Recent analyses of the Gospel of Thomas by Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole make only a partial and, in several instances, unconvincing case for Thomas’s knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels. Other neglected data suggests that some portions of Thomas are substantially autonomous. This calls for a more complex understanding of the composition of Thomas, one that recognizes its construction as a ‘school text’ or ‘anthology’, drawing on multiple and parallel streams of the Jesus tradition.
AllberryCharles R.C.IbscherHugo1938A Manichaean Psalm-Book (Manichäische Handschriften der Sammlung A; Chester Beatty 2; Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer).
2.
ArnalWilliam E.2005 ‘The Rhetoric of Social Construction: Language and Society in the Gospel of Thomas’, in BraunWilli (ed.), Rhetoric and Reality in Early Christianities (ESCJ, 16; Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press): 27-47
3.
ArnalWilliam E.2011 ‘The Synoptic Problem and the Historical Jesus’, in FosterPaulGregoryAndrewKloppenborgJohn S.VerheydenJoseph (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008. Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett (BETL, 239; Leuven: Peeters): 371-432.
4.
AuneDavid E.2002 ‘Assessing the Historical Value of the Apocryphal Jesus Tradition: A Critique of Conflicting Methodologies’, in SchröterJensBruckerRalph (eds.), Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung (BZNW, 114; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter): 243-72.
5.
BlackDavid AlanBeckDavid R. (eds.) 2001Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).
6.
BoismardMarie-Émile1966 ‘Évangile des Ebionites et problème synoptique (Mc., 1,2-6 et par.)’, RB73: 321-52.
7.
BovonFrançois1996L’évangile selon saint Luc (9,51–14,35) (CNT, 3b; Geneva: Labor et Fides).
8.
BrownScott G.2005Mark’s Other Gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith’s Controversial Discovery (Studies in Christianity and Judaism/Études sur le christianisme et le judaïsme, 15; Waterloo, Ont: Wilfrid Laurier University Press).
9.
BrownScott G.2011 ‘The Longer Gospel of Mark and the Synoptic Problem’, in FosterPaulGregoryAndrewKloppenborgJohn S.VerheydenJoseph (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (BETL, 239; Leuven: Peeters): 753-81.
10.
BurkettDelbert2004Rethinking the Gospel Sources. I. From Proto-Mark to Mark (New Testament Guides; London: T&T Clark International).
11.
BurkettDelbert2009Rethinking the Gospel Sources. II. The Unity and Plurality of Q (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).
12.
CameronRon1996 ‘Mythmaking and Intertextuality in Early Christianity’, in CastelliElizabethTaussigHal (eds.), Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International): 37-50.
13.
CameronRon2004 ‘Ancient Myths and Modern Theories of the Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins’, in CameronRonMillerMerrill P. (eds.), Redescribing Christian Origins (Symposium Series, 28; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature): 89-108.
14.
CameronRon2008 ‘An Occasion for Thought’, in BraunWilliMcCutcheonRussell T. (eds.), Introducing Religion: Essays in Honor of Jonathan Z. SmithLondon: Equinox): 100-12.
15.
CarlstonCharles E.1975The Parables of the Triple Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
16.
CrossanJohn Dominic1973aIn Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New York: Harper & Row).
17.
CrossanJohn Dominic1973b ‘The Seed Parables of Jesus’, JBL92/2: 244-66.
18.
CrossanJohn Dominic1998 ‘The Gospel of Peter and the Canonical Gospels: Independence, Dependence, or Both?’, Forum1n NS: 7-51.
DammAlex2013Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem: Clarifying Markan Priority (BETL, 252; Leuven: Peeters).
21.
DaviesW.D.AllisonDale C.1988–97A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
22.
DeConickApril D.2002 ‘The OriginalGospel of Thomas’, VC66/2: 167-99.
23.
DeConickApril D.2006The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation, with a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel (LNTS, 287; London: T&T Clark International).
