early christianities and the synoptic eclipse 323

EARLY CHRISTIANITIES AND THE SYNOPTIC ECLIPSE:

PROBLEMS IN SITUATING THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS

TOM THATCHER
Cincinnati Bible College and Seminary

Helmut Koester and Stephen J. Patterson have referred to the

Nag Hammadi library as “the single most important archaeologi-
cal find of the 20th century for the study of the New Testament.”1
While this assessment is perhaps too generous, it is certainly true
that one Nag Hammadi manuscript, the Gospel of Thomas, has
had an enormous impact on contemporary study of the historical
Jesus. The Jesus Seminar, for example, has elevated Gos. Thom.
to the status of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by including it in
The Five Gospels. The Seminar found two sayings peculiar to Gos.
Thom., 97 and 98, to be “probable” sayings of Jesus even though
they do not appear in the canonical Gospels.2 The possibility that
Gos. Thom. may contribute to the data pool of authentic Jesus
sayings has generated considerable controversy since its publica-
tion in the late 1950s.
Many scholars have concluded that Gos. Thom. is a Gnostic
reworking of canonical materials and therefore useful only in
studies of Church history. A notable early advocate of this position
was Robert M. Grant. In his 1960 The Secret Sayings of Jesus, which
included a full translation of and commentary on Gos. Thom.,
Grant argued that all noncanonical gospels were sectarian
reinterpretations of canonical materials rather than independent
witnesses to the Jesus tradition.3 Parallels between Gos. Thom. and
the New Testament suggest only that “Thomas made use of our own
gospels, selecting what he liked.”4 Thomas’ “use” of these gospels
included efforts to conform the canonical Jesus to Gnostic

1 Helmut Koester and Stephen J. Patterson, “The Gospel of Thomas: Does It

Contain Authentic Sayings of Jesus?,” BibRev 6 (1990), p. 30.

2 Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels:

The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: MacMillan, 1993), pp. 523-
25. A key to the color ratings may be found on p. 36.
3 Robert M. Grant with David Noel Freedman, The Secret Sayings of Jesus

(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1960), pp. 32-35.

4 Grant, Secret Sayings, pp. 107-108, emphasis added.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1999 Biblical Interpretation 7, 3

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 323 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 324 tom thatcher

theology, making the entire document obviously secondary. Grant

therefore explained that Gos. Thom. represents “our most
significant witness to the early perversion of Christianity by those
who wanted to create Jesus in their own image.”5 While Gos.
Thom. may have originally been a harmony of canonical Jesus
sayings, the present edition is little more than a pastiche of Gnostic
prooftexts.6
Raymond Brown expressed similar sentiments in a 1962 article,
which sought to determine “whether John [the Fourth Gospel] was
a source for GTh” by analyzing fifty-four possible parallels.7 This
investigation did not disappoint Brown’s premonition “that GTh
is the later work.”8 A number of “parallels” may be understood as
Thomas’ attempt to harmonize synoptic and Johannine sayings
and themes.9 Brown concluded that Gos. Thom. was, in fact, doub-
ly secondary, utilizing a source based on John which already
demonstrated Gnostic tendencies.10 Without further discussion,
Brown reiterated these sentiments four years later in his Anchor
Bible commentary on the Fourth Gospel: “If there is any de-
pendence of one on the other [Gos. Thom. and John], it is quite
indirect, and the direction of dependence would be Thomas on
John.”11 Once again, Gos. Thom. was treated primarily as a witness
5 Grant, Secret Sayings, p. 20. In a later study, Grant offered a less polemical

formulation of his view, stating that “there is no reason to suppose that any
passage in Thomas … provides an earlier or more reliable version of any saying
of Jesus” (A Historical Introduction to the New Testament [New York: Harper & Row,
1963], p. 167). This is Grant’s verdict on the entire apocryphal corpus. The
Gospel of Peter, for example, is a secondary harmonization of the canonical
accounts, making it “absolutely worthless for trying to recover genuine materials
concerning the words and deeds of Jesus” (Secret Sayings, p. 46). Likewise, the
“Unknown Gospel” of Pap. Eg. 2 is “simply a fictitious rewriting of [canonical]
gospel materials” (Secret Sayings, p. 56).
6 Grant, Secret Sayings, p. 116. In an earlier article, Grant associated Gos.

