Cambridge University Press Harvard Divinity School

Harvard Divinity School
The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings Gospels

Author(s): William E. Arnal
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 88, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), pp. 471-494
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509838
Accessed: 07-08-2014 20:04 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Harvard Theological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 20:04:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ihe
Rhetonc
of
Marginality:
Apocalypticism, Gnosticism,
and
Sayings
Gospelsl
William E. Arnal
Universityof Toronto
nf
a total of twelve parablesor similitudesappearingin Q, fully half
tJ are paralleled in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas.2 The two writings
share approximatelyforty separatesayings.3The similaritybetween these
collections extends beyond considerablesharedcontent, however, to embrace a common genre, a commonpredilectionfor aphoristicand proverbial forms, a commonconcernwith both practicaland speculativewisdom,
lI read earlier incarnationsof this paper at the 1993 annualmeeting of the Society of
Biblical Literature,Washington,D.C., 20 November,1993; andfor the Religious Traditions
of Classical AntiquitySeminar,Toronto,26 November,1993. The Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearchCouncilof Canadasupportedthis paperin the formof a doctoralfellowship. I am indebtedto John Kloppenborgand KristenSweder for their encouragementand
helpful suggestions.
2HelmutKoester,Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia:Trinity,1990)96. He lists the following as havingGospel of Thomas parallels:Q 12:1621 (logion63); 12:39(1Ogia21b,103);13:18-l9(logion20); 13:20-21 (logion96); 14:16-24
(logion 64); 15:3-7 (logion 107). Not havingparallelsin the Gospel of Thomas are Q 6:4749; 7:31-32;12:35-38;12:42-46; 15:8-10; 19:12-27. The parallelsin contentbetweenQ and
the Gospel of Thomas do not, of course, stop with the parables.
3Seethe table in JohnS. Kloppenborg,et al., Q-Thomas Reader (Sonoma,CA:Polebridge,
1990) 159. Koester("Qandits Relatives,"in JamesE. Goehring,et al., eds., Gospel Origins
and Christian Beginnings: ln Honor of James M. Robinson [Sonoma,CA: Polebridge,1990]
55) states that there are 38 such parallelsat least and 45 at the most.
HTR 88:4 (1995) 471-94
472
HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
and a surprisinglack of interestin the deathand resurrectionof Jesus.4As

the similaritiesbetween Q and the Gospel of Thomasare necessarilyof a
literaryvariety, attemptsto explain them have naturallytended to favor
documentaryhypotheses.This is certainlytrue of the conservativeclaim
that the Gospel of Thomasis dependentfor its traditionson the synoptic
gospels. The trend toward denying any such dependence,Showever, has
hardlydiminishedthe tendencyto explain the two writings'commoncontent, formalfeatures,and theologicalmotifs in termsof essentiallyliterary
connections.HelmutKoester,who is largely responsiblefor the statusthe
Gospel of Thomasnow enjoys as an early and valuable document,has
arguedthat,if the Gospelof Thomasis not actuallydependenton an earlier
recension of Q, which it very well may be, it at least shares common
sources with it.6
There are a numberof limitationsto this and other attemptsto explain
the Gospel of Thomas'sand Q's common features on the basis of their
mutualuse of the same material,whetherwrittenor oral. First, the Gospel
of Thomasand Q must be accordedwhat JonathanZ. Smith calls "comparativeparity,"7that is, since stratificationand hence historicalcomplex4Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 80-81,86.
5For an extended and comprehensive discussion of the independence of the Gospel of
Thomas, see Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge,
993)9-1lo.
6See Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 86-87,91,ss, 99;idem, "Jesus the Victim," JBL
111(1992)7. Earlier, Koester ("GNOMAI DIAPHOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity," in James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester,
Trajectories Through Early Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971]136)was not so bold
as to posit any such literary dependence, but simply stopped with the observation that the
Gospel of Thomas represented a variety of the same type of literary Gattung as Q. Ron Cameron
(The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982]
24)claims
that the Gospel of Thomas's sources are collections of sayings contemporary with the sources
of the canonical gospels; for this reason, according to Cameron, it may be profitably compared
to Q. As Koester (Trajectories, 136)recognizes, it would be extraordinarily difficult to demonstrate the Gospel of Thomas's dependence on Ql, particularly in light of the absence of
common patterns in the organization and order of the material they share. If the Gospel of
Thomas depended on Ql as we can reconstruct it, then the redactor of the Cospel of Thomas
deliberately ripped apart carefully constructed arguments and sundered material with obvious
thematic links, only in order to scatter this newly disordered material at random throughout
his gospel. Koester notes ("Q and its Relatives,' s6),"As there are also a number of sayings
in the Gospel of Thomas with parallels only in John and an additional number of possibly quite
early sayings without parallels in the canonical gospels, it is obvious that the Gospel of
Thomas cannot simply pass as a variant or as an early form of the Synoptic Sayings Source,
nor is it possible to consider Q as the source of any of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas."
7See Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and
the Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990) esp. 106-7.
Smith notes, "It must lead us to insist on an important element of method and theory with
regard to comparison: the recognition and role of historical development and change. This is
WILLIAM E. ARNAL
473
ity and developmentis fully recognizedin Q's composition,then the same

must be acknowledgedin the Gospel of Thomas'stransmissionof the sayings of Jesus. Second,literaryexplanationsare neithernecessaryto account
for most commonfeatures,nor sufficientto accountfor all of them. Third,
the merepresenceof commonsources(of whatevercharacter)fails to explain
why these sourceswere actuallyused. Fourth,the use of commontraditions
does not explainvery well the genericsimilaritiesbetweenQ andthe Gospel
of Thomas.Lastly, Q and the Gospel of Thomasindependentlydevelop
similartheologicalmotifs, such as speculationabout hypostasizedSophia,
in specific sayingsthat are not commonto the two writings.8This phenomenon suggests that Q and the Gospel of Thomascontinuedto develop in
similardirectionseven afterpursuingseparatetrajectories,and in ways that
cannot be attributedto documentaryconnections.
Documentaryexplanationstend to ignore a second area of comparative
inquirythat focuses more on the issue of the social setting and stance of
the documents.Thereare numerousmethodologicalcomplicationsinvolved
in such a venture.Foremostamong them, obviously, are the difficulties
involved in extrapolatingsocial conditionsfrom literarytexts, as well as
the thorny theoreticalquestion of the relationshipbetween ideology and
social setting.9In the case of the latterissue, the characterof the relationa necessaryprincipleof parity.The workof comparison,withinandwithoutthe areaof Late
Antiquity,requiresan acceptanceof the notion that, regardlessof whetherwe are studying
mythsfrom literateor non literatecultures,we are dealingwith historical processes of reinterpretation, with tradition"(emphasisin the original).Smith,of course,is not talkingabout
the comparisonof Q with the Gospel of Thomas, but the basic principle thatrecognitionof
changemustbe accordedto bothelementsin anycomparisonin orderto be fairandaccurateapplies here as well.
8Forexample,Jesus speakswith Wisdom'svoice in the Gos. Thom. 28, which has no Q
parallel,and in Q 11:49-51; 13:34-35, which have no Gospel of Thomas parallels.
9Onthis issue see especially RichardRohrbaugh,"'SocialLocationof Thought'as a Heuristic Constructin New TestamentStudy,"JSNT 30 (1987) 103-19; andidem,"Methodological Considerationsin the Debateover the Social Class Statusof EarlyChristians,"JAAR 52
(1984) 519-46. BurtonL. Mack("TheKingdomThatDidn'tCome:A Social Historyof the
Q Tradents,"SBLASP[1988] 608-35) also proposesrudimentarycontrolsfor moving from
texts to contexts. He argues that the content of the text must make sense in light of the
reconstructedsocial context, that the social world arguedfor has to make sense in termsof
what we know aboutits largerculturalframework,and that changes in the social situation
presupposedby the writingmustbe accountedfor plausibly(p. 609). GerdTheissen("WanderingRadicals:LightShedby the Sociologyof Literatureon the EarlyTransmissionof Jesus'
Sayings,"in idem, Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics, and the World
of the New Testament [trans.MargaretKohl;Minneapolis:Fortress,1992] 36), implies concern for similarcontrols in his articulationof a threefold"analytical,""constructive,"and
"analogical"methodof workingfrom a text to the social realitypresupposedby it. He also
works out this view in The First Followers of Jesus: A Sociological Analysis of Earliest
Christianity (trans.JohnBowden;London:SCM, 1978). VernonK. Robbins("Rhetoricand
Culture:ExploringTypes of CulturalRhetoricin a Text,"in Rhetoric and the New Testament
474
HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW
ship needs to be determined.Do social settings actually encouragethe

