The Parable of the Lost Sheep in the Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics

Author(s): William L. Petersen

Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 23, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1981), pp. 128-147
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560868
Accessed: 07-08-2014 19:31 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.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Novum Testamentum

XXIII,

2 (1981)

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP

IN THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS
AND THE SYNOPTICS
BY

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN
A recent article by F. SCHNIDER 1) has reinforced the currently
accepted opinion concerning the Parable of the Lost Sheep (Mt.
xviii 12-14; Lk. xv 3-6), namely, (I) that the Gospel of Thomas
(logion I07) has turned the parable into an esoteric gnostic saying;
(2) that Thomas's version is dependent upon the synoptic recensions; and (3) that Luke has preserved the most primitive version
of the parable.
This article will argue that the opposite is the case. (i) Thomas's
logion is not intrinsically gnostic. Rather, (2) it preserves a tradition
independent of the synoptics. Indeed, (3) it has numerous points
in its favor as being more primitive than the synoptic versions.
I.
GARTNERhas stated that "If the Gospel of Truth is reckoned
as coming from Valentinian circles, the same ought to apply to the
Gospel of Thomas since the resemblance between the two is so
great" 2). This alleged similarity between the Gospel of Truth and
the Gospel of Thomas has led PERRIN to assert that
The Thomas version (of the Parable of the Lost Sheep) does not help us
very much. We know from the Fathers, e.g. IRENAEUSAdv. Haer. II 24.6,
that this parable was much used by Gnostics, and both in Thomas and the
1) F. SCHNIDER, "Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Schaf und seine Redaktoren," Kairos n.f. xix (1977), PP. I46-I54. Another even more recent article

is that by J. D. M. DERRETT,"Fresh Light on the Lost Sheep and the Lost

Coin," NTS, xxvi, #I (I979), which appeared after this article was finished.
DERRETTagrees with many of the conclusions I have reached regarding the
original form of the parable, but, incredibly, he excludes Thomas from his
analysis, dismissing it as "known to be a distortion of the parable in the
interest of gnostic exegesis" (p. 5I)! Yet it is Thomas's version which approximates most closely the textual form of the parable he himself envisions!

2) B. GXRTNER, The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas

p. 272.

(London,

I96I),

This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PARABLEOF THE LOST SHEEP

I29

Gospel of Truth ... it has become so much a vehicle for expressing gnostic
teaching that the versions do not help us to reconstruct the teaching of
Jesus 3).

The reader is urged to compare for himself the passage in the

Gospel of Truth with its counterpart in the Gospel of Thomas.
(The synoptic versions are also presented.)
He (the beloved Son) is the shepherd who left behind the ninety-nine
sheep which were not lost. He went searching for the one which was lost.
He rejoiced when he found it, for 99 is a number that is in the left hand which
holds it. But when the one is found, the entire number passes to the right
(hand).
-Gospel

of Truth, 31.35-32.9

Jesus said: The Kingdom is like a shepherd who has a hundred sheep.
One of them went astray, which was the largest. He left behind the ninetynine, he sought for the one until he found it. Having tired himself out, he
said to the sheep: I love thee more than the ninety-nine.
-Gospel of Thomas, logion I07
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in
heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.
[For the Son of man came to save the lost.] What do you think? If a man
has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the
ninety-nine on the hills and go in search of the one that went astray? And
if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninetynine that never went astray. So it is not the will of my Father who is in
heaven that one of these little ones should perish."
-Mt.

xviii Io-I4, RSV, with v. II in brackets

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him.
And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, "This man receives
sinners and eats with them."
So he told them this parable: "What man of you, having a hundred sheep,
if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness,
and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it ? And when he has found it,
he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls
together his friends and his neighbours, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me,
for I have found my sheep which was lost.' Just so, I tell you, there will be
more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine
righteous persons who need no repentance."
-Luke

xv I-7, RSV

If one cannot detect a palpable difference between the Gospel of

Truth (with its elaborate numerology,identification of the shepherd
with Jesus) and Thomas (where these elements are absent), then
there is little more to be said.
3)

N.

PERRIN,

Rediscovering

the Teaching

of Jesus

(New

York,

I967),

pp. 98 f. But if one reads Irenaeus critically, it is obvious that he knows the
Gospel of Truth version, not Thomas's version!
9
This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

I30

Although the Gospel of Thomas may have undergone a gnostic

redaction, it does not follow that all its logia must be gnostic. And
although this logion may have received a gnostic interpretation
in the hands of gnostics, it does not follow that this logion must
have been altered textually by a gnostic redactor. It is necessary
to distinguish carefully between a gnostic text and a gnostic interpretation of a text which is not intrinsically gnostic. Numerous
passages in the canon (in Paul, for example) received gnostic interpretations without being altered textually.
This logion may have had a non-gnostic interpretationas well
as a gnostic interpretation.But to state that the logion is gnostic
is too precipitate. Such a statement would be possible only after
a careful analysis of this logion by the accepted principlesof higher
criticism. And it is just such an analysis which has been neglected.
When rigourously examined for evidence, when stripped of the
charge of "gnosticism by association," logion I07 stands convicted
of gnosticism by one word. The sheep which strays is the "largest."
This has been cited as a gnostic expansion by BEYSCHLAG4),
CERFAUX 5), GRANT and FREEDMAN 6), MENARD 7) and SCHRAGE8).

The opinion of H. MONTEFIORE,who has been far more generous to

Thomas than most critics, is representative: "(largest)is presumably

an allegorical detail, and the reader is intended to understand that
the gnostic believer is the most important class of Christian"9).
Although JEREMIAShas stopped short of calling this an "alle-

gorical detail," he too takes a critical view, stating that Thomas's

reading "largest"
shows ... a complete misunderstanding of the parable. For the expression
used by Matthew (v. I4), "one of the least", and the setting of the parable

I6
4) K. BEYSCHLAG, Simon Magus und die christliche Gnosis, WUNT
(Tiibingen, 1974), P. I3I.
5) L. CERFAUX, "Les paraboles du royaume dans l"Evangile de Thomas',"

Le Museon lxx (1957), p. 323.