Thom. particularly with the thought and editorial practices of the Naassenes
(“Notes on the Gospel of Thomas,” VC 13 [1959], pp. 173-76, 179).
7 Raymond Brown, “The Gospel of Thomas and St John’s Gospel,” NTS 9

(1963), p. 177.
8 Brown, “Gospel of Thomas”, p. 157.
9 See Brown, “Gospel of Thomas” pp. 164-65, 171. Brown further concluded

that Gos. Thom. 17 is not an independent citation of Isa. 64:4 but rather a
combination of 1 Cor. 2:9 and 1 John 1:1, making Gos. Thom. aware of and
secondary to the Pauline tradition as well (p. 163).
10 “Personally, we [Brown] are inclined to believe that the Johannine elements

came into the source [Gos. Thom.] not from any contact with John itself, but
from an intermediary which made use of John” (Brown, “Gospel of Thomas”, p.
177).
11 Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB; Garden City, NY: Double-

day, 1966), vol. 1, p. liii. More recently, however, Brown has become open to the

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 324 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 early christianities and the synoptic eclipse 325

to early Gnosticism rather than as a witness to primitive Jesus

tradition.
Even at this early stage of inquiry, however, both Grant and
Brown were aware of a chink in the armor of their conclusions.
Hidden in a footnote is Brown’s admission of the “remote
possibility” that affinities between Gos. Thom. and John might
represent Thomas’ use of an independent sayings source. While
this seemed “a rather far-fetched solution,” it was rational enough
to compel Brown to close his article with the disclaimer that his
conclusion was “only one possible interpretation of the evidence.”12
Grant admits at several points that Gos. Thom. might be based
on independent oral traditions, perhaps even the same traditions
utilized by the canonical Evangelists. Such sources had, however,
become “rather garbled” by the time Thomas acquired them.13
Much more revealing is Grant’s frank admission that any decision
about Gos. Thom. depends on one’s view of the place of the
canonical Gospels in historical research. “The ultimate issue is
both historical and theological … [E]ven if some of the Gnostic
materials should seem to be thoroughly trustworthy, they can be
accepted by the Church only with the greatest caution,” because
the Thomas sect “did not stand within the [orthodox] Christian
community.”14 In Grant’s mind, the test of orthodoxy justified a
working presupposition that the canonical Gospels must be
primary and Gos. Thom. must be secondary.
In the last three decades, however, the canonical Gospels have
lost the pride of place represented in the early work of Grant and
Brown. Helmut Koester has been a significant figure in this
paradigm shift. In discussing Gos. Thom., Koester insists that
research must first establish “the relationship of its [Gos. Thom.’s]
sayings to the sayings of the canonical gospels and their sources”
before reflecting on Thomas’ relationship to Gnosticism.15 Similari-

possibility that Gos. Thom. occasionally preserves a more primitive reading than
the canonical Gospels; see The Death of the Messiah (AB Reference Library; New
York: Doubleday, 1994), vol. 1, p. 924.
12 Brown, “Gospel of Thomas,” p. 174 n. 5 and p. 177.
13 Grant, Secret Sayings, pp. 30, 108; Historical Introduction, p. 170.
14 Grant, Secret Sayings, p. 92. In Historical Introduction: “Since the norms for

determining authenticity must lie in the canonical gospels, it is hard to see what
contribution apocryphal gospels could make even if some of the materials in
them should be judged genuine” (p. 170).
15 Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development

(Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990), p. 84.

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 325 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 326 tom thatcher

ties with the canonical Gospels and their sources have led Koester
to a very positive assessment of several noncanonical gospels. Some
of these writings “are perhaps at least as old and as valuable as
the canonical Gospels as sources for the earliest developments of
the traditions about Jesus.”16 In particular, Gos. Thom. at times
reflects the most primitive stages of the Jesus tradition: “much of
the material in the Gospel of Thomas … was probably written
within ten or twenty years of Jesus’ death.”17 Further, Gos. Thom.
does not, in Koester’s mind, represent a late, Gnostic revision of
this tradition, but rather expresses possibly “the oldest and most
nearly original understanding of Jesus.”18 This perspective allows
Koester to reverse the earlier procedure of Grant and Brown,
giving pride of place to Thomasine sayings because these “derive
from an earlier stage of the tradition” than their synoptic counter-
parts.19
The recent reassessment of Gos. Thom. by Koester and others
derives from a comprehensive vision of the evolution of the Jesus
tradition and of “gospels.” This vision is supported by the research
tools of Form Criticism. Without specifically critiquing Koester’s
conclusions, this essay will examine the value of standard form-
critical methods to the study of noncanonical Gospels. It will be
argued here that the traditional tools of New Testament Form
Criticism do not necessarily apply to noncanonical documents be-
cause these tools were derived from internal analysis of the Synop-
tic Gospels. Such a study will demonstrate the validity of Grant’s
observation that “when we consider the question of the origin of
the … Gospel of Thomas, our conclusions are likely to be in-
fluenced by the method we choose to employ.”20

The “Gospel” Genre and the Gospel of Thomas

Koester’s overall project is conveniently illustrated by a quote
from his 1980 article “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels.” There

16 Helmut Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels” HTR 73 (1980), p.

130. The apocryphal materials Koester has in mind here are Q, Dial. Sav., Ap.
Jas., Gos. Thom., and Gos. Pet.
17 Koester and Patterson, “Authentic Sayings,” p. 37.
18 Koester and Patterson, “Authentic Sayings,” p. 38.
19 Helmut Koester, “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels,” in James M.