emergenceof particularideologies? Or do particularsocial arrangements
and conditions allow characteristicworld views to develop in ways that
otherconditionsmay not? Or is it ratherthe case thatideologicalconstructs
of varioustypes have a direct impacton social circumstances?lLikewise,
the elements of the social setting that are relevantto the relationshipbetween text and context need to be determined.How are the relevantfeaturesof a social settingto be determined?Do they residein class, in status,
in gender,or in occupation?llWill the most informativecategorybe economics, religion, nation, ethnicity, or group membership?These broader
theoreticalissues must be satisfactorilyaddressedbefore the methodological questionsof whetherit is possible to explain the genesis of particular
ideas from the social setting out of which they arose, and whetherit is
possible to drawinferencesaboutthese settingsfromtheirliteraryremains,
can be answered.It is sufficientto argue,however,that since the contexts
of Q and the Gospel of Thomasevince so many common features,these
contexts may prove to be more valuabledata for understandingthe links
betweenthe two writingsthanany exclusivelyliteraryfeatures.Until scholars
can establish some basis for the comparisonof social contexts, and wrest
the debate from the monopolyof literaryhypotheses,more sophisticated
theorizingcannot even begin to gain a foothold.
g Thomasas a Stratified
Document
A fundamentalprerequisiteto describingthe social contextof Q and the
Gospel of Thomasis the recognitionthat that context has changed;both
documentsare productsof a social history ratherthan a static social context. ThatQ is a stratifieddocumentis now generallyrecognized,not least
by Koester,largely in consequenceof Kloppenborg'sdetailed literaryinvestigationof precisely that problem.l2No comparablework exists on the
447-67 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993]) argues for a coordination of rhetoric
with cultural stances, and proposes a more precise typology of (rhetorical) responses to a
"dominant culture": sub-cultural, countercultural, and contra-cultural.
10Allof these factors may be operative in any given situation; one need not choose among
them. Some specification is needed, however, for what precisely is meant when one posits a
link between text and context.
l IFor a compelling argument for the usefulness of class as a heuristic and analytic tool in
biblical studies, see Norman K. Gottwald's 1992 Society of Biblical Literature presidential
address ("Social Class as an Analytic and Hermeneutical Category in Biblical Studies," JBL
112 [1993] 3-22).
12SeeJohn Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). Kloppenborg's stratification of Q as articulated in this book,
assigns the material as follows:
Ql (formative stratum): 6:20b-23b, 27-49; 9:57-62; 10:2-11, 16; 11:2-4 9-13; 12:27, 11-12, 21b-31, 33-34; 13:24; 14:26-27; 17:33; 14:34-35.
WILLIAM E. ARNAL
475
Gospel of Thomas.Thus the confidenceshown in assigningmaterialto Q1,

Q2 and Q3 has not been shown in designatingparticularmaterialsin the
Gospel of Thomasas "formative"or "redactional."
The Gospel of Thomas
lacks the organizationand structureso evident in Q, and thus is not as
amenableto the kindof redactionalanalysisthatmakesKloppenborg's
stratification so convincing.Nevertheless,if we are to establishany basis upon
which to build a sophisticatedunderstandingof this documentand its peculiar affinities with Q, there is every reason to pose the questionof the
Gospel of Thomas'sliterarydevelopment.
The Gospel of Thomasshows a considerabledegree of formal and thematic inconsistency,which is one of the difficulties that promptedthe redaction-criticalstudies of Q. Takenalone, this inconsistencysuggests that
the Gospelof Thomasis a composite,in thatthe traditionscomprisedin the
documentderive from various provenances.This does not, however, suggest anythingaboutthe processes wherebythese traditionswere collected,
which is the critical literaryquestion undergirdinga comparisonwith Q.
Several options present themselves, includingunitarycompositionout of
diverseoral traditions,desultoryaggregation,and stratification.If eitherof
the first two options appliedto the Gospel of Thomas,one would expect a
certainconsistency,or evennessto the document.On the one hand,it would
eitherbearthe marksof a consistentandheavy-handedredaction,or reflect
the consistentmotifs of the oral traditionfrom which it drew, and thus be
essentially coherentin terms of themes and forms; or, on the other hand,
it would show a fairly evenly distributedlack of consistencyin the weak
handof the redactoror in the varietyof the oral tradition.In sharpcontrast
to either of these models, the stratificationof the Gospel of Thomaswould
entail, as with Q, a patternto the document'sinconsistency;this inconsistency would be causedby the juxtapositionof two or more internallyconsistent bodies of material.In other words, the Gospel of Thomas'slack of
formal and thematicunity would be manifestedin the joining of distinct
masses of consistentmaterial.We would furtherexpect that one of these
bodies would show knowledgeof, or interferewith, the other(s),reflecting
the impositionof a redactionalperspectiveupon an alreadyorganizedbody
of coherentmaterial.This would indicatethat the groupsof materialwere
Q2 (redactionalstratum):3:7-9, 16-17; 6:23c; 7:1-10, 18-23, 24-28, 31-35; 10:1215, 21-24; 11:14-26, 29-36, 39-52; 12:8-10, 39-40, 42-46, 49, 51-53, 54-56, 5759; 13:25-30, 34-35; 14:16-24; 17:23,24, 26-30, 34-35, 37b; 19:12-17;22:28-30.
Q3(late addition):4:1-13.
This stratificationis assumedfor the purposesof this paper. In a more recent article,
Kloppenborg("Nomosand Ethos in Q," in Goehring,Gospel Originsand ChristianBeginnings, 35-48) appendsadditional"glosses"made from a nomistic perspectiveto Q3. Here,
however,I am concernedonly with the first two strata.Note also that Kloppenborghimself
does not use the designations"Ql,"etc.
476
not broughttogetherat the same time. Of course, such a propertywould

also allow scholarsto determinethe relative age of the strata.
In fact, the Gospel of Thomasshows precisely those phenomenawe
would expect from a stratifieddocument.Two main strains of material
appearin the document.These materialscan be separatedfrom each other
on formal and thematicgrounds,and each forms a coherententity unto
itself. It is thus both the formaland thematicinconsistencyof the Gospel
of Thomas(as with Q) thatsuggestsits compositecharacter;it is the formal
and thematicconsistencyof each of these two main strandsthat suggests
a stratification,ratherthanunitaryor aggregationmodelfor the document's
composition.It is evidence of an effort to impose redactionalconsistency
on the documentas a whole that allows us to discern the hand of the
redactorand distinguishit from the remainsof the earliercollection which
he modified.
The largerof the two coherentbodies of sayings in the Gospel of Thomas may be characterized,like the materialsin Ql, as wisdom sayings,
both in form and content.In these units, typically,the chreiaencapsulates
a small varietyof other forms associatedwith the wisdom genre:parables
(Gos. Thom. 9, 20, 57, 63-65, 76, 96-98, 107, 109); imperativeswith
motive clauses introducedby C&p (Gos. Thom 5, 6, 14), and simple
imperativeswithout motive clauses (Gos. Thom.36, 42, 95, 110); aphorisms, both simple (Gos. Thom.26, 32, 34, 35, 86 [?]) and clusteredthematically (Gos. Thom. 31, 45, 47); and beatitudes(Gos. Thom.54, 58;
compare68-69).13Typicalof the wisdomtraditionin general,all of these
sub-formsmakeuse of argumentative
comparisons,explicitor implicit(Gos.
Thom.32, 34-35, 45, 47, 74, 86, and all of the parables),and observations
aboutand appealsto nature,ordinaryexperiences,andcommonsense (Gos.
Thom.3, 26, 45, 47, 86, 89).
This materialis coherentthematicallyas well. Rangingacross the various formallydistinctunits is a concernwith correctunderstandingof reality; a proper apprehensionof the world and its significance, and of
appropriatehumanbehavior.All, or nearlyall, of the observationsmadein
this vein are inversionary(withoutbeing esoteric)while they also appealto
common sense and wise observation.An emphasison wise or penetrating
discernment(Gos. Thom.5, 26, 32, 34-35, 45, 57, 76, 97, 109) serves as
a basis for implicitclaims thatthingsare not as they appearto be; conventional expectationsand superficialobservationsare continuallyexposed or
frustrated(Gos. Thom.9, 16, 20, 31, 54, 55, 63, 74, 76, 96, 109), including
13Theclustering together of sayings with similar formal attributes in this stratum confirms
the presumption that this material was collected in a relatively random fashion.
WILLIAM E. ARNAL
477
those pertinentto specifically "religious"issues (Gos. Thom.3, 6, 14, 89).