6) R. GRANT and D. N. FREEDMAN, The Secret Sayings of Jesus according
to the Gospel of Thomas (London, I960), p. I8I.
7) J.-E. MENARD, L'Avangile selon Thomas, NHS 5 (Leiden, 1975), p. 205.
8) W. SCHRAGE,Das Verhdltnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen
Tradition und zu den koptischen Evangelieniibersetzungen, BZNW 30 (Berlin,
I964), PP. 195, I96.
9) H. MONTEFIORE,

"A Comparison

of the Parables

of The Gospel Ac-

cording to Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels," NTS vii (I960/196I), p. 234.
This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PARABLEOF THE LOST SHEEP

I3I

in Luke, with v. 5, tend to show that it is more likely that the lost sheep
was thought of as a specially weak one 10).

I would suggest that this noted scholar has not heard what
Thomas's parable is saying, perhaps because of his conviction that
Luke's version is original and is not allegorical 11). How ironic,
then, that it is Jeremias's assertionthat the lost sheep cannot be the
"largest," but must be a "specially weak one," which demonstrates
ipso facto how allegorical Luke's redaction is! The setting in Luke
leads one to conclude that the man seeking is Jesus; the lost sheep
represents the "sinners and tax collectors" with whom Jesus is
eating. Hence, in Luke's redaction the sheep cannot be "large" or
strong, for the sinners are "weak," as Jeremias suggests. Matthew's
setting also results in allegorized roles, where the "little ones"
(vv. IO and 14) certainly cannot be the "largest" of sheep.
has made a critical error in arriving at his judgement.
JEREMIAS
He has allowed a verse taken from the Matthean "framework"
(v. 14), which he himself admits to be a secondary invention 12),
and a Lucan gloss (v. 5) 13) not only to determine a priori what
kind of sheep was lost, but also to judge Thomas's recension, even
though Thomas tells the parable without an allegory-inspiring
framework or concluding "point."
It should be pointed out that the Gospel of Thomas belongs to a
Semitic rather than a Hellenistic form of Christianity 14).Its place
10) J. JEREMIAS, The Parables of Jesus, revised edition, translated from
the sixth German edition (London, I963), p. I34.
11) Ibid., pp. 40, 69 f.
12) Ibid., p. 40.
13) The full argument for regarding the carrying of the sheep on the
shepherd's shoulders as a Lucan addition is presented below in Section V.
14) The thesis that at least part of the Gospel of Thomas has a JewishChristian character was first set forth by H.-CH. PUECHin "Une collection
de Paroles de J6sus r6cemment retrouvee: L'Evangile selon Thomas,"
Comptes Rendus de I'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, I957, PP.
146-166. See also his comments in "Gnostic Gospels and Related Documents"

in HENNECKE-SCHNEEMELCHER, New Testament Apocrypha

(London/
Philadelphia,
1963), Vol. I, esp. pp. 287, 294, 297 and 305 f. G. QUISPEL

seconded this thesis in "The Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament,"
Vigiliae Christianae,

xi (1957), PP. I89-207.

W. C. VAN UNNIK concurred in

Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings, SBT 30 (London, I960), pp. 49 f. 0.

CULLMANN, "Das Thomasevangelium und die Frage nach dem Alter der in
ihm enthaltenen Tradition," Theologische Literaturzeitung, lxxxv (I960),
cols. 321-334, reached the same conclusion (see esp. cols. 326-33I). Stating
that "The work then is substantially Jewish Christian," J. DANIELOU,The
This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

I32

of authorship is usually ascribed to Edessa, the capital of Syrian

Christianity which, in turn, traced its lineage back to JewishChristian Jerusalem 15). These communities saw themselves as the
consummation of the Jewish faith. They were, by birth or conversion, Jews, who regarded Jesus as a prophet or the messiah. Their
religious heritage was expressed in and their religious symbolism
was derived from their sacred books, the OT. Therefore it is both
natural and necessary to seek an interpretation of their writings
the OT16).
within the frame of reference they used-namely,
While this may be said generally of the synoptic versions of the
parable, it is especially true for Thomas's version-for Thomas
sprang from a more Jewish-Christian milieu than, for instance,
the Gospel of Luke.
In response to the "gnostic" thesis, I would begin with the source
critical observation that the parable, both in the synoptics and in
Thomas, is based on Ezekiel xxxiv I6 17). In v. II, this chapter
Theology of Jewish Christianity (London, I964), lists features of Thomas
which are "typical

of Jewish Christianity"

(p. 24). H. KOESTER, "rNQMAI

AIA(DOPOI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of

Early Christianity," Harvard Theological Review, lviii (I965), pp. 279-318,
further refined the thesis by describing a "Thomas community" within the
Jewish-Christian milieu.
16) All of the scholars listed above in note 14 name Edessa (or its surroundings) as Thomas's place of authorship.
The original sources linking Jerusalem and Edessa are Eusebius, Hist.
eccl., I, 13, and The Doctrine of Addai, the Apostle, ed. G. PHILLIPS(London,
1876). This latter source states: "... Judas Thomas sent to Abgar, Addai
the Apostle (the Thaddaeus of Eusebius' account), who was one of the
seventy-two Apostles. And when Addai came to the city of Edessa, he dwelt
at the house of Tobias, son of Tobias the Jew, who was of Palestine," (pp. 5 f.).
F. C. BURKITT, Early

Eastern

Christianity

(London,

I904),

presents

magisterial account of the evidence, drawing special attention to the Semitic

character of Edessene Christianity: "Edessa was the only centre of early
Christian life where the language of the Christian community was other than
Greek ...

The

Church

of Antioch

in

Syria ...

was ...

wholly

Greek."