Robinson and Helmut Koester (eds.), Trajectories Through Early Christianity (Phila-
delphia: Fortress Press, 1971), p. 176. This article originally appeared in HTR 61
(1968), pp. 203-47.
20 Grant, “Notes on Gos. Thom.”, p. 170.

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 326 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 early christianities and the synoptic eclipse 327

he argues that several noncanonical gospels “are perhaps at least

as old and as valuable as the canonical gospels as sources for the
earliest developments of the traditions about Jesus.”21 Two related
interests are indicated here. First, “as old” indicates Koester’s in-
tention to revisit the dating of the materials included in
noncanonical gospels, and, more broadly, to revise the notion that
a later date automatically places a work at a greater distance from
Jesus. Second, “as valuable” in the quote above indicates Koester’s
intention to demonstrate that several noncanonical gospels should
be reevaluated as important witnesses to the early Jesus tradition.22
Among these noncanonical witnesses, Koester has given con-
siderable attention to the Gospel of Thomas. Koester believes that
Gos. Thom. belongs “to a very early stage in the development of
gospel literature,” and therefore warrants serious reconsideration
as a witness to the Jesus tradition.23
Before proceeding, however, to analyze his discussion of Gos.
Thom., it will be necessary to specify the value of the term “Gospel
literature” in Koester’s vocabulary, and to review the means by
which he proposes to study such literature. The primary tools of
Koester’s research fall under the broad heading of “Form
Criticism.” In an early article, Koester notes that “form criticism
seeks to identify basic patterns in the history of the tradition and
to determine their Sitz im Leben, that is to determine the function
of traditional material in the life of people and communities.”24
Since these communities were Christian, Form Criticism is in-
herently concerned with “the history of early Christian theology.”
To write this history, one must ask two sets of questions. First,
we have to look for those basic christological insights of the early Christian
community which controlled the formation and transmission of the gospel
tradition in each of the various sources. Furthermore, we have to ask how
the earthly Jesus is reflected not only in the transmitted material but also in the
christological presuppositions which governed its formation, composition, and
interpretation.25

21 Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical,” p. 130, emphasis added.

22 Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical,” p. 110. Koester validates both
projects by arguing that early external witnesses to the existing documents “do
not support a distinction between canonical and apocryphal gospels”
(“Apocryphal and Canonical,” p. 107; see also Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 77).
23 Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical,” p. 112. It should be stressed that

Koester does not intend to use the conclusions of such research to discover
information about the historical Jesus (“One Jesus,” p. 160; Ancient Christian
Gospels, p. 50).
24 Koester, “One Jesus,” pp. 159-60.
25 Koester, “One Jesus,” p. 161, emphasis added.

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 327 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 328 tom thatcher

This approach is relevant both to canonical and noncanonical doc-

uments.
Because it focuses on the “theological” and “christological” as-
pects of documents, the form-critical approach to oral tradition
may be broadly described as “ideological.” The “ideological
approach” to oral literature defines and analyzes texts primarily
by their ideological substructure, treating formal features of the
surface text as products of this ideology.26 This aspect of NT Form
Criticism is evident in Koester’s contention that the “formation,
composition, and interpretation” of oral Gospel materials were
“governed” by “christological presuppositions.” Since “Christology”
is manifestly an aspect of the tradition users’ ideology, analysis
which focuses on such presuppositions may be described as
“ideological.”
From a form-critical perspective, however, “ideology” cannot be
limited to a document’s theology. In the foundational years of NT
Form Criticism, Martin Dibelius noted that “the style which it is
our part to observe [in written gospels] is ‘a sociological result.’”27
Rudolf Bultmann agreed that “form” is “a sociological concept and
not an aesthetic one.”28 Koester has more recently observed that
the literary form of several pre-canonical documents (such as Q)
“has been determined by theological and sociological motifs of a
very different character” from those underlying the canonical
Gospels.29 The ideological factors with which Form Criticism is
concerned would include, then, sociological issues, as one’s
ideology is conditioned (perhaps created) by social experience.
Since surface texts are the result of theological and sociological
processes, certain aspects of “style” must also be considered
“ideological.” “Ideological” criteria for the analysis of oral-based
texts thus include the tradition user’s theology, political theory,
economic theory, social theory, philosophy of history, and theory
of “style” as these intertwine to form a comprehensive worldview.
Koester’s understanding of “Gospel literature” focuses on the
ideological factors which produce “style” rather than the finished

26 “Ideological analysis” in this essay refers to the analysis and categorization

of documents on the basis of internal ideological characteristics; it is not to be

confused with “Ideological Criticism.”
27 Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (trans. Bertram Lee Wolf;

Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1971), p. 7; see also pp. 10-15.

28 Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. John Marsh;

New York, NY: Harper and Row, rev. edn, 1963), p. 4.

29 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 30.