The presenceof secondaryemendationsto individuallogia which evince or
reinforceprecisely that orientationwhich these sayings have in common
confirmsthatthis body of sayingswas collectedarounda single redactional
perspective.
Logion 76, the parableof the consignmentof merchandise,providesthe
clearestexample.The last sentenceof the parableis a generalizingconclusion ("So also with you, seek his treasurethat is unfailing,that is abiding,
where no moth comes to consumeand no worm destroys");it representsa
secondaryaddition,and indeed is absent in the Mattheanparallel(13:4546). Likewise, the gloss describingthe merchantis secondary:"Thatmerchant was wise." The sentence is unparalleledin the Mattheanversion,
interruptsthe flow of action with a belatedcharacterization
of the protagonist, and serves an explicit interpretivefunction.l4Both of these additions
foster the same readingof the parable;the statementthatthe merchantwas
shrewdcultivates the theme of discernmentand wise selection, while the
generalizingconclusion specifies the content of this wise selection. One
shouldseek, therefore,lastingtreasures(Jl6S 62 O Ch &S(11ncM 6S hKHM
6^ON; "his treasurethat is unfailing,abiding")ratherthan the superficial
worldly goods ordinarilyviewed as true wealth. The same phenomenon
appearselsewhere. For instance, an identical C&p-clause (h H W&&T
C&p 6S2HJI 6SN&OT(tlMV 66ON AN; "for there is nothinghidden
which will not be revealed")is secondarilyappendedto logia 5 and 6,lS as
well as a chreiicintroductionto logion 6 whichmarshalsthe sayingsagainst
the ordinaryexpressionsof Jewish piety.l6 These additionsmanifest the
theme of disclosing the true natureof things throughpenetratingdiscernmentand the refusalto acceptconventionalinterpretations.
Thusthis single,
14Further,the word used to describe the merchant is constructed differently than in the
opening, where, paralleling Matthew yet again, it is &Tptl)AC t165Utr XT ("merchant")
(See Matt 13:45; avOpXx RZ0p@); while in our gloss the man is eCUT
("merchant").
I5Inboth instances, these gar clauses represent originally independent, free-floating sayings. Although this aphorism could stand on its own as a bit of conventional, proverbial
wisdom (See Mark 4:22; Matt 10:26; and Luke 8:17; 12:2), it is here (as in its other occurrences) being used as a commentary word on the foregoing imperatives. This seems apparent
from its construction (introduced by an inferential/causal conjunction) and its repetition in
two consecutive sayings. Logion 6 is more complex, as it contains two additional secondary
motive clauses ("because all things are disclosed before heaven" immediately following Jesus'
command, and "and there is nothing covered that will remain without being disclosed" as the
conclusion to the saying). The provenance of these additions is open to question.
I6The disciples inquire about fasting, prayer, almsgiving, and dietary regulations in this
introduction; the exact same practices appear in exactly the same order in logion 14. It is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that the same hand is responsible for the preservation and/
or formulation of both.
478
coherentredaction,evincing the same stylistic and thematiccharacteristics,

includes several logia.l7
In contradistinction
to the sapientialstratum,anotherbody of sayings in
the Gospel of Thomasis characterizedby a gnostic orientation,manifested
most trenchantlyin their invocationof gnostic mythologicalmotifs.l8One
of the overridingformal characteristicsof this stratumis its deliberate
obscurityandcorollaryuse of extratextualpointsof reference.l9Othershared
formalfeaturesinclude the presenceof nameddisciples,20a tendencytowardthe dialogueform,21the deliberateobfuscationof a saying'smeaning
by repeatingthe same or a similarwordbut with differentmeanings,22and
the pairing,ratherthan clusteringof relatedsayings.23Commonthematic
dimensionsincludethe notionof becoming"one"(OT&), "single"(oT(I]T),
or "alone"(sO&XOc)
an apparentreferenceto primordialunity and
especiallyto androgyny24;
the belief thatthe "end"is in fact a returnto the
beginning25;
the expressionof salvationin termsof the avoidanceof death,26
and with the nomenclatureof "living,"27and of "repose"28;
the use of the
metaphorof consumption29to describe one's mortal destructionby the
17Gos. Thom. 3, 5, 6, 9, 14, 16, 20, 26, 31, 32, 34-36, 42, 45, 47, 54, 55, 57, 63-65, 71,
74, 76, 86, 89, 95-98, 107, 109, 110. This list is not necessarily comprehensive, but rather
includes sayings which may be ascribed to this layer with some confidence. Sayings left out
of this list and not included in the list of materials from the secondary redaction may represent
unclear instances, or later, perhaps scribal, accretions.
8Logion 101, for example, advises that one both hate father and mother (this segment of
the saying is obviously constructed on the basis of logion 55) and love father and mother,
explaining this contradiction by appealing to a distinction between "mother"and "true mother."
Since God is the obvious referent for "father," Sophia, God's divine consort, is here presented
as Jesus' true mother and has a soteriological function. Other examples could be offered as
well. The responses in logion 50 are strongly paralleled in the (first) Apocalypse of James
where they are used as passwords by James to defeat the archons (the "tollcollectors" who rob
"the soul") on his ascent to heaven (32, 28-34, 20; The Nag Hammadi Library in English [rev.
ed.; ed. James M. Robinson; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988] 265-66). In the Gospel of
Thomas's lack of specification of the identity of "they" who are posing the questions, and in
its preceding these instructions with a saying about "returning"to the Kingdom, one can see
that this parallelism is no coincidence.
9See especially logia 15,84, and the sayings cited above as having mythological referents.
20Gos. Thom. 13, 21, 61, 114.
21Ibid., 13, 22, 60, 61.
22Ibid., 18 (t & H; "end"); 84 (rl e T rl e f rl e /t XKtl)rl; "image"); 10 1 (s & & T; "mother").
23Ibid., 21-22, 27-28, 50-51, 60-61, 83-84.
24Ibid., 11, 22, 48, 61, 114; compare 75.
25Ibid., 18, 49.
26Ibid., 18 (N&EI
THE YN AS0w;
"will not taste death"; compare logion 1), 61,
111 (S rlYrl&T Yrl CsoT; "will not see death").
27orlts tllrlt; see esp. logia 11, 50, 101, 111; compare incipit, 60, 61.
282sN 2sRl2sTC f C; see esp. logia 50, 60.
29Gos. Thom. 11, 60; compare 7.
WILLIAM E. ARNAL
479
material world; and references to "light,"30and to drinkingfrom Jesus'

mouth.3lThat these specific featuresall derive from a single redactionis
confirmedby their aggregationwithin single sayings.32
The identificationof the gnostic-leaningstratumas a secondaryredaction to the initial, wisdom-orientedbody of materialproceeds on three
bases.33First, in termsof the historyof the tradition,this ordermakes the
most sense in its progressionfrom inversionarywisdom to Gnosticism.
Second, the interpretationof the documentas a whole is controlledby the
incipit and the first two sayings, directingthe readerto a "hermeneuticof
penetration"for all of what follows.34It is precisely throughthis device
that the gnostic redactionis able to subsumeand reinterpretthe wisdom
materialin line with its own perspective.Thirdand finally, althoughthe
themes which characterizeeach stratumappearto be distinct from each
other, thereare secondaryglosses to the wisdom materialfrom the gnostic
perspective.
Two examplesshouldserve to demonstratethis phenomenon.Logion 16
has a synopticparallel(Matt10:34-39 andLuke 12:49-53) andmost clearly
turnson the logic of the unreliabilityof appearancesand the frustrationof
conventionalexpectations.This saying belongs firmly within the wisdom
stratumand makessense entirelywithinthat stratum.At the same time, the
saying'sfinal clause (&w(11(;eM&(1126Ep&TOT 6TO hKhKOM&XOC;
"andthey will standalone")is superfluousto the saying'sbasic thrust,and
is in fact unparalleledin the Mattheanand Lukanversions.This secondary
addition,however, coheres best with the gnostic stratumin its obscurity
and its focus on standing"alone."An analogousinstanceappearsin logion
65, in which the obviously secondarygeneralizingconclusion of the parable, "businessmenand merchantswill not enter the places of my Father"
designates salvation with the term "place"(TOJIOC), a designationrepeatedin logion 50 (as Jlh &) and 60 (as well as the secondaryexpansion
of logion 68), and deriving from the gnostic redactionof the document.
Similarly,sayings from the gnostic redactionsuch as logion 101 have been
30Ibid., 50, 61, 83.
3lIbid., 13, 28, 108.
32Ibid., 11, 13, 61. The sayings which appear to derive from this gnostic stratum include
logia 11, 13, 15, 18, 21-22, 27-28, 49-50, 51, 60, 61, 83, 84, 101, 105, 108, 111, 114. This
list is deliberately modest; I have deliberately excluded instances in which emendations are
made from this perspective to material apparently from an earlier stratum.
33Itis noteworthy that there is an extensive (but not perfect) correspondence between the
list of sayings from the gnostic stratum and materials identified as secondary by others. For
example, Patterson (Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 198) identifies the following as "gnosticizing"
additions: logia 11, 15, 18, 60, 67, 83, 84, 88, 101. Karen L. King, ("Kingdom in the Gospel
of Thomas," Forum 3/1 [1987] 79-81) identifies Thomas "community creations" as logia 22,
27, 49, 82, 114.
34See Kloppenborg, Formation, 305-6.
480
formed by analogy to sayings in the sapientiallayer (logion 55). These