(p. Io). In his Celibacy, A Requirementfor Admission to Baptism in the Early

Syrian Church (Stockholm, I95I), A. V6OBus affirms that Edessene Christianity was Jewish-Christian in nature (pp. II-I3).
16) For example, logion 65 displays a knowledge of the Hebrew, rather
than the LXX, text of Is. v i. See further, G. QUISPEL,"Das Thomasevangelium und das Alte Testament," Neotestamentica et Patristica, ed.
W. C. VAN UNNIK, Supp. Nov. Test. 6 (Leiden, I962), pp. 243-248.
has been noted by, among others, W. DITTMAR,
17) The relationship

Vetus Testamentum in Novo (G6ttingen, I903), pp. 38 f.; the twenty-fifth

edition

of NESTLE; P. BENOIT and M.-E. BOISMARD, Synopse

evangiles en franfais (Paris, 1966-77), Vol. II, p. 294.

des quatre

This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP

I33

describes how God himself will assume the role of the shepherd,
for the shepherds of the people of Israel have failed him.
The image of the "lost sheep" in the OT is almost exclusively
identified with Israel: po'p6arovrXoavvosvov'Iapoca (Jer. xxvii 17,
where nppoctovis in the singular, as in Thomas); rcavTqtq
o rpoora
liii
Israel
could
be
described
as
scarcely
7rXocv'0ntJ?v
6) 18).
(Is.
than
less
God's
beloved
for
with
this
special,
sheep,
only
anything
nation does he have a covenant. By comparison, other nations
are of secondary importance.
When one understands that the sheep is Israel, then Thomas's
qualifying adjective "largest" becomes comprehensible. A gloss
it may be, but not a gnostic gloss, for in Gen. xii 2 the Lord tells
Abram that he will be made "a great (i'na: piyaos)nation" through
Isaac.
A reader of Thomas, acquainted with all the OT precedents,
would identify the lost sheep with Israel. This identification has
been made more explicit by borrowing an adjective from the
covenant narrative and applying it to the symbol representing
Israel in the parable,i.e. the lost sheep. The superlative distinguishes
between Israel (which is "loved more" and is the "largest" in
importance to God) and the other nations.
After this conclusion was reached, it was tested against the
associations made by rabbinic sources 19).These sources not only
verified the conclusion, but added new weight to the argument.
In the rabbinic documents a series of interlocking concepts is
developed. The idea of a census of Israel is the central theme. The
census is to be taken because of Israel's supreme worth to God:
The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, "I have never loved any
created being more than you ..."
-Num. R. i. 9
18) In addition to the two examples cited, the "lost sheep" image is used
in Jer. xxiii i (aioXX6ovTeSa
7&rp6o3xoc)and Jer. xxvii 6 (r7p6oaTaoXroXX6Ta)
of Israel. In Ps. cxviii I76 (xrXav-o0v &? rnp6paTOmv7roX)oX66)
it denotes the
it represents the whole of
psalmist; and in Is. xiii 14 (7rp6ocaTov
TrXocav6rvov)
mankind in the Babylonian empire.
19) The traditions preserved in these documents are difficult to date
reliably. Of our citations, only one, attributed to R. Johanan ben Zakkai
(Ist cent. C.E.), offers any possibility of dating. Therefore, we would ask
that the reader suspend judgement until he has seen the breadth of parallels
offered by the rabbinic sources. We would also remind the reader that these
rabbinic parallels are adduced solely to help verify the conclusion already
reached on the basis of dated OT canonical parallels.

This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

WILLIAML. PETERSEN

I34

In Thomas the sheep-which we suggested represents Israel,

as is shown in numerous OT equations of the two-is told that it
is "loved more" than the other sheep.
In the rabbinic documents, part of Israel's uniqueness is her
size, here reckoned numerically:
It is Israel alone that is to be innumerable and immeasurable ...
-Num.

R. ii 17

... in the distant future Israel will be fruitful and multiply until they
become innumerable ... at first they could be numbered, but afterwards
they multiplied

indefinitely

...

-Num.

R. ii 14

This description of Israel, using superlatives, is elaborated by reference to the covenant promises of Israel numberingas the stars
of heaven, the sand of the seashore (Gen. xxii 17) and the dust of
the earth (Gen. xxviii I4) 20).
A hint of xenophobia is seen already in the fact that Israel is
"loved more" than any other "created being." This xenophobia
becomes explicit when it is explained why only Israel is to be
numbered. It is because other nations are "of no value whatever"
to God. They "belong to Gehenna":
I stated not the number of the other nations of the world. Why ? Because
they are not of any value whatever in My sight ... You, however, are My
children ... Therefore, I number you at frequent intervals.
-Num. R. iv 2
All these hosts that you see are not mine. They belong to Gehenna ...
But these children of Israel whose sum I keep telling you to take, they
are Mine own treasure

...

-Pesikta

Rabbati o1. 5

This xenophobia and the next point are most significant for our
investigation.
A census of Israel is sometimes cast in the form of a shepherd
counting his sheep:
R.
[In explanation of God's commanding Moses to count Israel...]
Menahema cited R. Bebai's parable of the king who had a flock of sheep
which wolves came to rend. Thereupon the king said to the shepherd:
Number my flock to find out how many are gone. Even so the Holy One
said to Moses: Count Israel to find out how many are gone.
-Pesikta de-Rab Kahana 2. 8
For as the owner of a flock of sheep is anxious to know how many he
possesses, when anything untoward happens, when a wolf has been in their
midst ... Thus Moses had the people numbered to see what loss there was
after their punishment for making the golden calf.
-Tanchumah Ki Tissa 9
20)

Num. R. ii, 12, 14.

This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I35

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP

And such census taking has an eschatological tone in that the

final numbering will be in the future. Significantly, the census is
again likened to counting sheep:
Israel were numbered on ten occasions ... And once in the days of Ezra
(the ninth) ... And once again in the time-to-come: "The flocks shall pass
again under the hands of him that counteth them, saith the Lord" (Jer.
xxxiii

I3).