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 328 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 early christianities and the synoptic eclipse 329

literary form of particular works, allowing him to escape the view

of earlier scholars that true “gospels” must somehow resemble the
literary form of the canonical Gospels. He rejects definitions of
the “Gospel genre” which include the surface narrative structure
of the canonical Gospels, and redefines the genre ideologically as
“all those writings which are constituted by the transmission, use,
and interpretation of materials and traditions from and about
Jesus.”30 It is unreasonable, in Koester’s judgement, to presuppose
that noncanonical gospels are simply secondary distortions of the
canonical Gospels and canonical theological interests. In fact,
some of these noncanonical gospels, even if composed later than
the canonical Gospels, may have crystallized around ideologies
which parallel the beliefs of certain sectors of the primitive, pre-
synoptic church.31 A gospel with a later date of composition can
thus reflect an earlier stage of the Jesus tradition.
This approach to the gospel genre facilitates Koester’s reevalua-
tion of the relationship between the canonical Gospels and Gos.
Thom. The canonical Gospels have been shaped by a “pseudobio-
graphical” interest (manifestly an evaluation of the ideology
underlying these documents), which organizes the content of the
Jesus tradition within the rubric of the pre-Pauline kerygma evident
in passages such as 1 Cor. 15:1-8.32 The ideological impulses which
drove this hermeneutic are, however, no more likely to reflect the
beliefs of the “primitive” Church than those underlying other
kerygmas, as evidenced by the fact that these ideological impulses
are absent from Q.33 As a wisdom collection, Gos. Thom. advocates
the view that Jesus’ teaching is more significant than his deeds or
death. While this ideology is certainly not evident in the Synoptics,
its similarities with the Christology of Q lead Koester to conclude
that Thomas’ ideology enjoys attestation from the “very early
stages of the early Christian wisdom traditions.”34 This makes it
necessary to reconsider the possibility that Thomas’ use of the
Jesus tradition may be more primitive than that of the canonical

30 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 46. The converse is also true: materials

which do not reflect the development of the Jesus tradition are not “gospels”
irrespective of their literary form. Seven such documents are discussed on pp.
46-47.
31 Koester, “One Jesus,” pp. 164-66.
32 Koester, “One Jesus,” pp. 162-63. The pre-Pauline kerygma is discussed here

on pp. 199-201, and in Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 6-7.

33 Koester, “One Jesus,” pp. 165, 199.
34 Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical,” pp. 116.

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 329 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 330 tom thatcher

Gospels, irrespective of Gos. Thom.’s actual date of composition.

Having laid this theoretical foundation, Koester proceeds to
demonstrate that Thomas’ application of the Jesus tradition is
indeed more primitive than that of the canonical Gospels. This is
fairly easily accomplished in the case of the Fourth Gospel, which
has never received strong support as a representative of the Jesus
tradition. Utilizing a model similar to those of Dodd and Lindars,
Koester suggests that the Johannine speeches and dialogues are
interpretive expansions of a core group of traditional sayings.35
Several of these sayings are also cited by Thomas. Whereas the
Fourth Evangelist interprets these sayings by recontextualization,
Thomas interprets them by subtle alterations.36 But, in the main,
Thomas has remained more faithful to the shared sayings tradition
by more closely reflecting the source’s theological perspective.37
Reversing Brown’s earlier conclusion, Koester argues that the
Fourth Gospel is, in fact, doubly secondary to Gos. Thom., because
John’s interpretation of the common sayings is largely a reaction
to the type of soteriology advocated by Thomas.38
Turning to the relationship between Gos. Thom. and the Synop-
tics, Koester first asserts that Thomas has not borrowed directly
from Matthew, Mark, or Luke. The many parallels between these
gospels and Gos. Thom. arose naturally from the use of common
or similar sources. There are, for example, 27 parallels between
Mark and Gos. Thom, but in every case Thomas’ version of the
saying is “closely related to the earliest stages of the transmission
and development of the respective traditions.”39 The fact that Mark
and Gos. Thom. both advocate the view that parables are “secrets”
indicates the use of similar or common parables sources, which
Thomas has sometimes reproduced more faithfully than Mark.40
Thomas was apparently also familiar with Matthew’s parables

35 See C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1963), pp. 335-43; Barnabas Lindars, Behind the Fourth
Gospel (London: SPCK, 1971), and The Gospel of John (NCBC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 34, 51; Peder Borgen, “John and the Synoptics: A Reply
[to Frans Neirynck],” in David L. Dungan (ed.), The Interrelations of the Gospels
(BETL, 95; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990).
36 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 114-17.
37 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 123.
38 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 125.
39 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 112-13. The lack of common clusters

of sayings, and the uncertainties surrounding Mark’s sayings source, make it

impossible to tell whether Mark and Thomas have used identical sources.
40 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 101-102.