phenomena,in which it becomes evident that the gnostic redactionwas
aware of and modified the sapientialredaction,do not occur in reverse;
there are no wisdom-orientedglosses to sayings whose primarythrustaccords with the gnostic redaction.As noted above, this unidirectionalinterferenceindicatesknowledgeof one stratumby the handresponsiblefor the
other, and thus both confirmsthe stratificationmodel itself and indicates
the secondarycharacterof the body of sayings characterizedby gnostic
motifs.
g Sayings Gospels: Social Historyand Marginality
Havingoffereda sketchof whata stratificationof the Gospelof Thomas
might look like, I can now comparethe documentwith Q in a way that
recognizes the complexityof the social history of both texts, ratherthan
only one of them. One attractivepossibilityfor understandingthe relationship between Q and the Gospel of Thomasin social terms is providedby
the discussionof itinerancypopularizedby GerdTheissen.Theissenargues
that behind the radicalinjunctionsof the synoptic sayings traditionlie a
group of "wanderingradicals, who voluntarilygave up settled life in response to the call of Jesus to lead the rovinglife of a beggar,movingfrom
town to town proclaimingthe Kingdomof God."3s
StephenPattersonhas interestinglymodifiedandappliedTheissen'sthesis
to the Gospelof Thomas.36
Pattersonarguesthatthe Gospelof Thomasalso
bears witness to the radicalitinerants,and does so even moredirectlythan
the synoptic tradition.For Patterson,the earliermaterialin the Gospel of
Thomas witnesses to the ethos of these itinerants, while the later
"gnosticizing"layer of materialreflects the itinerants'perspectiveon the
conflict they were undergoingwith local sedentarycommunityleaders,and
the investment of their embattled message with cosmic significance.37
Patterson'sthesis providesa quick and easy answerto the questionof the
extensive literaryand ideological similaritiesbetween the earlierlayers of
Q and the Gospelof Thomas.His theorymeansthese similaritiesare attributable to the two books' nearly identical social Sit: im Leben among the
wanderingradicals.38Their differences at the redactionallevels, on the
35See Theissen, "Wandering Radicals"; and idem, First Followers of Jesus. On the voluntary aspect of this lifestyle, see especially, idem, "'We Have Left Everything. . . ' (Mark
10:28): Discipleship and Social Uprooting in the Jewish-Palestinian Society of the First Century," in idem, Social Reality and the Early Christians, 64.
36Throughoutthe second part of Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus.
37Ibid., esp. 163-70, 196-213.
38Note also the comments made by John H. Sieber ("The Gospel of Thomas and the New
Testament," in Goehring, Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings, 71), "The ideological
connection for such a trajectory between wisdom and Gnosticism was already laid out by
WILLIAM E. ARNAL
481
other hand,are readilyexplicablein termsof the development,at the later

stagesof the Gospelof Thomas'shistory,of conflictwithinChristiangroups,
in responseto which the Gospel of Thomasdevelopeda socially legitimating interest in speculationsof a gnostic variety. One could even suggest
that Q2'sfailureto develop in an identicaldirectionwas due to its eventual
placementwithin the orbit of the very same sedentarycommunitieswith
which the Gospel of ThomasChristianswere contending.
Unfortunately,I do not thinkthis scenariowill standup to examination.
The applicabilityof the itinerancythesis to Q has quite legitimatelybeen
called into question.39In spite of their apparentlyradical character,the
injunctionsin Ql appearto assume continuedcontact with the realities of
settled daily life such as lending and borrowing,lawsuits (Q 12:57-59),
even continuingfamily relations(see especially Q 11:11-13).4These injunctions are addressedto a group which appearsrelatively settled and
socially complex. The so-called mission instructionsin Q 10:2-12 seem to
imagine some kind of travel, but its precise purposeand characteris not
spelled out, and the radicalitinerancypostulatedby Theissen may not be
in view at all.4l Moreover,there is hardlyany indicationthat the poverty
Robinsonin the 'LOGOISOPHON'article["LOGOISOPHON:Onthe Gattungof Q,"in idem
andKoester,Trajectories, 71-113]. In 'FromQ to Thomas'["OnBridgingthe Gulf fromQ to
the Gospelof Thomas(or vice versa)," in CharlesW. HedrickandRobertHodgson,eds., Nag
Hammadi Gnosticism and Early Christianity (Peabody,MA: Hendrickson,1986) 127-55] he
has now acceptedas well the needfor a sociologicalexplanationof howthe shift fromwisdom
collectionto gnostic gospel mighthave occurred.'Thesociological substructurepresupposed
in Gnosticism,namely an ascetic lifestyle, seems particularlyrelatedto the bearersof the
sayingsof Jesus:wandering,beggingcharismatics'["FromQ to Thomas,"135]. In particular
he finds congenialthe suggestionsof M. EugeneBoring [Sayings of the Risen Jesus (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1982)] aboutthe role of those wanderingprophets,although calling some of his arguments'strained.'Those wandererseventually had to settle
down, and in the process some of them at least becameChristianGnostics."
39See,forexample,Mack,"TheKingdomThatDidn'tCome,"622-23,634; RichardHorsley,
"QuestionsAbout RedactionalStrataand the Social Relations Reflected in Q," SBLASP
(1989) 198; and idem,Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York:Crossroad,1989) 111.
40Horsley("Questions,"198; see also 200) notes that only the most literal readingof Q
9:59-62; 14:26will yield up an ethic fromQ whichinvolves abandoningfamily. These texts,
at the Ql level, andQ 17:26-34, at the Q2level, workbest rhetoricallyon the suppositionthat
familyrelationscontinueamongthe Q community.If family relationsdo not continueamong
those to whomQ is addressed,the force of 9:59-62 and 14:26as specific examplesof a more
generalexhortationto detachmentfrom cultureis lost.
4ISeefurtheron this issue, John Kloppenborg,"LiteraryConvention,Self-Evidenceand
the Social Historyof the Q People,"Semeia 55 (1991) 89-90. Kloppenborgnotes, "Thereis
little in Q 10 to suggest that the 'workers'were expectedto stay for a long durationin any
village, or thatthey intendedto 'found'a communitythere.Thereis indeedno indicationthat
the 'workers'were leadersat all, either in the communitiesfrom which they were sent forth
or in the villages thatacceptedthem.... It is importantin this regardto notethatthese workers
arenot investedwiththe titles 'apostle'(1 Cor9:1;Did. 11.3-6), prophet(Did. 11.3-11; 13.1),
or teacher(Did. 13.2), any of which wouldhave madetheirrole as (potential)leadersclear."
482
pronouncedblessed by Ql is voluntary,especially as it is accompaniedby

a blessing on those who weep as well (Q 6:20-21). The itinerancythesis
does not fare much betterin the case of the Gospel of Thomas.Here too,
there are really very few texts which seem to evince genuine itinerancy.
The statementin logion 42, "Becomepassers-by,"42
is hardlyprobativefor
establishingan itinerantlifestyle, especiallyin light of the antiworldlytone
of the Gospel of Thomasin general.Or again, the saying aboutthe harvest
which in Q opens the "missioncharge"appearsin Gos. Thom.73 as an
isolatedsaying, with even less warrantthanin Q for readingit as evidence
of itinerancy.While there is little in the Gospel of Thomasof the positive
evidenceof settledcommunitylife thatwe find in Q, thereis a similarlack
of materialconfirmingthe itinerancyhypothesis.
The Eartiest Layer of Q: It is necessary,then, to examine the earlier
layers of both Q and the Gospel of Thomasin orderto try to arriveat a
more plausible descriptionof the salient featuresof the social setting the
documentspresuppose,the social organizationof the groupsthey address,
and the stance they take towardthe social order.In the case of Ql, there
is some disputeover whetherthe writingpresupposesan urbanor a rural
context. On the one hand, the idealizationof the countryside,agriculture,
and nature'sbountyhas stronglysuggestedto some that Q is decidedlynot
the productof a ruralenvironment.It is more reminiscentof the bucolic
fantasiesof urbaniteslike Horace,Cicero,and Virgil thanit is of a peasant
perspective.43
These observationsare surely correct it is hardto imagine
Ql as the productof peasants,not only because of its idealizationof rural
life but also because its overt social radicalismis uncharacteristic
of peasant styles of resistance,which are more likely to take the form of social
banditryor passive resistanceto innovation.44
To my mind, however,the issue is more complicatedthan these observationsmightsuggest.The fact thatQ relies to a disproportionate
extenton
agriculturalimagery,the utterlyunarguedassumptionthatthe readers/hearers will understandand respondto such imagery,and the absence of any
42Although most translations render the Coptic in this fashion, it is possible that the
ETETh[plldsp8sUE is a second person plural circumstantial, giving a translation of "Become, while passing away." This would clearly refer, not to itinerancy, but either to the means
by which the soul achieves salvation or to the pursuit of salvation prior to death, as is recommended in logia 60 and 103 (by my reading).
43See especially JonathanL. Reed, "The Social Map of Q: An Analysis of the Q Community's
Locale," in John S. Kloppenborg, ed., Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical and Social
Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1995) 17-36.
44Kloppenborg, "Literary Convention," 85. See also Eric J. Hobsbawm, Primitive Rebels:
Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1959) 13-29.
WILLIAM E. ARNAL
483
referenceswhatsoeverto largerurbancenters(suchas Sepphorisor Tiberias)