--Psikta

Rabbati Io. I4

Let us recapitulate this sphere of ideas, all grown up around the

central theme of a census. (I) Israel is "loved more" than any
other nation. (2) Israel alone is described in superlatives. (3) Other
nations are not God's, and are fit only for Gehenna. (4) Israel is
likened to sheep being counted in a census. (5) The final numbering
of Israel is representedas an eschatological counting of sheep in the
future.
The congruity between this typology of Israel and that presented
in Thomas's parable should be apparent. In Thomas, (I) the sheep
which strays is "loved more" than the others. (2) This sheep is
described in the superlative; it is the "largest." (3) In comparison,
the other sheep are less important. (4) Since this is our thesis, first
arrived at on the basis of the canonical OT images, this point of
comparison is the variable in the experiment. We submit that
Thomas employs a sheep to represent Israel. (5) As a parable of
the "kingdom," Thomas gives it an eschatological tenor.
Our purpose in presenting the rabbinic parallels was to test our
thesis that the sheep in Thomas's parable is Israel. In surveying
the rabbinic texts, we discover not only that this image was familiar
to the rabbis (point 4, above), but that four features which Thomas
relates to the sheep in his parable are also to be found in the rabbinic
sources!
Given these points of reference for interpretation, it becomes
difficult to maintain that Thomas's parable must be gnostic-and
only gnostic-in both text and interpretation. Although it may
have received a gnostic interpretation in gnostic circles, the text
of the parable lacks the chief hallmarks of gnosticism, namely an
extreme dualism, and a unity between God and the true gnostic.

When one acknowledges that Thomas's text readily allows a nongnostic interpretation, then it becomes clear that Thomas has not
added a "gnostic," allegorizing touch. On the contrary, his version
is richer in OT imagery than are the synoptic versions.
This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I36

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

The Parable of the Lost Sheep in the Gospel of Thomas is revelatory and programmatic. Images rich in OT symbolism describe
the relationship of God to Israel, and tell what God intends: the
rescue of His chosen people, who are loved above all others.
Once this key has been inserted into the lock, we may begin to
understand some of the variations in the synoptic redactions. In Q
the parable must have stood without a context, or in a context
which was unacceptable to the evangelists. The natural result of
this would have been for each evangelist to create his own context
for the parable, as each has done.
Following the same line of reasoning, I would suggest that the
version in Q had an application-a "point"-similar to Thomas's
exclusivist, nationalistic version 21). Such a parable hardly would
have been welcome in the Gentile (or mixed Jewish-Gentile) communities of the synoptics. The natural result of this would have been
for each evangelist to attempt to remove this embarrassing"point"
by creating a new application for the parable, as each has done.
It is well known that Luke omits or de-emphasizes those statements which indicate that Jesus' ministry was only to Israel. Luke
presents the ministry as a universal one. Matthew represents a
way-station on the road to the Lucan "universalist" vision, for
Matthew still relates some instances where Jesus explicitly states
that his mission is to Israel alone. The tendency to "universalize"
Jesus' ministry may be responsible for the contradictory "points"
in the synoptic versions of the parable. Seeking interpretations
acceptable to a Hellenized audience, the synoptics discarded the
old, "mistaken" exegesis, and sought out the "latent" message in
Jesus' words.
However, as we pointed out near the beginning of this section,
Thomas arose from and circulated within Jewish-Christiancircles.
Its readers-Jews and proselytes who considered Jesus to be a
prophet or the messiah-would have had no objection to an elitist,
xenophobic parable, depicting Israel as the apple of God's eye.
Because of this, it appears that Thomas's parable avoided the reinterpretation-all too apparent in the mutually contradictory
21) Might the fact that Matthew inserts the parable after the dispute over
who will be "greatest" in the kingdom of heaven (Mt. xviii I-4) be an indication of Stichwortverbindung with the "largest/greatest" (tyyLa-rov) sheep
found in Q if, as we suggested, Q's parable contained this same image ?

This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP

I37

settings and "points"-which befell the synoptic versions, a consequence of their circulation in Hellenized communities.
That the image of the "lost sheep" in the mouth of Jesus is
emphatically Jewish-Christian may be verified by reference to
the synoptics. The saying "I am sent/Go to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel" occurs three times in the synoptics. From the
frequency and popularity of the image, we can be certain that it
made a profound impression on the early church. That the saying
is xenophobic may be demonstrated by studying the context of
the saying.
Mt. x 6: Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep (cr7ro?coX6Tr)of the house of Israel.
[This saying is missing in Luke's gospel.]
Mt. xv 22, 24: And behold a Canaanite woman from that region came out

and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is

severely possessed by a demon." ... He answered, "I was sent only to the
lost sheep (&7roXcoX6Ta)
of the house of Israel." [Luke omits the crucial
sentence.]
Mt. xviii ii: (For the Son of man came to save the lost [7roXohX6q])
is a
floating logion omitted in some MSS; it comes from Lk. xix 9-Io:
And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he
(Zacchaeus) also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and
to save the lost (&roXcoX6q)."

