such a symbolism is elaborated” (Poirier, “Writings,” 305). He convincingly argues that the chronology of Thomasine literature goes: Gos. Thom. → Acts Thom. → Thom. Cont. 15 Schenke, “Thomas,” 214; Thomas-Buch, 69. 16 See Poirier, “Writings,” 303.

13.3. The Book of Thomas the Contender and the Fourth Gospel

187

If the Thom. Cont. was influenced by the FG for the name and description of Thomas, it would have likely been an indirect influence through the Gos. Thom. and Acts. Thom.—the name ‘Judas Thomas’ may have come from ‘Didymos Judas Thomas’ in the prologue of the Gos. Thom. (which was possibly influenced by the John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2), and the description of Thomas as a ‘brother,’ ‘twin,’ and ‘friend’ may have come from the Acts Thom. (which may also have been influenced by ‘Didymos’ in the FG for the ‘twin’ symbolism). Therefore, the influence of the FG on the Thom. Cont. is possible, but the multiple layers of intermediate sources and/or traditions makes this conclusion questionable. 138.21–36; 140.5–18 Schenke has noted three parallels between the Thom. Cont. and John 3. Firstly, Thomas claims that ‘the truth is difficult to do before men (ⲧⲙⲏⲉ ⲥⲙⲟⲕϩ ⲁⲁ[ⲥ] ⲛ︦ⲛⲁϩⲣⲛ︦ ⲛ︦ⲣⲱⲙⲉ)’ and the Savior replies by asking, ‘If the deeds of truth (ⲛ︦ϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲙⲏⲉ) that are revealed (ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲟⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) in the world are difficult for you to do (ⲁⲧⲣⲉⲧⲛ︦ⲁⲁⲩ)…?’ (138.26– 31). This is similar to John 3:21 where Jesus indicates that the one who does the truth (o` poiw/n th.n avlh,qeian || ⲡⲉⲧⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲛ︦ⲧⲟϥ ⲛ︦ⲧⲙⲉ) comes to the light so that it may be revealed (fanerwqh/| || ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) that his deeds (ta. e;rga || ⲛⲉϥϩⲏⲃⲉ) have been done in God.17 The first phrase is not unique to John 3:21; Ptolemy notes that images and symbols are indicative of other realities, but since the truth is here, ‘it is necessary to do the things of truth (ta. th/j avlhqei,aj dei/ poiei/n)’ (‘Ptolemy to Flora’ in Pan. 33.6.5). Secondly, Schenke suggests that the first if – how (ⲉϣⲡⲉ – ⲛ︦ⲁϣ ⲛ︦ϩⲉ) question, followed by the second if – how (ⲉϣⲡⲉ – ⲡⲱⲥ) question in 138.27–34, represents “a still more interesting parallel” to the structure of John 3:12 where Jesus presents Nicodemus with an if – how if (eiv – pw/j eva,n || ⲉϣϫⲉ – ⲛ︦ⲁϣ ⲛ︦ϩⲉ) question.18 There is also a similar context in that Jesus is contrasting ‘earthly things’ and ‘heavenly things,’ and the Savior is contrasting ‘revealed things’ in the world and exalted things in the pleroma that are ‘not revealed.’ But these similarities are not that ‘interesting’—the if – how if (eiv – pw/j eva,n || ⲉϣϫⲉ – ⲛ︦ⲁϣ ⲛ︦ϩⲉ) formula 17

Schenke, Thomas-Buch, 73. Schenke stretches the parallel with John 3:21 by translating Jesus’ question ‘How will you be called laborer (ⲉⲣⲅⲁⲧⲏⲥ)?’ (138.34) as “How will you be called performer (of the truth)?” (Schenke, “Thomas,” 216). Perkins also suggests this question was dependent on John 4:38 (Perkins, Gnostic, 102), but it has greater verbal (‘laborer’ (evrga,thj)) and thematic parallels with Matt 9:37–38//Luke 10:2; Gos. Thom. §73. 18 Schenke, “Thomas,” 216; Thomas-Buch, 74. While Schenke suggests this may indicate that John 3:12 was dependent on Thom. Cont. (see below), Turner indicates that John 3:12 is “perhaps the inspiration for this piece of dialectic” in the Thom. Cont. (Turner, “Book of Thomas,” Diss., 122), and Perkins suggests it may have been “modeled on Jn 3:12” (Perkins, Gnostic, 101).

188

Chapter 13: The Book of Thomas the Contender

also occurs in other canonical and extra-canonical gospels,19 and the contrast between visible and hidden things is surely not unique.20 Thirdly, the Savior speaks in the first person throughout the Thom. Cont., but in 140.9–10 he switches to the first-person plural: ‘It is necessary for us (ⲉⲣⲟⲛ) to speak to you, since this is the doctrine for the perfect.’ Schenke suggests this “strongly recalls John 3:11” where Jesus switches to the first-person plural and claims: o] oi;damen lalou/men kai. o] e`wra,kamen marturou/men( kai. th.n marturi,an h`mw/n ouv lamba,nete.21 This is possible, but there are multiple ways to explain this phenomenon without recourse to John 3:11. It could be the result of a scribal error, or the ‘us’ could be the Savior and Thomas and the ‘you’ (pl.) the readers,22 or the ‘us’ could be the Savior and the perfect and the ‘you’ (pl.) Thomas and those like him who are being perfected.23 The last option seems most likely since the Savior has previously addressed Thomas in the plural form when discussing the process of perfection (138.35–36; 139.11–12), and the Savior switches from referring to himself in the singular (138.4–20) to the plural form because this is the only instance where he identifies himself with the perfect ones (ⲛ︦ⲛ︦ⲧⲉⲗⲉⲓⲟⲥ). 139.18–20 Thomas confesses, ‘When the light comes forth (ⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲉⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) and hides the darkness (ⲙ︦ⲡⲕⲁⲕⲉ), then the work (ⲡϩⲱⲃ) of each person will be revealed (ⲛⲁⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ). You are our light that enlightens, O Lord (ⲛ︦ⲧⲟⲕ ⲇⲉ ⲡⲛ︦ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲉⲕⲣ︦ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ).’ This is similar to John 3:19–21 where the light has come (to. fw/j evlh,luqen || ⲁ ⲡⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲉⲓ) into the world, people loved the darkness (to. sko,toj || ⲡⲕⲁⲕⲉ), but the one who does the truth comes to the light so that his works (auvtou/ ta. e;rga || ⲛⲉϥϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ) may be revealed (fanerwqh/| || ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ).24 The overlap in terminology for the coming of the light (contrasted with darkness) that reveals people’s works may indicate the influence of John 3:19–21, although these themes are surely not unique. For example, 1 Cor 4:5 indicates that the Lord will enlighten (fwti,sei || ⲉⲧⲛⲁⲣ︦ⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓⲛ) the things

19

Matt 12:26//Luke 11:18; Matt 24:45; John 5:47; Gos. Mary 9.10–11. See Gos. Thom. §§83–84; Gos. Phil. 82.30–83.2; Soph. Jes. Chr. BG 90.1–13. 21 Schenke, “Thomas,” 217; Thomas-Buch, 110–111. See also Kuntzmann, Thomas, 20

90. 22

Turner, “Book of Thomas,” Diss., 140–141. Schenke, Thomas-Buch, 111. 24 Kuntzmann, Thomas, 73. Turner notes parallels with John 1:9; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35, 46 (Turner, “Book of Thomas,” Diss., 129–130), and Schenke notes parallels with the structure of John 6:63 (Schenke, Thomas-Buch, 90–91). However, the verbal similarities with John 3:19–21 are more significant. 23

13.4. Conclusion

189

hidden in the darkness (tou/ sko,touj || ϩⲙ︦ ⲡⲕⲁⲕⲉ) and reveal (fanerw,sei || ⲛϥ︦ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ︦ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) the motives of people’s heart.25 141.24 Lastly, Thomas uses the phrase ‘not begotten in the flesh (ⲙ︦ⲡⲟⲩϫⲡⲟⲛ ϩⲛ︦ ⲧⲥⲁⲣⲝ),’ which is similar to John 3:6, ‘that which is begotten of the flesh (to. gegennhme,non evk th/j sarko,j || ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁⲩϫⲡⲟϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲛ︦ ⲧⲥⲁⲣⲝ︦),’ yet similar terminology also occurs in Gal 4:23, 29, and Interp. Know. 12.38.

13.4. Conclusion If the author of the Thom. Cont. transformed an ascetic source into a dialogue/discourse gospel, it is only possible that he was influenced by the FG, since many of these parallels are quite weak. It is perhaps more likely that the name ‘Judas Thomas,’ and Thomas’ description as ‘my brother,’ ‘my twin,’ and ‘my true friend’ were derived from the Gos. Thom. and Acts Thom., rather than the FG. The phrase ‘do the truth’ (Thom. Cont. 138.21–36; 140.5–18; John 3:21), the ‘if – how if’ question (138.27–34; 3:12), the switch to the plural ‘us’ (140.9–10; 3:11), the revealing of the ‘light’ (139.18–20; 3:19–21), and the phrase ‘begotten in the flesh’ (141.24; 3:6) may indicate the possible influence of the FG, but again, these features are not unique to the FG. It is noteworthy that these parallels all occur in Jesus’ dialogue/discourse with Nicodemus in John 3:1–21, but the evidence is too meager to claim that the Thom. Cont. was attempting to replicate this pericope. Following R. Bultmann’s source theory for John 3, Schenke has suggested that if there was influence, it is more likely that John 3:12 was influenced by the Thom. Cont., rather than vice versa.26 Even if one accepted Bultmann’s claims, a mid-third century CE dating for the Thom. Cont. undermines this argument and forces one to conclude that the authors of the FG and Thom. Cont. were both dependent on a common source.27 In this case, the Thom. Cont. was influenced by Luke 6:21 (and possibly Matt 5:11, the Gos. Thom., and Acts Thom.), but instead of using John 3, the author used an unknown source that was over 150 years old! It is more likely that the parallels were due to the influence of John 3 on the Thom. Cont., but the lack of distinctive FG terminology or features makes this only a possibility. 25

For parallel themes in extra-canonical literature, see Kuntzmann, Thomas, 9–10, 73, Schenke, Thomas-Buch, 74, 111. 27 This appears to be Schenke’s original conclusion in “Thomas,” 217. He does not argue for influence one way or the other, but states that their relationship “can only be defined on a broader basis.” 26

Part V: Conclusion

Chapter 14

Summary and Conclusions The primary research question of this study was: Were the extra-canonical gospels influenced by the FG, and if so, how did they use and interpret this source? This question can now be answered, and its implications for the study of the extra-canonical gospels and the FG can be explored.

14.1. Were the Extra-Canonical Gospels Influenced by the Fourth Gospel? Each parallel between an extra-canonical gospel and the FG was graded, according to the criteria proposed in the introduction, as evidence for the probable, plausible, or possible influence of the FG. The influence of the FG on the extra-canonical gospels can be ranked by the strength and number of parallels, combined with an analysis of the concentration of these parallels relative to the length of the extant work (see Chart 3).1 14.1.1. Ranking the Influence of the Fourth Gospel on the Extra-Canonical Gospels 14.1.1.1. Probable Influence of the Fourth Gospel (1) The extra-canonical gospel that appears to be most influenced by the FG is the Gos. Sav. It has the greatest amount of parallels with a probable measure of influence from the FG—9, and plausible measure of influence from the FG—6. Many of these parallels are concentrated in specific pericopae (vs.12–22, 69b–70, 91–93, 145–148). (2) The EG is the next extra-canonical gospel that was most influenced by the FG. In Episode 1 (1v.1–20 + P.Köln. 255 1v.19–24), there are 4 significant parallels with a probable measure of influence from the FG. The strength and number of 1

Chart 3 provides a general estimate of the concentration of parallels with the FG relative to the length of each extra-canonical gospel. It is admittedly imprecise because it does not account for the length of each line and lacunae in a line of text. The enumeration of lines does not double-count the Greek fragments that are also preserved in the Coptic text. For example, the lines of text in NHC II,2 are included in the count, while the lines of text in P. Oxy. 1, 654, and 655 are excluded.

194

Chapter 14: Summary and Conclusions

these parallels are significant when compared to length of the extant work (~92 lines of text). If the 4 probable parallels are averaged throughout the text, there is 1 probable parallel to the FG approximately every 23 lines of text—the highest concentration of probable parallels amongst the extracanonical gospels examined in this study. The 5 parallels that exhibit a plausible influence from the FG is also the highest concentration of plausible parallels. (3) The Gos. Phil. contains 3 probable parallels (§23b, §110a, §123d), and 4 parallels that indicate a plausible influence from the FG. The significance of these parallels cannot be discounted, but it is somewhat diluted. The Gos. Phil. is the longest extra-canonical gospel (~1235 lines of text), but has the lowest concentration of total parallels with the FG. (4) The Soph. Jes. Chr. was also probably influenced by the FG, but the evidence is not as strong as the previous three. It has 1 probable parallel with John 14:27 (BG 79.10–12), and 2 plausible parallels with John 15:2, 5, 8 (104.13–105.6; 122.5–123.1). 14.1.1.2. Plausible Influence of the Fourth Gospel (5) The Gos. Pet. is the work that exhibits the strongest plausible influence from the FG. It has 4 plausible parallels (§§7a, b, 12, 14), the greatest number of possible parallels—22, the greatest number of total parallels— 26, and the highest concentration of total parallels with the FG—there is 1 parallel to the FG approximately every 6 lines of text. (6) The Gos. Thom. is the next extra-canonical gospel that was most plausibly influenced by the FG. It has 4 plausible parallels (§§1, 38, 43, 77), and 10 parallels that indicate a possible influence of the FG. (7) It is also plausible that the Gos. Mary was influenced by the FG, with 2 plausible parallels (BG 8.14–15; 10.7–15), and 9 possible parallels. This fragmentary work is the shortest dialogue/discourse gospel (~182 lines of text), but has the highest concentration of total parallels with the FG in this sub-genre—there is 1 parallel with the FG approximately every 17 lines of text. 14.1.1.3. Possible Influence of the Fourth Gospel (8) The Dial. Sav. has the second greatest number of possible parallels with the FG—21 (the Gos. Pet. has 22). The number of parallels are considerable, but their importance is somewhat exaggerated since the author repeats terms and themes that are not unique to the FG—‘light,’ ‘darkness,’ ‘place,’ ‘way,’ etc. (9) The Thom. Cont. and (10) the Gos. Jud. each have 8 parallels with a possible influence from the FG, but the Gos. Jud. has the lower concentration of parallels. (11) P. Oxy. 840 has the least number of parallels with the FG—3 possible parallels. It is also the shortest extra-canonical gospel examined in this study, with the highest

14.1. Were the Extra-Canonical Gospels Influenced by the Fourth Gospel?

195

concentration of possible parallels, but based on the extant evidence, it appears to be the extra-canonical gospel that was least influenced by the FG. As noted in the introduction, the gospel fragments P.Mert. 51, P.Oxy. 210, P.Oxy. 1224, P.Oxy. 5072, and P.Vindob.G. 2325 do not appear to be influenced by the FG at all. 14.1.2. Comparing the Influence of the Fourth Gospel on the ExtraCanonical Gospels by Sub-Genre, Theology, and Date of Composition The value of this study is that it has measured the influence of the FG on individual works. The following comparisons are of limited worth, since the classification of the extra-canonical gospels into sub-genres is somewhat artificial, it is difficult to determine the exact theological presuppositions of these works, and their dates of composition are far from precise. When the influence of the FG on these categories is compared, it must be remembered that the sample size for each category is exceptionally small, so any conclusions about specific categories must be provisional. In total, the narrative gospels have 4 parallels that indicate the probable influence of the FG, 9 plausible parallels, and 26 possible parallels. This category also has the highest concentration of total parallels with the FG. The sayings gospels have 3 probable, 8 plausible, and 17 possible parallels that indicate the influence of the FG, although they have the lowest concentration of parallels. If the Gos. Sav. is removed from the analysis, the dialogue/discourse gospels have 1 probable, 4 plausible, and 57 possible parallels that indicate the influence of the FG. The significant parallels between the Gos. Sav. and FG are more similar to the narrative gospels (the EG specifically), which may support S. Emmel’s conclusion that this work is in fact a narrative gospel.2 The numerous possible parallels with the dialogue/discourse gospels are due, in part, to this category having the greatest number of works with the most lines of text. Multiple, superficial parallels do not mean that the Gos. Jud., Dial. Sav., and Thom. Cont. were not influenced by the FG, only that the evidence is somewhat inconclusive. I have briefly discussed the theological presuppositions of each extracanonical gospel in the previous chapters, and when they are grouped together, the influence of the FG on the works in these broad theological categories can be compared. The Valentinian gospels (Gos. Phil.; Dial. Sav.) were influenced by the FG more than the Gnostic (Soph. Jes. Chr.; Gos. Mary; Gos. Jud.) and Thomasine gospels (Gos. Thom.; Thom. Cont.). If only the main exemplars of each category are compared, the Valentinian 2

Emmel, “Preliminary,” 13.

196

Chapter 14: Summary and Conclusions

Gos. Phil. was influenced by the FG more than the Thomasine Gos. Thom., which was influenced by the FG more than the Gnostic Gos. Jud. Whatever label is applied to the Gos. Sav., EG, Gos. Pet., and P. Oxy. 840—‘Christian’(?), ‘Jewish-Christian’(?), ‘proto-orthodox’(?)—this group of gospels appears to be the most influenced by the FG. For whatever reason—whether the theological presuppositions of an author determined the type of gospel they would write or vice versa—the latter group of mostly narrative gospels appear to be the most influenced by the FG, while the Gnostic and Thomasine dialogue/discourse gospels appear to be the least influenced by the FG. These results are not altogether surprising, since T. Nagel and C.E. Hill have noted the widespread influence of the FG on Christian authors in the second century CE. 3 The Valentinians were clearly influenced by the FG,4 but we may have expected a more ‘copious use of that according to John’ (Irenaeus, Haer. 3.11.7) in the Gos. Phil. and Dial. Sav. The parallels between Gnostic works and the FG are often limited to John 1:1–18 (Trim. Prot., Gos. Eg, and perhaps Ap. John), but there is only one possible parallel to John 1:12– 13 in the Soph. Jes. Chr., and no parallels to these passages in the Gos. Mary or Gos. Jud. There does not appear to be a significant correlation between an extracanonical gospel’s date of composition and the influence of the FG. The Gos. Sav., one of the latest extra-canonical gospels, and the EG, one of the earliest, are the works that were most influenced by the FG. Likewise, the Thom. Cont., the latest extra-canonical gospel examined in this study, and the Gos. Jud., one of the early works, show little influence from the FG.

14.2. How did the Extra-Canonical Gospels Use and Interpret the Fourth Gospel? It is impossible to know the means by which the FG came to influence the authors of the extra-canonical gospels, whether by direct literary influence, by remembering the FG read or heard, through an intermediate source, or through oral traditions that had been shaped by the FG (secondary orality).

3 4

Nagel, Rezeption; Hill, Johannine. Gos. Truth; Exeg. Soul; Heracleon (Origen, Comm. Jo.); Theodotus (Exc.).