apartfrom their symbolic significance(Jerusalem,Tyre, Sidon) may suggest that Q's composers included people who are affiliated with a more
rural environment.As I will suggest below, Q promotesthe interests of
smaller communitiesover against those of the city and thereforemay be
situatedoutside of a large urbanenvironment.Regardlessof whetherQl is
to be located in a village, town, or, least likely, city environment,it must
be noted that even smallerGalilean villages had their own administrative
infrastructures.With the exception of taxation, the urban administration
largelyleft the villages to theirown devices; this neglect providedthe need
and opportunityfor a class of lower-level local administratorsto arise, a
literategroupinvolved in the productionof official documents,the administrationof justice, andeven assembliesinvolvedin local self-government.45
On the one hand, such a group would possess sufficient literacy and an
appropriateorientationfor the productionof a relativelylearnedand scribal
documentsuch as Ql.46Significantly,Ql is interestedin andassumesknowledge of legal proceedings(6:29; 12:57-59).47On the otherhand,given the
450n the ubiquity of scribes in Galilean village culture, see Martin Goodman, State and
Society in Roman Galilee, A.D. 132-212 (Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld, 1983)
59. See also Kloppenborg, "Literary Convention," 85-86; and Horsley, "Questions," 202-3.
There is a fair quantity of evidence for the precise character of these local governmental
structures in Egypt from the Ptolemaic period onwards, including recurring references to such
figures as the axiloypa
aEiSs and the KcoRap%rls(see, e.g., SEG 33.1359, as well as the
papyri cited below). The role of these figures seems at least in part to have involved direct
supervision of agricultural production, as well as forwarding villagers' petitions to higher
officials, and assisting them in various bureaucratic matters. They do not, however, appear to
have possessed much authority in their own right, even at a strictly local level: see Select
Papyri in Three Volumes (trans., Arthur S. Hunt and Campbell C. Edgar; Cambridge, MA:
HarvardUniversity Press,1932) 2.34-39,250-59,392-93
(nos.204,275-77,339).
Of course,
the vast majority of the evidence for this detailed picture of village life and particularly its
administrative features derives exclusively from Egypt. While it is to be expected that most
of the papyri evidence will derive from Egypt, one cannot be sure that Egyptian conditions
will match those elsewhere in the empire. In fact, the inscriptional evidence, which is more
evenly distributed geographically, shows few if any references to the figure of the
axiloypa
aEi5s outside of Egypt. That the Egyptian economy was under direct and central
management by the government, and the land intensively cultivated and controlled (a control
particularly manifested in the sale of monopolies), inclines one to suspect that the organization of village bureaucracies would differ somewhat from those in the rest of the Empire. The
autonomy, however, of the Galilean villages could only be significantly greater than those of
Egypt, and hence the need for local literati and leadership even greater. Whether or not these
figures were designated under the formal rubric of axiloypa
aevs
and/or acoRap%rls is
less important than the fact that some form of literate local leadership did exist.
46See Kloppenborg, "Literary Convention," 81-85.
47See Ronald A. Piper, "The Language of Violence and the Aphoristic Sayings in Q," in
Kloppenborg, Conflict and Invention, 53-72.
484
ubiquitoushostility between countryand town in Romanantiquity(and in

peasantculturesgenerally),48these individualswould hardlyidentifythemselves with such higher-level urbanretainersas the Pharisees and their
legal traditions,but ratherwould more plausiblyalign themselveswith the
peasantryor with local interestsover against the customarydepredations
(real or perceived)of the urbanelites.
Given the apparentlyrestricteddensityof such figures,49it is most likely
that the people responsiblefor transmittingthe Ql materialswere spread
over a networkof towns and villages.50The core of the Ql group,therefore, consisted of local administratorstravellingbetween towns to meet
with one another(or in the courseof theirofficial duties),perceivingentire
villages as "sympathetic"if their fellow village scribes were preparedto
adopttheir ethos and teaching.5lIt is in this situationthat the significance
of the mission speech may lie, referringless to itinerantradicalsthan to
quiteordinaryintercoursebetweenvillages with a specific programof ideological persuasionin mind.It is unlikely,given the complexityand breadth
of the social relationspresupposedin Ql, that the people responsiblefor
the documenthad alreadyformed themselvesinto a sectarianenclave, or
indeed anythinglike a communitywhich stood in oppositionto and as an
alternativeto the largerworld. As alreadynoted, advice is offeredon both
giving (6:30) and receiving (10:7); to an audienceof both rich (12:33-34;
16:13) and poor (6:20-21; 12:22-31), and to both creditors(6:34-35) and
borrowers(12:57-59). Thereis also a continuationof standardsocial relations: lawsuits (6:29; 12:57-59), forced labor (Matt/Q5:41), and conflicts
(6:29).
That Ql's ethos is "countercultural"
or "subversive"has become something of a commonplace.52
Normalrelationswithin the village standards
of reciprocity,honor, and shame are repudiated(6:27-29). Formallegal
structuresare criticizedand rejected(6:29; 12:57-59); normalstandardsof
happinessare inverted(6:20-21; 12:33-34); and people are encouragedto
48Onthis hostility generally, see Gideon Sjoberg, The Preindustrial City (New York: Free
Press, 1960) 68-69. For its more specific characteristics in Roman antiquity, see Ramsay
MacMullen, Roman Social Relations: 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1974) 30-41.
49See Select Papyri, 250-53, 392-93 (nos. 275, 339), in which reference is made to the
village scribe, clearly in the singular.
50Kloppenborg, "Literary Convention," 86.
51Kloppenborg ("Literary Convention," 90) points out that given the realities of village
xenophobia, strong kinship ties, patron-client relationships, and economic interdependence, it
is hardly likely that individual households could adopt loyalties at odds with those of the
village as a whole.
52See, among others, Cameron, "Response," 7; Mack, "Kingdom," 611, 613; Patterson,
The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 158-70, 196-241; and idem in Kloppenborg, Q-Thomas
Reader, 100-3; and Theissen, "Wandering Radicals," 37-40.
WILLIAM E. ARNAL
485
abandonhumanstructuresin favor of direct relianceon God'sbeneficence

(12:22-32). This criticaldimension,as well as the absenceof any reference
to the Temple,Torah,or otherredemptivemedia, and the focus insteadon
natureand on God's direct presence,suggest a rejectionor loss of confidence in the processesof culture,and particularlyof urbanculture.S3Apparently,these village scribes were attemptingto rectify what they saw as
unfairand unjustinterpersonalrelationsin theircommunities.The adoption
of Ql's carefullyarguedadvice would give priorityto the poor and miserable and level out distinctionsbased on status, honor, wealth, or legal
standing.
The most plausiblecontext in which to understandsuch a critical program is one in which economic changes have problematizedprecisely the
social relations under discussion. While our knowledge of first-century
Palestinianeconomics is fragmentaryand anecdotal,thereare nevertheless
some compellingindicationsthat the first centurywas a periodmarkedby
increasingdebt among smallholdersand consequentlyby increasingconcentrationof wealth in the handsof a small numberof urbanelites.54The
53Kloppenborg, "Literary Convention," 84, 88. Ronald A. Piper ("The Language of Violence and the Aphoristic Sayings in Q," 62, 66) claims that the extreme nature of Q's injunctions to avoid litigation seems likely to reflect a profound lack of confidence among the Q
people regarding the social and judicial institutions active in their sphere. Piper, however,
believes that this total loss of confidence is an indication that the people responsible for the
Q traditions are no longer in position as local administrators.
54Roman taxation is frequently blamed for this trend (or even cited as evidence for it).
There is, however, very little indication that the Roman tax burden was significantly more
onerous for the peasantry than the arrangements prior to Pompey's conquest. Both 1 Macc
10:29-32 and Josephus Ant. 13.48-50 report Seleucid tribute on the land to include one third
of grain products and one half of orchard produce. The Roman tribute does not seem to have
been substantially greater; Josephus tells us that tribute from Judea was fixed at one fourth of
produce sown, Hyrcanus's right to tithes was confirmed, and an exemption was placed on the
Sabbatical year (Ant. 14.202-9). If Josephus is to be trusted here, the arrangement appears
similar to the one prevailing under the Seleucids. Of course, there are indications, both in
Tacitus and in Josephus, that Roman tribute was felt to be burdensome. Tacitus (Annals 2.42
[trans. John Jackson; LCL; 5 vols.; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1968] 3.44851) writes that at about the time of Archelaus's deposition, "the provinces, too, of Syria and
Judaea, exhausted by their burdens, were pressing for a diminution of the tribute." In addition,
Josephus (Ant. 17.204-5) describes Archelaus's effort to curry favor with his new subjects,
and lists, among other demands made to him, the reduction of "yearly payments" and various
sales taxes. A somewhat less clear instance is offered in Ant. 17.308, in which a delegation to
Caesar opposing Archelaus's claims to the throne complains bitterly (and retrospectively) of
Herod the Great's vexing taxation practices. (In this latter instance, however, the complaints
have more to do with the idiosyncratic and irregular behavior of Herod himself than with the
amount of tribute normally expected either from Rome or as a result of various Temple dues;
further, the complaints clearly reflect those of an elite against the depredations of political
authority, rather than offering any indication of destitute agricultural producers driven below
subsistence by taxation; lastly, the charges are opportunistic and politically motivated.) The
486
largestbody of evidencefor this trendcomes from the gospels themselves,

which are replete with descriptionsof tenantfarmers,absenteelandlords,
and the supplicationsof insolvent debtors.55The Gospel of Thomasalso
witnesses to formidableand violent hostility between landlordsand tenants.56The difficulty, of course, is the circularityof such evidence: the
narrativeworld createdby the gospels themselvescan hardly be used to
explain the genesis of the traditionscomprisingthem.
Otherevidence,however,tendsto confirmthe veracityof the impression
created by the gospels. Predictably,the most telling literary witness is
Josephus,who recordsthe burningof the public archivesduringthe revolt
againstRome. Commentingexplicitly on the motives behindthis action,he
says:
They next carriedtheir combustiblesto the public archives,eager to
destroythe money-lenders'bondsand to preventthe recoveryof debts
(R0' a To zDp zt
\
Ta s51) otaza v
>
Ta apXza 0pOV aeavsat