When it comes to speaking of "lost sheep," Jesus shows himself

to be an ethnic elitist. In each case a xenophobic or exclusivist
situation or saying is linked with the saying about the lost sheep.
I submit that the parable in the Gospel of Thomas makes the same
association, stressing the supremeimportanceof the one lost sheepIsrael.
If Q's parable was similar to Thomas's version in having the same
"point," then one may understand why the synoptics had to alter
the "point" of Q's parable, just as they would have had to supply
a frameworkfor Q's parable, if it was similar to Thomas's "frameless" one.
Another contradiction between the synoptics, which suggests
dissatisfaction with Q's parable, is the assignment of the role of
the shepherd. Matthew presumes the existence of a church by
giving the role to the elders: by one interpretation, the elders
are to seek out the erring brother; by another, they are not to
lead new converts, "babes in the faith," astray. Luke makes the
parable messianic by giving the role to Jesus: even as the man seeks
This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I38

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

his lost sheep, so Jesus seeks his "lost sheep"-the sinners and tax
collectors with whom he is eating. (The Gospel of Truth has made
this messianism even more explicit by stating "He is the
shepherd... .")
What commands our attention is that Thomas's version has no
tinge of the ecclesiology or messianism evident in the synoptic
versions. In Thomas the role of the shepherd appears to belong to
God, just as it does in Ez. xxxiv. Thomas's parable focuses on
God's love for and rescue of his beloved people, Israel, in an eschatological act.
The contradictory role assignations in the synoptics make one
wonder once again if Q's version-like Thomas's-might not have
assigned the role of shepherd to God, an assignation which the
synoptics saw fit to alter for parenetic purposes (so Mt.) or christological purposes (so Lk. and the Gospel of Truth).
Whether one accepts or rejects the suggestion that the typology
and "point" of Thomas's and Q's parables were similar (namely,
that both envisaged Israel as the sheep, were eschatological and
xenophobic, and lacked the messianism and ecclesiology evident
in the synoptic versions), the fact remains that Thomas's parable
is not a gnostic corruption of the synoptic versions. Thomas's
parable is no more gnostic than the Parable of the Mustard Seed
(which becomes the "greatest" of shrubs) or the Parable of the
Pearl (which is a pearl of "great" value) 22), parables which are
canonical and not, I presume, taken as gnostic by BEYSCHLAG,
CERFAUX,et al. Rather, Thomas presents a parablerich in OT associ-

ations which, if they stood in Q, have been lost in the synoptics.

"Largest" is not a gnostic, allegorizing touch, but an adjective
used to identify Israel, which time and again is described as a lost
sheep in OT imagery. Further, the interpretation which I have
suggested for Thomas's parable concurs with the three other
synoptic instances of the "lost sheep" image, each of which is
connected with an expressedprejudice against non-Jews 23).
22)

To this list one may add the Parable of the Fish Net (Mt. xiii 47-48),

if one accepts the arguments of QUISPEL in Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas
(Leiden, I975), pp. 95-Io7. He argues that Thomas's version of the parable

(logion 8: a "large" fish is caught) has a claim to great antiquity.

23) In the process of researching this article, I developed an alternative
interpretation of Thomas's version of the parable. According to this, the
feelings of a shepherd who has lost his largest sheep, who struggles searching
This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP

I39

II.
Thomas's redaction is that of a "parable of the Kingdom,"
with which we are familiar from the synoptics. Matthew, Mark
and Luke recount respectively I9, 5 and i8 parables. Of Matthew's
parables, I2 begin with the formula "the Kingdom of heaven is
like," and 2 of Mark'sand 2 of Luke's begin with "the Kingdom of
God is like." Thus, Thomas's introduction is in agreement with
numerous canonical parallels.
We have already commented on the secondary nature of the
evangelists' settings and applications of the parable. Matthew
makes it instruction directed at the church (a) to seek out the erring
brother, or (b) not to cause "little ones" to sin. Luke aims it at
Jesus' opponents as an explanation of his eating with "sinners."
In each of these circumstances the parable has been temporalized
by being linked to a particularsituation which, in turn, has infused
the parable with specific allegorical overtones.
The parable, however, is based on Ez. xxxiv I6, a verse which
is eschatological. It is part of a revelation God is giving Ezekiel,
commanding him to "prophesy against the shepherds of Israel."
God will seek out his sheep (v. II), judge them (v. 20) and give
them rest in Elysian pastures (w. 25 ff.). Thomas alone has maintained this eschatological tone by stating that "the Kingdom is
like" 24). In Matthew the emphasis is parenetic, and in Luke it is
polemic. Where, then, did Thomas gain his knowledge of the OT
roots of the parable? It could not have been from Matthew or
Luke, for neither has this insight.
for it, and who finds it, are like the emotional quest of a man who is searching
for the Kingdom (which is, quite naturally, the "largest," most important
thing in his life). When he finds it, he rejoices, for he has found that which
was lost.
This theme of finding is, of course, well known in the canonical parables.
The "joy of unexpected recovery (or discovery)" is found in the parables of
the Treasure, Lost Coin, Pearl and Prodigal Son.
Although this interpretation will appeal to the structuralist, has a certain
homiletical appeal, and is non-gnostic, I reject it as not doing justice to the
OT roots of the parable.
It has been said that the best test of an exegesis is whether the exegete,
after considering all the alternatives, is driven to accept an exegesis which
he finds personally distasteful, even unacceptable. The xenophobic interpretation given in the text of this article meets that test. The interpretation
considered in this footnote, although interesting, fails that test.
is realized or
24) For our purposes it is unimportant if the eschatology
futuristic.

This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I40

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

As with his understandingof the meaning of the parable, Thomas

must have gained this eschatological insight from a source anterior
to or independent from the synoptic gospels.
III.
Many scholars 25)are inclined to see Luke as preserving the most
original version of the parable. JEREMIAS26)has given four reasons

for this. First, Matthew has cast the parable in the parenetic
framework of the Sitz-im-Leben-der-Kirche.Luke has preserved
the Sitz-im-Leben-Jesu, a confrontation with the scribes and
Pharisees. Hence, Luke is preferable to Matthew. Second, as a
corollary, Luke has preserved the original audience (parables tend
to become addressed to smaller audiences as they evolve). Third,
Luke is not allegorical,while Matthew is allegorical (non-allegorical
material is more primitive). Finally, Luke relates the ipsissima
verbaChristi in T ?R Uj
U[Zv.
4Vv and in the concluding XAyco
This is largely a matter of choosing one's scholars. BENOITand
BOISMARD
feel that "l'introduction des vv. I-3 est donc lucanienne,
probablement de l'ultime Redacteur" 27). And BULTMANNargues
that the Matthean T UpZv8oxsL is original, not Luke's TLCe uWiv 28).