14.2. How did the Extra-Canonical Gospels Use and Interpret the Fourth Gospel?

197

Although they are admittedly rough markers, the length, number, and strength of the parallels allows for some speculation.5 14.2.1. Quotation and Exegesis The closest one gets to a quotation of the FG in the extra-canonical gospels is in the Gos. Phil. The 3 probable parallels with John 6:53–54 in §23b, John 8:32, 34 in §110a, and John 8:32 in §123d each contain introductory formulae that may indicate that the author is (loosely) quoting the FG. The quotation of the FG by a Valentinian author near the end of the second century CE is unsurprising. Whether the author had the FG accessible at the time, the Gos. Phil. was likely influenced by the FG directly. Any use of the FG entails some form of interpretation, but the Gos. Phil. is also the only extra-canonical gospel that appears to exegete the FG. The author combines passages from the FG in §23b and §110a with passages from 1 Cor in order to elucidate their meanings. Again, exegesis by a Valentinian author at the end of the second century CE is predictable.6 14.2.2. Lengthy Parallels The EG and the Gos. Sav. have numerous, lengthy, strong parallels with the FG. In Episode 1 of the EG, the parallels are with entire passages (John 5:39, 45–46; 9:29), and the parallels in Episode 2 and 5 with John 7:30 and 3:2 are also quite long. The differences between the works, including the addition and omission of words, the substitution of synonymous terms, the use of the same verb in a different tense, and the combination of passages are, according to J. Whittaker and S. Inowlocki,7 just the alterations one would expect when an author in this period is quoting a text. This may indicate the direct literary influence of the FG on the author of the EG. The Gos. Sav. also has lengthy parallels with the FG, many times with entire 5 I acknowledge it is overly simplistic to correlate longer, more exact parallels with literary influence, and shorter, imprecise parallels with oral influence. B. Gerhardsson has shown how literary sources can be accurately remembered (B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), while Whittaker and Inowlocki have noted the inaccuracy of literary quotations (see Chapter 2). Research on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the transmission of oral traditions, and its relationship to literary texts in antiquity, continues to be debated (see A. Kirk, “Orality, Writing, and Phantom Sources,” NTS 58 (2011): 1–22). 6 Heracleon is usually considered the earliest author to produce an exegetical commentary on the FG (Origen, Comm. Jo. 6.23.126 and 2.14.102). L. Painchaud notes, “In the various types of Gnostic sources, expositional use of Scripture seems to be limited to Valentinian sources” (L. Painchaud, “The Use of Scripture in Gnostic Literature,” JECS 4 (1996): 133). 7 Whittaker, “Indirect,” 94–95; Inowlocki, Eusebius, 40.

198

Chapter 14: Summary and Conclusions

passages (vs.14–16//John 16:32; 10:30; vs.18–19//John 10:11; vs.21b– 22//John 10:17; vs.70//John 20:17). The author mixes passages from the Synoptics with passages from the FG by catchwords (vs.13–16; vs.17– 22)—occasionally these parallels follow the order of the passage in the FG (vs.14–16; vs.18–19), while other times the order of the passage is reversed (vs.20–22). The order of entire pericopae is also reversed—the events of the resurrection/parousia (vs.69–70) precede the foretelling of the crucifixion (vs.91–93). While the length, number, and significance of these parallels suggest a direct literary influence from the FG, the catchphrase connections may indicate that author was remembering and connecting these passages in his mind while composing the Gos. Sav. 14.2.3. Shorter Parallels The parallels between the FG and Gos. Pet., Gos. Thom., Soph. Jes. Chr., and Gos. Mary are relatively short. These parallels are usually with individual terms or catchphrases, and rarely with entire passages. For the Gos. Pet., this includes: the ‘purple’ garment (§7a//John 19:2); the Lord’s placement upon the ‘seat of judgment’ (§7b//John 19:13); the ‘casting of a lot’ for his garments (§12//John 19:24); and the crurifragium (§14//John 19:33). For the Gos. Thom.: the soteriological promise ‘not taste death’ is associated with Jesus’ words (§1//John 8:52); the phrase ‘you will seek me and not find me’ (§38//John 7:34); the disciples’ question and Jesus’ response about his identity along with the negative characterization of the Jews (§43//John 8:25–27); and the claim ‘I am the light’ (§77//John 8:12). Soph. Jes. Chr. 104.13–105.6 and 122.5–123.1 indicate that the Savior has come so that the disciples may ‘give much fruit’ (John 15:2, 5, 8), and Mary claims ‘I have seen the Lord’ (John 20:18) in Gos. Mary 10.7–15; both works have parallels with John 14:27. These four extra-canonical gospels also have relatively short parallels with Matthean and Lukan redactional material. Multiple, short parallels may indicate that the canonical gospels influenced these extra-canonical gospels by means of secondary orality—through the reading of Matt, Luke, and the FG in Christian assemblies, Matthean, Lukan, and Johannine details about the life and/or teachings of Jesus entered into the Christian discourse and shaped the traditions or sources used by these extra-canonical authors.8 This situation may explain the parallel with John 14:27 in the Soph. Jes. Chr. and Gos. Mary—a pre-existing tradition about the resurrected Jesus appearing to his disciples and offering them ‘peace’ was then shaped by 8

Brown originally suggested that secondary orality best explains the parallels between Matt and Luke with the Gos. Pet. (Brown, “Priority,” 335–338), and Gathercole concludes that Matt and Luke may have influenced the Gos. Thom. by means of secondary orality (Composition, 269).

14.2. How did the Extra-Canonical Gospels Use and Interpret the Fourth Gospel?

199

John 14:27 so that Jesus now offers them ‘my peace,’ and this secondary tradition influenced the Soph. Jes. Chr. and Gos. Mary (as well as Ep. Apost.). However, these three works may also provide evidence of a traditional interpretation of John 14:27. 14.2.4. Traditional Interpretations Speculations about how the FG influenced the extra-canonical gospels are complicated when we realize that the majority of these works not only used the FG, but also incorporated traditional interpretations of the FG. This may be the most significant conclusion of this study: the majority of extra-canonical gospels (EG, Gos. Pet., Gos. Phil., Gos. Sav., and probably the Gos. Mary and Soph. Jes. Chr.) appear to exhibit traditional interpretations of the FG, that is, they use and interpret the FG in a way similar to other Christian authors. Some traditional interpretations are predictable, such as the Eucharistic interpretation of John 6:53 in Gos. Phil. §23, while others are less common and have a number of important implications. Firstly, traditional interpretations of the FG help us understand the relationship between an extra-canonical gospel and the FG. When an early Christian author claims to be dependent on the FG and quotes, paraphrases, or interprets this gospel in a way similar to an extra-canonical gospel that does not make any claim to dependence on FG, then it is more likely that the extra-canonical gospel was influenced by the FG rather than a common source/tradition. For example, J.B. Daniels has argued that the pairing of John 5:39 with 5:45 (omitting 5:40–44) in Episode 1 of the EG is indicative of an ancient source/tradition, which suggests that the author of the EG and the evangelist of the FG were dependent on a common source/tradition.9 However, Irenaeus, Origen, and Cyprian are explicitly dependent on the FG, and make a similar omission of 5:40/41–44 and combination of John 5:39/40 with 5:45/46 to make the same theological point as the EG—Moses foretold Jesus’ coming. Therefore, it is more likely that the EG reflects a traditional interpretation of the FG that considered John 5:40/41–44 superfluous, rather than the author and the evangelist being dependent on a common source. The same conclusion can be applied to the Gos. Pet., Gos. Phil., Gos. Sav., and probably the Gos. Mary and Soph. Jes. Chr. Secondly, traditional interpretations of the FG help us understand the relationship between an extra-canonical gospel and other early Christian works. Previous scholars have argued that the parallels between the Gos. Pet. and Justin indicate that both authors were dependent on a common 9

Daniels, “Egerton,” 113.

200

Chapter 14: Summary and Conclusions

source/tradition, or one work influenced the other.10 Gos. Pet. §7b and 1 Apol. 35 both place Jesus on the ‘seat of judgment/judgment-seat,’ however, this appears to be a traditional interpretation of John 19:13 exemplified in Tertullian’s (or Praxeas’) interpretation of ‘Scripture’ that placed the Father upon the ‘judgment-seat’ (Prax. 16). Gos. Pet. §12 and Dial. 97 both indicate that they ‘cast a lot’ (ba,llw + lacmo,j) for Jesus’ ‘clothes/garments,’ which also appears to be a traditional interpretation of lagca,nw in John 19:24, exemplified by Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. 13.26). Therefore, it is more likely the author of the Gos. Pet. and Justin produced traditional interpretations of John 19:13 and 19:24 independently of one another (although probably in the same religious milieu), rather than one author being influenced by the other. Traditional interpretations may also reveal that two authors share the same theological presuppositions. The Eucharistic ‘bread from heaven’ in Gos. Phil. 15 can be interpreted as the spiritual body and spiritual Church that Christ brought down from heaven, which appears to be a traditional interpretation of John 6:51 revealed in Clement of Alexandria’s Exc. 13. It is widely acknowledged that the Gos. Phil. is similar to other Valentinian works and the Exc. has Valentinian sections,11 but the attribution of Exc. 13 to a “non-Valentinian” source may now need to be reevaluated.12 It is difficult to conclude that one work influenced the other, but it may indicate that both authors interpreted John 6:51 with the same theological presuppositions. Thirdly, traditional interpretations of the FG help us interpret the extracanonical gospels. For example, Gos. Sav. 14b–16 appears to assimilate the Father with the Savior (not just depict their unified relationship) by combining John 16:32 with 10:30. Praxeas makes the same interpretation by combining John 10:30 with 14:10 to assert that Jesus and the Father are ‘one and the same’ (Prax. 20),13 and Ephrem combines John 16:32, 14:10, and 10:30 to make a similar conclusion (Comm. Diat. 21.29). Gos. Sav. 91–92 also appears to avoid the conclusion that the Savior suffered in a fleshly body by summarizing the crucifixion with a catalogue of ‘vinegar’ and ‘gall’ (John 19:29), and ‘pierced’ side without the ‘blood and water’ (John 19:34). This interpretation is supported by Acts John 97 where the crucifixion is summarized with the same catalogue of events, but their fleshly reality is denied. The ‘piercing’ without the ‘blood and water’ is 10 Harnack, Bruchstücke, 39; Pilhofer, „Justin,“ 73; Swete, Akhmîm, xxxiv; Foster, “Justin,” 110. 11 Thomassen attributes both works to Eastern Valentinians (Spiritual, 502–503). 12 Contra Casey, who considers Exc. 4–5, 9, 10–16, 18–20, 27 to be “brief nonValentinian exegetical and dogmatic discussions” (Excerpta, 9). Thomassen, Spiritual, does not discuss Exc. 13. 13 While both John 14:10 and 16:32 elucidate Jesus’ relationship to the Father, he is ‘in’ (evn) Jesus in 14:10 and ‘with’ (meta,) Jesus in 16:32.

14.2. How did the Extra-Canonical Gospels Use and Interpret the Fourth Gospel?

201

also mentioned in Exc. 62.2 and Ephrem’s Comm. Diat. 21.12 as a subtle indication that Jesus was not truly harmed by this abuse. Fourthly, traditional interpretations of the FG (and the Synoptics) may help us understand the situation in which these extra-canonical gospels were composed. For example, the authors or communities responsible for the Gos. Sav. and Gos. Mary may have experienced some form of persecution. It is probable that Gos. Sav. 145–146 and possible that Gos. Mary 9.10–12 were influenced by John 15:20, and they combine this passage with other passages from the FG or Matt in a way similar to Cyprian’s letter to Fortunatus, the Exhortation to Martyrdom. This letter was composed around 257 CE and was intended to prepare Christians for martyrdom during the persecution of Valerius.14 Cyprian compiles a number of passages from ‘sacred Scripture,’ and in chapter 11, he quotes words spoken by ‘the Lord in the Gospel.’ He then proceeds to quote, one after another, John 15:18–20, 16:2–4, 20, 33, and Matt 24:4–31. In Gos. Sav. 145–148, John 15:20 is also combined with 16:33, similarly to Fort. 11. The introduction of the Savior in Gos. Mary 8.14–22 has a cluster of parallels with the canonical gospels,15 and after his departure, the disciples ‘grieve’ and ‘weep’ (John 16:20) and say in 9.7–12, ‘How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare him, how will they spare us’ (John 15:20)? While the strength of these parallels with the canonical gospels may be rightly questioned (John 16:20 and 15:20 only have a possible degree of influence), it is noteworthy that out of nine possible parallels with the FG and Matt in Gos. Mary 8.14–9.12, five of these occur in Fort. 11—Matt 24:4–5, 23, 14; John 16:20; 15:20. Therefore, the combination of John 15:20 with these other passages from the FG or Matt in the Gos. Sav., Gos. Mary, and Fort. 11, may indicate that these extra-canonical gospels were composed within a similar context of (real or perceived) persecution. Lastly, the extra-canonical gospels provide some of the earliest evidence for traditional interpretations of the FG. The EG likely combined John 5:39 with 5:45 before Irenaeus; the Gos. Pet. and the writings of Justin were likely composed around the middle of the second century CE, but their traditional interpretations of the FG precede Praxeas, Tertullian, and Cyril of Jerusalem; the Gos. Mary combined passages from the FG with Matt well before Cyprian, and its interpretation of John 14:27 likely precedes the Soph. Jes. Chr.; the Gos. Sav. likely correlated the ‘shepherd’ of Matt 26:31 with the ‘good shepherd’ before Jerome.

14 R.J. Deferrari, ed., Saint Cyprian (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1958), 311. 15 See Tuckett, Mary, 57–67.

202

Chapter 14: Summary and Conclusions

Traditional interpretations of the FG in the extra-canonical gospels raise multiple questions (which I hope to address in future publications): Who or what was the source of these traditional interpretations—ecclesial authorities, itinerant preachers, catechisms, liturgies, lectionaries, scripture collections, or secondary orality? Were these traditional interpretations transmitted programmatically in a didactic setting, or were they also transmitted through the sanctified gossip of secondary orality? Do traditional interpretations of the FG and Matt together indicate that they circulated together? Were these traditional interpretations widespread throughout the early Roman Empire, or can they help us locate the provenance of the extra-canonical gospels? What was the relationship between the author and/or communities responsible for the extra-canonical gospels and other Christian authors who made use of these traditional interpretations—the EG and Irenaeus; the Gos. Pet. and Justin; the Gos. Mary and Cyprian? Did the extra-canonical gospels initiate traditional interpretations of the FG, or simply record them?

14.3. The Reception of the Fourth Gospel The reception of the FG in the extra-canonical gospels tells us little about the FG itself. The influence of the FG on the EG in the first decades of the second century CE does not seriously affect a date of composition for the FG in the last decade of the first century CE. Gos. Sav. 92–93 may indicate that the author thought the Apostle John was the beloved disciple and author of the FG, which is commonplace in the third century CE. The EG and the Gos. Pet. support some variant readings for the FG, but in general, the extra-canonical gospels do not help us identify what text-types of the FG were most popular in the second and third centuries CE. This study does not help us identify the sources used by the evangelist. If there was a consistent pattern of parallels with a specific verse, pericopae, or proposed source of the FG, this may indicate that the FG and extra-canonical gospels were dependent on a common source, and help us identify its contours. However, when all the parallels are considered, there is no consistent pattern of influence—no single verse, pericopae, or proposed source exerts a clear influence on all the extra-canonical gospels. For example, John 10:30 (from R. Bultmann’s Offenbarungsreden source) has parallels in three extra-canonical gospels (Gos. Sav.; EG; Dial. Sav.), but John 19:34 (from Bultmann’s Passion-Source) also has parallels in three extra-canonical gospels (Gos. Sav.; Gos. Pet.; Gos. Phil.). If we follow R.E. Brown and divide the FG into the Book of Signs (John 1:19– 12:50) and the Book of Glory (John 13:1–20:31), the parallels are fairly

14.3. The Reception of the Fourth Gospel

203

evenly distributed, and no one pericope appears to have had an exceptional influence on the extra-canonical gospels (see Chart 4).16 We also cannot conclude that the extra-canonical gospels were dependent on any one of Bultmann’s proposed sources for the FG. His Offenbarungsreden source is by far the largest, so it is no surprise that the extra-canonical gospels also have the most parallels with this proposed source. Yet it is difficult to conclude that the authors were primarily interested in sayings of Jesus from the FG. This is surely a general pattern, but there are notable exceptions. For the probable and plausible parallels alone: the EG (Episode 1) accurately attributes John 9:29 to Jesus’ opponents and John 3:2 to an interlocutor; the Gos. Pet. has parallels with the events surrounding Jesus’ trial and crucifixion; the Gos. Thom. attributes John 8:25 to others (the disciples in §43; the Jews in John 8:25); the Gos. Sav. places narrated events from the FG into the mouth of the Savior (John 19:29, 34–35; vs.91–93); and Gos. Mary 10.7–15 accurately attributes John 20:18 to Mary. These parallels do not belong to Bultmann’s Offenbarungsreden source, so we would have to conclude that the evangelist and these authors were dependent on multiple common sources. It soon becomes difficult to distinguish multiple common sources from the finished works. The more economical solution is that one work has influenced the other, and as I have argued in this study, that the FG influenced these extra-canonical gospels. On multiple occasions, H. Koester has attempted to reconstruct the sources of the FG by appealing to parallels in the extra-canonical gospels, but his arguments are not convincing. He often concludes that the FG and extra-canonical gospels were dependent on a common source/tradition, but the extra-canonical gospels, without exception, preserve the source in its more primitive form with a more primitive theology. These arguments have been addressed throughout the study, although one final remark can be made about these sources. Koester has argued that the evangelist adapted a traditional sayings source, preserved in the Dial. Sav., Gos. Thom., and Ap. Jas., and a conflict source, preserved in the EG, to compose John 8:12–59, and other verses in the FG (John 7:30, 44; 10:31, 39).17 The problem with this hypothesis is that the sources themselves are mixed—the sayings source in Gos. Thom. §43 contains elements from a conflict source;18 the conflict source in EG 3r.1–6 (Episode 6) contains

16 John 20:1–18 has an inflated number of possible parallels since the Gos. Pet., Gos. Mary, and Dial. Sav. may each be influenced by John 20:11–15. 17 Koester, “Gnostic Sayings,” 103. 18 Koester attempts to avoid this conclusion by claiming that the invective, ‘you are like the Jews’ in Gos. Thom. §43 is part of the traditional sayings source (Koester,

204

Chapter 14: Summary and Conclusions

elements from a sayings source (John 10:30).19 It cannot be argued that the Gos. Thom. sayings source was influenced by the EG conflict source or vice versa, since they lack parallels with one another. The only extant evidence for the combination of all these supposed sources is the FG. John 8:25–27 combines sayings and conflicts that are paralleled in the Gos. Thom. §43, but are not found in the EG; John 10:30–31 combines sayings and conflicts that are paralleled in EG 3r.1–6, but are not found in the Gos. Thom. How many different sayings and conflict sources does the evangelist use? Perhaps many, but it is impossible to reconstruct these sources by appealing to the extra-canonical gospels, especially when it is more likely that the extra-canonical gospels were influenced by the FG. One final question may be asked: Why were the extra-canonical gospels influenced by the FG? There does not appear to be enough significant evidence to conclude that the extra-canonical gospels were particularly drawn to the theology of the FG, or that the ‘spiritual gospel’20 was especially attractive to these authors. The extra-canonical gospels have parallels with a variety of passages and pericopae from the FG, not just those with an exalted Christology. It should also be remembered that each of the extra-canonical gospels also exhibits a measure of influence from the Synoptics, particular Matt. This is a trite discovery, since the FG and Matt appear to be the most popular gospels in the second and third centuries CE, judging by their reception and the manuscript evidence.21 In the most basic terms, the FG influenced the extra-canonical gospels because it was known to their authors. They saw ‘the eagle soaring above the clouds’ (to use Augustine’s analogy) and attempted to follow its path by creating accounts of the life and/or teachings of Jesus that would compel others to ‘gaze upon the light of the unchangeable truth with those keenest and steadiest eyes of the heart’ (Cons. 1.6.9).

“Gnostic Sayings,” 104), which is inconsistent with his previous claims for the identification of the conflict source (see Chapter 6). 19 The reconstructed material in EG 3r.1–6 was plausibly influenced by John 10:30– 31. Koester assigns 10:31 to the conflict source (Koester, “Gnostic Sayings,” 103), but avoids commenting on 10:30, which Bultmann attributes to the Offenbarungsreden source. 20 This designation is attributed to Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.7. 21 Köhler, Rezeption; Nagel, Rezeption; L.W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), 20.

Chart 1: Identifying the Extra-Canonical Gospels

205

Chart 1

Identifying the Extra-Canonical Gospels Gospels EG Gos. Pet. P.Oxy. 840 Gos. Thom. Gos. Phil. Gos. Sav. Soph. Jes. Chr. Gos. Mary Gos. Jud. Dial. Sav. Thom. Cont. P.Mert. 51 P.Oxy. 210 P.Oxy. 1224 P.Oxy. 5072 P.Vindob.G. 2325 Doubtful Gospels Gos. Truth Gos. Eg. Ap. John Ap. Jas. 1 Apoc. Jas. 2 Apoc. Jas. Ep. Pet. Phil. Ep. Apost.