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 330 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 early christianities and the synoptic eclipse 331

source, and may have included parables from that collection which
Matthew rejected.41 In many cases, then, Thomas’ primitive ideo-
logy has led to a more faithful reproduction of pre-synoptic ma-
terials than that found in the Synoptics themselves.
Obviously, the relationship between Gos. Thom. and Q is crucial
to Thomas’ value as a witness to the primitive Jesus tradition. Koes-
ter finds that, as a rule, “the Q parallels in the Gospel of Thomas
always represent, or derive from, more original forms of those
sayings” than the forms preserved in the Synoptics.42 But what is
the relationship between Gos. Thom. and Q itself? Koester iden-
tifies 36 Q /Thomas parallels and insists that in no case is Q the
immediate source for Gos. Thom. Further, many of these parallels
occur in the collection of “sapiential speeches” which John Klop-
penborg has identified as the earliest layer of Q.43 Thomas’
parallels with the second, “judgment” layer of Q lack Q’s pole-
mical tone, and the six parables which Gos. Thom. shares with Q
show no trace of Q’s apocalyptic interest.44 Koester concludes that
Thomas has likely drawn from some of the same sayings collections
used by the Q redactor.45 Koester’s method thus leads to the
startling claim that Gos. Thom., at one time disregarded as a
second-century Gnostic epitome of the canonical Gospels, may
contain materials more primitive than those found in Q.

The “Synoptic Eclipse” and the Gospel of Thomas

Koester has overcome the earlier bias against noncanonical
gospels, which regarded them as useful only in the study of Gnostic
theology. One could scarcely argue that any scholar has shown
greater respect for the diversity in early Christianity, or has been
a stronger champion of the value of noncanonical gospels, than
Koester. His re-evaluation has had significant impact on contem-

41 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 106.

42 Helmut Koester, “Q and Its Relatives,” in James E. Goehring et al. (eds.),
Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990), p. 60.
43 Koester, “Q,” p. 56. “It is exactly with respect to the material that belongs

to the earliest stage of Q, written probably within ten or twenty years of Jesus’
death, that we find parallels in the Gospel of Thomas” (p. 87). See here John S.
Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Studies
in Antiquity and Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987). A convenient
summary of Kloppenborg’s position on the various Q strata may be found on
pp. 244-45.
44 Koester, “Q,” pp. 57-59. Koester sees Gos. Thom.’s eschatology as more

“realized” than that of Q (p. 60).

45 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 95.

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 331 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 332 tom thatcher

porary research into early Christianity. But his analysis also illus-
trates an irony in the application of New Testament Form Criticism
to noncanonical materials. Current form-critical methods depend
on research tools and criteria which were developed internally
from the Synoptic Gospels, whose theological and stylistic tenden-
cies are products of only one specific strand of the Jesus tradition.
As a result, the “literary evolution” of synoptic materials, which is
the product of a unique series of ideological developments, is
treated as normative for the analysis of other gospels which were
developed in the context of radically different ideologies. That
alternate ideologies might produce alternate literary tendencies,
thereby betraying standard criteria of historical evaluation, has not
been considered in studies of noncanonical gospels.
The limits of the form-critical approach are illustrated by Koes-
ter’s analysis of the Gospel of Peter, a passion narrative famous
for its “speaking cross” (Gos. Pet. 10.5). Every scene in Gos. Pet.
seems to be a Christological expansion of a single OT passage.
While the canonical passion story has also been molded around
the OT, the various passages to which it alludes are distributed
unevenly throughout the scenes of the story, apparently under the
influence of a greater historical interest than that of Gos. Pet. At
first glance, these data might suggest that Gos. Pet. is a secondary
revision of materials culled from the canonical records. But
Koester observes that the pre-synoptic Church interpreted Jesus’
passion “according to Scripture,” so that the earliest passion stories
would “have found both the rationale and content” of Jesus’
suffering entirely in Scripture rather than in history. Consequently,
the ideology underlying Gos. Pet., which betrays no historical in-
terest, is closer to the primitive view of the passion than the ca-
nonical Gospels, even though Gos. Pet. was written at a later
date.46 While this increases the prestige of Gos. Pet., it is important
to note that the view that a “historicizing tendency” is a secondary
development was deduced from Matthew and Luke’s appropria-
tion of Mark. Koester is thereby forced to presuppose that non-
synoptic tradition users (Peter) would develop the Jesus tradition
in a way parallel to that of synoptic tradition users (Mark, Matthew,
and Luke).47
A more striking example appears in Koester’s early analysis of

