The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary

735 Pages·2014·2.64 MB·English

by  Simon Gathercole

TheGospelofThomas
Texts and Editions for
New Testament Study
Editedby
StanleyE.PorterandWendyJ.Porter
volume 11
Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedatbrill.com/tent
The Gospel of Thomas
IntroductionandCommentary
By
SimonGathercole
leiden|boston
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Gathercole,SimonJ.
TheGospelofThomas:introductionandcommentary/bySimonGathercole.
pagescm.–(TextsandeditionsforNewTestamentstudy;volume11)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN978-90-04-19041-2(hardback:alk.paper)–ISBN978-90-04-27325-2(e-book)
1.GospelofThomas(CopticGospel)–Criticism,interpretation,etc.I.Title.
BS2860.T52G3752014
229'.8–dc23
2014009776
Thispublicationhasbeentypesetinthemultilingual“Brill”typeface.Withover5,100characterscovering
Latin,ipa,Greek,andCyrillic,thistypefaceisespeciallysuitableforuseinthehumanities.Formore
information,pleaseseewww.brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn1574-7085
isbn978-90-04-19041-2(hardback)
isbn978-90-04-27325-2(e-book)
Copyright2014byKoninklijkeBrillnv,Leiden,TheNetherlands.
KoninklijkeBrillnvincorporatestheimprintsBrill,BrillNijhoff,GlobalOrientalandHoteiPublishing.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,translated,storedinaretrievalsystem,or
transmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,
withoutpriorwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
AuthorizationtophotocopyitemsforinternalorpersonaluseisgrantedbyKoninklijkeBrillnvprovided
thattheappropriatefeesarepaiddirectlytoTheCopyrightClearanceCenter,222RosewoodDrive,Suite910,
Danvers,ma01923,usa.Feesaresubjecttochange.
Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaper.
Contents
Acknowledgements vii
Preface ix
Abbreviations xii
Introduction
1 Manuscripts 3
2 AComparisonoftheGreekandCopticTexts 14
AppendedNote:Thomasasa‘RollingCorpus’? 24
3 NamedTestimoniatoThomas 35
4 EarlyReferencestotheContentsofThomas 62
5 TheOriginalLanguageofThomas 91
6 TheProvenanceofThomas 103
7 TheDateofThomas(withAuthorship) 112
8 TheStructureofThomas 128
9 TheGenreofThomas 137
10 TheReligiousOutlookofThomas 144
AppendedNote:IsThomas“Gnostic”? 168
11 Thomas,theNewTestamentandtheHistoricalJesus 176
12 ThePlanoftheCommentary 185
vi contents
Commentary
Prologue,Logia1–114,Subscriptio 189–618
AppendedNotes:
TheRelationbetweenGTh12and13(afterGTh12) 256
ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥintheGospelofThomas(afterGTh16) 278
TheFiveTreesinParadise(afterGTh19) 293
AScribalErrorinQ?(afterGTh36) 360
Bibliography 619
Indexlocorum 674
AuthorIndex 709
SubjectIndex 719
Acknowledgements
Ihaveincurredanumberofdebtsincourseofwritingthiscommentary.First,
ImustthankmyToshibaPortegeR600-140computer,which,liketheapostle
Paulin1Corinthians,diedeveryday,foraboutthelasttwoyearsofthisproject,
andyetalwaysstartedupagain.
I should thank my former colleagues in the University of Aberdeen, and
presentcolleaguesinCambridge,whohavemadeNewTestamentstudysuch
astimulatingandenjoyableexperienceinbothplaces:FrancisWatson(now
in Durham), Andrew Clarke, Howard Marshall, Pete Williams, Judith Lieu,
AndrewChester,JamesCarletonPaget,JustinMeggitt,PeterHead,DirkJong-
kind,ChipCoakley,MornaHooker,WilliamHorburyandthelateGrahamStan-
ton.IhavealsolearnedaconsiderableamountfromDouglasHedleyandBarrie
FleetinthePlotinusseminarinourFaculty,andhavealsobenefitedimmensely
fromtheremarkablelearningofthemembersoftheAncientPhilosophysem-
inarintheFacultyofClassics,notleastDavidSedley,MalcolmSchofield,Geof-
freyLloyd,MylesBurnyeat,NickDenyerandJamesWarren.DavidShawand
PeterGurryreadthewholeofthemanuscriptandmadeagreatmanyuseful
comments(andcorrections),forwhichIamprofoundlygrateful.Iamgrate-
fultoDrRobertCrellin(formerlyoftheFacultyofClassicsinCambridge;now,
GreekBibleCollege,Athens)forhelpingmetonavigatethemurkywatersof
Greekverbalaspect.JimAitkenhelpedmeenormouslywhenintroublewith
fonts.