Direct Reports of Life and/or Teachings of Jesus

















3rd Person Perspective

*


*
*
*



*






Gospel Ancient Colophon Authors   
 



   


             

Direct Reports of Life and/or Teachings of Jesus  




Letter
Letter

3rd Person Perspective

* *  * *
* 

Gospel Ancient Colophon Authors 
             


* The majority of the work is written from the third-person perspective, although portions of the work are written from the first-person perspective. * The majority of the work is written from the first-person perspective, although portions of the work are written from the third-person perspective.
Letter The work does claim to give direct reports of the life and/or teachings of Jesus, but the introductory address identifies it is a letter.

206 Chart 2: Parallels between the Extra-Canonical Gospels and Fourth Gospel Chart 2

Parallels between the Extra-Canonical Gospels and Fourth Gospel 2.1. Narrative Gospels 2.1.1. The Egerton Gospel (P.Eg. 2 = P.Lond.Christ. 1, + P.Köln 255) EG 1v.7–10a 1v.10b–14a 1v.14b–17a 1v.18b–20 + P.Köln. 255 1v.19–23 1r.1–3 1r.3–8 1r.7–10 P.Köln. 255 1r.23 2r.1–6 3r.1–6

Probable 5:39 5:45 9:29 5:45b–46

Plausible

Possible

10:31 7:30 10:39 5:14 3:2 10:30–31

2.1.2. Gospel of Peter (P.Cair. 10759) Gos. Pet. §5b §6b §7a §7b §8 §9a §9b §9c §9d §10a §12 §14 §16 §17 §21 §23 §24 §28

Probable

Plausible

Possible 19:16, 31 19:7, 10

19:2 19:13 19:2, 5 7:24; 11:44 19:3 19:34 19:1 19:18 19:24 19:33 19:29 19:28 20:25 11:45 19:40–41 7:31–32

207

2.2. Sayings Gospels

11:50; 19:11; 10:31ff 20:19 20:11–15 20:11 20:15, 25; 16:28 20:10 16:20 21:1–2

§48 §50 §52, §54 §55, §56 §56 §58, §59 §59 §60

2.1.3. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 P.Oxy. 840 l.9 ll.14–16 ll.43–45

Probable

Plausible

Possible 10:23 13:5, 10 4:10, 11; 7:38

2.2. Sayings Gospels 2.2.1. Gospel of Thomas (II,2, P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655) Gos. Thom. Prol. §1 §3, §50 §12 §13 §19 §24 §28 §37 §38 §43 §77 §91 §92

Probable

Plausible

Possible 14:22

8:52 6:57 14:5 13:13; 4:14 8:58, 31 8:12; 11:10; 12:35 1:14 14:22; 16:17 7:34 8:25–27 8:12 8:25; 6:30 16:4–5

2.2.2. Gospel of Philip (II,3) Gos. Phil. §4a (52.15–18) §9c (53.6–9) §15 (55.10–14) §18 (56.1–2)

Probable

Plausible

Possible 8:45–46

10:17–18 6:51 14:2

208 Chart 2: Parallels between the Extra-Canonical Gospels and Fourth Gospel §23b (57.3–5) §27 (58.14–17) §32 (59.6–11) §42a (61.5–10) §96b (74.22–24) §100 (75.14–21) §110a (77.15–19) §122b (82.10–17) §123a (82.26–29) §123d (84.7–9)

6:53–54 10:9 19:25 8:44 10:38 19:34 8:32, 34 3:29 8:56 8:32

2.3. Dialogue/Discourse Gospels 2.3.1. Gospel of the Savior (P.Berol. 22220 + Strasbourg Coptic Papyrus 5–7) Gos. Sav. 12a 14b–15b 16 18–19 20a 20b 21a 21b–22 23 25 54 69b 70 75 78 83, 19H 86 91 92 93 145–146 147–148 24H

Probable

Plausible 14:31

Possible

16:32 10:30 10:11 15:13 8:29 15:12–13 10:17 17:4 17:15 17:22, 4 20:29 20:17 13:33 1:29 4:14 17:18 19:29 19:34 19:35 15:20 16:33 19:39

209

2.3. Dialogue/Discourse Gospels

2.3.2. Sophia of Jesus Christ (BG 8502,3; III,4; P.Oxy. 1081) Soph. Jes. Chr. BG 77.9–10 79.10–12 79.17–18 III 93.10–11 82.9–18 98.7–13 III 104.20–23 103.10–14

Probable

Plausible

Possible 2:22; 21:14

14:27 1:38 7:29; 8:55 1:12–13 9:11, 35 10:18 Johannine language

104.13–105.6 105.11–14 105.14–17

15:2, 5, 8 14:4 13:20; 17:18; 20:21 8:14; 16:28

117.12–15 122.5–123.1 126.12–16

15:5, 8 12:36

2.3.3. Gospel of Mary (BG 8502,1; P.Ryl. 493; P.Oxy. 3525) Gos. Mary 7.12 7.14 8.14–15 9.6, 14–16 9.10–12 10.2–3; 18.14–15 10.4–5 10.7–15 16.14–16 17.18–22

Probable

Plausible

Possible 1:29 8:34

14:27 16:20 15:20 20:17 15:20 20:18 3:8 4:27; 18:20–21; 20:14, 16 20:11–15

18.1

2.3.4. Gospel of Judas (Codex Tchacos, 3) Gos. Jud. 33.2–3; 35.9–10; 42.23–24 34.11–15 35.15–16 37.17–19 44.21

Probable

Plausible

Possible 12:4; 14:22 1:48–49 7:28 13:21 6:70; 13:2, 27

210 Chart 2: Parallels between the Extra-Canonical Gospels and Fourth Gospel 56.19–21 58.9–26 58.21–22

13:27 13:27–30 12:4; 18:25

2.3.5. Dialogue of the Savior (III,5) Dial. Sav. 120.19–121.3 121.4–7

Probable

Plausible

Possible 17:8, 10 11:41–42; 1:18; 3:16, 18 12:35 16:7; 14:26 16:13 20:11–15 12:35 16:33 14:2, 8 14:7 14:12 1:11; 8:14; 16:28 14:7 17:10 14:4 14:3, 6 16:33 14:3 14:4 10:30; 17:11, 21 12:25

Plausible

Possible 14:22 11:16; 20:24; 21:2; 15:15 3:21 3:12 3:19–21 3:11 3:6 11:16; 20:24; 21:2

122.1–6 126.3–5 126.14–17 126.17–20 127.1–6 129.8–12 132.7 132.13–16 132.17 133.18–21 134.14–15 136.10–13 139.3–6 140.19–23 141.24–142.3 142.16–19 145.14–24 145.17–19 147.19–22

2.3.6. Book of Thomas the Contender (II,7) Thom. Cont. 138.2 138.7–10 138.26–31 138.27–34 139.18–20 140.9–10 141.24 142.7–8

Probable

Lines 92 154 45 291

Lines 669 1235 1904

Lines 445 884 182 680 665 319 3175 2730

Narrative Gospels EG Gos. Pet. P.Oxy. 840 Total

Sayings Gospels Gos. Thom. Gos. Phil. Total

Dial./Disc. Gospels Gos. Sav. Soph. Jes. Chr. Gos. Mary Gos. Jud. Dial. Sav. Thom. Cont. Total – Gos. Sav.

Plausible Parallels # Concentration 5 1 : 18 4 1 : 39 0 X 9 1 : 32 Plausible Parallels # Concentration 4 1 : 167 4 1 : 309 8 1 : 238 Plausible Parallels # Concentration 6 1 : 74 2 1 : 442 2 1 : 91 0 X 0 X 0 X 10 1 : 318 4 1 : 683

Probable Parallels # Concentration 4 1 : 23 0 X 0 X 4 1 : 73 Probable Parallels # Concentration 0 X 3 1 : 412 3 1 : 635 Probable Parallels # Concentration 9 1 : 49 1 1 : 884 0 X 0 X 0 X 0 X 10 1 : 318 1 1: 2730

Possible Parallels # Concentration 8 1 : 56 11 1 : 80 9 1 : 20 8 1 : 85 21 1 : 32 8 1 : 40 65 1 : 49 57 1 : 48

Possible Parallels # Concentration 10 1 : 67 7 1 : 176 17 1 : 112

Possible Parallels # Concentration 1 1 : 92 22 1:7 3 1 : 15 26 1 : 11

# 23 14 11 8 21 8 85 62

# 14 14 28

# 10 26 3 39

Total Concentration 1 : 19 1 : 63 1 : 17 1 : 85 1 : 32 1 : 40 1 : 37 1 : 44

Total Concentration 1 : 48 1 : 88 1 : 68

Total Concentration 1:9 1:6 1 : 15 1:7

Concentration of Parallels: The Frequency of Parallels Relative to the Length of Text

Chart 3

Chart 3: Concentration of Parallels

211

5

10

20

15

Number of Verses

Plausible Possible

21:1-14 20:19-29 20:1-18 19:31-42 19:16-30 19:1-15 18:13-27 17:20-26 17:9-19 17:1-8 16:16-33 16:4-15 15:18-16:4 15:1-17 14:25-31 14:15-24 14:1-14 13:31-38 13:21-30 13:1-20 12:20-36 12:1-8 11:45-54 11:1-44 10:22-39 10:1-21 9:1-41 8:31-59 8:21-30 8:12-20 7:37-52 7:14-36 6:60-71 6:51-59 6:25-34 5:31-47 5:1-15 4:4-42 3:22-30 3:1-21 2:13-22 1:43-51 1:35-42 1:29-34 1:1-18

Probable Influence of the Fourth Gospel

Chart 4: Number of Verses Paralleled in the Extra-Canonical Gospels

Number of Verses from the Fourth Gospel Paralleled in the Extra-Canonical Gospels

Chart 4

212

Bibliography 1. Primary Sources Attridge, H.W., ed. Nag Hammadi Codex I (The Jung Codex): Introductions, Texts, Translations, Indices. NHS 22. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Bernhard, A.E. Other Early Christian Gospels: A Critical Edition of the Surviving Greek Manuscripts. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Böhlig, A. – F. Wisse, eds. Nag Hammadi Codices III,2 and IV,2: The Gospel of the Egyptians (The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit). NHS 4. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Brooke, A.E. The Fragments of Heracleon: Newly Edited from the Mss. with an Introduction and Notes. Reprint 1891. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004. Casey, R.P. The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria. London: Christophers, 1934. Charlesworth, J.H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Deferrari, R.J., ed. Saint Cyprian: Treatises. FC 36. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1958. Emmel, S., ed. Nag Hammadi Codex III,5: The Dialogue of the Savior. NHS 26. Leiden: Brill, 1984. —. “Preliminary Reedition and Translation of the Gospel of the Savior: New Light on the Strasbourg Coptic Gospel and the Stauros-Text from Nubia.” Apocrypha 14 (2003): 9–53. Foster, P. The Gospel of Peter: Introduction, Critical Edition and Commentary. Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 4. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Gaster, M. “The Chain of Samaritan High Priests.” JRAS (1909): 393–420. Grenfell, B.P. – A.S. Hunt. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Volume 5. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1908. Harvey W.W., ed. Sancti Irenaei episcope Lugdunensis Libros quinque adversus Haereses. Reprint 1857. Ridgewood: Gregg Press, 1965. Hedrick, C.W., ed. Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII. NHS 28. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Hedrick, C.W. – P.A. Mirecki. Gospel of the Savior: A New Ancient Gospel. California Classical Library. Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 1999. Heine, R.E., trans. Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1–10. FC 80. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1993. Horner, G.W. The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, Otherwise Called Sahidic and Thebaic: Volume 3, The Gospel of S. John. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911. Hubai P. Koptische Apokryphen aus Nubien: Der Kasr el-Wizz Kodex. TUGAL 163. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009.

214

Bibliography

Husselman, E.M. The Gospel of John in Fayumic Coptic (P.Mich.Inv.3521). Ann Arbor: Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, 1962. Jacoby, A. Ein neues Evangelienfragment. Strasbourg: Trubner, 1900. Jenott, L. The Gospel of Judas: Coptic Text, Translation, and Historical Interpretation of ‘the Betrayer’s Gospel.’ Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 64. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Kasser, R. – G. Wurst, eds. The Gospel of Judas together with the Letter of Peter to Philip, James, and a Book of Allogenes from Codex Tchacos. Critical Edition. With M.W. Meyer and F. Gaudard. Washington: National Geographic, 2007. Klijn, A.F.J. The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text, and Commentary. 2 nd Revised edition. NovTSup 5. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Kraus, T.J. – M.J. Kruger – T. Nicklas. Gospel Fragments. Oxford Early Christian Gospel Texts 2. Oxford: University Press, 2009. Kraus, T.J. – T. Nicklas, eds. Das Petrusevangelium und die Petrusapokalypse. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Kruger, M.J. The Gospel of the Savior: An Analysis of P. Oxy. 840 and Its Place in the Gospel Tradition of Early Christianity. Texts and Editions for New Testament Study 1. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Layton, B., ed. Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7: Together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1), and P.Oxy. 1, 654, 655. 2 volumes. NHS 20, 21. Leiden: Brill, 1989. McCarthy, C. Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709. Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2. Oxford: University Press, 1993. Migne, J.-P., ed. Patrologia Graeca. 162 volumes. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 18571886. —. Patrologia Latina. 217 volumes. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1844-1864. Parrott, D.M., ed. Nag Hammadi Codices III,3–4 and V,1. With Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,3 and Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1081. NHS 27. Leiden: Brill, 1991. —. Nag Hammadi Codices V,2–5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4. NHS 11. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Pearson, B.A., ed. Nag Hammadi Codex VII. Nag Hammadi and Manichean Studies 30. Leiden: Brill, 1996. —. Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X. NHS 15. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Quecke, H. Das Johannesevangelium saïdisch: Text der Handschrift PPalau Rib. Inv.Nr. 183 mit den Varianten der Handschriften 813 u. 814 der Chester Beatty Library und der Handschrift M 569. Papyrologica Castroctaviana—Studia et Textus. Rome: Papyrologica Castroctaviana, 1984. Roberts, A. – J. Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. 10 volumes. Reprint. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995. —. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: A Select Library of the Christian Church. 14 volumes. Reprint. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. Robinson, J.M., ed. The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi. 12 volumes. Leiden: Brill, 1972-1984. Runesson, A. – D.D. Binder – B. Olsson, eds. The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E.: A Source Book, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 72. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Schenke, H.-M. Das Philippus-Evangelium (Nag-Hammadi-Codex II,3). TUGAL 143. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1997.

2. Secondary Sources

215

Schmidt, C. Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jüngern nach der Auferstehung. Ein katholischapostolisches Sendschreiben des 2. Jahrhunderts. TU 43. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1919. Schmidt, C. – V. MacDermot, eds. Pistis Sophia. NHS 9. Leiden: Brill, 1978. —. The Books of Jeû and the Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex. NHS 13. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Schneemelcher, W., ed. New Testament Apocrypha: Volume One: Gospels and Related Writings. Revised edition. English translation edited by R.McL. Wilson. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. —. New Testament Apocrypha: Volume Two: Writings Relating to the Apostles; Apocalypses and Related Subjects. Revised edition. English translation edited by R.McL. Wilson. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Sieber, J.H., ed. Nag Hammadi Codex VIII. NHS 31. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Souter, A. Tertullian Against Praxeas. Translation of Christian Literature, Series II, Latin Texts. London: SPCK, 1919. Tuckett, C.M. The Gospel of Mary. Oxford Early Christian Gospel Texts 1. Oxford: University Press, 2007. Waldstein, M. – F. Wisse, eds. The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; and IV,1 with BG 8502,2. Nag Hammadi and Manichean Studies 33. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Williams, F., trans. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. 2 volumes. Leiden: Brill, 1987–1994.

2. Secondary Sources Allenbach, J. ed. Biblia patristica: index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique. Centre d’analyse et de documentation patristiques. 6 volumes. Paris: Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975–2001. Amit, D. “‘The Curtain would be Removed for Them’ (Yoma 54a): Ancient Synagogue Depictions.” Pages 231–234 in From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Edited by L.I. Levine and Z. Weiss. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 40. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000. Attridge, H.W. “‘Seeking’ and ‘Asking’ in Q, Thomas, and John.” Pages 295–302 in From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson. Edited by J.M. Asgeirsson, K. DeTroyer, and M.W. Meyer. BETL 146. Leuven: University Press, 2000. —. “The Greek Fragments.” Pages 96–128 in Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7: Volume 1: Gospel according to Thomas, Gospel According to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons, and Indexes. Edited by B. Layton. NHS 20. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Baarda, T. “Jesus Said: Be Passers-by: On the Meaning and Origin of Logion 42 of the Gospel of Thomas.” Pages 179–205 in Early Transmission of Words of Jesus: Thomas, Tatian, and the Text of the New Testament: A Collection of Studies. Amsterdam: VU Boekhandel/Uitgeverij, 1983. Barnes, W.E. Canonical and Uncanonical Gospels. London: Longmans, Green, 1893. Barrett, C.K. The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2 nd edition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978. Barry, C. La Sagesse de Jésus-Christ (BG,3; NH III,4). Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi 20. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1993.

216

Bibliography

Bauckham, R. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Bauer, W. “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments.” Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 198 (1936): 24–30. Beasely-Murray, G.R. John. WBC 36. Waco: Word, 1987. Bell, H.I. Recent Discoveries of Biblical Papyri. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937. —. “The Gospel Fragments P. Egerton 2.” HTR 42 (1949): 53–63. Bell, H.I. – T.C. Skeat. Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1935. —. The New Gospel Fragments. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1935. Blackburn, B. Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the Theios Anēr Concept as an Interpretative Background of the Miracle Traditions Used by Mark. WUNT II 40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Blatz, B. “Dialogue of the Savior.” Pages 300–303 in New Testament Apocrypha: Volume One: Gospels and Related Writings. Edited by W. Schneemelcher. Revised edition. English translation edited by R.McL. Wilson. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Blau, L. „Das neue Evangelienfragment von Oxyrhynchos buch- und zaubergeschichtlich betrachtet nebst sonstigen Bemerkungen.“ ZNW 9 (1908): 204–215. Boer, E.A. de. “A Gnostic Mary in the Gospel of Mary?” Pages 695–708 in Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium. Volume 2. Edited by M. Immerzeel and J. van der Vliet. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. —. The Gospel of Mary: Beyond a Gnostic and a Biblical Mary Magdalene. JSNTSup 260. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Boismard, M.-E. «À propos de Jean V, 39. Essai de critique textuelle.» RB 55 (1948): 5– 34. Borchert, G.L. “An Analysis of the Literary Arrangement and Theological Views in the Coptic Gnostic Gospel of Philip.” Diss. Princeton Theology Seminary, 1967. —. “Insights into the Gnostic Threat to Christianity as gained through the Gospel of Philip.” Pages 79–93 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by R.N. Longenecker and M.C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Borsch, F.H. The Christian and Gnostic Son of Man. SBT 14. London: SCM Press, 1970. Bouriant, U. «Fragments du texte grec du livre d’Énoch et de quelques écrits attribués à saint Pierre.» Pages 93–147 in Mémoires publié par les membres de la Mission archéologique française au Caire (t. IX, fasc. 1). Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1892. Bovon, F. “Fragment Oxyrhynchus 840, Fragment of a Lost Gospel, Witness of an Early Christian Controversy over Purity.” JBL 119 (2000): 705–728. —. «Le privilège pascal de Marie-Madeleine.» NTS 30 (1984): 50–62. Brakke, D. The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity. London: Harvard University Press, 2010. Brankaer, J. – H.-G. Bethge, eds. Codex Tchacos: Texte und Analysen. TUGAL 161. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Braun, F.-M. Jean le théologien: et son évangile dans l’église ancienne. Paris: Gabalda, 1959. Bremmer, J.N. “Man, Magic, and Martyrdom in the Acts of Andrew.” Pages 15–34 in The Apocryphal Acts of Andrew. Edited by J.N. Bremmer. Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 5. Leuven: Peeters, 2000. Broek, R. van den. Studies in Gnosticism and Alexandrian Christianity. Nag Hammadi and Manichean Studies 39. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