46 Koester, “Apocryphal and Canonical,” pp. 126-27.

47 Throughout this essay, the terms “non-synoptic” and “noncanonical” do
not imply “anti-synoptic” or “anti-canonical.”

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 332 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 early christianities and the synoptic eclipse 333

sayings in Gos. Thom. Any interpretation of Thomas’ sayings is

complicated by the lack of a narrative framework or overall
organizing principle. Indeed, “the sayings themselves, their forms,
alterations, and accretions, are our only guides.” For this reason,
“it is advisable to consider examples from each form-critical
category of sayings separately” because “any category of sayings
has its particular structure and inherent theological tendency.”48
A footnote reveals that the “categories” in question are those out-
lined in Bultmann’s History of the Synoptic Tradition. While the
analysis which follows is insightful, it is important to note that
Bultmann’s sayings categories were derived explicitly from observa-
tion and comparison of the Synoptic Gospels.49 As a consequence,
Koester’s fresh and original analysis is forced into a taxonomy
developed in service of the Synoptic problem, assuming that the
“accretions and alterations” observable in the Synoptic tradition
would be parallel to those in the Thomas tradition.
The expansion of “Gospel literature” beyond the confines of the
canonical Gospels calls for NT scholars to reevaluate the methods
of Form Criticism, which presuppose the “Synoptic Eclipse” ap-
proach to the Jesus tradition. As used in this essay, the term “Sy-
noptic Eclipse” refers to a broad set of presuppositions about the
place of the Synoptic Gospels in reconstructions of the evolution
of the Jesus tradition. The “Synoptic Eclipse” (1) gives methodo-
logical priority to tendencies observed in those Gospels produced
under the impetus of the synoptic kerygma, traces of which are
evident in Pauline references to received tradition, and (2) es-
tablishes this methodological priority under the assumption that
such tendencies are normative for all oral Jesus traditions, includ-
ing those outside the sphere of synoptic thought. The “Synoptic
Eclipse” approach treats the Synoptic Gospels as a methodological
center; all other gospels, and the ideologies which generated them, are
situated in reference to this guidepost. Any potential variation in
the ideological or literary development of these materials as
independent traditions is hidden behind the Synoptic megalith.
While this approach gives due consideration to the priority of the
canonical Gospels in later Christian theology, it is anachronistic
when applied to the development of the Jesus tradition at any
point before the mid-second century.
It is the Synoptic Eclipse which facilitates the form-critical con-

48 Koester, “One Jesus,” p. 168.

49 See Bultmann’s introductory remarks in HST, pp. 4-6.

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 333 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 334 tom thatcher

clusion that ideological parallels between Q and Gos. Thom. show

Gos. Thom. to be, in many cases, “more primitive” than the Synop-
tics. If Q’s ideology, and the observable literary tendencies result-
ing from that ideology, continued to exist in some branch of the
Church after the composition of the Synoptics, such ideological
parallels would be irrelevant to the question of Thomas’ position
in the evolution of the Jesus tradition. But under the auspices of
the Synoptic Eclipse, researchers may comfortably assume that
materials and ideologies like those in Q predate the Synoptics,
without considering whether the Q kerygma continued to exist
after its absorption into the canonical tradition.
The Synoptic Eclipse engendered within NT Form Criticism also
supports the persistent consensus that the Jesus tradition “evolved”
in a steady, upward motion, each stage of development eliminating
its “more primitive” predecessors. For if the tradition was irre-
parably altered and expanded as Q was surpassed by Matthew and
Luke, surely other Jesus traditions must have developed in the
same way, later expressions of the tradition supressing earlier ex-
pressions. It seems more appropriate to the character of oral
tradition, however, to suggest that each tradition “evolved” and “de-
volved” according to the character of the ideology of each Chris-
tianity, or of each tradition user, at any particular moment in
history.50 Further, it is evident that conflicting traditions could and
did exist within each individual Christianity. This “evolution” and
“devolution” might place any tradition, at any given historical mo-
ment, sometimes closer to, and sometimes further from, the
historical Jesus.
While the Synoptic Eclipse is convenient for form-critical anal-
ysis, allowing scholars to fix a wide variety of problems with one
set of tools, it also promotes a dangerously monolithic view of the
early Church and the Jesus tradition. As Koester himself has
established, the ideology of the early Church was so diverse that
it is more appropriate to speak of “Christianities” than of “Chris-
tianity” for any date before the late second century. The synoptic

50 The understanding of “oral tradition” espoused in this study is based on

the “Oral Formulaic Theory” first described by Milman Parry and later refined
by Albert Lord and others. For a convenient description and history of this
position, see John Miles Foley, The Theory of Oral Composition: History and
Methodology (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), and Ruth Finnegan,
Oral Poetry: Its Nature, Significance, and Social Context (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1992).

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 334 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 early christianities and the synoptic eclipse 335

kerygma would reflect the views of only one such Christianity, that
which ultimately became dominant. Further, since each Chris-
tianity’s own ideology shaped its Jesus material, it seems necessary
to speak of “Jesus traditions” rather than “the Jesus tradition.” In
the time period before Irenaeus and Tertullian, the term “the Jesus
tradition” can represent only the hypothetical sum total of every
independent Jesus tradition as shaped by every independent
Christianity in every location.
Before proceeding to review the data which demonstrate the
inadequacy of the Synoptic Eclipse framework, it is important to
note that this set of presuppositions is not peculiar to scholars
seeking to revisit the value of noncanonical gospels. The work of
earlier researchers such as Grant, discussed above, depended on
this same set of presuppositions in service of the opposite con-
clusion. Within this perspective, the Synoptic Eclipse allows two
critical assumptions: that the Canonical Gospels were so widely
accepted that anything written after them must be related to them;
and, that any gospels which do not express a synoptic kerygma
must be “later” than the canonical Gospels. Both assumptions are
tenuous in light of the variety of kerygmas and Christianities which
coexisted up until the mid-second century.