PeteWilliamsdeservesspecialthanks,becauseitwasinitialconversations
withhiminAberdeenwhichwerethestimulusforembarkingonthisproject,
andIamverygratefulforhishelpinCopticmatters.
IamthankfulforthestaffatBrill,especiallyMattieKuiper,fortheirpatience
beforeandafterreceivingthemanuscript.StanleyPorterkindlyacceptedthe
proposed volume for inclusion in the Texts and Editions for New Testament
Studyseries.Imustalsoacknowledgewithimmenseappreciationgrantsfrom
theArtsandHumanitiesResearchCouncilandtheBritishAcademyfortheir
generousprovisionsofperiodsofsabbaticalleavefortheacademicyears2004–
2005(inwhichthebookwasstarted)and2011–2012whenthebulkofthework
wasfinished.
Myparentshaveasalwaysbeenaconstantsourceofencouragement.Iam
gratefulabovealltomywifeRosie,andchildrenMarthaandFreddie,without
whomthisbookwouldhavebeenfinishedmuchsooner,butfortunatelywasn’t.
Ioweanenormousdebtbothintellectuallyandpersonallytomycolleague
JamesCarletonPaget.Asonefarmorelearnedinsecond-centurymattersthan
viii acknowledgements
I, he has been an excellent teacher to me, as well as an extremely generous
friend, reading a great deal of the ‘Thomasina’ here and tirelessly discussing
numerous parts of it. I dedicate this book to him in gratitude. Ad multos
annos!
Preface
ThegreatestcommentaryneverwrittenwasundoubtedlythatofProf.Morris
ZappofEuphoricStateUniversity.Inhisownwords:
I began a commentary on the works of Jane Austen, the aim of which
was to be utterly exhaustive, to examine the novels from every con-
ceivableangle—historical,biographical,rhetorical,mythical,structural,
Freudian, Jungian, Marxist, existentialist, Christian, allegorical, ethical,
phenomenological,archetypal,younameit.Sothatwheneachcommen-
tarywaswritten,therewouldbenothingfurthertosayaboutthenovelin
question.
Ofcourse,Ineverfinishedit.1
RatherthanimitatingtheprometheanprojectstartedbyProf.Zapp,anycom-
mentatormustbesubjecttoastrictself-denyingordinance,andfocusonlyon
particular aspects of the text. This is no less true with such a short book as
theGospelofThomas.DeConick’scommentary,forexample,seekstoidentify
wherethevarioussectionsofThomasaccruedinthecompositionalhistoryof
thework.2Nordsieckaimsprimarilytoidentifytheextenttowhichparticular
sayingsgobacktothehistoricalJesus.3OneapproachwhichValantasisadopts
isakindofpost-structuralistreadingofthetext,emphasizingtheplayfulness
andindeterminacyofThomas.4
Theintentionofthepresentcommentaryisdifferent.Theaimhereisprinci-
pallytounderstandthemeaningofthesayingsofThomasinitssecond-century
historicalcontext.Thatis,itelucidatesthereligiousoutlookofThomasinthe
1 D.Lodge,SmallWorld:AnAcademicRomance(London:Penguin,1985),24–25.Lodgebased
thecharacterofZapponStanleyFish.
2 A.D.DeConick,TheOriginalGospelofThomasinTranslation:WithaCommentaryandNew
EnglishTranslationoftheCompleteGospel(LNTS287;London/NewYork:T&TClarkInterna-
tional,2006).