Kal Tac tpattC
>
aaavtwoTcov
zD60VT(
,
axovovat
T@V %p@V), in order to win over a host a gratefuldebtors and to

cause a rising of the poor against the rich, sure of impunity.The
keepersof the RecordOffice having fled, they set light to the building.57
To a limited extent, Josephusinadvertentlyreveals a class basis underlying the revolt, and hence offers reasonablegroundsfor concludingthat
the situationin the decades precedingthe war was difficult, and probably
worsening,for those obligatedto take out loans.58Papyriand inscriptional
remains tend to confirm this inference. The wording of loan documents
from the period offers some indicationthat foreclosurewas a majormotivation behind lending.S9Exorbitantand punitive interestrates (the usual
penaltyfor late repaymentwas a fine of half the principal),clauses explicfact, however, that there is no evidence that taxation was numerically amplified under Roman
rule suggests that the rationale behind these complaints may have been nationalistic sentiment
or the ubiquitous (and understandable) desire for relief from these obligations, made expedient, in these instances, by political unrest.
55See, for example, Matt 6:12; 18:23-34; 20:1-15; Mark 12:1-11 pars.; Luke 12:16-20;
16:1-7; Gos. Thom.21.
56Most directly, and in narrative fashion, in logion 65, but implicitly elsewhere as well.
57Josephus Bell. 2.427.
58See Goodman, State and Society, 59.
59It should also be conceded that benefaction must also have been a motive, either from
outright altruism (which, as an individual psychological datum, cannot be measured historically or sociologically) or in order to facilitate clientage or simply in conformity with this
recognized social practice. Presumably loans were sought not out of a desire to lose one's
holdings, but out of desperate need. However much one is struck by the venality of the
practices under discussion, we should be careful not to slander the subjects of our inquiry by
confusing historical processes with individual intentions.
WILLIAM E. ARNAL
487
itly anticipatingexecution of the loan on the debtor'spropertyor person,

and records of complaintsabout overzealouslenders exacting repayment
unfairlyor above and beyond the terms stipulated,60all indicatethat usurious lending and subsequentforeclosure were preponderantsocial phenomena.This evidencealso shows thatthese phenomenawere problematic;
that they were regardedas, and actuallywere, causes of hardshipand conflict. The introductionof the proz:bul,attestedboth in rabbinicliterature,6l
and in an earlier(mid-first-century)
papyrus,62
demonstratesthatloans were
prevalentenough and economicallyimportantenough to warrantthe overridingof the injunctionsof Torah.Significantly,the mishnaicprozbullaws
apply only to loans in which land is offered as collateral.63In otherwords,
it is only agriculturalloans which are of sufficient economic import to
merit such provisions;other lending and borrowingis left to the wiles of
those involved.
As early as Ptolemaictimes, extremeconcentrationof agriculturalholdings appearsin an inscriptionwhich refersto whole villages as the property
of a single person.64Such huge holdings are presupposedmuch later in
Gos. Thom.64: "I have boughta village"(&EI TOOT t{OWKtO
hKH). The
exact proportionof freeholdingsto largerestates workedby tenantscannot
be determinedfor any one period in hellenistic and RomanPalestine,but
the drift in this generaldirectionthroughoutthe epoch is certain.One can,
however, postulatewith some confidence that such changes were making
themselvesfelt more dramaticallyand acutely than usual in Galilee during
the middle of the first century.Antipas'srebuildingof Sepphorisand his
foundationof Tiberiasin 19 CE show a precipitousrestructuring
of Galilean
60See, for example, Select Papyri,nos. 247, 259, 277, 279, 286-87 (172-73, 200-1, 25559,261-65,277-79);
William Linn Westermann, and Elizabeth Sayre Hasenoehrl, eds., Zenon
Papyri:BusinessPapersof the ThirdCenturyB.C. Dealing withPalestineand Egypt(2 vols.,
New York: Columbia University Press, 1934) 1. 134-43; 2. 83-86. Palestinian loan documents are among the papyri found at Murabba'at; see Pierre Benoit, Jozef T. Milik, and
Roland de Vaux, Discoveries in the JudaeanDesert II: Les Grottesde Murabba'at(Oxford:
Clarendon, 1961) 101-3 (for an Aramaic loan contract dated around 55-56 CE), 240-41 (for
a Greek loan contract dated around 171 CE).
6IThe relevant material is in m. Seb. 10.1-9 (Herbert Danby, TheMishnah[London: Oxford University Press, 1933] 50-51). See also m. Git. 3.3 (Danby, TheMishnah,311).
62Benoit (Discoveries in the JudaeanDesert, 101-3) cites an Aramaic loan contract from
about 55-56 CE; this text specifies that the debt will be repaid "even if it is the sabbatical
year."
63See m. Seb. 10.6.
64For the text of this inscription see Y. H. Landau, "A Greek Inscription Found Near
Hefzibah," IEJ 16 (1966) 54-70, esp.59-61 (lines 21-23): "I propose, if you approve, King, . . .
to Kleon and Heliodoros the blolKxal respecting the villages belonging to me as property
(xa vs[ap%]ovoa
FOt KoFa 7KT(S1) and hereditary tenure and respecting those
which you ordered to be assigned to me."
488
agriculturalproduction.JonathanReed notes the consequencesof the recent

establishmentof two such large centers of populationin a region which
formerlyhad no significantcities in near proximity:
The impactof so manypeople in Sepphorisand Tiberiason the entire
Galilee, especially when they are viewed as consumercities, must be
takenseriously.Aftertheirfoundingas majorcentersby HerodAntipas,
the agriculturalpracticesof the Galilee were not only completelyrealigned, but were also stretched.Lower Galilee could no longer be
consideredas a series of villages, hamlets,and farms.The entireagriculturalfocus turnedto feeding SepphorisandTiberias. . . now entrepreneurialfarmersand landowners,who grew a single cash crop on a
largerscale for the granariesat Sepphoris,becamenecessary.65
In other words,the very existence of two large new cities in the Galilee
implies a relativelysuddenreorganizationof agriculturalproductionalong
the lines of the trend detectedbroadlythroughoutthe empire duringthis
period, that is, the reductionof small freeholdersto tenantson largerestates.66The socially problematiccharacterof this trend is evidenced in
various symptoms of communal disintegrationadduced from Josephus,
particularlybanditryand desultoryexpressionsof class antagonism.
The existence of substantialamountsof debt (whetherbecauseof taxation or the mereavailabilityof moneyfor loans67)and the generalevidence
that this debt was used to concentratelandholdingsand thereby reduce
originally freeholdingpeasantsto tenancy combine with the existence of
these two newly68significantcities in Galilee to present a picture which
confirmsthe evidenceof the gospels themselves.This picturealso confirms
the inferencesfrom Josephus'saccountof the burningof the recordoffice
in Jerusalemthatdebt and tenancywere relatedand significantsocial problems in the historicalcontext in which the early Jesus traditionsarose. The
attentionpaid in Q1 to law courts and to debt most stronglysuggests that
at least one impetusfor Ql's "radical"tone was this increasingconcentration of agriculturalland in the handsof wealthycreditors.69
These changes
65JonathanL. Reed, "Population Numbers, Urbanization, and Economics: Galilean Archaeology and the Historical Jesus," SBLASP (1994) 203-19, esp. 214-15.
66See also Sean Freyne, "Galilean Questions to Crossan's Mediterranean Jesus" (Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, Ottawa, Canada,
June 1993) 19-21.
67SoMartin Goodman, "The First Jewish Revolt: Social Conflict and the Problem of Debt,"
JJS 33 (1982) 419-27.
68Sepphoris was rebuilt after its destruction by Varus in 9 CE. The refounding of the city
(by Herodian loyalists) was no doubt accomplished at the expense of the villages within its
immediate orbit.
69Onthis concentration of land ownership as an issue pertinent to the study of the earliest
Jesus tradition, see especially David A. Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian
WILLIAM E. ARNAL
489
were perceivedto disruptnormalpatternsof village life, and almost certainly fostered the concernof the Q tradentswith the destitute(Xt6l)to{),
and with anxiety over such basic necessities as food, clothing (Q 12:2232), and shelter (Q 9:57).
The Earliest Layer of Thomas: The situationfor the earliest layer of
the Gospel of Thomasis quite similar, if more obscure.70The comments
made above on the setting of Q1 are relevant here as well. Even more
explicitly thanin Q1, the city is singled out for trenchantcriticism.7lAs in
Q, there are numeroususes of naturaland agriculturalimagery;that these
would be comprehensibleto the readeris taken for granted.Also like Ql,
the tradentsare obviously literateand have assembleda wisdom document
with a consistent and coherentset of forms. There is, however, less evidence of deliberativereasoningor structuredargumentsin the Gospel of
Thomas'searliermaterial.Althoughthe evidence is far from unambiguous,
the Gospel of Thomasseems to reflect a lower-level scribalgroup,moderately educatedbut with little literarysophistication.As is the case with Q1,
the Gospel of Thomaslikewise shows an overridingand repetitiveconcern
Period: TheLandis Mine(Lewiston: Mellen, 1991); Sean Freyne, "Galilean Questions," 1921; Gildas Hamel, Povertyand Charityin RomanPalestine, First ThreeCenturiesC.E. (Berkeley: University of California Press,1990) 159-60. Fiensy (p.178) describes the consequences
of this trend thus: "Such a movement in land ownership must have cost many peasants their
farm plots. The result was a class of tenant farmers and day laborers who barely stayed at the
subsistence level in the best of times. The peasants who were able to hold on to their patrimony
were undoubtedly burdened under taxation, farm plots that were too small, and simply the
vicissitudes of life in the ancient Mediterranean world." Hamel (p. 156-58) convincingly
argues, however, that that concentration of holdings would have made little practical difference to first-century peasants; he suggests that while the existence of debt facilitated optimal
extraction of surplus regardless of actual ownership, foreclosure itself would have involved
little more than a change of title. In any case, regardless of any actual physical hardship
implied by foreclosure, Hamel (p. 158) admits that the entire system was socially disruptive,
"This onerous system of debts and the great luxury of rich landowning families in Jerusalem
may have been one major factor leading to the Jewish War and the fall of the Temple. Reasons
other than simply economic factors may also have been at work: perhaps a deep-seated bitterness about the way in which some members of the religious hierarchy manipulated their
traditional religious authority and seemed to abandon revered customs."
70By way of establishing the comparability of the Gospelof Thomas'ssetting with that of
Q, it is important to note that the document is to be dated, like Q, sometime in the latter half
of the first century. See, for example, Cameron, OtherGospels, 25; Stevan L. Davies, The
Gospelof Thomasand ChristianWisdom(New York: Seabury, 1983) 16; Koester, "Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels," HTR73 (1980) 116-19; and Patterson, Gospel of Thomasand
Jesus, 120. Although normally thought of in terms of a Syrian provenance, Patterson (Gospel
of Thomasand Jesus, 113-20) argues that an earlier version of the Gospelof Thomasmay be
associated with the environs of Jerusalem, given its ascription of such high status to James in
logion 12.
7ISee Gos. Thom.78; also note the tendency to "urbanize" the villains in logia 63-65,
although it is difficult to determine to what stage this tendency belongs.
490
with, and awarenessof, debt and legal issues (particularlyinvolving land).