24.
DerrenbackerRobert A.2005Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem (BETL, 186; Leuven: Peeters).
25.
DeutschCelia1996Lady Wisdom, Jesus, and the Sages: Metaphor and Social Context in Matthew’s Gospel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International).
26.
DeweyArthur J.2004 ‘“Keep Speaking until you Find …”: Thomas and the School of Oral Mimesis’, in CameronRonMillerMerrill P. (eds.), Redescribing Christian Origins (Symposium Series; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature): 109-32.
27.
DupontJacques1985Études sur les évangiles synoptiques (ed. NeirynckFrans; BETL, 70A-B; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University Press).
28.
EdwardsJames R.2002 ‘The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke’, NTS 48/4: 568-92.
29.
ErlerMichael2013 ‘Philosophical Literature, Genres of’, in CancikHubertSchneiderHelmuth (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly (Leiden: Brill Online).
30.
FarrerAustin M.1955 ‘On Dispensing with Q’, in NinehamDennis E. (ed.), Studies in the Gospels in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Basil Blackwell): 57-88.
31.
FoersterRichard (ed.) 1903–27 [1963]Libanii Opera (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; Leipzig: B.G. Teubner).
32.
FosterPaulGregoryAndrewKloppenborgJohn S.VerheydenJoseph (eds.) 2011New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008. Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett (BETL, 239; Leuven: Peeters).
33.
FuchsAlbert2009Defizite der Zweiquellentheorie (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang).
34.
GarrowAlan J.P.2004The Gospel of Matthew’s Dependence on the Didache (JSNTSup, 254; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
35.
GathercoleSimon2012The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences (SNTSMS, 151; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
36.
GoodacreMark S.2002The Case against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International).
37.
GoodacreMark S.2012Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas’s Familiarity with the Synoptics (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans).
38.
GoodacreMark S.PerrinNicholas (eds.) 2004Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique (London: SPCK; Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity).
39.
GreenJoel B.1987 ‘The Gospel of Peter: Source for a Pre-Canonical Passion Narrative?’, ZNW78/3-4: 293-301.
40.
GregoryAndrew2005 ‘Prior or Posterior? The Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of Luke’, NTS 51/3: 344-60.
41.
GregoryAndrewTuckettChristopher M. (eds.) 2005 ‘Reflections on Method: What Constitutes the Use of the Writings that Later Formed the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers?’, in GregoryAndrewTuckettChristopher M. (eds.), The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 61-82.
42.
GundryRobert H.1993Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans).
43.
HillCharles E.2004The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
44.
HillCharles E.2012 ‘“In these Very Words”: Methods and Standard of Literary Borrowing in the Second Century’, in HillCharles E.KrugerMichael J. (eds.), The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 261-81.
45.
HockRonald F.O’NeilEdward N.1986The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric. I. The Progymnasmata (SBLTT, 27/9; Atlanta: Scholars Press).
46.
InwoodBrad2013 ‘Chrysippus [2]’, in CancikHubertSchneiderHelmuth (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly (Leiden: Brill Online).
47.
JeremiasJoachim1972The Parables of Jesus (rev. edn based on 8th 1970 German edn; trans. HookeS.H.; London: SCM Press; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
48.
JeremiasJoachim1980Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums: Redaktion und Tradition im Nicht-Markusstoff des dritten Evangeliums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
49.
KelberWerner H.1983The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
50.
KennedyGeorge A.2003Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).
51.
KirkAlan1994 ‘Examining Priorities: Another Look at the Gospel of Peter’s Relationship to the New Testament Gospels’, NTS40/4: 572-95.
52.
KloppenborgJohn S.1987The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
53.
KloppenborgJohn S.1988Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, and Concordance (Foundations and Facets: New Testament; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge).
54.
KloppenborgJohn S.2000Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
55.