3 R.Nordsieck, DasThomasevangelium:Einleitung—ZurFragedeshistorischenJesus—Kom-
mentierungaller114Logien(Neukirchen:Neukirchener,2004).
4 SeeR.Valantasis,TheGospelofThomas(NewTestamentReadings;London:Routledge,1997),
e.g.65,179.Henotes,forexample,theneedtoexerciseplayintheinterpretationoftheparable
hereinthelightofthelackof‘interpretativedirectionprovidedeitherbyJesusorbythe
narrator’(179).C.W.Hedrick,UnlockingtheSecretsoftheGospelaccordingtoThomas(Eugene,
OR:Wipf&Stock,2010),similarlyemphasisestheambiguityofThomas’sparables.
x preface
settinginwhichitwascomposed.5Thismaysoundlikeastandardapproachof
acommentary,but,ascanbeseenfromtheremarksabove,commentatorshave
notalwaysfocusedontheactualmeaningofthetext.AsGagnéhasrecently
putit:‘WhathaslackedinThomasineresearchisinquiryintothemeaningof
thecollectionofsayingsasawhole,andthisforaplausiblehistoricalimplied
reader.’6 This commentary is not concerned with the tradition-history of the
work,asking,forexample,whetherasayinginThomasismoreprimitivethan
itsparallelintheSynoptics.7(Ihaveaddressedanumberoftheissuesaboutthe
compositionalsituationofThomasinarecentmonograph.8)Ittreatsthefinal
formofthetext,anapproachwhichisinpartdefendedintheIntroduction,
whichaimstoargueforThomasasatolerablyunifiedworkwhichcanlegiti-
matelybeinterpretedassuch.Thereasonabledegreeofsimilaritybetweenthe
GreekandCoptictextsisshown(Introduction,§2),andthereasonablycoher-
entreligiousoutlookoftheworkissetout(§10)inordertodefendanapproach
baseduponThomas’srelativeconsistency.Speculativetheoriesaboutthepre-
historyofThomasarealsosubjectedtoscrutiny(seeAppendedNotefollowing
§2).
Afewhouse-keepingmattersareinorder.Thedivisionofthetextinto114
sayings has for a long time been well established, and I have also followed
thesubdivisionsofsayingsadoptedbytheBerlinerArbeitskreisfürkoptisch-
gnostischeSchriften.9Inthetranslation,Ihaveusedgender-inclusivelanguage
where practicable, though in order to avoid cumbersome renderings, occa-
sional masculine pronouns (‘he’, ‘him’, ‘his’) have been necessary.10 When in
5 SeethesimilarapproachsetoutinR.M.Grant&D.N.Freedman,TheSecretSayingsofJesus
(NewYork:Doubleday,1960),117.Thiscommentaryis,however,verydated.
6 A.Gagné,‘StructureandMeaninginGos.Thom.49–53.AnErotapokriticTeachingon
IdentityandEschatology’,inJ.Schröter,ed.TheApocryphalGospelswithintheContextof
EarlyChristianTheology(Leuven/Paris/Walpole:Peeters,2013),23–31(24).Cf.alsoidem,
‘Jésus,lalumièreetlePèreVivant.Principedegémellitédansl’ÉvangileselonThomas’,
Apocrypha23(2013),209–221(211).
7 As is an important concern in U.-K. Plisch, The Gospel of Thomas: Original Text with
Commentary(Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,2008).
8 S.J.Gathercole,TheCompositionoftheGospelofThomas:OriginalLanguageandSources
(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2012).
9 SeethetextofThomaswiththesesubdivisionsinK.Aland,ed.SynopsisQuattuorEvange-
liorum(Stuttgart:DeutscheBibelgesellschaft,1996),519–546.
10 On inclusive language in translations, see R. Smith, tr. Aristotle:PriorAnalytics (Indi-
anapolis:Hackett,1989),xxx–xxi;also,S.J.Patterson,‘Introduction’,inJ.S.Kloppenborg,
M.W.Meyer,S.J.Patterson&M.G.Steinhauser,eds.Q-ThomasReader(Sonoma,CA:Pole-