These concernsmore clearly link the document'stradentswith the village
scribesandpublicclerks who were responsiblefor recordingpreciselysuch
matters.72Once again, the clear alignmentof the documentwith local interests over againstthose of the city and its elite more plausiblysuggests
a village or town setting than a largerurbancontext.73
As for the type of organizationthese individualsdevelopedamongthemselves, the repeatedconcernwith the disciples, the advocacyof a distinct
ethos and self-understanding,
and the kingdomall point to an orientation
towardan in-group.74Althoughone must admitthat the evidence is hardly
as solid as in the case of Ql, one can find indicationsthata largeraudience
is neverthelessin mind. Logion 3 refers to "yourleaders,"logion 14 assumes travel and contact with diverse outsiders,sayings such as logia 16
and22 imaginecontactwith functionalfamilies.The absenceof any clearer
evidence of a socially complex audience,combinedwith specific injunctions to avoid contactwith the world (for example,logion 42) suggest that
the Gospel of Thomaspeople are not nearly as engaged with their social
contextas are the people of Ql. While such statementsas "A personcannot
mount two horses or bend two bows" (Gos. Thom.47) suggest a much
greaterdegree of withdrawalfrom the everydaylargerworld than appears
in Ql, it is also clear that the basis of this distancinginvolves the assimilation of a particularethos, knowledge,and self-understanding
morethanit
does actualmembershipin a clearly definedgroup.The Gospel of Thomas
pays little attentionto elements of group interaction;this featureprompts
Pattersonto concludethat a "community"is not in view for the Gospel of
Thomasat all.75The Gospel of Thomastradentsdo not engage in much
organizationor contactamongthemselves;at the same time they attemptto
transmitan ethos of wise if countercultural-behaviorandperception,and
set themselvesapartfrom the rest of the world on the basis of this ethos.
72On the role of the village scribe, see Goodman, State and Society, s9.
73Note also that the Gospel of Thomas is even less inclined to idealize the countryside than
is Q. Both layers of the Gospel of Thomas go beyond a shared interest with Ql in legal matters
to an explicit preoccupation with violence and criminality (logia 16, 21, 32, 35, s7, 65, 98,
103). This reflects a clear awareness of the actual state of affairs in ruralsettings. See MacMullen,
Roman Social Relations, 1-12.
74So also Davies, Christian Wisdom, 117.Bruce Lincoln ("Thomas-Gospel and ThomasCommunity: A New Approach to a Familiar Text," NovT 19[1977]
65-76) argues that this
group is stratified according to the level of spiritual initiation they have attained, and that
different sayings in the gospel are directed to the different levels within this in-group. The
evidence for the existence of any organized group behind the Gospel of Thomas, however, and
especially of any group organized along the particular lines laid out by Lincoln, is scant.
75Patterson (Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 124-25) is explicitly against the assumption
made by Lincoln and King that there is a "cohesive group living in community together"
behind the Gospel of Thomas.
Wl LLIAM E. ARNAL
491
StephenPattersonhas drawnattentionto the countercultural

characterof
the Gospel of Thomas'stheology underthe rubricof "social radicalism."76
As in Ql, alienationand marginalitymarkthe stance of this grouptoward
the social order. The Gospel of Thomas'smarginalitystands out in its
apparentfailureto engage the outside world seriously.The same inversion
of worldlyvalues seen in Ql is apparentin the Gospelof Thomas'scritique
of wealth (logion 65); blessings on the poor, hungry,and hated (logia 54,
68-69); and exhortationsto lend withoutexpectationof return(logion 95).
The urbanredemptivemediaare likewiserejected,as is any kindof nomistic
piety (logia 6, 53), and the Phariseesare singled out for direct criticism
(logion 39). Like Ql, the Gospel of Thomasappearsto react to a situation
in which the intensificationof the ruralpoor'sexploitationand dispossession throughheavy taxationand consequentindebtednessto the urbanrich
is a primaryconcern. Indeed, in the Gospel of Thomasthe criticism of
wealth and political power is much more overt; logia 63-65, 78, and 81
reflectthis concernexplicitly. The Gospelof Thomastargetsrents,tenancy,
andintereston debtsfor directcriticismin logia 63-65, and95. The Gospel
of Thomaseven goes so far as to identify "social bandits"as protagonists,
as in the case of the tenantswho kill a landlord'sheir (logion 65) and an
assassin who kills a magnate(logion 98).77 Very much like Ql, then, the
Gospel of Thomasseems to adopt its counterculturalposition in response
to the increasingexploitationof the countrysideby the urbanwealthy, an
intensificationof the marketreflectedin and necessitatedby Antipas'srecent establishmentof Tiberiasand Sepphorisas administrativecenters.
In summary,the Gospel of Thomasand Q share the following social
features:literacy and a scribal mentality,a probablesetting in village or
town life, a group organizationthat did not entirely withdrawfrom the
largerworld of which it constituteda part, and a groupmentalitycharacterizedmore than anythingelse by the adoptionof a particularunderstanding of the world and a correspondingethic. Moreover,both documents
were composedin a contextin which increasedexploitationof the country76Particularly inKloppenborg, Q-ThomasReader,100-3; Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 158-70, 196-241; idem "Wisdom in Q and Thomas,"in Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott, and William J. Wiseman, eds., In Searchof Wisdom:Essays in Memory
of John G. Gammie(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993) 187-221.
77Thatis, a person of rank or distinction, rather than simply a physically strong man. The
term used to describe the assassination victim is OTpWAC ASECICT&NOC,
usually
translated as "a powerful man." But elsewhere when the Gospelof Thomaswishes to indicate
a strong man it uses the perfectly serviceable ?C@XpE. In Gos. Thom.78, moreover,
ACUICT&NOC
is juxtaposed with
Notably, it is only in the earliest layer of the
Gospel of Thomasthat criminals are protagonists; at the later stage, for example, the image
of the housebreaker is inverted, and the reader is encouraged to identify with the person
defending their house (logia 21, 103), rather than the one breaching it (logia 35; compare 98).
-FP-
492
side and peasantryby the urbanelites contributedto considerablesocial

disintegrationand economic distress(such as debt, dispossession,tenancy,
impoverishment,and hunger).Both groupsrespondto this crisis by adopting a highly criticalstancetowardordinarysocial conventionsand political
structures,a critiqueof wealth,an inversionof normalvalues, and a rejection or critiqueof urban-basedreligious institutions.78
I think these commonfeaturesaccountfor the Gospel of Thomas'sand
Q's similaritiesmore thantheir mere recourseto similarsources.Theiruse
of a commongenre reflects both the scribalbackgroundof the documents'
tradentsand their concern with the assimilationof an ethos over other
types of group identity. The presence of similar theological motifs the
Kingdomas inversionaryof accepted standards;the emphasison radical
behavior;the critique, implicit or explicit, of mainstreamJewish expressions of piety; the emphasison God'sbeneficenceover againstthe maleficence of political and social structures can be explainedon the basis of
these groups'responseto very similarconflict-riddensituations.Each recommendsa slightly different response, but both contain common motifs
that derive from a sharedcritical stance towardthe distressingsocioeconomic changes perceived to be taking place. This social and ideological
commongroundalso helps to accountfor the appearanceof parallelmaterial in the works. It is easier to imagine the two groups sharinga large
vault of commonoral tradition;their commonsocial locations would have
fostered not only the actual physical contact necessaryfor such transmission, but also the commonideological and symbolic comprehensibilityof
the other'straditions.
W LaterDevelopments:Apocalypticismand Gnosticism
In spite of all these commonalities,Q and the Gospel of Thomasdivergedconsiderablyat the later stages of their development;the Gospel of
Thomasfollowed a gnostic route and Q2 added materialof a markedly
polemicalcharacterwhich employedapocalypticand/orpropheticidiom as
partof its message of judgmentagainst"this generation."The lack of any
strongsectariandevelopmentat the early stages makes their movementin
these separatedirections,underthe sway of a rich arrayof varyingcultural
influences,hardlysurprising.Strikingly,Gnosticismandapocalypticismare
not particularlydistinctin theirsocial characteristics.79
Both typicallychar78In support of these general observations see Horsley, "Questions," 191, 196-98; King,
"Kingdom," 52-53; John Kloppenborg, "Symbolic Eschatology and the Apocalypticism of
Q," HTR 80 (1987) 293,299; idem, "City and Wasteland: Narrative World and the Beginnings
of the Sayings Gospel (Q)," Semeia 52 (1990) 152 and throughout; Koester, "Jesus the Victim," 9-10; idem, Ancient Christian Gospels, 127, 160; Mack, "Kingdom That Didn't Come,"
612; and Theissen, "We Have Left Everything," 60, 91-93.
79This point is made repeatedly with respect to wisdom and apocalyptic tendencies. See
Horsley, "Questions," 191; idem, Sociology, 110; King, "Kingdom," 78; and, most strikingly,
WILLIAM E. ARNAL
493
acterizeliterateand well-educatedgroups.80Both theologicalconstructions