2. Secondary Sources

217

Brown, R.E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave. Volume 2. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1994. —. The Gospel According to John (i–xii). Volume 1. The Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966. —. The Gospel according to John (xiii–xxi). Volume 2. The Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday, 1970. —. “The Gospel of Peter and Canonical Gospel Priority.” NTS 33 (1987): 321–343. —. “The Gospel of Thomas and St. John’s Gospel.” NTS 9 (1962): 155–177. Bruyn, T. de. “Apocryphal and Canonical Christian Narratives in Greek Papyrus Amulets in Late Antiquity.” Pages 1–37 in Christian Apocryphal Texts for the New Millennium: Achievements, Prospects, and Challenges. Edited by P. Piovanelli. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Forthcoming. Büchler, A. “The New ‘Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel.’” JQR 20 (1908): 330–346. Bultmann, R. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G.R. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971. Burkitt, F.C. “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments.” JTS 36 (1935): 302–304. —. The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus. Revised edition. London: Constable, 1922. Burridge, R.A. What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. 2 nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Cameron, R., ed. The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1982. Cantazoro, C.J. De. “The Gospel according to Philip.” JTS 13 (1962): 35–71. Carleton Paget, J. “The Definition of the Term ‘Jewish Christian’ / ‘Jewish Christianity’ in the History of Research.” Pages 289–324 in Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity. WUNT 251. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. —. “The Epistle of Barnabas and the Writings that Later Formed the New Testament.” Pages 229–249 in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. Edited by A. Gregory and C.M. Tuckett. Oxford: University Press, 2005. —. The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background. WUNT 64. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Casey, R.P. “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments.” AJP 57 (1936): 103–107. Cassels, W.R. The Gospel according to Peter. London: Longmans, Green, 1894. Cerfaux, L. «Parallèles canoniques et extra-canoniques de ‹l’évangile inconnu› (Pap. Egerton 2).» Mus 49 (1936): 55–77. —. “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments.” RHE 31 (1935): 569–572. Charlesworth, J.H. – C.A. Evans. “Jesus in the Agrapha and Apocryphal Gospels.” Pages 479–533 in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research. Edited by B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans. NTTS 19. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Chilton, B.D. “Not to Taste Death: A Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Usage.” Pages 29–36 in Studia Biblica 1978. II: Papers on the Gospels. Edited by E.A. Livingstone. JSNTSup 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980. Collins, J.J. “Review of Mayeda, Leben-Jesu-Fragment.” TS 9 (1948): 322–323. Colwell, E.C. “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments.” JR 16 (1936): 479–480. Crossan, J.D. Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985. —. The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Crum, W.E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939. Czachesz, I. “The Gospel of Peter and the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: Using Cognitive Science to Reconstruct Gospel Traditions.” Pages 245–262 in Das

218

Bibliography

Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontext, Intertext. Edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. TUGAL 158. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Daniels, J.B. “The Egerton Gospel: Its Place in Early Christianity.” Diss. Claremont Graduate School, 1989. Davies, S.L. The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom. Oregon House: Bardic Press, 2005. Davies, W.W. “A Fragment of another Gospel.” Methodist Review 90 (1908): 815–818. DeConick, A.D. “‘Blessed are Those who Have not Seen’ (JN 20:29): Johannine Dramatization of an Early Christian Discourse.” Pages 381–398 in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration. Edited by J.D. Turner and A. McGuire. NHS 44. Leiden: Brill, 1997. —. Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and its Growth. Library of New Testament Studies 286. London: T&T Clark, 2005. —. Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 33. Leiden: Brill, 1996. —. “The Dialogue of the Savior and the Mystical Sayings of Jesus.” VC 50 (1996): 178– 99. —. “The Mystery of Betrayal.” Pages 239–264 in The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006. Edited by M. Scopello. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 62. Leiden: Brill, 2008. —. The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation: With a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel. Library of New Testament Studies 187. London: T&T Clark, 2006. —. The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says. Revised edition. London: Continuum, 2009. —. “The True Mysteries: Sacramentalism in the ‘Gospel of Philip’.” VC 55 (2001): 225– 261. —. Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and other ancient Christian Literature. JSNTSS 157. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Denker, J. Die theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Petrusevangeliums: Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte des Doketismus. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/36. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1975. Dewey, A.J. “Resurrection Texts in the Gospel of Peter.” FF 10.3–4 (1994): 177–196. Dibelius, M. „Die alttestamentlichen Motive in der Leidensgeschichte des Petrus- und des Johannes-Evangeliums.“ Pages 221–247 in Botschaft und Geschichte I. Edited by G. Bornkamm. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1953. —. “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments.” Deutsche Literaturzeitung 57 (1936): 3–11. Dix, G. “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments.” Laudate 13 (1935): 102–107. Dochhorn, J. „Warum gab es kein Getreide im Paradies? Eine jüdische Ätiologie des Ackerbaus in Ev Phil 15.“ ZNW 89 (1998): 125–133. Dodd, C.H. “The Appearance of the Risen Christ: An Essay in Form-Criticism of the Gospels.” Pages 9–35 in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot. Edited by D.E. Nineham. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955. —. New Testament Studies. New York: Scribners, 1956. Dräseke, J. „Zum neuen Evangelienbruchstück von Oxyrhynchos.“ ZWT 50 (1908): 485– 489.

2. Secondary Sources

219

Dubois, J.-D. «L’Évangile de Judas et la tradition basilidienne.» Pages 145–155 in The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006. Edited by M. Scopello. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 62. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Dunderberg, I. “Judas’ Anger and the Perfect Human.” Pages 201–221 in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008. Edited by A.D. DeConick. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 71. Leiden: Brill, 2009. —. The Beloved Disciple in Conflict?: Revisiting the Gospels of John and Thomas. Oxford: University Press, 2006. —. “The School of Valentinus.” Pages 64–99 in A Companion to Second- Century ‘Heretics’. Edited by A. Marjanen and P. Luomanen. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005. —. “Valentinian Views about Adam’s Creation: Valentinus and the Gospel of Philip.” Pages 509–527 in Lux Humana, Lux Aeterna: Essays on Biblical and Related Themes in Honour of Lars Aejmelaeus. Edited by A. Mustakallio, H. Leppä, H. Räisänen, and L. Aejmelaeus. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 89. Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society, 2005. Dunkerley, R. “The Oxyrhynchus Gospel Fragments.” HTR 23 (1930): 19–37. Dunn, J.D.G. “The Washing of the Disciples’ Feet in John 13.1–20.” ZNW 61 (1970): 246–252. Edwards, M.J. “Gnostics and Valentinians in the Church Fathers.” JTS 40 (1989): 26–47. —. “Neglected Texts in the Study of Gnosticism.” JTS 41 (1990): 26–49. Ehrman, B.D. “Christianity Turned on Its Head: The Alternative Vision of the Gospel of Judas.” Pages 77–120 in The Gospel of Judas: From Codex Tchacos. Edited by R. Kasser, M.W. Meyer, and G. Wurst. Washington: National Geographic, 2006. —. The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed. Oxford: University Press, 2006. Elliott, J.K., ed. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. Oxford: University Press, 1993. Emmel, S. “The Presuppositions and the Purpose of the Gospel of Judas.” Pages 33–39 in The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006. Edited by M. Scopello. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 62. Leiden: Brill, 2008. —. “The Recently Published Gospel of the Savior ‘Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium’: Righting the Order of Pages and Events.” HTR 95 (2002): 45–72. —. “Unbekanntes Berliner Evangelium = The Strasbourg Coptic Gospel: Prolegomena to a New Edition of the Strasbourg Fragments.” Pages 354–374 in For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften's Thirtieth Year. Edited by H.G. Bethge and H.-M. Schenke. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 54. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Erlemann, K. „Papyrus Egerton 2: ‘Missing Link’ zwischen synoptischer und johanneischer Tradition.“ NTS 42 (1996): 12–34. Fallon, F.T. “The Gnostic Apocalypses.” Pages 123–158 in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Edited by J.J. Collins. Semeia 14. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979. Fallon, F.T. – R. Cameron. “The Gospel of Thomas: A Forschungsbericht and Analysis.” ANRW 25.6 (1998): 4195–4251. Ferguson, E. Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009.

220

Bibliography

Foster, P. “Are there any Early Fragments of the So-Called Gospel of Peter?” NTS 52 (2006): 1–28. —. “The Discovery and Initial Reaction to the So-Called Gospel of Peter.” Pages 9–30 in Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontext, Intertext. Edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. TUGAL 158. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. —. “The Gospel of Peter.” Pages 30–42 in The Non-Canonical Gospels. Edited by P. Foster. London: T&T Clark, 2008. —. “The Relationship between the Writings of Justin Martyr and the So-Called Gospel of Peter.” Pages 104–112 in Justin Martyr and His Worlds. Edited by S. Parvis and P. Foster. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Frey, J. Die johanneische Eschatologie. 3 volumes. WUNT 96, 110, 117. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, 1998, 2000. —. “Eschatology in the Johannine Circle.” Pages 47–82 in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar. Edited by G. van Belle, J.G. Van der Watt, and P.J. Maritz. BETL 184. Leuven: University Press, 2005. —. „Leidenskampf und Himmelsreise: Das Berliner Evangelienfragment (Papyrus Berolinensis 22220) und die Gethsemane-Tradition.“ BZ 46 (2002): 71–96. Frickel, J. „Naassener oder Valentinianer?“ Pages 95–119 in Gnosis and Gnosticism. Papers Read at the Eighth International Conference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, September 3rd–8th 1979). Edited by M. Krause. NHS 17. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Gaffron, H.-G. Studien zum koptischen Philippusevangelium unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sakramente. Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1969. Gardner-Smith, P. “The Date of the Gospel of Peter.” JTS 27 (1926): 401–407. —. “The Gospel of Peter.” JTS 27 (1926): 255–271. Gathercole, S.J. “Matthean or Lukan Priority?: The Use of the NT Gospels in the Gospel of Judas.” Pages 291–302 in Judasevangelium und Codex Tchacos: Studien zur religionsgeschichtlichen Verortung einer gnostischen Schriftsammlung. Edited by E.E. Popkes and G. Wurst. WUNT 297. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. —. The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences. SNTSMS 151. Cambridge: University Press, 2012. —. “The Earliest Manuscript Title of Matthew’s Gospel: (BnF Suppl. gr. 1120 ii 3 / ? P4),” NovT 54 (2012): 209–235. —. The Gospel of Judas: Rewriting Early Christianity. Oxford: University Press, 2007. Gerhardsson, B. Memory and Manuscript. Combined Edition with a New Preface. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Goguel, M. «Les fragments nouvellement découverts d’un Évangile du IIe siècle.» RHPR 15 (1935): 459–466. —. «Les nouveaux fragments évangéliques de Londres.» RHR 113 (1935): 40–87. Goodacre, M. Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas’s Familiarity with the Synoptics. Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012. Goodspeed, E.J. “The New Gospel Fragment from Oxyrhynchus.” BW 31 (1908): 142– 146. Graham Brock, A. Mary Magdalene, The First Apostle: The Struggle for Authority. HTS 51. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Grant. R.M. “Two Gnostic Gospels,” JBL 79 (1960): 1–11. Grant, R.M. – D.N. Freedman. The Secret Sayings of Jesus. With an English translation of the Gospel of Thomas by W.R. Schoedel. London: Collins, 1960.

2. Secondary Sources

221

Green, J.B. “The Gospel of Peter: Source for a Pre-Canonical Passion Narrative?” ZNW 78 (1987): 293–301. Gregory, A. – C.M. Tuckett. “Reflections on Method: What constitutes the Use of the Writings that later formed the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers?” Pages 61–82 in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. Edited by A. Gregory and C.M. Tuckett. Oxford: University Press, 2005. —. “Series Preface.” Pages v–xi in The Gospel of Mary. Authored by C.M. Tuckett. Oxford Early Christian Gospel Texts 1. Oxford: University Press, 2007. Greschat, K. „Justins ‚Denkwürdigkeiten der Apostel‘ und das Petrusevangelium.“ Pages 197–214 in Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontext, Intertext. Edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. TUGAL 158. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Gronewald, M. „255. Unbekanntes Evangelium oder Evangelienharmonie (Fragment aus dem ‚Evangelium Egerton‘).“ Pages 136–145 in Kölner Papyri (P.Köln). Volume 6. Edited by M. Gronewald, B. Kramer, K. Maresch, M. Parca, and C. Romer. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1987. Grosso, M. “Three Days and Eight Days: Chronology in the Gospel of Judas.” Pages 453–470 in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008. Edited by A.D. DeConick. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 71. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Gunther, J.J. “The Meaning and Origin of the Name ‘Judas Thomas’.” Mus 93 (1980): 113–148. Haber, S. “Common Judaism, Common Synagogue? Purity, Holiness, and Sacred Space at the Turn of the Common Era.” Pages 63–77 in Common Judaism Explored: Second Temple Judaism in Context. Essays in Honour of E.P. Sanders. Edited by W.O. McCready and A. Reinhartz. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. Haenchen, E. John 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 7–21. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Hagen, J.L. „Ein anderer Kontext für die Berliner und Straßburger ‚Evangelienfragmente‘: Das ‚Evangelium des Erlösers‘ und andere ‚Apostel-evangelien‘ in der koptischen Literatur.“ Pages 339–371 in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen: Beiträge zu außerkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen aus verschiedenen Sprach- und Kulturtraditionen. Edited by J. Frey and J. Schröter. WUNT 254. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Harnack, A. Bruchstücke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1893. —. „Ein neues Evangelienbruchstück.“ Pages 239–250 in Aus Wissenschaft und Leben, Band II. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1911. Harris, J.R. A Popular Account of the Newly-Recovered Gospel of St. Peter. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1893. Harrison, S.J. “Cicero and ‘Crurifragium’.” CQ 33 (1983): 453–455. Hartenstein, J. „Anmerkungen zu den vier koptischen Versionen von ‚Eugnostos‘ und der ‚Sophia Jesu Christi‘.“ Pages 749–758 in Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, Leiden, 2000. Volume 1. Edited by M. Immerzeel and J. van der Vliet. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. —. Charakterisierung im Dialog: Die Darstellung von Maria Magdalena, Petrus, Thomas und der Mutter Jesu im Kontext anderer frühchristlicher Traditionen. SUNT 64. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.

222

Bibliography

—. „Das Petrusevangelium als Evangelium.“ Pages 159–181 in Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontext, Intertext. Edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. TUGAL 158. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. —. Die zweite Lehre: Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen als Rahmenerzählungen frühchristlicher Dialoge. TUGAL 146. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2000. Head, P.M. “On the Christology of the Gospel of Peter.” VC 46 (1992): 209–224. —. “Tatian’s Christology and its Influence on the Composition of the Diatessaron.” TynBul 43 (1992): 121–137. —. “The Gospel of Judas and the Qarara Codices: Some Preliminary Observations.” TynBul 58 (2007): 1–23. Hedrick, C.W. “An Anecdotal Argument for the Independence of the Gospel of Thomas from the Synoptic Gospels.” Pages 112–126 in For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften's Thirtieth Year. Edited by H.-G. Bethge and H.-M. Schenke. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 54. Leiden: Brill, 2002. —. “Caveats to a ‘Righted Order’ of the Gospel of the Savior.” HTR 96 (2003): 229–38. Henderson, T.P. The Gospel of Peter and Early Christian Apologetics: Rewriting the Story of Jesus’ Death, Burial, and Resurrection. WUNT 301. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Hengel, M. The Johannine Question. London: SCM Press, 1989. Hieke, T. „Das Petrusevangelium vom Alten Testament her gelesen: Gewinnbringende Lektüre eines nicht-kanonischen Textes vom christlichen Kanon her.“ Pages 91–116 in Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontext, Intertext. Edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. TUGAL 158. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Hilgenfeld, A. „Das Petrus-Evangelium über Leiden und Auferstehung Jesu.“ ZWT 36 (1893): 439–454. Hill, C.E. “‘In These Very Words’: Methods and Standards of Literary Borrowing in the Second Century.” Pages 261–281 in The Early Text of the New Testament. Edited by C.E. Hill and M.J. Kruger. Oxford: University Press, 2012. —. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. Oxford: University Press, 2004. —. “‘The Orthodox Gospel’: The Reception of John in the Great Church prior to Irenaeus.” Pages 233–300 in The Legacy of John: Second-century Reception of the Fourth Gospel. Edited by T. Rasimus. NovTSup 132. Leiden: Brill, 2009. —. “Was John’s Gospel among Justin’s Apostolic Memoirs?” Pages 88–93 in Justin Martyr and His Worlds. Edited by S. Parvis and P. Foster. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Hillmer, M.R. “The Gospel of John in the Second Century.” Diss. Harvard University, 1966. Hills, J.V. “The Three ‘Matthean’ Aphorisms in the Dialogue of the Savior 53.” HTR 84 (1991): 43–58. Holladay, C.R. Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of this Category in New Testament Christology. SBLDS 40. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Hurtado, L.W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. —. The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins. Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006. Iacopino, G. Il vangelo di Giovanni nei testi gnostici copti. SEAug 49. Roma: Institutum Partristicum Augustinianum, 1995.

2. Secondary Sources

223

Inowlocki, S. Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context. AGJU 64. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Isenberg, W.W. “The Gospel of Philip: Introduction.” Pages 131–139 in Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7: Volume 1: Gospel according to Thomas, Gospel According to Philip, Hypostasis of the Archons, and Indexes. Edited by B. Layton. NHS 20. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Jeremias, J. Unknown Sayings of Jesus. Translated by R.H. Fuller. London: SPCK, 1958. Jeremias, J. – W. Schneemelcher. “Papyrus Egerton 2.” Pages 96–99 in New Testament Apocrypha: Volume One: Gospels and Related Writings. Edited by W. Schneemelcher. Revised edition. English translation edited by R.McL. Wilson. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Johnson, S.R. “The Gospel of Thomas 76.3 and Canonical Parallels: Three Segments in the Tradition History of the Saying.” Pages 308–326 in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration. Edited by J.D. Turner and A. McGuire. NHS 44. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Jones, F.S. “The Gospel of Peter in Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1,27–71.” Pages 237–244 in Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontext, Intertext. Edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. TUGAL 158. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Jülicher, A. „Ein neues Jesuswort?“ Christliche Welt 8 (1908): 201–204. Karmann, T.R. „Die Paschahomilie des Melito von Sardes und das Petrusevangelium.“ Pages 215–236 in Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontext, Intertext. Edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. TUGAL 158. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Kasser, R. – M.W. Meyer – G. Wurst, eds. The Gospel of Judas: From Codex Tchacos. Washington: National Geographic, 2006. Kazen, T. Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity? ConBNT 38. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010. —. “Sectarian Gospels for Some Christians? Intention and Mirror Reading in the Light of Extra-Canonical Texts.” NTS 51 (2005): 561–578. Keener, C.S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 volumes. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003. Kelhoffer, J.A. Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark. WUNT 112. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Kellas, C. “The Healing of the Leper: The Accounts in the Synoptic Gospels and Papyrus Egerton 2, Papyrus Köln 255.” IBS 16 (1994):161–173. King, K.L. The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle. Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 2003. Kirk, A. “Examining Priorities: Another Look at the Gospel of Peter’s Relationship to the New Testament Gospels.” NTS 40 (1994): 572–595. —. “Orality, Writing, and Phantom Sources: Appeals to Ancient Media in Some Recent Challenges to the Two Document Hypothesis.” NTS 58 (2011): 1–22. —. “The Johannine Jesus in the Gospel of Peter: A Social Memory Approach.” Pages 313–321 in Jesus in Johannine Tradition. Edited by R.T. Fortna and T. Thatcher. London: Westminster John Knox, 2001. —. “Tradition and Memory in the Gospel of Peter.” Pages 135–158 in Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontext, Intertext. Edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. TUGAL 158. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Klassen, W. Judas: Betrayer or Friend of Jesus? London: SCM Press, 1996. Klauck, H.-J. Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction. Translated by B. McNeil. London: T&T Clark, 2003.