KloppenborgJohn S.2003 ‘On Dispensing with Q? Goodacre on the Relation of Luke to Matthew’, NTS49/2: 210-36.
56.
KloppenborgJohn S.2005 ‘The Use of the Synoptics or Q in Did. 1.3b–2.1’, in van de SandtHuub (ed.), The Didache and Matthew: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress Press): 105-29.
57.
KloppenborgJohn S.2006The Tenants in the Vineyard: Ideology, Economics, and Agrarian Conflict in Jewish Palestine (WUNT, 195; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
58.
KoesterHelmut1983 ‘Three Thomas Parables’, in LoganA.H.B.WedderburnA.J.M. (eds.), The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honor of Robert McLaughlan Wilson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark): 195-203.
59.
LabahnMichaelLangManfred (eds.) 2004 ‘Johannes und die Synoptiker: Positionen und Impulse seit 1990’, in FreyJörgSchnelleUdo (eds.), Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perepektive (WUNT, 175; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]): 443-515.
60.
LoweMalcolm1982 ‘From the Parable of the Vineyard to a Pre-Synoptic Source’, NTS28: 257-65.
61.
MacDonaldDennis R.2012Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’ Exposition of the Logia about the Lord (Early Christianity and its Literature, 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).
62.
MacKayIan D.2004John’s Relationship with Mark: An Analysis of John 6 in the Light of Mark 6–8 (WUNT, 2/182; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
63.
MarcusJoel1986The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (SBLDS, 90; Atlanta: Scholars Press).
64.
MarcusJoel2000–2009Mark (AB, 27-27A; New York: Doubleday).
65.
MeierJohn P.1991A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. I. The Roots of the Problem and the Person (Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday).
66.
MeierJohn P.2012 ‘Is Luke’s Version of the Parable of the Rich Fool Reflected in the CopticGospel of Thomas?’, CBQ74/3: 528-47.
67.
MournetTerence C.2005Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q (WUNT, 2/195; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
68.
MüllerDieter1973 ‘Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God?’, VC27: 266-76.
69.
NevilleDavid J.2002Mark’s Gospel—Prior or Posterior?: A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order (JSNTSup, 222; London: Sheffield Academic Press).
70.
PattersonStephen J.1991 ‘Paul and the Jesus Tradition: It is Time for Another Look’, HTR84/1: 23-41.
71.
PattersonStephen J.1993The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus: Thomas Christianity, Social Radicalism, and the Quest of the Historical Jesus (Foundations and Facets: Reference series; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge).
72.
PeabodyDavid L.CopeLamarMcNicolAllan J.2002One Gospel from Two: Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International).
PlischUwe-Karsten2008The Gospel of Thomas (trans. RobinsonGesine; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft).
75.
RobbinsVernon K.1997 ‘Rhetorical Composition and Sources in the Gospel of Thomas’, in Society of Biblical Literature 1997 Seminar Papers (SBLSP, 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press): 86-114.
76.
RobinsonJames M.HeilChristoph2001 ‘The Lilies of the Field: Saying 36 of the Gospel of Thomas and Secondary Accretions in Q 12.22b-31,27’, NTS47: 1-25.
77.
RobinsonJames M.HoffmannPaulKloppenborgJohn S. (eds.) 2000The Critical Edition of Q: A Synopsis, Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas, with English, German and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Hermeneia Supplements; Leuven: Peeters; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
78.
RobinsonJames M.KoesterHelmut1971Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
79.
RoloffJürgen2005Jesu Gleichnisse im Matthäusevangelium: Ein Kommentar zu Mt 13,1-52 (Biblisch-Theologische Studien, 73; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
80.
SchillebeeckxEdward1979Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (trans. HoskinsHubert; New York: Seabury).
81.
SchonhofferT. Nicholas2011 ‘The Relationship of the Gospel of Peter to the Canonical Gospels: A Composition Critical Argument’, ETL87/1: 229-49.
82.