foster a strong sense of communityidentity, group definition, and social
cohesiveness,especiallyfor marginalpersons.81In the documents'rejection
of the value of the world as it stands and in their predictionsof better
states to come, both are convenientvehicles for socially marginalor critical stances.82In summary,both types of theology serve to raise the stakes
and provide cosmic legitimationto precisely the kind of groups encountered in Q and the Gospel of Thomas.By way of confirmingthese claims,
it is notablethatboth documentssharecertainmotifs which are secondary
developments,andthus hardlycan be explainedin termsof literaryconnections between formativeversions of the writings.Strikingin this regardis
the developmentof concern with personifiedWisdom, with whose voice
Jesus speaks in secondarymaterialin both writings,83and about whom
mythologicalspeculationsare offered.84Sucha motif servesto groundJesus'
authorityand the validity of his message in supermundanedivine reality,
and to rationalizethe marginalityof the two groupsby setting their message and ethos in the mythologicalcontext of the fruitless appealof Wisdom to a recalcitrantaudience.85The independentdevelopmentof this
common motif within the different frameworksof apocalypticism and
Gnosticismthus stronglybolstersthe claim that these two systems support
similar perspectivesand reflect similar situations.
On the otherhand,the differencesin the choice of legitimatingtheological constructscan be partlyexplainedby differencesbetweenthe two groups
JonathanZ. Smith,"WisdomandApocalyptic,"in PaulD. Hanson,ed., Visionaries and Their
Apocalypses (Philadelphia:Fortress,1983) 101-20. Gnosticism,as yet anotherdevelopment
out of the wisdom traditionis likewise socially comparablewith apocalypticism.Indeed,
Smith ("WisdomandApocalyptic,"116) claims thatGnosticismwas impelledby a "radical
interiorization"of apocalypticideology. See KurtRudolph,Gnosis: The Nature and History
of Gnosticism (SanFrancisco:Harper& Row,1987) 277-81. Rudolphrelatesgnostictheology
to both the Jewish wisdomtraditionand Jewish apocalypticism.
80Seethe commentson the intellectualcharacterof Q, the Gospel of Thomas, andgnostic,
apocalyptic,andwisdomtraditionsin Horsley,"Questions,"
191;Theissen,"Wandering
Radicals,"
57 n. 69; Kloppenborg,Formation of Q, 319-20; Mack,"KingdomThatDidn'tCome,"616;
Rudolph,Gnosis, 292; Stevan L. Davies, "TheChristologyand Protologyof the Gospel of
Thomas," JBL 111 (1992) 665, 682. Note that both Q and Thomas seem to have developed
increasingintellectualsophistication.
8See King, "Kingdom,"75-78; Kloppenborg,"SymbolicEschatology,"305-6; Mack,
"KingdomThatDidn'tCome,"617, 624, 626; Patterson,Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 202,
204-5; Rudolph,Gnosis, 291; Theissen, "WanderingRadicals";and idem, "We Have Left
Everything,"93.
82SeeKing, "Kingdom,"62, 69-71; Kloppenborg,"SymbolicEschatology,"305; Koester,
"Jesusthe Victim,"9; and Patterson,Gospel of Thomas and Jesus, 200.
83See,for example,Gos. Thom. 17, 23, 28, 77; Q 13:34-35.
84Gos. Thom. lOlb, 105; Q 11:49-51.
85Seeesp. Q 13:34-35 andGos. Thom. 28; logion 23 also uses a wisdom-basedelitism to
rationalizethe group'smarginality.
494
that were already apparentat the compositionallevels. The Gospel of

Thomas's early lack of interestin engaging the outside world86probably
helped to reinforcea later proclivitytowarda gnostic view, with its strong
emphasis on withdrawaland asceticism.87In addition,Q's comparatively
strongeremphasison communityformation88
doubtlesslyinclinedthe group
toward a more sectarian type of development, one better fostered by
apocalypticismthan by the more individualisticgnostic theology. Q's subsequenthistoryseems to have been characterizedby muchharsherconflict
with outsidersthanthe Gospel of Thomas's. Unlike the Gospel of Thomas,
Q gives evidenceof directconflict with Phariseesand otherurbanretainers
(Q 11:39-52),89as well as with entire of villages of "unrepentant"
outsiders (Q 10:13-15). The apocalypticidiom of judgmentis a convenientvehicle for expressingpolemic againstsuch opponents,and it is precisely in
this fashion that it is used by Q2.
W Conclusions
Thereare grounds,then, for comparingthe Gospel of Thomas and Q on
the basis of theirsocial characteristicsratherthantheirliteraryor theological features.Both documentscan be seen as the productsof similargroups
reactingto similar situations.It is hardlysurprisingthat the two writings
wouldconsequentlyevince so manyliteraryaffinities.These literaryaffinities, therefore,can be understoodas a datumto be explained,not as objects
of interestin and of themselves.If it turnedout that the Gospel of Thomas
and Q are in fact dependenton some common documentarysource, the
suggestionsoffered here are neverthelessnot without value; they help to
indicate why the two groups would both employ the materialfrom this
commonsource and why they would subsequentlydivergein their respective theological interests.Merely citing the existence of such a common
source does not explain these things. The rhetoricof Q and the Gospel of
Thomas, their form, their style of argumentation,
their guiding theological
paradigms indeed,theirconstructionas Christiansayingsgospels reflects
less their slavish appropriationof the forms of their predecessorsthan it
does the suitabilityof those forms as vehicles for their socially critical
message.
86As argued above, pp. 489-91.
87See esp. Gos. Thom. 27-28, 56, 80, 87, 110, 112.
88See Kloppenborg, "Literary Convention," 90-91: "At this formative stage, the Q people
evince some of the characteristics of liminal situations that produce communitas: the fictive
use of family language (Q 6:41-42; 17:3) and the corresponding devaluation of ordinary
kinship ties (14:26), and the use of inversionary language....
At this stage an alternate
community has coalesced but social boundaries are as yet quite weak." See also Burton L.
Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San Francisco: Harper, 1993)
120-30.
89See the much milder rebuke in Gos. Thom. 39.

Cambridge University Press Harvard Divinity School

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Cambridge University Press Harvard Divinity School

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cambridge University Press Harvard Divinity School

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harvard Divinity School

The Rhetoric of Marginality: Apocalypticism, Gnosticism, and Sayings Gospels

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

and a surprisinglack of interestin the deathand resurrectionof Jesus.4As

ity and developmentis fully recognizedin Q's composition,then the same

HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW

ship needs to be determined.Do social settings actually encouragethe

Gospel of Thomas.Thus the confidenceshown in assigningmaterialto Q1,

HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW

not broughttogetherat the same time. Of course, such a propertywould

those pertinentto specifically "religious"issues (Gos. Thom.3, 6, 14, 89).

HARVARD THEOLOG ICAL REVIEW

coherentredaction,evincing the same stylistic and thematiccharacteristics,

material world; and references to "light,"30and to drinkingfrom Jesus'

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

formed by analogy to sayings in the sapientiallayer (logion 55). These

other hand,are readilyexplicablein termsof the development,at the later

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

pronouncedblessed by Ql is voluntary,especially as it is accompaniedby

referenceswhatsoeverto largerurbancenters(suchas Sepphorisor Tiberias)

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

ubiquitoushostility between countryand town in Romanantiquity(and in

abandonhumanstructuresin favor of direct relianceon God'sbeneficence

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

largestbody of evidencefor this trendcomes from the gospels themselves,

Ta apXza 0pOV aeavsat

T@V %p@V), in order to win over a host a gratefuldebtors and to

itly anticipatingexecution of the loan on the debtor'spropertyor person,

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

agriculturalproduction.JonathanReed notes the consequencesof the recent

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

with, and awarenessof, debt and legal issues (particularlyinvolving land).

StephenPattersonhas drawnattentionto the countercultural

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

side and peasantryby the urbanelites contributedto considerablesocial

acterizeliterateand well-educatedgroups.80Both theologicalconstructions

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

that were already apparentat the compositionallevels. The Gospel of

You might also like