224

Bibliography

—. „Die dreifache Maria: Zur Rezeption von Joh 19,25 in EvPhil 32.“ Pages 2343–2358 in The Four Gospels: Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Volume 3. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck et al. BETL 100. Leuven: University Press/Peeters, 1992. Klink III, E.W. The Sheep of the Fold: The Audience and Origin of the Gospel of John. SNTSMS 141. Cambridge: University Press, 2007. Köhler, W.-D. Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenäus. WUNT 24. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Koester, H. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. London: SCM Press, 1990. —. “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels.” HTR 73 (1980): 105–130. —. “Dialogue and the Tradition of Sayings in the Gnostic Texts of Nag Hammadi.” Pages 148–173 in From Jesus to the Gospels: Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Translation of „Dialog und Spruchüberlieferung in den gnostischen Texten von Nag Hammadi.“ EvTh 39 (1979): 532– 556. —. “Gnostic Sayings and Controversy Traditions in John 8:12–59.” Pages 97–110 in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, & Early Christianity. Edited by C.W. Hedrick and R. Hodgson Jr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986. —. “Gnostic Writings as Witnesses for the Development of the Sayings Tradition.” Pages 238–261 in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism I. The School of Valentinus: Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March 28 – 31, 1978. Edited by B. Layton. NumenSup 1. Leiden: Brill, 1980. —. “Gospels and Gospel Traditions in the Second Century.” Pages 27–44 in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. Edited by A. Gregory and C.M. Tuckett. Oxford: University Press, 2005. —. Introduction to the New Testament. 2 volumes. Revised edition. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. —. “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels.” Pages 158–204 in Trajectories through Early Christianity. Edited by J.M. Robinson and H. Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. —. “The History-of-Religions School, Gnosis, and Gospel of John.” ST – Nordic of Theology 40 (1986): 115–136. Koester, H. – E.H. Pagels, “The Dialogue of the Savior: Introduction.” Pages 1–18 in Nag Hammadi Codex III,5: The Dialogue of the Savior. Edited by S. Emmel. NHS 26. Leiden: Brill, 1984. Krause, M. „Das literarische Verhältnis des Eugnostosbriefes zur Sophia Jesu Christi: Zur Auseinandersetzung der Gnosis mit dem Christentum.“ Pages 215–223 in Mullus: Festschrift Theodor Klauser. Edited by A. Stuiber and A. Hermann. Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1964. —. „Der Dialog des Soter in Codex III von Nag Hammadi.“ Pages 13–34 in Gnosis and Gnosticism: Papers Read at the Seventh International Conference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, Sept 8 – 18, 1975). Edited by M. Krause. NHS 8. Leiden: Brill, 1977. —. “The Christianization of Gnostic Texts.” Pages 187–194 in The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honour of Robert McL. Wilson. Edited by A.H.B. Logan and A.J.M. Wedderburn. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983. Krosney, H. The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. Washington: National Geographic, 2006. Krosney, H. – M.W. Meyers – G. Wurst. “Preliminary Report on New Fragments of Codex Tchacos.” Early Christianity 1 (2010): 282–294.

2. Secondary Sources

225

Kruger, M.J. “Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840.” Pages 123–215 in Gospel Fragments. Authored by T.J. Kraus, M.J. Kruger, and T. Nicklas. Oxford Early Christian Gospel Texts 2. Oxford: University Press, 2009. —. “Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840.” Pages 157–170 in The Non-Canonical Gospels. Edited by P. Foster. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Kuntzmann, R. Le Livre de Thomas (NH II,7). Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi 16. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1986. Lagrange, M.-J. «Deux nouveaux textes relatifs a l’Évangile.» RB 44 (1935): 321–343. —. «Nouveau fragment non canonique relatif a l’Évangile.» RB 5 (1908): 538–553. Lake, K. The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. London: Williams & Norgate, 1907. Lake, S. “Review of Bell – Skeat, New Gospel.” JBL 55 (1936): 95–100. Lampe, G.W.H., ed. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Reprint. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010. Lancellotti, M.G. The Naassenes: A Gnostic Identity among Judaism, Christianity, Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Traditions. Forschungen zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 35. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000. Layton, B. “Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism.” Pages 334–350 in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne Meeks. Edited by L.M. White and O.L. Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. —. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions. London: SCM Press, 1987. Lejay, P. «L’Évangile de Pierre.» REG (1893): 59–84. Létourneau, P. Le Dialogue du Sauveur (NH III,5). Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi 29. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2003. —. «Traditions johanniques dans Le Dialogue du Sauveur (NH III, 5).» Mus 110 (1997): 33–61. Levine, L.I. “‘Common Judaism:’ The Contribution of the Ancient Synagogue.” Pages 27–46 in Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism. Edited by W.O. McCready and A. Reinhartz. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. Lietzmann, H. „Das neugefundene Evangelienfragment und seine Vorgänger.“ Beilage zur allgemeinen Zeitung 31 (1908): 662–672. —. „Neue Evangelienpapyri.“ ZNW 34 (1935): 285–293. Lightfoot, R.H. St. John’s Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956. Lods, A. L’Évangile et l’Apocalypse de Pierre: Publiés pour la première fois d’après les photographies du manuscrit de Gizéh. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1893. Loewenich, W. von. Das Johannes-Verständnis im zweiten Jahrhundert. Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1932. Logan, A.H.B. “The Meaning of the Term, ‘the All’, in Gnostic Thought.” Pages 203– 208 in Studia Patristica 14. Edited by E. Livingstone. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1976. Lührmann, D. Die apokryph gewordenen Evangelien: Studien zu neuen Texten und zu neuen Fragen. NovTSup 112. Leiden: Brill, 2004. —. „Die Überlieferung des apokryph gewordenen Petrusevangeliums.“ Pages 31–52 in Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontext, Intertext. Edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. TUGAL 158. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. —. „Kann es wirklich keine frühe Handschrift des Petrusevangeliums geben?: Corrigenda zu einem Aufsatz von Paul Foster.“ NovT 48 (2006): 379–383. —. „POx 4009: Ein neues Fragment des Petrusevangeliums?,“ NovT 35 (1993): 391–410.

226

Bibliography

Lundhaug, H. Images of Rebirth: Cognitive Poetics and Transformational Soteriology in the Gospel of Philip and the Exegesis on the Soul. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 73. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Luttikhuizen, G.P. “The Evaluation of the Teaching of Jesus in Christian Gnostic Revelation Dialogues.” NovT 30 (1988): 158–168. MacRae, G.W. “The Meaning and Evolution of the Feast of Tabernacles.” CBQ 22 (1960): 251–276. Magen, Y. “The Ritual Baths (Miqva’ot) at Qedumim and the Observance of Ritual Purity among the Samaritans.” Pages 181–192 in Early Christianity in Context: Monuments and Documents. Edited by F. Mann and E. Alliata. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing, 1993. Mahé, J.-P. «Mise en scène et effets dramatiques dans L’Évangile de Judas.» Pages 23– 32 in The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006. Edited by M. Scopello. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 62. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Mara, M.G. Évangile de Pierre. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1973. Marcovich, M. “Textual Criticism on the Gospel of Thomas.” JTS 20 (1969): 53–74. Marjanen, A. “Is Thomas a Gnostic Gospel?” Pages 107–139 in Thomas at the Crossroads: Essays on the Gospel of Thomas. Edited by R. Uro. Studies of the New Testament and its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. —. The Woman Jesus Loved: Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 40. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Markschies, C. – J. Schröter, hrsg. Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung: Evangelien und Verwandtes. I Band. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Marmorstein, A. „Einige Bemerkungen zum Evangelienfragment in Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. V, n. 840, 1907.“ ZNW 15 (1914): 336–338. Martin, M.W. “Defending the ‘Western Non-Interpolations’: The Case for an AntiSeparationist Tendenz in the Longer Alexandrian Readings.” JBL 124 (2005): 269– 294. Martyn, J.L. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. Nashville: Abingdon, 1979. Massaux, É. The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus. Book 2: The Later Christian Writings. Translated by N.J. Belval and S. Hecht. Edited by A.J. Bellinzoni. New Gospel Studies 5/2. Leuven: Peeters, 1992. Mayeda, G. Das Leben-Jesu-Fragment Papyrus Egerton 2 und seine Stellung in der urchristlichen Literaturgeschichte. Bern: Paul Haupt Verlag, 1946. McCant, J.W. “The Gospel of Peter: Docetism Reconsidered.” NTS 30 (1984): 258–273. Meeks, W.A. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. NovTSup 14. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Ménard, J.É. L’Évangile selon Philippe. Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1967. Menoud, P.H. “Review of Mayeda, Leben-Jesu-Fragment.” Erasmus 1 (1947): 577–579. Meyer, M.W. Judas: The Definitive Collection of Gospels and Legends about the Infamous Apostle of Jesus. New York: HarperOne, 2007. —. “The Letter of Peter to Philip: Introduction.” Pages 227–251 in Nag Hammadi Codex VIII. Edited by J.H. Sieber. NHS 31. Leiden: Brill, 1991. —. “When the Sethians Were Young.” Pages 57–74 in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008. Edited by A.D. DeConick. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 71. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

2. Secondary Sources

227

Miller, R.J., ed. The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version. Revised and expanded edition. Sonoma: Polebridge, 1994. Minnen, P. van. “The Akhmîm Gospel of Peter.” Pages 53–60 in Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontext, Intertext. Edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. TUGAL 158. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Mirecki, P.A. “The Gospel of Peter.” Pages 278–281 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 5. Edited by D.N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Mohri, E. Maria Magdalena: Frauenbilder in Evangelientexten des 1. bis 3. Jahrhunderts. Marburger theologische Studien 63. Marburg: Elwert, 2000. Morris, L. The Gospel according to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. Most, G.W. “The Judas of the Gospels and the Gospel of Judas.” Pages 69–80 in The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006. Edited by M. Scopello. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 62. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Moulton, J.H. “The ‘Gospel of Peter’ and the Four.” ExpTim 4 (1893): 299–300. Mutschler, B. “John and His Gospel in the Mirror of Irenaeus of Lyons: Perspectives of Recent Research.” Pages 319–343 in The Legacy of John: Second-century Reception of the Fourth Gospel. Edited by T. Rasimus. NovTSup 132. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Myllykoski, M. „Die Kraft des Herrn: Erwägungen zur Christologie des Petrusevangeliums.“ Pages 301–326 in Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontext, Intertext. Edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. TUGAL 158. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Nagel, P. „‚Das (Buch) nach Philippus‘: Zur Titelnachschrift Nag Hammadi Codex II,3: p. 86,18–19.“ ZNW 99 (2008): 99–111. —. „Das Evangelium des Judas.“ ZNW 98 (2007): 213–276. —. „‚Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jüngern vor der Auferstehung‘: zur Herkunft und Datierung des ‚Unbekannten Berliner Evangeliums.‘“ ZNW 94 (2003): 215–257. Nagel, T. „Das ‚Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium‘ und das Johannesevangelium.“ ZNW 93 (2002): 251–267. —. Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert: Studien zur vorirenäischen Aneignung und Auslegung des vierten Evangeliums in christlicher und christlich-gnostischer Literatur. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 2. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2000. Neirynck, F. “Papyrus Egerton 2 and the Healing of the Leper.” Pages 773–783 in Evangelica II: 1982–1991, Collected Essays. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck. Reprinted from ETL 61 (1985): 153–160. BETL 99. Leuven: University Press, 1991. —. “The Apocryphal Gospels and the Gospel of Mark.” Pages 715–772 in Evangelica II: 1982–1991, Collected Essays. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck. Reprinted from BETL 86 (1989):123–175. BETL 99. Leuven: University Press, 1991. Neller, K.V. “Diversity in the Gospel of Thomas: Clues for a New Direction.” SecCent 7 (1989–1990): 1–18. Nicklas, T. „Apokryphe Passionstraditionen im Vergleich: Petrusevangelium und Sibyllinische Orakel (Buch VIII).“ Pages 263–280 in Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontext, Intertext. Edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. TUGAL 158. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. —. „Die ‚Juden‘ im Petrusevangelium (PCair 10759): ein Testfall.“ NTS 47 (2001): 206– 221. —. “Papyrus Egerton 2.” Pages 139–149 in The Non-Canonical Gospels. Edited by P. Foster. London: T&T Clark, 2008.

228

Bibliography

—. “The ‘Unknown Gospel’ on Papyrus Egerton 2 (+ Papyrus Cologne 255).” Pages 9– 120 in Gospel Fragments. Authored by T.J. Kraus, M.J. Kruger, and T. Nicklas. Oxford Early Christian Gospel Texts 2. Oxford: University Press, 2009. Niederwimmer, K. „Die Freiheit des Gnostikers nach dem Philippusevangelium – Eine Untersuchung zum Thema: Kirche und Gnosis.“ Pages 361–374 in Verborum Veritas: Festschrift für Gustav Stählin zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by O. Böcher and K. Haacker. Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1970. Nongbri, B. “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” HTR 98 (2005): 23–48. Nordsieck, R. Das Thomas-Evangelium: Einleitung – Zur Frage des historischen Jesus – Kommentierung aller 114 Logien. Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006. Norelli, E. «Le Papyrus Egerton 2 et sa localisation dans la tradition sur Jésus. Nouvel examen du fragment 1.» Pages 397–435 in Jésus de Nazareth: Nouvelles approches d’une énigme. Edited by D. Marguerat, E. Norelli, and J.-M. Poffet. Genève: Labor et Fides, 1998. Onuki, T. „Das Logion 77 des koptischen Thomasevangeliums und der gnostische Animismus.“ Pages 294–317 in Das Thomasevangelium: Entstehung, Rezeption, Theologie. Edited by J. Frey, E.E. Popkes, and J. Schröter. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 157. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Oort, J. van. “Irenaeus on the Gospel of Judas: An Analysis of the Evidence in Context.” Pages 43–56 in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008. Edited by A.D. DeConick. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 71. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Os, B. van. “Baptism in the Bridal Chamber: The Gospel of Philip as a Valentinian Baptismal Instruction.” Diss. University of Groningen, 2007. —. “‘Stop Sacrificing!’: The Metaphor of Sacrifice in the Gospel of Judas.” Pages 367– 386 in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008. Edited by A.D. DeConick. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 71. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Pagels, E.H. Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. New York: Random House, 2003. —. “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John.” JBL 118 (1999): 477–496. —. The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon’s Commentary on John. SBLMS 17. New York: Abingdon Press, 1973. Pagels, E.H. – K.L. King. Reading Judas: The Gospel of Judas and the Shaping of Christianity. New York: Viking Penguin, 2007. Painchaud, L. «À propos de la (re)découverte de l’Évangile de Judas.» LTP 62 (2006): 553–68. —. «La Composition de l’Évangile selon Philippe (NH II,3): Une Analyse Rhétorique.» SBLSP 35 (1996): 35–66. —. “The Use of Scripture in Gnostic Literature.” JECS 4 (1996): 129–146. Parsons, P.J. “3525: Gospel of Mary.” Pages 12–14 in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Volume 50. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1983. Pasquier, A. Eugnoste (NH III,3 et V,1): Commentaire: Lettre sur le Dieu Transcendant. Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi 33. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2010.

2. Secondary Sources

229

—. “Influence and Interpretation of the Gospel of John in Ancient Christianity: The Example of Eugnostos (NHC II,3 and V,1).” Pages 211–231 in The Legacy of John. Edited by T. Rasimus. NovTSup 132. Leiden: Brill, 2010. —. L’Evangile selon Marie. 2nd edition. Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi 10. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2007. Patterson, S.J. “The Gospel of Thomas and Historical Jesus Research.” Pages 663–684 in Coptica, Gnostica, Manichaica. Mélanges offerts à Wolf-Peter Funk à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire. Edited by L. Painchaud and P.-H. Poirier. Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi 7. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2006. —. The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1993. —. “The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptic Tradition.” Forum 8 (1992): 50–63. Pearson, B.A. “Judas Iscariot in the Gospel of Judas.” Pages 137–152 in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008. Edited by A.D. DeConick. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 71. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Perkins, P. Gnosticism and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. —. The Gnostic Dialogue: The Early Church and the Crisis of Gnosticism. New York: Paulist Press, 1980. Perler, O. «L’Evangile de Pierre et Méliton de Sardes.» RB 71 (1964): 584–590. Perrin, N. Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron. Academia Biblica 5. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Petersen, S. „Warum und inwiefern ist Judas ein ‚Daimon‘?“ Pages 108–126 in The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006. Edited by M. Scopello. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 62. Leiden: Brill, 2008. —. ‚Zerstört die Werke der Weiblichkeit!‘ Maria Magdalena, Salome und andere Jüngerinnen Jesu in christlich-gnostischen Schriften. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 48. Leiden: Brill, 1999. —. „Zitate im Dialog des Erlösers (NHC III,5).“ Pages 512–522 in Ägypten und Nubien in spätantiker und christlicher Zeit: Akten des 6. Internationalen Koptologenkongresses Münster, 20.–26. Juli 1996. Volume 2. Edited by S. Emmel, M. Krause, S.G. Richter, and S. Schaten. Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients 6. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1999. Pickering, S.R. “The Egerton Gospel and New Testament Textual Transmission.” Pages 215–234 in The New Testament Text in Early Christianity. Proceedings of the Lille Colloquium, July 2000. Edited by C.-B. Amphoux and J.K. Elliott. HTB 6. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 2003. Pilhofer, P. „Justin und das Petrusevangelium.“ ZNW 81 (1990): 60–78. Piovanelli, P. “Thursday Night Fever: Dancing and Singing with Jesus in the Gospel of the Savior and the Dance of the Savior around the Cross.” Early Christianity 3 (2012): 229–248. Plisch, U.-K. The Gospel of Thomas: Original Text with Commentary. Translated by G. Schenke Robinson. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2008. —. Verborgene Worte Jesus – verworfene Evangelien: Apokryphe Schriften des frühen Christentums. Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft und von Cansteinsche Bibelanstalt, 2000. —. „Zu einigen Einleitungsfragen des Unbekannten Berliner Evangeliums (UBE).“ ZAC 9 (2005): 69–72. Poirier, P.-H. “The Writings Ascribed to Thomas and the Thomas Tradition.” Pages 295– 307 in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society

230

Bibliography

of Biblical Literature Commemoration. Edited by J.D. Turner and A. McGuire. NHS 44. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Popkes, E.E. “About the Differing Approach to a Theological Heritage: Comments on the Relationship between the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Thomas, and Qumran.” Pages 281–317 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume 3: The Scrolls and Christian Origins. The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. —. „‚Ich bin das Licht‘ – Erwägungen zur Verhältnisbestimmung des Thomasevangeliums und der johanneischen Schriften anhand der Lichtmetaphorik.“ Pages 641–674 in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive. Edited by J. Frey and U. Schnelle. WUNT 175. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Porter, S.E. “Apocryphal Gospels and the Text of the New Testament before A.D. 200.” Pages 235–259 in The New Testament Text in Early Christianity. Proceedings of the Lille Colloquium, July 2000. Edited by C.-B. Amphoux and J.K. Elliott. HTB 6. Lausanne: Editions du Zèbre, 2003. Porter, S.E. – G.L. Heath. The Lost Gospel of Judas: Separating Fact from Fiction. Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007. Potterie, I. de la. “Jesus King and Judge according to John 19:13.” Scr 13 (1961): 97– 111. —. «Jésus roi et juge d’après Jn 19,13: vEka,qisen evpi. bh,matoj.» Bib 41 (1960): 217–247. Preuschen, E. „Das neue Evangelienfragment von Oxyrhynchos.“ ZNW 9 (1908): 1–11. Prostmeier, F.R. Der Barnabasbrief. Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Pryor, J.W. “Papyrus Egerton 2 and the Fourth Gospel.” ABR 37 (1989): 1–13. Quispel, G. „Das Hebräerevangelium im gnostischen Evangelium nach Maria.“ VC 11 (1957): 139–144. Ramsey Michaels, J. The Gospel of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Reich, R. “The Synagogue and the Miqweh in Eretz-Israel in the Second-Temple, Mishnaic, and Talmudic Periods.” Pages 289–297 in Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Volume 1. Edited by D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher. StPB 47. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Resch, A. Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien: Paralleltexte zu Matthaeus und Marcus. TUGAL 10.2. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1894. Riggenbach, E. „Das Wort Jesu im Gespräch mit dem pharisäischen Hohenpriester nach dem Oxyrhynchus Fragment V Nr. 840.“ ZNW 25 (1926): 140–144. Riley, G.J. Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Roberts, C.H. “463: The Gospel of Mary.” Pages 18–23 in Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Volume 3. Manchester: University Press, 1938. Robinson J.A. – M.R. James. The Gospel according to Peter, and the Revelation of Peter: Two Lectures on the Newly Recovered Fragments together with the Greek Texts. 2nd edition. London, C.J. Clay and Sons, 1892. Robinson, J.M. “The Sources of the Gospel of Judas.” Pages 59–68 in The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006. Edited by M. Scopello. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 62. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Röhl, W.G. Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums in christlich-gnostischen Schriften aus Nag Hammadi. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1991.