In order to gain firmer ground, the application of literary,

redaction and theological criticismis needed. These methods produce
evidence which speaks against the accepted theory that Luke has
preserved the most primitive version.
Can it be insignificant that Luke consistently reads 7r6owXuptL
for the Matthean rXoavoCoaCL
? Our tracing of the origin of the

parable to Ez. xxxiv I6 is confirmed by the presence of both the

Matthean and Lucan variants in the self-same verse. The Hebrew
text of v. i6a has been rendered by the LXX as 6TOxcoXcoX'
7]Ta(rcxocLTO7rXavcv(jvov t,67Tp?co). Our task is to determine if

either image was found in Q, and if so, whether it is to be found

25) F. SCHNIDER, op. cit. (see n. I), p. I47, is of this opinion.

Other scholars

merely indicate that Thomas's logia are dependent upon the synoptic
"Das Thomasevangelium und das lukanische
gospels, e.g. H. SCHURMANN,
Sondergut,"

Biblische Zeitschrift, n.f. vii (I963), pp. 259 f.; H. MACARTHUR,

"The Dependence of the Gospel of Thomas on the Synoptics," Expository

Times, lxxi (I960), pp. 286-7.
26) JEREMIAS, op. cit., pp. 40, 42, 69 f., 103 and 177.
27) BENOIT and BOISMARD, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 294.
28) R. BULTMANN, The History of the Synoptic Tradition,

second edition

(New York, 1968), p. I7I.

This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP

I4I

in Matthew or in Luke. Since 0a6?uzu[is used with great frequency

as our starting
by both evangelists, we are forced to use 7roav0aoCioa
point.
If we omit from consideration for the moment the text of the
parable, then we discover that 7XxavaotaL and rXavaccoare verbs
which are in neither evangelist's own vocabulary. When 7rXavaovooL

or roacvtcooccur in either gospel, they owe their usage to the Marcan

parallel. Neither Matthew nor Luke-Acts uses either verb except
when quoting from Mark.
What is even more significant is that although Markuses orXav0o[Loa

2 times,

rXavaco2 times and &iro-rcXav&o

once, and Matthew

obediently reproduces 4 of these 5 instances, Luke reproducesonly

one 29).

Armed with the facts that (I) neither 7rXvocaopclnor rXocavco

nor
is a part of either Matthew's or Luke's own vocabulary;
aTio-TXav&co

that (2) Matthew uses the verbs only when quoting from a source;
and that (3) Luke shows a decided aversion to the verbs by omitting
them 4 times, let us now turn our attention to the pericope of the
Lost Sheep.
These insights lead us to conclude that Matthew has once again
quoted his source (in this case Q) verbatim,just as he has quoted
Mark verbatim 3 times (the fourth quotation is not verbatim;
Matthew has altered Mark's rare Cxoo7cxavv
to rcXxavacL).
And
true
to
to
have
avoided
Luke,
form, appears
cXoav0oOpca
by, in this
Thereforeit appears that only Matthew
case, substituting 0ar6XXuVLz.
has preserved the verb encountered in the source lying behind
Matthew and Luke.
29)

The data are best presented tabularly:

Mt.
Mk.

Case I trXoav0cr
[Case 2

Case 3 Xioav-an]

(xxii 29)
(omits)

(xxiv 4)

Case 4 7rXcavooucLV (xxiv 5)

Case 5 cXocavaoat (xxiv 24)

7rX0avao0

7rXavao0s

(xii 24)
(xii 27)

Xtaovj'an (xiii 5)
7rXavcvaouclv(xiii 6)
atrorCXvavv (xiii 22)

Lk.
(omits)
(omits)]

(xxi 8)
rXTcvj70eX
-

(omits)
(omits)

I have assumed that Mt. xxiv 11 is a doublet and expansion of xxiv 5, and
therefore have not included it in this table. Matthew and Luke both omit
Case 2, for it is a Marcan aside. Luke omits every Case except 3, where he
modifies the Marcan verb's number, person and voice. Whenever Matthew
reproduces Mark's verb, he does so without alteration, save in Case 5,
where he alters the tense of the infinitive, and drops the Bro- prefix of
which is used at only one other point in the entire NT (I Tim.
aoTco7cav&v,
vi Io).
This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I42

WILLIAM L. PETERSEN

This conclusion may be corroboratedby three further tests. The

first is based on the parallelismus membrorumfound in the Ezekiel
who will be
passage. The first dyad consists of the lost (O6c7XXupL)
will be
sought ([Teo). In the second dyad the strayed (rXAav&opax)
In
back
the
the
brought
(6stTLpico)).
parable,
emphasis is on the
result, on an action which the shepherd completes. It is not simply
a seeking which goes on, but rather a seeking which has reached
its conclusion in a bringing back. And in Ezekiel, the dyad which
contains bring back also contains 7rcXxvocoaL.
For the purposes of
this parable, the first dyad (lost: sought)has been subsumed in this
second dyad (strayed: broughtback). And 7rcxavaoioc
is the verb
we presumed Matthew to have found in his source.
A second test is possible through theological criticism. The
first meaning of &76XXut.i
is "ruin, destroy," while the first meaning
of XocavOo[LL
is "to go astray." a76XXuLicarries significant theologi-

cal baggage in that it connotes spiritual "perishing." In that case,

in his source, delete
why would Matthew, if he found C7X6XXuVLt
this highly significant terminustechnicusand substitute trXcavaouor
?
criticism
the
least
term
Theological
posits
theologically developed
as the earlier, namely Matthew's rxXavaoaL.
The third test is internal. Luke's choice of oC7r6XXutj
dovetails
with
his
recension.
Does
not
allegorized
perfectly
or6oXXupu
intensify
the allegorical roles in Luke's story? The man does not go to bring
back sheep which simply have strayed, but to rescue those who are
spiritually "perished," i.e. the sinners with whom Jesus is eating.
All of this suggests that Luke stands at the end, not the beginning,
of the redactional chain. We are driven to conclude that Matthew
and Thomas, whose C p M is equivalent to 7Xcavoiox
a30), have
preserved a tradition more primitive than Luke.