SchrageWolfgang1964Das Verhältnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen: zugleich ein Betrag zur gnostischen Synoptikerdeutung (BZNW, 29; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann).
83.
SchröterJens2012 ‘Das Evangelium nach Thomas (Thomasevangelium [NHC II,2 p. 32,10–51,28] Oxyrhynchus-Papyri I 1, IV 654 und IV 655’, in MarkschiesChristophSchröterJens (eds.), Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung. I. Evangelien und Verwandtes (7th edn; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 483-526
84.
SellewPhilip1992 ‘Interior Monologue as a Narrative Device in the Parables of Luke’, JBL111/2: 239-53.
85.
SevrinJean-Marie1989 ‘Un groupement de trois paraboles contre les richesses dans l’évangile selon Thomas: EvTh 63, 64, 65’, in DelormeJean (ed.), Les paraboles évangéliques: perspectives nouvelles (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf): 425-39
86.
SieberJohn H.1966 ‘A Redactional Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels with Regard to the Question of the Sources of the Gospel According to Thomas’ (PhD dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, California).
87.
SiegertFolker2004Der Erstentwurf des Johannes: Das ursprüngliche, judenchristlichen Johannesevangelium in deutscher Übersetzungen vorgestellt (Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum Münsteraner judaistische Studien, 16; Münster: LIT).
88.
SkehanPatrick W.Di LellaAlexander A.1987The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (AB, 39; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
89.
SnodgrassKlyne R.1983The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (WUNT, 7; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
90.
SnodgrassKlyne R.1990 ‘The Gospel of Thomas: A Secondary Gospel’, SecCent7/1: 19-38.
91.
StanleyChristopher D.1990 ‘Paul and Homer: Greco-Roman Citation Practice in the First Century CE’, NovT32/1: 48-78.
92.
SteinRobert H.2001Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation (2nd edn; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).
93.
StillmanMartha1997 ‘The Gospel of Peter: A Case for Oral-Only Dependence?’, ETL73/1: 114-20.
94.
TuckettChristopher M.1988 ‘Thomas and the Synoptics’, NovT30/2: 132-57.
95.
TuckettChristopher M.1998 ‘The Gospel of Thomas: Evidence for Jesus?’, Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 52/1: 17-32.
96.
TuckettChristopher M.2005a ‘The Didache and the Synoptics Once More: A Response to Aaron Milavec’, JECS 13/4: 509-18.
97.
TuckettChristopher M.2005b ‘The Didache and the Writings that Later Formed the New Testament’, in GregoryAndrewTuckettChristopher M. (eds.), The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 83-127.
98.
TuckettChristopher M.2013 ‘The Gospel of Thomas: Gathercole and Goodacre’, SJT66/2: 221-29.
99.
UroRisto1993 ‘“Secondary Orality” in the Gospel of Thomas?’, Forum9/3-4: 305-29.
100.
UroRisto2003Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of the Gospel of Thomas (London: T&T Clark).
101.
VivianoBenedict T.2004 ‘John’s Use of Matthew: Beyond Tweaking’, RB90/2: 209-37.
102.
WhittakerJohn1989 ‘The Value of Indirect Tradition in the Establishing of Greek Philosophical Texts, or the Act of Misquotation’, in GrantJohn N. (ed.), Editing Greek and Latin Texts: Papers Given at the Twenty-Third Annual Conference on Editorial Problems, University of Toronto, 6–7 November, 1987 (New York: AMS Press): 63-95.
103.
WilliamsMatthew C.2006Two Gospels from One: A Comprehensive Text-Critical Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications).
104.
WilsonRobert McL.1960–61 ‘Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels’, ExpTim72: 36-39.
105.
ZimmermannRuben (ed.) 2007Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, in collaboration with DormeyerDetlevKernGabiMerzAnnetteMünchChristianPopkesEnno E. (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus).
106.
ZöcklerThomas1999Jesu Lehren im Thomasevangelium (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 47; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