2. Secondary Sources

231

Roukema, R. “The Historical Context of the Gospel of Judas and its Presentation to the Wider Audience with an Appendix on its Dependence on the Canonical Gospels.” Journal of Coptic Studies 12 (2010): 1–18. Ruschmann, S. Maria von Magdala im Johannesevangelium: Jüngerin, Zeugin, Lebensbotin. NTAbh 40. Münster: Aschendorff, 2002. Rylands, L.G. The Beginnings of Gnostic Christianity. London: Watts, 1940. Sanders, E.P. The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. SNTSMS 9. Cambridge: University Press, 1969. Sanders, H.A. “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments.” CP 32 (1937): 163–164. Sanders, J.N. A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Edited by B.A. Mastin. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. —. The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church: Its Origin & Influence on Christian Theology up to Irenaeus. Cambridge: University Press, 1943. Schaberg, J. The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament. New York: Continuum, 2004. Schaeffer, S.E. “The ‘Gospel of Peter,’ the Canonical Gospels, and Oral Tradition.” Diss. Union Theological Seminary, 1990–1991. Schenke, H.-M. „Das Evangelium nach Philippus.“ Pages 31–65 in Koptisch-gnostische Schriften aus den Papyrus-Codices von Nag-Hamadi. Edited by J. Leipoldt and H.-M. Schenke. TF 20. Hamburg: Herbert Reich, 1960. —. „Das sogenannte ‚Unbekannte Berliner Evangelium‘ (UBE).“ ZAC 2 (1998): 199– 213. —. Das Thomas-Buch (Nag-Hammadi-Codex II,7). TUGAL 138. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1989. —. “The Book of Thomas (NHC II.7): A Revision of a Pseudepigraphical Epistle of Jacob the Contender.” Pages 213–228 in The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honour of Robert McL. Wilson. Edited by A.H.B. Logan and A.J.M. Wedderburn. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983. Schenke Robinson, G. “The Gospel of Judas in Light of the New Testament and Early Christianity.” ZAC 13 (2009): 98–107. —. “The Relationship of the Gospel of Judas to the New Testament and to Sethianism.” Journal of Coptic Studies 10 (2008): 63–98. Schmid, H. Die Eucharistie ist Jesus: Anfänge einer Theorie des Sakraments im koptischen Philippusevangelium (NHC II,3). Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 88. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Schmidt, K.L. Kanonische und apokryphe Evangelien und Apostelgeschichten. ATANT 5. Basel: Heinrich Majer, 1944. Schnackenburg. R. The Gospel according to St. John. Volume 2. Herder’s Theological Commentary on the New Testament. London: Burns & Oates, 1980. Schoenborn, U. „Vom Weinstock: Die Gleichnisrede in LibThom (NHC II, 7), 144,19– 36.“ Pages 267–285 in Gnosisforschung und Religionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Kurt Rudolph zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by H. Preissler and H. Seiwert. Marburg: Diagonal-Verlag, 1994. Schröter, J. „Die apokryphen Evangelien und die Entstehung des neutestamentlichen Kanons.“ Pages 31–60 in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen: Beiträge zu außerkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen aus verschiedenen Sprach- und Kulturtraditionen. Edited by J. Frey and J. Schröter. WUNT 254. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. —. “Review of King, Mary.” TLZ 131 (2006): 864–865.

232

Bibliography

Schubert, H. von. Die Composition des pseudopetrinischen Evangelienfragments. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1893. Schürer, E. “Review of Grenfell – Hunt, Fragment.” TLZ 33 (1908): 170–172. Schwartz, D.R. “Viewing the Holy Utensils (P. Ox. V, 840).” NTS 32 (1986): 153–159. Segelberg, E. “The Gospel of Philip and the New Testament.” Pages 204–212 in The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honour of Robert McL. Wilson. Edited by A.H.B. Logan and A.J.M. Wedderburn. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983. Sell, J. “Johannine Traditions in Logion 61 of the Gospel of Thomas.” PRSt 7 (1980): 24– 37. —. The Knowledge of the Truth—Two Doctrines: The Book of Thomas the Contender (CG II,7) and the False Teachers in the Pastoral Epistles. Bern: Peter Lang, 1982. Semeria, J.B. «L’Évangile de Pierre.» RB (1894): 522–560. Sevrin, J.-M. «L’Interprétation de l’Évangile selon Thomas.» Pages 347–360 in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration. Edited by J.D. Turner and A. McGuire. NHS 44. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Shellberg, P. “A Johannine Reading of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840.” Pages 176–190 in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon. Edited by C.A. Evans and H.D. Zacharias. Library of Second Temple Studies 70. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Skinner, C.W. John and Thomas—Gospels in Conflict? Johannine Characterization and the Thomas Question. Eugene: Pickwick, 2009. Smith, D. Unwritten Sayings of Our Lord. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913. Smith, D. Moody. The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel: Bultmann’s Literary Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965. Snodgrass, K. “The Gospel of Thomas: A Secondary Gospel.” SecCent 7 (1989–90): 19– 38. Soden, H. von. „Das Petrusevangelium und die kanonischen Evangelien.“ ZTK 3 (1893): 52–92. Stanton, V.H. “The ‘Gospel of Peter’: Its Early History and Character Considered in Relation to the History of the Recognition in the Church of the Canonical Gospels.” JTS 2 (1900): 1–25. Stewart-Sykes, A. “Bathed in Living Waters: Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 and Christian Baptism Reconsidered.” ZNW 100 (2009): 278–286. Stillman, M.K. “The Gospel of Peter: A Case for Oral-Only Dependency?” ETL 73 (1997): 114–120. Stroud, W.J. “New Testament Quotations in the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Philip.” SBLSP 29 (1990): 68–81. Sullivan, K. “‘You Will Become the Thirteenth’: The Identity of Judas in the Gospel of Judas.” Pages 181–200 in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13– 16, 2008. Edited by A.D. DeConick. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 71. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Sulzbach, A. „Zum Oxyrhynchus-Fragment.“ ZNW 9 (1908): 175–176. Swete, H.B. The Akhmîm Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of St Peter. London: Macmillan and Co., 1893. —. Two New Gospel Fragments. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1908. Talgam, R. “Similarities and Differences between Synagogue and Church Mosaics in Palestine during the Byzantine and Umayyad Periods.” Pages 93–110 in From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity. Journal of Roman

2. Secondary Sources

233

Archaeology Supplementary Series 40. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000. Tardieu, M. Codex de Berlin. Sources gnostiques et manichéennes 1. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1984. Taschl-Erber, A. Maria von Magdala – erste Apostolin? Joh 20,1–18: Tradition und Relecture. Herders biblische Studien 51. Freiburg: Herder, 2007. Tasker, R.V.G. “Review of Bell – Skeat, Fragments.” CQR 121 (1935–36): 126–131. Telford, W.R. The Theology of the Gospel of Mark. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: University Press, 1999. Thomas, J.C. Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community. JSNTSup 61. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Thomassen, E. “How Valentinian is the Gospel of Philip?” Pages 251–279 in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration. Edited by J.D. Turner and A. McGuire. NHS 44. Leiden: Brill, 1997. —. “Is Judas Really the Hero of the Gospel of Judas?” Pages 157–170 in The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006. Edited by M. Scopello. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 62. Leiden: Brill, 2008. —. The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the ‘Valentinians.’ Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 60. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Thompson, H. The Gospel of St. John according to the Earliest Coptic Manuscript. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 1924. Till W.C. – H.-M. Schenke. Die gnostischen Schriften des koptischen Papyrus Berolinensis 8502. 2 nd edition. TUGAL 60. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1972. Tomson, P.J. “‘Jews’ in the Gospel of John as Compared with the Palestinian Talmud, the Synoptics, and Some New Testament Apocrypha.” Pages 176–212 in AntiJudaism and the Fourth Gospel. Edited by R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. London: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Tripp, D. “Meanings of the Foot-Washing: John 13 and Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840.” ExpTim 103 (1992): 237–239. Tuckett, C.M. “Form Criticism.” Pages 21–38 in Jesus in Memory: Traditions in Oral and Scribal Perspectives. Edited by W.H. Kelber and S. Byrskog. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009. —. “Forty other Gospels.” Pages 238–253 in The Written Gospel. Edited by M. Bockmuehl and D.A. Hagner. Cambridge: University Press, 2005. —. Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition: Synoptic Tradition in the Nag Hammadi Library. Studies of the New Testament and its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. —. “Synoptic Tradition in Some Nag Hammadi and Related Texts.” VC 36 (1982): 173– 190. —. “The Gospel of Mary.” Pages 43–53 in The Non-Canonical Gospels. Edited by P. Foster. London: T&T Clark, 2008. —. “Thomas and the Synoptics.” NovT 30 (1988): 132–157. Turner, C.H. “The Gospel of Peter.” JTS 14 (1913): 161–187. Turner, E.G. Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. Turner, J.D. “Introduction NHC XIII,I*: Trimorphic Protennoia.” Pages 371–401 in Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII. Edited by C.W. Hedrick. NHS 28. Leiden: Brill, 1990. —. “The Book of Thomas and the Platonic Jesus.” Pages 599–633 in L’Évangile selon Thomas et les textes de Nag Hammadi. Edited by L. Painchaud and P.-H. Poirier.

234

Bibliography

Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi 8. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2007. —. “The Book of Thomas the Contender from Codex II of the Cairo Gnostic Library from Nag Hammadi (CG II,7): The Coptic Text with Translation, Introductions, and Commentary.” Diss. Duke University, 1970. —. “The Book of Thomas the Contender Writing to the Perfect.” Pages 171–205 in Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7. Volume 2. Edited by B. Layton. NHS 21. Leiden: Brill, 1989. —. “The Place of the Gospel of Judas in Sethian Tradition.” Pages 187–237 in The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas, Paris, Sorbonne, October 27th–28th, 2006. Edited by M. Scopello. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 62. Leiden: Brill, 2008. —. “The Sethian Myth in the Gospel of Judas: Soteriology or Demonology.” Pages 95– 135 in The Codex Judas Papers: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Tchacos Codex Held at Rice University, Houston, Texas, March 13–16, 2008. Edited by A.D. DeConick. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 71. Leiden: Brill, 2009. —. “Typologies of the Sethian Gnostic Treatises from Nag Hammadi.” Pages 169–217 in Les textes de Nag Hammadi et le problème de leur classification. Edited by L. Painchaud and A. Pasquier. Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi 3. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval. Turner, M.L. The Gospel according to Philip: The Sources and Coherence of an Early Christian Collection. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 38. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Ulfgard, H. The Story of Sukkot: The Setting, Shaping, and Sequel of the Biblical Feast of Tabernacles. BGBE 34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Unnik, W.C. van. “Review of Mayeda, Leben-Jesu-Fragment.” VC 2 (1948): 120. —. “Three Notes on the ‘Gospel of Philip.’” NTS 10 (1964): 465–469. Vaganay, L. L’Évangile de Pierre. Paris: Études Bibliques, 1930. Valantasis, R. The Gospel of Thomas. New Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 1997. Van Belle, G. The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel: Historical Survey and Critical Evaluation of the Semeia Hypothesis. BETL 116. Leuven: University Press, 1994. Van Eijk, A.H.C. “The Gospel of Philip and Clement of Alexandria: Gnostic and Ecclesiastical Theology on the Resurrection and the Eucharist.” VC 25 (1971): 94– 120. Verheyden, J. “Some Reflections on Determining the Purpose of the ‘Gospel of Peter’.” Pages 281–300 in Das Evangelium nach Petrus: Text, Kontext, Intertext. Edited by T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas. TUGAL 158. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Webb, R.L. “Jesus Heals a Leper: Mark 1.40–45 and Egerton Gospel 35–47.” JSHJ 4 (2006): 177–202. Westcott, B.F. The Gospel according to St. John. London: J. Murray, 1908. Whittaker, J. “The Value of Indirect Tradition in the Establishment of Greek Philosophical Texts or the Art of Misquotation.” Pages 63–95 in Editing Greek and Latin Texts: Papers Given at the Twenty-Third Annual Conference on Editorial Problems, University of Toronto,6–7 November 1987. Edited by J.N. Grant. New York: AMS Press, 1989. Wiles, M.F. The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Cambridge: University Press, 1960. Williams, F. “The Gospel of Judas: Its Polemic, its Exegesis, and its Place in Church History.” VC 62 (2008): 371–403. Wilson, R.McL. Gnosis and the New Testament. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968. —. Studies in the Gospel of Thomas. London: A.R. Mowbray, 1960.

2. Secondary Sources

235

—. The Gospel of Philip: Translated from the Coptic text, with an Introduction and Commentary. London: A.R. Mowbray, 1962. —. “The New Testament in the Gnostic Gospel of Mary.” NTS 3 (1957): 236–243. —. “The New Testament in the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Philip.” NTS 9 (1963): 291– 294. Wilson, R.McL. – G.W. MacRae. “The Gospel according to Mary.” Pages 453–471 in Nag Hammadi Codices V,2–5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4. Edited by D.M. Parrott. NHS 11. Leiden: Brill, 1979. Wood, J.H. Jr. “The New Testament Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas: A New Direction.” NTS 51 (2005): 579–595. Wright, D.F. “Papyrus Egerton 2 (the Unknown Gospel) – Part of the Gospel of Peter?” SecCent 5 (1985/86): 129–150. Wright, N.T. Judas and the Gospel of Jesus: Have We Missed the Truth about Christianity? (London: SPCK, 2006), 29. Wurst, G. „Das Problem der Datierung der Sophia Jesu Christi und des Eugnostosbriefes.“ Page 373–386 in Jesus in apokryphen Evangelienüberlieferungen: Beiträge zu außerkanonischen Jesusüberlieferungen aus verschiedenen Sprach- und Kulturtraditionen. Edited by J. Frey and J. Schröter. WUNT 254. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Zahn, T. Das Evangelium des Petrus: Das kürzlich gefundene Fragment seines Textes. Erlangen – Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1893. —. „Neue Bruchstücke nichtkanonischer Evangelien.“ NKZ 19 (1908): 371–386. Zelyck, L.R. “Recontextualizing Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840.” Early Christianity 4 (2013): 1–15 (forthcoming).

Index of Ancient Sources 1. Old Testament 2 Chronicles 9:18

57

64 115

Psalms (LXX) 21:17–19 21:17 21:19 33:21 68:22

62 66 62, 63 64 66, 135

Leviticus 16

60

Proverbs 1:20–33

180

Numbers 9:12

64

Deuteronomy 18:15 18:18–19 21:22–23 21:22

46 37 65 65

Isaiah 29:13 35:7 45:5 58:2

37, 43 142 129 57, 58

Jeremiah 2:13 17:13

78, 80 78

1 Kings 10:19

57

Zechariah 13:7 14:8

131 78

Genesis 1–3 1–2 2 17

115, 117 175 149 117

Exodus 12:46 16

2 Kings 5:1–14 6:1–7

46 46

238

Index of Ancient Sources

2. New Testament Matthew 3:10 5:11 5:13 5:20 5:30 5:39 6:22–23 6:34 8:1–4 8:29 9:37–38 10:4 10:10 10:24–25 10:25 11:26 11:27 12:9–14 12:26 12:49–50 13:12 15:1–20 16:16 16:28 17:9 17:22 18:3 18:12–14 20:18–29 20:19 20:28 21:12 21:35 21:45–46 22:11–14 22:15–22 22:16 22:38 23:13–32 23:25–26 23:27 23:32 23:37 24:4–31 24:4–5 24:14

112, 113 185, 189 129 108 149 59 100 176 42 173 187 173 176 99 176 133 180 76 188 186 144 75 173 94 150 151 108 131 151 59 114 57 38 170 118 43 43 132, 133 76 79 75 33 38 201 201 157, 201

24:23 24:44 24:45 26:14 26:17 26:25 26:31 26:45 26:46 26:47 26:56 26:67 26:72 26:74 26:75 27:26–30 27:26–27 27:26 27:28 27:29 27:30 27:34 27:42 27:48–50 27:48 27:55–56 27:57–66 27:57 27:59–60 27:60 27:64 28:7 28:9 28:10 28:16–20 28:20

201 40 188 173 53 171 127–129, 131, 143, 201 40 127 173 128 59, 60 151 151 164 60 53 59 54 54, 59 59, 136 65, 135 54 66 136 119 60 67 67 67 150 150 164 160, 164, 186 146 159

Mark 1:1 1:40–45 3:1–6 3:11 3:34–35 4:25 5:4 5:7

4 42 76 173 186 144 149 173

239

Index of Ancient Sources 7:1–23 8:12 8:31 9:1 9:9–10 10:9 10:34 10:38 10:45 11:15 11:27–28 12:13–17 12:14 12:25 12:31 13 14:10–11 14:12 14:27 14:41 14:42 14:43 14:50 14:65 14:72 15:15–16 15:15 15:16–20 15:17 15:18 15:19 15:20 15:32 15:36–37 15:36 15:40–41 15:46 16:9

75, 76, 79 173 151 94 150 129 59 108 114 57 76 43 43 150 132, 133 3 172, 173 53 128, 131 40, 41 127 173 128 59, 60 164 53 59 60 54, 59 54 59, 136 54 54 66 136 119 67 161, 166

Luke 1:3 4:30 4:41 5:12–16 6:6–11 6:21 6:40 8:18 8:21 8:28

5 40 173 42 76 185, 189 99 144 186 173

8:52 9:27 10:2 10:5 10:19 10:21 10:22 10:34 11:1 11:18 11:22 11:34–36 11:37–52 11:37–39 11:47–48 12:4 12:40 13:10–17 13:34 15:4–7 16:8 16:24 16:31 17:14 17:21 17:23 18:32 18:33 20:6 20:19–20 20:20–26 20:21 21:8 22:3 22:4–6 22:47 23:5–53 23:11 23:13 23:25–26 23:32–33 23:33 23:39 23:40–41 24:5 24:6–7 24:8 24:12 24:36–51 24:36

68 94 187 158 153 133 180 111 176 188 179 100 76 79 33 186 40 76 38 131 153 77 150 42 157 157 59 59 38 170 43 43 176 171, 173 172 173 67 54 53 53 60 61 60 60 150 151 164 69 158 146, 158, 159

240 24:37 24:38 24:39 24:40 John 1:1–18 1:1–14 1:1–4 1:1 1:3 1:3–4 1:4–5 1:7–9 1:9 1:11 1:12–13 1:12 1:14 1:18 1:29 1:35 1:36 1:37 1:38 1:48 1:49 2:4 2:18 2:19–21 2:19 2:22 2:23 3:1–21 3:1 3:2 3:3–5 3:6 3:8 3:11 3:12 3:14 3:16 3:17 3:18 3:19–21 3:19 3:21

Index of Ancient Sources 138, 139 150 138 66

112, 196 180 108 144 16, 98 16 99 99 89, 144, 152, 188 180, 182 150, 153, 196 151 89, 101 177, 182 65, 118, 142, 162, 166 162 65, 118 164 150, 153, 164, 173 173, 174 54, 56, 173, 174 39–41 35 93 90, 102 33, 150, 154, 164 44 189 67 32, 43, 44, 197, 203 56 172, 189 153, 164, 166 188, 189 187, 189 151 177, 182 152 31, 177, 182 99, 188, 189 152 187, 189

3:29 4:10 4:11 4:13–15 4:14 4:21 4:23 4:27 4:34 4:50 5:9–18 5:10 5:12 5:14 5:16 5:18 5:19 5:24 5:25 5:28 5:30 5:31–47 5:31–40 5:32 5:36 5:37 5:38 5:39

5:40–44 5:40 5:41–44 5:43 5:44 5:45–47 5:45–46 5:45 5:46 5:46–47 5:47 6:14 6:15 6:30 6:31–58 6:33 6:35–50 6:35–42