IV.
Literary criticism notes that Matthew reads ex['r& op- against
the Lucan sv j ?pjcp. Theological criticism tells us that 'p-oS
is a more developed term than opoS.
Israel wanders in the "wilderness," Jesus retreats to it, and John the Baptist lives in the &pjiloS.
Therefore it appears that Luke's p[ioqSis an elaboration of 6poq,
it is the
30) Although C V p M may translate either rXavciooalor &br6XXuvt,
only translation for rXxavoovoca.TALKO is the usual translation for c&76XXupL.
See W. CRUM, A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford, I939), pp. 355, 405.

This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP

I43

which (let us postulate, for the moment) was read by Q. The

reverse would seem improbable, for why would Matthew remove
the highly significant theological term "p,oq, if he found it in Q,
and substitute 6poq? The direction of evolution is clearly from opoS
to ~p7[uoS31). Since Luke's reading has no precedent in the parable's
OT source 32), and serves no apparent purpose in the text, we are
as an elaboration on Q's projected
justified in regarding p-[%oqS
reading, 6pos.
In view of this, how is it possible to presume that Luke, the most
developed of the texts, preserves the more primitive version of the
parable? Such a view violates the accepted canons of criticism
without presenting any compelling evidence for doing so.
What is most striking is that Thomas gives neither 8poS nor
E'p"os. Uncontaminated by the Lucan elaboration, it is apparent
that Thomas stands anterior to Luke. And since Thomas also lacks

the Plain," Nov. Test., ix (I967),

31) J. MANEK,"On the Mountain-On
pp. I24-I3I, also has suggested that Luke modified the text for theological
reasons. However, he arrives at that conclusion by a quite different route,
contending that the category "mountain" has a special meaning for Luke,
and hence he is chary in using it.
is to be found in Ez. xxxiv 25, but in just the opposite
32) Luke's gp7uoqs
sense to which Luke uses it. In Ezekiel (v. 25), the sheep "dwell securely in
the wilderness" after being rescued from their dispersal in the 6pl (v. 6).
From a source critical perspective, one must view with scepticism the
contention of JEREMIAS(Parables, p. I33) that the Aramaic betura lies
behind the "translational variant(s)" in Luke, for its Hebrew counterpart
(.1t3) does not occur in Ez. xxxiv. The suggestion of M. BLACKin An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edition with appendix (Oxford,
I967), p. I33, n. 4, that "(fura) is the equivalent of Hebrew sadheh" is
subject to the same criticism. Black quotes with approval JoUON,who states
that tura may render either M?yp6q
or 6poq. But sadheh is not found in any
context in Ez. xxxiv which would give rise to such a usage as we find in
Luke or Matthew (in Ez. vv. 5 and 8 it is used in the construction ;1?T n"n~7?; and in v. 27 it is used in the phrase ;1Wi7Jr'). In any event, ayp6q
indicates useable land, which is the exact opposite of `p[LoqS
or 6poq.Moreover,
the variant we are concerned with is gpprcos,not ocyp6q!
Jeremias and Black may be correct philologically, but they ignore the
findings of source criticism. One of the supposed Hebrew or Aramaic/Syriac
antecedents (tura) is not even found in Ez. xxxiv, and the other (sadheh) is
not found in any sense which would give rise to the Matthean-Lucan divergence.
One is reminded of M. GOULDER'Scomment on another hypothetical
Aramaic reading which JEREMIAS
proposes to resolve the divergence between
Matthew's 60X,oaiand Luke's Xapop
in this same parable: "How can we trust
Aramaic conjectures that do not even fit the text as it is ?" (Midrash and
Lection in Matthew, p. 400, n. 53).
This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I44

WILLIAML. PETERSEN

the Matthean 6poS,the question is raised whether Thomas's reading

might not antedate the Matthean reading as well, which we presumed to have stood in Q also 33).
[A possible source for Luke's use of `p-toqSis found in rabbinic
sources. In Section I, the array of ideas which grew up around the
taking of a census was described. Census taking is especially
associated with Moses and Israel's time bemidbar.It is an acknowledged fact that there were attempts to make Jesus conform to
the image of Moses 34). In the Midrashimwe find that
... Moses was tested by God through sheep ... when Moses ... was
tending the flocks of Jethro in the wilderness, a little kid escaped from him
... When it reached the shady place, there appeared to view a pool of
water and the kid stopped to drink. When Moses approached it, he said:
"I did not know that you ran away because of thirst; you must be weary."
-Exod. R. ii 2

Might the urge to mould Jesus into a latter-day Moses have

inspired Luke to borrow p[loqSfrom this tradition? And might
this same tradition have provided the precedent for describing
the stray sheep as a "little," a "weary" young "kid," as Matthew,
especially, and Luke are wont to do ? In the next Section we will
have reason to refer back to this same passage for another parallel,
which increases the likelihood that Luke was acquainted with this
rabbinic tradition.]
V.

The picture of the man laying the sheep on his shouldersin Luke
(v. 5) is missing from Matthew. In view of this, it can be said that
the image is a Lucan invention. This argues against Luke's preserving the more primitive version, for what reason could there
have been for Matthew to suppressthis colourfultouch ? The shorter
text claims our attention as the more primitive, and once again
Thomas presents a text lacking this expansion.
33) It is worth noting that Thomas's reading, omitting both the Lucan
gp-uoq<and the Matthean 6pos, is in agreement with R prima manus at
Matthew xviii 12.
34) H. SCHOEPS, Theologie und Geschichtedes Judenchristentums (Tiibingen,
I949), PP. 87-98; W. MEEKS, The Prophet-King, Moses Traditions and the
Johannine Christology, Supp. Nov. Test. xiv (Leiden, I967).