Kerygmas and Christianities

Koester himself is a key figure in research on early “canon” de-
velopment and the evolution of the term “Gospel” in the early
Church. Here it will be sufficient simply to rehearse data which
Koester has discussed and which demonstrate the tenuous nature
of form-critical methods which imply the Synoptic Eclipse
approach to early gospels and Jesus traditions.
Koester’s basic premise is that Marcion (140s ce) was the first
major figure to apply the term “gospel” to a written document.51
That no one Jesus tradition was universally normative before
Marcion’s time is evident both within and without the NT canon.
The canonical Gospels themselves evidence considerable diversity
in their underlying ideologies. The most blatant expression of this
diversity is reflected in the relationship between the Synoptics and
John. While the Fourth Gospel shares the basic synoptic interest
in Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection, these events are inter-

51 Helmut Koester, “From the Kerygma-Gospel to Written Gospels,” NTS 35

(1989), pp. 376-77, 381; Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 35-36.

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 335 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 336 tom thatcher

preted by juxtaposition with a narrative of Jesus’ ministry which

understands Jesus’ words and deeds to be revelations of his divine
identity. As the descent/ascent of the Son of God is combined with
the Synoptic approach, the Fourth Evangelist invests the cruci-
fixion with both soteriological and Christological significance. So-
teriologically, the cross in John implies the Pauline understanding
of Jesus’ sacrificial death, in which Jesus, “the lamb of God who
takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29), is “lifted up” to “draw
all people to himself” and grant them “eternal life” (John 3:14-15;
12:32). Christologically, the cross in John is collapsed into the re-
surrection as a revelation of Jesus’ divine identity which will “glorify
God” (John 8:28; 13:31-33). This event is the climax of a series of
deeds, or “signs,” which reveal Jesus to be the logos of the Johan-
nine Prologue. The Fourth Evangelist thus successfully merges the
“revelatory wisdom” approach of Q and Gos. Thom. with the nar-
rative format of the Synoptics. As Raymond Brown has noted, the
Fourth Gospel’s consistent portrayal of the Beloved Disciple as
superior to Peter and the other disciples suggests that “the Johan-
nine Christians … regard themselves as closer to Jesus and more
perceptive than the Christians of the Apostolic Churches.” This
conflict seems to center around John’s distinct kerygma.52
The Johannine letters further demonstrate the ideological
diversity which could exist between Christianities or even within
one Christianity. The author of 1 John warns that a group has left
the community without official authorization (2:19). The presence
of conflicting authority figures such as Diotrephes, who “does not
accept us” (3 John 9), reveals that this division was not limited to
a few aberrant teachers. The use of “antichrist” terminology in this
debate suggests that the division involves conflicting kerygmas, that
of the author of 1 John (1 John 1:1-3; 5:1), and that of those who
“do not acknowledge that Jesus came in the flesh” (2 John 7).
Brown concludes that “both parties knew the proclamation of
Christianity available to us through the Fourth Gospel, but they
interpreted it differently.”53 In this case, multiple kerygmas and
multiple Jesus traditions existed within one group.

52 Raymond Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and

Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York: Paulist Press, 1979),
quote p. 84, discussion pp. 81-88. Brown cites variant ecclesiologies as a possible
secondary source of friction between the Johannine community and other Chris-
tianities.
53 Brown, Community, p. 106.

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 336 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 early christianities and the synoptic eclipse 337

The diversity within the Johannine community is a microcosm

of the general diversity among Christianities in the early 2nd Cen-
tury. In this time period, “the term [‘Gospel’] still always designates
the Christian missionary preaching and its message,” not a uni-
versal formula for this teaching nor a set of books based upon such
a formula.54 Ignatius is a case in point. Ignatius’ kerygma includes
the typical Pauline elements but also incorporates virgin birth and
baptism. He still, however, does not view “the Gospel” as a uni-
versally fixed formula in a set of written documents.55 Marcion’s
contemporary, Polycarp, knows Matthew and Luke well enough to
“correct” 1 Clement, but remarkably fails to describe these docu-
ments as “gospels.”56 Even in cases where written gospels were
known, then, books displaying the synoptic kerygma were not
taken as exclusive representatives of “the Gospel.” Perhaps more
noteworthy is the fact that “the Gospel” was not universally synony-
mous with the synoptic kerygma even after the time of Marcion.
Koester notes, for example, that 2 Clement often quotes Jesus
sayings with synoptic parallels, and frequently uses an introduction
formula which suggests that these sayings were drawn from a writ-
ten source which “Clement” seems to consider authoritative
“Gospel.” On the other hand, the Gospel of Truth, which may have
been composed by Valentinus, also shows definite acquaintance
with written gospels but never applies the term “Gospel” to these
documents.57 Even in the mid second century, there was no uni-
versal consensus on whether particular documents expressed “the
Gospel,” and no evidence supports the view that the Synoptics were
so widely accepted that other “primitive” kerygmas could not
continue to exist.