120 78, 81, 108 78, 81 89 99, 108, 142 33, 40 40, 108 165, 166 141 33 35 35 151 42, 45 35 35 35 33, 95 40 30 31, 35 29 30 30 30 30 33 29, 30, 32, 35–37, 44, 45, 197, 199, 201 35, 36, 199 30, 36, 37, 199 37, 199 37 37 35, 37 33, 36, 45, 197, 199 30–32, 34, 36, 37, 45, 199, 201 30, 33, 34, 36 33 30, 33, 95, 188 152 56 33, 101 88 172 172 35

Index of Ancient Sources 6:38 6:39 6:40 6:41–42 6:41 6:44 6:49 6:50 6:51–59 6:51 6:52 6:53–65 6:53–54

6:54 6:55 6:57 6:58 6:60–71 6:61–63 6:61 6:62 6:63 6:64–71 6:64 6:65 6:67 6:70 7:1–52 7:14–52 7:19 7:24 7:27 7:28–30 7:28 7:29 7:30 7:31–32 7:32–36 7:32 7:33 7:34 7:36 7:37–8:56 7:37–39 7:38 7:44

172 117 117 172 96 31, 117 33 115 172 114–116, 121, 172, 200 96 107 106–109, 115, 116, 118, 171, 197, 199 117 171 31, 99 33, 172 172 171 172 172 172, 188 171 172 31 172 171, 172 76, 78, 79 35 33 59 34 39 34, 173 150, 154 39–41, 45, 197, 203 67 89 39 141 95, 96, 102, 198 95 102 78, 100 78, 81, 142 39, 40, 203

7:50 7:52 8:2 8:5 8:11 8:12–59 8:12 8:14 8:17 8:18 8:20 8:21 8:24 8:25–48 8:25–27 8:25 8:26–28 8:28 8:29 8:30–36 8:31 8:32 8:34

8:37 8:38 8:41 8:42 8:43 8:44 8:45 8:46 8:48 8:51 8:52–53 8:52 8:55 8:56 8:58 8:59 9:2–3 9:5 9:11 9:13–34

241 81 29 56 38 42 35, 96, 203 89, 97–100, 102, 178, 188, 198 34, 153, 164, 180 33 30 39, 40 108, 109 109 88, 89 96, 97, 102, 198, 204 101, 102, 203 109 31, 133, 151 132, 133 109, 113 33, 95, 100, 102, 111, 112 103, 109–113, 117, 118, 197 103, 109–113, 117, 118, 162, 166, 197 95 31 33 44 95 33, 119, 120 33, 118 33, 118 96 94, 95, 117 96 88, 94, 95, 102, 198 150, 153, 154 33, 116–118 100, 102 38, 40 42 59, 89, 99, 188 151 35

242 9:13–17 9:14 9:16 9:24 9:28–29 9:28 9:29 9:30 9:33 9:35 9:39 10:1–19 10:9 10:11 10:15 10:17–18 10:17 10:18 10:19–21 10:23 10:24 10:25 10:30–31 10:30

10:31–39 10:31–33 10:31 10:32 10:36 10:37 10:38 10:39 11:5 11:8 11:9–10 11:10 11:16 11:25 11:27 11:33 11:41–42 11:44 11:45 11:50 11:57 12:3

Index of Ancient Sources 35 35 34, 35, 151 151 35 32 31, 32, 34, 45, 197, 203 34 34 151 152 118 16, 118 114, 131, 132– 134, 143, 198 114, 133 113, 114 133, 134, 143, 198 152, 154 35 76 76 30 41, 44, 45, 204 31, 45, 128–130, 143, 180, 182, 198, 200, 202, 204 35 38 38, 40, 45, 203 31 152 33 33, 116 39, 40, 45, 203 163 38 99 100 99, 186, 187 16 152, 173 166, 173 177, 182 59 66, 67 68 39 142

12:4 12:6 12:13 12:14 12:23 12:24 12:25 12:26 12:27 12:31 12:34 12:35–36 12:35 12:36 12:38 12:46 12:47–48 12:48 13:1 13:2 13:3 13:5 13:7 13:8 13:10 13:11 13:13 13:20 13:21 13:23 13:26 13:27–30 13:27 13:30 13:33 13:36 13:37–38 14:1–17:26 14:2–12 14:2–4 14:2 14:3–7 14:3 14:4 14:5 14:6 14:7 14:8 14:9 14:10

173 171 54, 56 56 40, 41 149 181, 182 31 40 31, 179 151 99, 178 100, 177, 182, 188 153 33 99, 152, 178, 188 95 31 40, 69 171 44 76, 78 77 77 76–79, 172 172 99 152–154 170, 173 163, 186 77, 163 172, 174 170, 171 172 95, 108, 141 101 114, 133 102, 146, 182 179, 182, 183 182 118, 179 91, 92 181, 182 152, 181 99, 101 16, 181 92, 179, 180, 182 179 93, 129, 130 116, 129, 130,

Index of Ancient Sources

14:11 14:12 14:16 14:20–23 14:21 14:22 14:23 14:24 14:26 14:27

14:28 14:30 14:31 15:1–11 15:2 15:3 15:5 15:7 15:8 15:10–11 15:12 15:13 15:14–15 15:18–20 15:20 15:26 16:2–4 16:2 16:4–5 16:4 16:7 16:8 16:10 16:11 16:13 16:16–19 16:17 16:20 16:21 16:25 16:28 16:32

143, 200 33 179 164 91 91 99, 101, 173, 186 95 95 178 146, 147, 153, 157, 158, 159, 166, 194, 198, 199, 201 31 179 127 149, 150 148–150, 194, 198 77 148–150, 154, 194, 198 95, 149 148–150, 154, 194, 198 149 132, 133 114, 132–134, 143 186 201 95, 140, 143, 162, 164, 166, 201 30 201 40 101, 102 40 178, 182 154 31 179 164, 178, 182 141 101 69, 162, 166, 201 40 40 69, 152, 153, 180 40, 128–130, 133, 143, 198, 200

16:33 17:1–26 17:1–8 17:1 17:4 17:8–26 17:8–10 17:8 17:9 17:10 17:11 17:15 17:18 17:21 17:22 17:24 18:1 18:11 18:14 18:20–21 18:22 18:25 18:26 18:28–19:16 18:31–33 18:37–38 18:37 19:1–5 19:1 19:2 19:3 19:5 19:7 19:9 19:10 19:11 19:13 19:14 19:15 19:16 19:18 19:23–24 19:24 19:25–27 19:25 19:26 19:28 19:29

243 140, 143, 179, 182, 201 182 177 40 141 177 182 176, 177 177 177 180, 182 141 142, 152–154 116, 180, 182 141 177, 181 127 31 68 165, 166 59 174 149 56 13 13 56, 152 60 59, 60 54, 59, 198 54, 59 59, 151 54 34 54 68 55–58, 60, 198, 200 53, 54, 56 53, 54 53 61 54 62, 63, 198, 200 163 119 163, 186 66 65, 66, 135, 138,

244

19:31 19:33 19:34

19:35 19:36 19:38–40 19:39 19:40 19:41 19:42 20:1–18 20:2–10 20:2 20:5 20:9 20:10 20:11–15 20:11 20:14–18 20:14 20:15 20:16 20:17 20:18 20:19 20:21 20:22 20:24–29 20:24 20:25 20:26 20:27 20:28 20:29 20:31 21:1 21:2 21:3 21:7 21:10 21:14 21:20–24

Index of Ancient Sources 200, 203 53 63–65, 198 59, 120, 135–138, 142, 143, 200, 202, 203 118, 135–138, 142, 203 64 67 67, 142 67 67, 164 67 202 163 186 69 150 69 69, 161, 165, 166, 178, 182, 202 69 161, 163, 164, 166 165 66, 69, 150 165 31, 130, 138, 139, 160, 166, 186, 198 160, 161, 166, 198, 203 68, 146, 158 146, 153, 154, 158, 163 149 91 99, 186, 187 66, 69, 91, 164 146, 157 139 93, 139, 156 138, 139 159 70 70, 99, 186, 187 39 163, 186 39 150, 154 163

21:20 21:24

186 5, 163

Acts 3:7 8:3 10:41 10:43 11:16 12:4 14:19 17:6 20:35 22:18 23:11 27:32

39 58 150 44 164 39 58 58 164 30 30 149

Romans 1:7 2:10 6:16–18 8:27 11:36

158 158 111 29 98

1 Corinthians 1:3 2:10 3:12 4:5 4:18–19 8:1 8:6 13:4–8 15:3–8 15:50

158 29 38 188 110 110, 111, 113 98 111 160 106, 108

2 Corinthians 11:32

39

Galatians 4:23 4:29

189 189

Ephesians 1:13 2:17

118 158

Colossians 1:16

98

245

Index of Ancient Sources 1 Thessalonians 5:5

153

2 Thessalonians 2:12

118

1 Timothy 3:16 4:3

101 118

Hebrews 2:9

94

1 Peter 1:11 1:23 4:8 5:14

29 151 110, 111 158

1 John 3:4 3:8 3:12–15 3:16 4:9 5:4–5

162 162 120 114, 132, 133 177 140

Revelation 1:1–3 1:16 2:23 12:10 18:9 19:20 21:6 22:1 22:17

5, 11 59 29 31 69 39 142 142 142

3. Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 42.1–2

180

4 Esdras 4:6

94

L.A.E. 1–21

Odes 11 30

100, 142 100, 142

Sirach 7:4

57

115

4. Philo Prob. 81

73

5. Josephus C. Ap. 1.209

73

246

Index of Ancient Sources

6. Rabbinic Literature M. Miqw. 1–10

80

7. Nag Hammadi and Extra-Canonical Texts 1 Apoc. Jas. (V,3) 25.17–18 33.15–16 34.16 2 Apoc. Jas. (V,4) 55.10 56.16–20 57.4–5 Acts Andr. 51

153 164 164

181 163 163

Apoc. Adam (V,5) 84.6–7 85.31

78 78

Apoc. Paul 44

135

Apoc. Peter (VII,3) 71.26–31 78.25–26

66 153

Dial. Sav. (III,5) 120.2–124.24 120.19–121.4 120.19 120.23–25 121.1 121.2 121.3 121.4–7 121.5–23 121.5–18 121.18–20 121.22–23 122.1–6 122.5–7 125.1–127.18 125.19 126.3–5 126.14–17 126.17–20 126.23–127.1 126.23 127.1–6 127.19–128.23 128.7–18 129.1–15 129.8–12 129.16–131.18

175, 182 176, 182 176 177 176 118, 176 176, 180 177, 182 182 177 177 177 177, 182 176 175 178 178, 182 178, 182 166, 178, 182 178 178 177, 178, 182 175 178 175 179, 182 175

65

Acts John 97 101

59, 66, 135, 200 136

Acts Thom. 11 12 20–21 25 31 39 56 109

186 186 186 131 186 186 186 186

Allogenes (CT,4) 59.1–62.9 62.9–66.24

11 11

Ap. Jas. (I,2)

96, 203

Ap. John (II,1) 1.1–17 14.14–15 30.12 30.33–34 43.6–44.4 (BG,2)

11 151 97 97 155

247

Index of Ancient Sources 131.19–133.24 132.2–19 132.7 132.13–16 132.17 133.3–134.25 133.5 133.18–21 133.23–134.1 134.14–15 135.1–137.3 136.10–13 137.3–146.17 139.3–6 139.8–11 140.19–23 141.24–142.3 142.4–5 142.16–19 144.14–15 145.14–24 145.17–19 146.18–22 147.19–22

175 179, 182, 183 179 179 179 175 180 180 178, 182 180, 182 175, 177 176, 180, 182 175 152, 180–182 176 181, 182 179, 182 181 181 176 152, 180–182 45, 180, 182 175 181, 182

Egerton Gospel 1v.1–20 1v.1–5 1v.7–10 1v.8 1v.9 1v.8–14 1v.10–14 1v.10 1v.11 1v.12–14 1v.12 1v.14–20 1v.14–17 1v.14 1v.15–17 1v.15 1v.16–17 1v.16 1v.17–24 1v.18–20 1v.18 1v.20 1v.20–23 1v.23

28, 29, 193 35, 47 29, 30, 35 32 30 47 30, 31, 33, 35 44 32 35 31 47 31 32 34, 35 32 32 32 35 31, 33, 35 34 33 33 33

1r.1–10 1r.1–3 1r.3–10 1r.3–8 1r.3–4 1r.7–8 1r.9–10 1r.11–20 1r.12 1r.16 1r.19–21 1r.19–20 2v.1–16 2r.1–18 2r.1–10 2r.1–6 2r.4 2r.5–6 2r.13–18 3r.1–6

28, 37 38, 45 39 39 39 41 39, 40, 47 28, 42, 47 47 47 42 42 28 28, 43, 47 47 43 32, 47 44, 47 37 28, 41, 44, 45, 47, 203, 204

Ep. Apost. 9 10 11–12 19 23 29 30 33

61, 166, 179 166, 179 139 147 147 147 147, 153, 159, 166 139

Ep. Barn. 7.3 7.5 9.7

66 66 117

Ep. Pet. Phil. (VIII,2) 138.15–16 138.17–28 140.15–27 140.17 140.22–23

163 147 147 158, 159 159

Eugnostos (V,1) 5.19–29 9.7–9

144 152

248

Index of Ancient Sources

Gos. Bart. 17 22

120, 136 136

Gos. Eg. (III,2) 59.2–4 64.1–3 64.11–12 66.7–8 66.11 68.25 69.6–8 78.9–10 (IV,2)

151 10 78 94 78 177 10 94

Gospel of Judas (CT,3) 33.1–14 33.2–3 34.11–15 34:12–13 35.9–10 35.15–16 37.17–19 38.1–41.8 39.18–41.8 42.23–24 43.14–23 44.15–23 44.21 44.26 45.11–19 45.18 46.14–47.29 47.8–9 49.1–7 53.16–54.12 56.17–21 56.19–21 58.9–26 58.13–19 58.21–22

174 173 173, 174 173 173 173 173 170 171, 172 173 172 168 171 38 168 181 168 172 169 172 170 170–172 172, 174 170 173

Gos. Mary (BG,1) 7.1–9.4 7.1–8.11 7.12 7.14 8.6–9.4 8.12–9.12 8.12

155 158 162, 166 162, 166 164 147 158, 160

8.14–9.12 8.14–22 8.14–15

10.10–11 10.12–13 10.14–15 15.1–17.9 16:1 16.8–12 16.14–16 16:19 17.10–18.21 17.10–15 17.18–22 18.1 18.2–5 18.14–15 18.21–19.2

201 158, 201 147, 153, 157– 159, 194 158 157 157, 158 157 155 158 69, 162, 165, 166 201 162, 166, 188, 201 164 69, 162, 166 160 163 155 165 163 164 160, 161, 194, 198, 203 160 160 166 155, 160 179 155 153, 164, 166 179 155 165 165, 166 166 163 163 155

Gospel of Peter 1–22 1 3–5 5 6–14 6–10 6–9 6–8 6 7

50 53 50, 53 53, 65, 70, 71 64 59 60 54 54, 58, 71 54, 55, 58, 70, 71,

8.15–9.4 8.15–17 8.18–19 8.21–22 9.5–24 9.5 9.6 9.7–12 9.10–12 9.12–24 9.14–16 9.14 10.1–17.9 10.1–22 10.1–6 10.2–3 10.4–5 10.7–15

Index of Ancient Sources

15 16–19 16 17 21 23–24 23 24 25–34 26–27 26 28–33 28 35–39 37 38 39 43–49 43–44 48 50–57 50–54 50 52 54 55–56 56 58–60 58–59 59 60

194, 198, 200 59, 71 59, 60, 71 60 60 60, 71 54, 71 54, 62, 70, 194, 198, 200 60 63–65, 70, 194, 198 53, 64, 65 66 64, 65, 71 66, 71 66, 70 50 66, 71 67, 70 50 50 68 67 67, 71 50 50 68 64 68 50 38, 68, 71 50, 68–70 68 68, 70 68, 166 68 69–71 69 50 69 69, 162 48, 69, 70

Gos. Phil. (II,3) 2 4 9 13 15

111 118 113, 121 111 114–116, 121, 200

8 9 10–14 10–12 10 11 12 13 14

18 23

25 27 32 42 44 49 53 66 75 87 93 96 100 105 110

111 114 122 123

125 52.15–18 53.6–9 55.10–14 55.11–13 55.14 56.1–2 56.15–20 56.26–57.22 56.26–34 56.32–57.3 57.3–5 57.8 58.11 58.14–17 59.6–11 61.5–10 63.21–24 63.25–30 63.34–35 64.2 64.9–12 66.4–6

249 118 106, 108, 110, 115–117, 120, 121, 194, 197, 199 108 118 119 119 109 111 107 107 107 111 114 116, 121 107, 120 109 103, 109–111, 113, 117, 119– 121, 194, 197 111 111 120 109, 111, 113, 116, 117, 119– 121, 194, 197 109, 111 118 113, 133 114 114, 115 116 118 107 106 117 108 106 114, 118 118 118 119 119 106 7 163 163 100 117

250 66.16–21 66.18–19 66.21 67.9–11 73.1–4 73.23–27 74.22–23 75.1 75.14–21 75.19 75.21 77.3–5 77.15–18 77.16 77.18 77.19–31 77.19–20 77.22–24 78.11 80.5 82.10–17 82.26–29 82.27 82.30–83.2 83.11–13 83.16–18 83.30–31 84.7–9 84.8 85.20–21 85.29–31 86.11–12 86.18–19 Gospel of the Savior 3 12–23 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Index of Ancient Sources 107 117 181 109 107 114 116 114 107, 120 114 78 114 7, 110, 111 110 162 110 109 111 110 112 120 116 117 188 112 113 113 111 111, 112 107 7 109 7

129 127, 141, 142, 193 127, 143 127, 128, 198 128, 129, 132, 143, 198, 200 128, 129, 132, 143, 198, 200 45, 128, 129, 138, 143, 198, 200 127, 129, 131, 134, 143, 197 131, 134, 143, 198 114, 131–134,

20 21 22 23 25 29 30 33 36 54 61–72 66 67 68 69 70 71 75 78 83 86 91

92

93

96 112–114 145 146 147 148 19H 24H Gos. Thom. (II,2) Prologue 1 2

143, 198 132–134, 143, 198 114, 132–134, 143, 198 133, 134, 143, 198 141, 143 141, 143 9 9 9 9 141, 143 139 139 9, 139 137, 139 134, 138, 139, 143, 193, 198 134, 138, 139, 143, 193, 194, 198 140 141, 143 142, 143, 162 100, 142, 143 142, 143 66, 134, 135, 137, 143, 193, 198, 200, 203 134, 135–137, 142, 143, 193, 198, 200, 202, 203 134, 135, 137, 142, 143, 193, 198, 202, 203 136 141 140, 143, 193, 201 140, 143, 193, 201 140, 143, 179, 193, 201 140, 143, 179, 193, 201 100, 142, 143 142, 143

88, 95, 99, 102 88, 94, 95, 102, 103, 194, 198 95, 98

251

Index of Ancient Sources 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 18 19 20 21 24 27 28 31 32 33 36 37 38

39 42 43

44 45 47 50 51 55 56 59 65 66 67 71 73 77 79 80 83–84

91, 98, 99 179 86, 87 100 86, 98 98 88 99, 102 38, 87–89, 95, 99, 142 87, 98 86, 98 94 94, 95, 100, 102 86, 98 98 89, 98, 100, 102 98 88, 89, 98 87 86 87 90 101, 102 88, 89, 95, 96, 100, 102, 103, 194, 198 86 88, 89 88, 89, 96, 97, 101–103, 194, 198, 203, 204 87, 98 86 87 99 98 86 98 91, 95 87 87 98, 100 90, 91, 93, 102 187 88, 89, 97–100, 102, 103, 194, 198 100 98 188

85 91 92 94 99 104 110 111 113

94 88, 98, 101, 102 88, 95, 101, 102 95 87 86, 87 98 94, 98 98

Gos. Truth (I,3) 16.31–35 16.31 18.19–22 19.27–36 20.11

177 10 181 177 10

Interp. Know. (XI,1) 12.38

189

Kasr el-Wizz Kodex 25.7–9

141

Paraph. Shem (VII,1) 1.4 10.21–22

97 97

Pistis Sophia 15.15–17 26.17–20 71.18–23 124.1–2 129.9 149.7 161.23 204.18 218.11 352.3–5 358.13 359.7 369.1–2

163 163 8 153 163 163 163 163 166, 179 163 163 153 120, 136

Soph. Jes. Chr. (BG,3) 77.8–79.9 77.9–10 79.1

146 150 9

252 79.10–12 79.15–18 79.17–18 81.19 82.9–18 82.16 82.21 90.1–13 94.16 98.7–13 99.17 103.10–16 103.10–14 103.11 103.17–104.7 104.7–10 104.12–105.6 104.16 104.18 105.1 105.4 105.11–14 105.14–17 117.12–15 117.13–16 119.16 119.19 120.4 120.13 121.5 122.5–123.1 122.7 122.8–9 122.10–11 124.7–8 125.12 126.12–16 127.5–8 127.6–10 127.7–9 93.10–11 (III,4)

Index of Ancient Sources 146, 147, 153, 158, 159, 166, 194 150 150 150 150 152 151 188 152 151, 154 152 145 152 152 145 152 148, 149, 194, 198 152 149 149 149 152, 181 152 153 165 145 149 149 149 149 148, 194, 198 149 149 129, 149 181 152 153 151 153 147 150

104.20–23 (III,4) 114.14–18 (III,4)

152 145

Teach. Silv. (VII,4) 106.28

131

Testim. Truth (IX,3) 31.7–8

177

Treat. Res. (I,4) 45.14–46.2 45.23

109 181

Treat. Seth (VII,2) 51.14–15 56.7 62.1

177 66 78

Trim. Prot. (XIII,1) 37.19–20 37.35 38.16–30 41.1 41.6 41.16 43.23 46.5 46.17 47.29–30

153 78 177 153 149 153 181 97 78 97

Untitled Text in Bruce Codex 7 10 11

177 177 177

Zost. (VIII,1) 6.10 48.5

78 78

253

Index of Ancient Sources

8. Early Christian Literature 1 Clem. 49.5

111

2 Clem. 8.5

151

Augustine Cons. 1.6.9 Clement of Alexandria Exc. 4–5 9 10–16 13 18–20 26 27 62 65 78

204

200 200 116, 200 115, 116, 121, 200 200 16, 118 200 136, 201 120 165

Paed. 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.11 1.38.2 1.42 1.43.2

81, 113, 131 131 131 131 107 120 107

Protr. 11

131

Quis. Div. 29 38

113 111

Strom. 1.26 4.18 5.3 7.104.5–105.2

131 111 113 110

Const. ap. 2.1.20 5.1.3

131 141

Cyprian Dom. or. 18

107

Ep. 63(62).5 63(62).8 63(62).13

120 81 120

Fort. 8 11

112 140, 201

Test. 1.18 2.5 3.3

37, 47 37 147

Theod. 73.2

131

Unit. eccl. 24

147

Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 13.15 13.26

58 62, 200

Decret. Gelasian 5

48

Didache 7.1 8.2 15.3

80 151 151

Didascalia Apostolorum 6.21.6–8

80

254

Index of Ancient Sources

Didymus the Blind Comm. Eccl. 1.8

48

Ephrem Comm. Diat. 12.21–24 20.17 20.27 21.12 21.26 21.29

42 55 66 136, 201 140 130, 200

Epiphanius Pan. 26.13.2–3 31.7.4 33.6.5 38.1.5 80.5.4

8 115 187 8 176

Eusebius Hist. eccl. 1.13.10 6.12.5–6 6.14.7

99 6, 48 204

Hippolytus Haer. 5.8.5 5.8.20

16 16

Noet. 10 18

98 53, 136

Ignatius Phld. 9.1

16

Rom. 9

131

Irenaeus Epid. 43 82 Haer. 1.29–31

100 66

11

1.30.6 1.31.1–2 3.5.2 3.11.7 3.15.2 3.22.2 4.10.1 4.33.2 4.35.3 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.3–16 5.25.4

151 8, 169 113 196 109, 111 136 37 136 136 107 107 107 37

Jerome Comm. Matt. 4.26.32

131

Vir. ill. 1

48

Justin Martyr 1 Apol. 31–32 35 36 38 61 65

47 53, 55, 66, 200 47 53 56 120

Dial. 14 19 29 46 70 73 97 137

80, 81 80 80 80 118 29 62, 66, 200 54

Lactantius Inst. 4.8 4.18

100 53

Melito of Sardis PP 96.716

54

255

Index of Ancient Sources Origen Cels. 1.45 1.49 2.4 2.6 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.52 2.55 2.59 2.60 2.70 2.74 2.77 6.34 8.14

47 47 47 47 137, 161 161 47 44 66, 161 66, 161 161 161 161 161 162 147

Comm. Jo. 1.6 2.14.102 2.28 6.23.126 6.3 6.109 10.13 13.400 20.337

131 197 44 197 147 37 136 112 37

Comm. Matt. 10.17 10.18 12.15

6, 48 47 112

Peri. Pascha 12.25–14.13 Pseudo-Clement Rec. 2.25 5.5 Pseudo-Cyprian Adv. Jud. 81 Sibylline Oracles 1.37.3–4 8.296

118

113 113

Tatian Orat. 19.4

16

Tertullian Adv. Jud. 6–7 8.14 10 13.15

47 81 66 80, 81

Adv. Marc. 3

47

An. 13

131

Apol. 18

53

Bapt. 4.1 9 16

81 136 136

Prax. 11 14 16 18 20 27

129 129 55, 57, 200 129 129, 200 129

Praescr. 33

109

Pud. 7 22

131 136

Res. 34

131

Spect. 1

162

Theodoret Haer. 1.15 2.2

8 48

80

59, 136 59, 136

256

Index of Ancient Sources

9. Papyri P.Berol. 11710 ll.1–4 ll.9–18 ll.16–17

10 173 162 142

P.Berol. 22220

125

P.Köln. 255 1v.19–24 1r.19–24 lr.21 1r.23

28, 29, 33, 47, 193 28, 42 25 42

P.Mert. 51

9, 195

P.Oxy. 1 v.11–14 r.27–30

100 98

P.Oxy. 210

9, 195

P.Oxy. 654 ll.2–3 ll.3–5 l.19

99, 186 94 99

l.19 l.24 l.28 ll.32–33 l.32 l.34 l.37 ll.40–41 ll.43–45 l.43

77 77, 81 77 79, 80 77 77 77 79 78–81 77

P.Oxy. 1224

10, 195

P.Oxy. 2949

49

P.Oxy. 3525 ll.5–6 l.10 ll.14–20 ll.16–17 ll.17–20 l.19

162 162 163 164 160 160, 161

P.Oxy. 4009

49

P.Oxy. 5072

10, 195

P.Oxy. 655 i.17–21 ii.8–11

101 95

P.Ryl. 463 v.5–8 r.12–15

163 165

P.Oxy. 840 l.1 l.9 ll.14–16 l.14 l.18

81 76 76–79 77 77

P.Vindob.G 2325

10, 49

Strasbourg Coptic Papyrus 5–7

125

Index of Authors Attridge, H.W. 85 Baarda, T. 88 Barnes, W.E. 51 Bauer, W. 46 Bell, H.I. 25, 26, 28 Boer, E.A. de 156 Bouriant, U. 48 Bovon, F. 75 Braun, F.-M. 15, 17 Brown, R.E. 52, 56, 60, 85, 87, 88, 102, 202 Büchler, A. 76 Bultmann, R. 15–17, 45, 89, 189, 202 Burridge, R. 4 Cameron, R. 27, 50 Cassels, W.R. 50 Charlesworth, J. 89 Collins, J.J. 27 Crossan, J.D. 27, 50, 52, 64 Czachesz, I. 65 Daniels, J.B. 27, 29–36, 42, 45, 46, 199 Davies, S.L. 86, 89 DeConick, A.D. 86, 90–93, 140 Denker, J. 50 Dewey, A. 51 Dibelius, M. 55 Dodd, C.H. 34 Dunderberg, I. 88, 93, 98 Ehrman, B.D. 170 Emmel, S. 125, 172, 195 Erlemann, K. 47 Evans, C. 89 Foster, P. 48, 52, 55–57, 63, 64, 67 Freedman, D.N. 85 Frey, J. 137 Gaffron, H.-G. 116 Gardner-Smith, P. 50, 64, 65 Gathercole, S.J. 87, 169, 174 Goodspeed, E.J. 75 Grant, R.M. 85

Gregory, A. 4, 14 Grenfell, B.P. 72, 75 Gronewald, M. 25, 27 Grosso, M. 169 Harnack, A. 51, 56, 57, 64 Harris, J.R. 51 Hartenstein, J. 151, 153, 154 Hedrick, C.W. 125, 126, 142, 143 Henderson, T.P. 52 Hilgenfeld, A. 50 Hill, C.E. 17, 196 Hillmer, M.R. 15–17, 158 Hunt, A.S. 72, 73, 75 Inowlocki, S. 19, 197 Jeremias, J. 76 Johnson, S.R. 94 King, K.L. 156–158, 161, 166, 171, 172 Kirk, A. 56, 60, 64 Klassen, W. 170 Klauck, H.J. 119 Klink, E.W. 93 Köhler, W.-D. 14, 17 Koester, H. 4, 14, 15, 17, 27, 32, 36, 40, 41, 44, 50, 52, 60, 64, 86, 89, 90, 92, 100, 102, 103, 176, 179, 180, 182, 202 Kruger, M.J. 72–79, 81 Kuntzmann, R. 184, 185 Lejay, P. 51 Létourneau, P. 177, 183 Lods, A. 51 Lührmann, D. 42 Mara, M.G. 64 Marcovich, M. 88 Martyn, J.L. 93 Massaux, É. 14, 15 Mayeda, G. 27, 29, 30 Meeks, W.A. 31 Menoud, P.H. 41

258

Index of Authors

Mirecki, P.A. 50, 125, 126, 142, 143 Moulton, J.H. 50 Nagel, T. 17, 105, 121, 136, 139, 150, 153, 154, 196 Nicklas, T. 45, 47, 64 Pagels, E.H. 90, 92, 93, 171, 172 Painchaud, L. 104, 171 Patterson, S.J. 86, 92 Pearson, B.A. 171 Perkins, P. 185 Pilhofer, P. 56, 57, 62 Potterie, I. de la 56 Preuschen, E. 75 Pryor, J.W. 34 Riggenbach, E. 75 Riley, G.J. 90, 92, 93 Robinson, J.A. 51 Robinson, J.M. 169 Röhl, G. 105, 121 Schaberg, J. 156

Schenke, H.-M. 104, 126, 184–189 Schröter, J. 4 Schubert, H. von 51 Sell, J. 88 Semeria, J.B. 51 Shellberg, P. 75 Skeat, T.C. 25, 26 Skinner, C.W. 93 Snodgrass, K. 88 Soden, H. von 50 Sullivan, K. 169 Swete, H.B. 51, 56, 57, 63 Tripp, D. 75 Tuckett, C.M. 4, 7, 14, 86, 157 Turner, J.D. 184, 185 Vaganay, L. 64 Whittaker, J. 19, 197 Wilson, R.McL. 85 Wood Jr., J.H. 89 Zahn, T. 51, 64

Index of Subjects 1 Apocalypse of James 11 2 Apocalypse of James 11 Abraham 89, 100, 116, 117 Apocryphon of James 10, 96, 203 Apocryphon of John 10, 196 Baptism 75, 79–81 Bartholomew 151, 154 Beloved Disciples 137, 142, 163, 186, 202 Blood and Water 135–137, 143, 200 Book of Thomas the Contender 9 – and the Synoptic gospels 185 – common sources 185, 189 – date 184 – manuscript 184 – possible influence of the Fourth Gospel 186–189 – theology 184, 185 Bread from heaven 114–116, 121, 200 Bridal chamber 116, 120 Cain 119, 120 Celsus 66, 137, 161, 166 Christology – anthropocentric 90, 102, 103 – assimilation with the Father 129, 135–137 – docetic 48 – in the Fourth Gospel 35, 45, 93, 116, 162, 204 Circumcision 80, 116, 117 Dependence see Influence Dialogue of the Savior 8 – and the Synoptic gospels 176 – common sources 179, 180, 182, 183 – date 175

– manuscript 175 – possible influence of the Fourth Gospel 176–181 – theology 175 Egerton Gospel 6 – and the Synoptic gospels 26–28, 39, 42, 43 – common sources 30–37, 40, 41, 46, 203, 204 – date 25, 26 – fragments 25 – plausible influence of the Fourth Gospel 43–45 – possible influence of the Fourth Gospel 42 – probable influence of the Fourth Gospel 29–42 – traditional interpretations 36, 37, 46 Epistula Apostolorum 11 Eucharist 106–109, 114–116, 118–121, 199, 200 Eugnostos the Blessed 9, 144, 145, 152–154, 185 Extra-Canonical Gospels – corpus 3, 12 – dialogue/discourse 8, 9 – doubtful 10, 11 – fragments 9, 10 – Gnostic 11, 12 – narrative 6 – plausible influence of the Fourth Gospel 194 – possible influence of the Fourth Gospel 194, 195 – probable influence of the Fourth Gospel 193, 194 – sayings 7, 8 – Thomasine 12 – Valentinian 12

260

Index of Subjects

Form-criticism 19, 60 Fourth Gospel (Gospel of John) – authorship 137, 142, 202 – common sources 14–17, 96, 97, 202–204 – date 13, 202 Genre – acts 4 – apocalypse 4, 5 – gospel 3 – letter 4, 5 Gnosticism 11, 12, 85–88, 121, 145, 148, 155, 169, 185, 195, 196 Gospel – colophon 6 – definition 5, 6 – kerygma 3, 4 – literary genre 3 – sub-genres 6–10 Gospel of Judas 8 – and the Synoptic gospels 169, 170, 172, 174 – date 169 – manuscript 168 – possible influence of the Fourth Gospel 170–174 – the status of Judas 168 – theology 169 Gospel of Mary 8 – and the Synoptic gospels 156, 157, 166 – common sources 157–159, 161, 166, 167 – date 155 – manuscripts 155 – plausible influence of the Fourth Gospel 157–161 – possible influence of the Fourth Gospel 162–166 – the status of Mary 163–167 – theology 155 – traditional interpretations 157–159, 166 Gospel of Peter 6 – and Justin Martyr 55–58, 62, 63 – and the Synoptic gospels 50–52, 54, 59–61, 68 – common sources 55–58, 70 – date 49

– manuscript 48, 49 – plausible influence of the Fourth Gospel 54–58, 62–65 – possible influence of the Fourth Gospel 53, 54, 59–61, 65–70 – traditional interpretations 55–58, 62, 63, 70, 71 Gospel of Philip 7 – and the Synoptic gospels 105 – date 105 – plausible influence of the Fourth Gospel 113–117 – possible influence of the Fourth Gospel 118–120 – probable influence of the Fourth Gospel 106–113 – theology 104, 105 – traditional interpretations 116 Gospel of the Egyptians 10 Gospel of the Savior 9 – and the Synoptic gospels 127, 128, 131, 135, 138, 139 – common sources 126, 129, 142, 143 – date 125 – manuscripts 125 – plausible influence of the Fourth Gospel 127, 132, 133, 135–138 – possible influence of the Fourth Gospel 141, 142 – probable influence of the Fourth Gospel 128–134, 138–141 – traditional interpretations 128–132, 135–137, 140–141, 143 Gospel of Thomas 7 – and the Synoptic Gospels 85–87 – common sources 96, 97, 100–103 – community-conflict thesis 90–94, 102 – date 85, 87 – manuscripts 85 – plausible influence of the Fourth Gospel 94–99 – possible influence of the Fourth Gospel 99–102 – rolling corpus 87 Gospel of Truth 10 Herod 53 Holy Spirit 78, 79, 107–109, 115, 116, 121, 148, 149, 164, 172, 177, 178, 182

Index of Subjects Influence of the Fourth Gospel – catchphrases 17, 20, 78, 81, 104, 109, 111, 127, 129, 134, 141–143, 173, 181, 198 – common sources 18, 19 – criteria 17–20 – direct 14, 46, 88, 121, 153, 157, 196– 198 – indirect 14, 55, 87, 154, 176, 183, 187 – lengthy parallels 197 – measured by date 196 – measured by sub-genre 195 – measured by theology 195, 196 – oral 14, 18, 19, 26, 51, 89, 125, 157, 166, 197 – quotations 15–19, 46, 112, 121, 162, 197 – secondary orality 14, 27, 71, 103, 196, 198, 202 – shorter parallels 198 Jesus – abuse 58–60, 63–65, 137, 201 – arrest 37–39, 41, 53, 127, 170 – betrayal 41, 127–129, 170–173 – burial 60, 66–68, 164 – conflict with opponents 29, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41, 47, 76–79, 81, 96, 103, 203, 204 – crucifixion 53, 54, 57, 59–65, 70, 71, 106, 113, 134–138, 141, 143, 198, 200, 203 – crurifragium 63–65, 70, 198 – death 4, 60, 65–68, 70, 71, 77, 113, 137, 146, 162, 171, 172 – flesh 59, 100, 101, 106–108, 114, 115, 117, 121, 127, 135–138, 143, 171, 172, 200 – glorification 41, 134, 139, 140, 177, 180, 182 – healing 28, 35, 42, 76 – hour 38–41 – king 54, 56–59, 71 – resurrection 4, 8, 68, 70, 90, 91, 106– 109, 117, 134, 139, 146, 147, 153, 158, 160, 161, 166, 198 – son of God 54, 59, 173 – son of man 151, 158, 172, 201 – trial 54, 55

261

‘Jews’ 29, 32, 35, 36, 40, 53, 54, 60, 64–68, 70, 71, 80, 89, 94–97, 100, 119, 172, 198, 203 John the Baptist 30, 162 Joseph of Arimathea 53, 55, 57, 66, 67, 71 Judas 8, 77, 91, 168–175 Kingdom of God/Heaven 108 Lamb (as an image of Jesus) 64, 65, 118, 162 Letter of Peter to Philip 11 Levi 7, 69, 72–81, 155, 163 Living Waters 79–81 Mary 55, 56, 66, 68–70, 115, 119, 130, 139, 153, 155, 156, 160–167, 175, 176, 178, 181, 198, 203 Mathaias 8, 9, 185 Miqva’ot 73–75, 79 Moses 30–32, 34, 37, 42, 44, 46, 47, 80, 199 Naassenes 108 Nathanael 173 Nicodemus 29, 44, 67, 164, 187, 189 P.Oxy. 840 6 – and the Synoptic gospels 75, 76 – baptism 75, 79–81 – date 75 – historical veracity 72–75 – possible influence of the Fourth Gospel 76–79, 81 – purity regulations 75–77 Peace-sayings 146, 147, 153, 157–159, 166, 198, 199 Persecution 112, 140, 141, 162, 163, 201 Peter 6, 11, 48, 60, 69, 70, 93, 155, 162–165, 173, 174 Pharisees 29, 67, 95 Philip 8, 92, 93, 129, 179 Pontius Pilate 53–56, 59, 68, 71 Praxeas 56–58, 70, 129, 130, 143, 200, 201 Reception of the Fourth Gospel – conclusions 202–203

262

Index of Subjects

– definition 121, 156, 157 – method 13–21 Secondary Orality 14, 27, 71, 103, 196, 198, 202 Serapion 6, 48 Sophia of Jesus Christ 9 – and the Synoptic gospels 145, 154 – common sources 153–154 – date 145 – manuscripts 144 – plausible influence of the Fourth Gospel 148–150 – possible influence of the Fourth Gospel 150–153 – probable influence of the Fourth Gospel 146, 147

– theology 145 – traditional interpretations 146, 147, 153, 154 Stoning 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 45, 68 Synagogue 73–76, 79, 81 Temple 73–78, 80, 81, 90, 93 Thomas 7, 8, 66, 69, 90–93, 99, 139, 184–189 Traditional Interpretations 19, 20, 37, 46, 56, 57, 63, 70, 108, 116, 121, 143, 147, 153, 159, 199–202 Valentinianism 12, 104, 105, 109, 111, 114, 115, 121, 175, 183, 195–197, 200