“Primary” and “Secondary” without the Eclipse

The extreme diversity which existed between different Chris-
tianities and their kerygmas through the period in which the early
gospels were composed renders the Synoptic Eclipse untenable,
and calls for a reevaluation of form-critical tools based on the
Synoptic Gospels. This is so because it is impossible to tell whether
“primitive” ideologies, such as the ideology of Q, continued to

54 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 9.

55 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 7-8; “Kerygma to Written,” pp. 365-
66.
56 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 19-20.
57 Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 18, 22-23.

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 337 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 338 tom thatcher

flourish in certain Christianities after the Synoptics were written.

A safer course would be to understand each ideology underlying
each gospel composed in this period as the independent
reflections of a particular Christianity (or Christian), which may
or may not have used the Jesus tradition in ways parallel to the
use of that tradition by the authors of the Synoptics. Consequently,
each Christianity’s Jesus tradition may have evolved and devolved
in ways which do not parallel the development of Jesus material
observable in the Synoptic tradition. When each Christianity is
taken to be independent, ideological similarities between the
documents which they produced are ultimately less valuable in
reconstructing the “primitive” Jesus tradition. This diversity calls
for a general reconsideration of the current tools of NT Form Cri-
ticism, which were developed from and in service of the Synoptic
Gospels.
Current form-critical methods are useful primarily in deter-
mining the similarities between gospels and the kerygmas and
Christianities which produced them. Because, however, these
methods were developed in service of gospels generated from one
kerygma, they are not sufficiently sensitive to differences between
these documents. These tools are also of limited value in deter-
mining the relationships between these documents, that is, which
are “more primitive” than others. This is the case because the
surface texts of the existing written gospels could reflect one of
two opposite yet equally valid models of “dependence.”
The relationship between Q and Gos. Thom. provides a con-
venient illustration of this problem. Once it is acknowledged that
Q and Gos. Thom. each represent an independent development
of Jesus tradition, and that each reflects the ideology of one
independent Christianity, it becomes evident that the relationship
between these documents could be reasonably understood in more
than one way. Following standard form-critical reasoning, it could
be that Q and Thomas have utilized the same or similar sources,
and that Matthew and Luke then utilized Q in the composition of
their gospels. Since Q and Thomas appropriated this material in
the service of similar, non-synoptic ideological impulses, their
respective Jesus traditions would be quite similar. On the other
hand, following Grant’s reasoning, it could be that Matthew and
Luke appropriated Q, and that Thomas appropriated both Mat-
thew and Luke. In this scenario, similarities between Q and Gos.
Thom. would arise naturally from Thomas’ inclination to elimi-
nate from Matthew and Luke those elements which were alien to

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 338 6/13/99, 9:28 PM

 early christianities and the synoptic eclipse 339

his own and, by parallel, to Q’s, ideology. Hence, the two models
of tradition development below could produce similar surface
texts:

Source Source

Q Q Thomas

Matt. Luke Matt. Luke

Thomas

Since it is currently impossible to determine which model best

explains the relationship between Q, the canonicals, and Gos.
Thom., it seems necessary to explore alternate methods for deter-
mining which gospel materials are “primary” and which are “sec-
ondary.” Without benefit of the Synoptic Eclipse, “primary” and
“secondary” are meaningless terms when applied to early gospels.

Abstract

This article questions the applicability of traditional Form Criticism to non-

canonical gospels. Traditional Form Criticism has relied heavily on assumptions
about the evolution of the Jesus tradition which were developed exclusively from
observations of the Synoptic Gospels. These assumptions generally relate to the
ideological climate in which Jesus materials developed, including issues such as
the tradition users’ Christology and sense of “history.” Because noncanonical gos-
pels developed in contexts of alternate, non-synoptic ideologies, it is unreasonable
to presuppose that the surface texts of these gospels developed in ways identical
to the development of Synoptic materials. The methodological priority granted
to the Synoptic Gospels in NT Form Criticism is described here as “Synoptic
Eclipse.”
This issue is explored by examining Helmut Koester’s extensive work on the
Gospel of Thomas. It is demonstrated that Koester’s consistent advocacy of the
value of Gos. Thom. is hindered methodologically as Koester is forced to utilize
the tools of traditional NT Form Criticism. Koester is typical in this respect of the
recent wave of scholars who seek to learn more about the primitive Jesus tradition
by examining noncanonical materials.

Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

182.p65 339 6/13/99, 9:28 PM