This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I45

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP

Various scholars 35)already have drawn attention to a rabbinic

parallel which may shed light on the Lucan addition. It follows
immediately upon the last sentence quoted above in Section IV.
"... that you ran away because of thirst; you must be weary." So he
placed the kid on his shoulder and walked away. Thereupon God said: "Because
thou hast mercy in leading the flock of a mortal, thou wilt assuredly

tend

my flock Israel."
-Exod.

R. ii 2

In view of the fact that three parallels with the Lucan text are
to be found in this brief passage from the Midrash (the flock is

in the wilderness; the sheep which strays is little, weak [implied,

according to Jeremias, by Luke, and strongly suggested by
Matthew]; the sheep is carried back on the shepherd'sshoulders),it
seems most reasonable to presume that Luke used it as a model
for the correspondingfeatures in his parable. Further, the aim of
the rabbinic quotation, the establishment of the legitimacy of
Moses' authority to be shepherd of Israel, could be applied with
equal ease to Jesus. As Moses tended his flock of real sheep, so
Jesus tends his flock of human sheep (sinners); as Moses' conscientious behaviour proved him worthy of being made shepherd of
Israel, so Jesus' conscientious pursuit of his task proves him to be
the Christ.
VI.
An apparent singularity of Thomas is the fatigue of the shepherd.
In Thomas the shepherd "sought for (the sheep) until he found it.
Having tired himself out...."
HENSShas subscribed to a gnostic interpretation of Thomas,
terming the exertion of the shepherd part of a "gnostischen Erl6sungsprozess"36). A more plausible suggestion is that this effort
by the shepherd is part of a primitive Jewish-Christianchristology,
arising from the suffering servant passage in Isaiah liii. SCHOEPS
37)
35) This text has been cited by, among others, J. J. WETTSTEIN, Novum
Testamentum Graecum (Graz, I962; a reprint of the edition of I75I), Vol. I,
p. 757; H. STRACK and P. BILLERBECK, Kommentar zum neuen Testament
aus Talmud und Midrasch, sixth edition reprinted (Munich, I974), Vol. II,
p. 209.
36) W. HENSS, Das Verhdltnis zwischen Diatessaron, christlicher Gnosis
und "Western Text", BZNW 33 (Berlin, 1967), p. 49.
37) H. SCHOEPS, op. cit., p. 360.
IO

This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I46

WILLIAML. PETERSEN

has described such a christology, and QUISPELfeels he has traced

it elsewhere in Thomas (logion 28) 38).

I cannot accept this thesis, for it is unnecessary to introduce into

Thomas an element which is otherwise conspicuous only by its
absence-the christological, messianic pronouncement-in order to
explain this feature of the parable.
Instead, I would again point to the OT, where a prominent feature
of God's relationship with Israel is his long-suffering patience:
"You have wearied me with your iniquities" (Is. xliii 24) 39).
This same sentiment is also present in the rabbinic sources, where
it too is bound up with the census motif. Following on the last
sentence of Pesikta Rabbati IO. 5, quoted above in Section I, where
God explains that his people alone are to be numberedbecause they
are "Mine own treasure," the text continues:
"And even as a man's own treasures are dear to him, so these are dear to
Me because of the trouble they put Me to. What a great cost they put me to!"
... (No wonder that elsewhere) the Holy One, blessed be He, referred to
Israel as "Ephraim my dear son (Jer. xxxi 20), the son who put Me to
payment for so dear a price."
-Pesikta Rabbati IO. 5

The exertion of the shepherd is not necessarily either messianic

or gnostic, but rather a typically OT feature of God's relationship
with Israel-that is, with the sheep of Thomas's parable.
VII.
The presumption that Thomas's conclusion ("I love thee more
than the ninety-nine.") is his own invention is not well founded.
To begin with, Tertullian, in de Paenitentia 8, reveals that he is
familiar with the tradition of the one lost sheep being loved more
than the rest 40):
errat et una pastoris ovicula, sed grex una carior non erat: una illa conquiritur, una pro omnibus desideratur.

has pointed out that "I love thee" in

Moreover, GUILLAUMONT
Thomas corresponds to Xoipst i7r' ocuT, in Matthew (xviii I3) 41).
38) G. QUISPEL,Makarius, das Thomasevangelium und das Lied von der

Perle, Supp. Nov. Test. xv (Leiden, I967), p. II.

39) Further references are Is. i 14 and vii I3; Jer. vi ii and xv 6; Mal.
ii I7.
40) G. QUISPEL, Tatian, op. cit., p. 90.
"S6mitismes dans les logia de J6sus retrouves a
41) A. GUILLAUMONT,

Nag-Hamadi," Journal Asiatique, ccxliv (I958), p. I20, suggests that the

This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PARABLE OF THE LOST SHEEP

I47

Thomas's final sentence is then in agreement with Matthew, save

that Thomas addresses the saying directly to the sheep rather than
to Matthew's contrived audience 42), and Thomas does not have
the explanatory ToZq[J 7MTXavxCevo. Once again, for brevity
and directness of style, Thomas's reading, with its direct address
and without the explanatory phrase, appears to be anterior to the
synoptic versions, or independent from them.
Conclusion
In view of this evidence, how is it possible to assert "dass das
Thomasevangeliumliterarischdirekt von den Synoptikern abhangig
ist (wobei sich Thomas starker an Lukas anlehnt)"? 43)
When the charge of "gnosticism by association" is removed, one
observes that on the basis of source criticism (I) Thomas's version
of the parable is not gnostic. Traditio-historical study indicates
that Thomas has preserved a very primitive recension of the
parable, rich in OT imagery and serving revelatory, programmatic
and polemic causes. This, along with application of the other
higher critical methods, leads us to the conclusionthat (2) Thomas's
version is certainly not dependent upon the synoptic versions. And
on the basis of breviorlectio potior, absence of specific allegorical
identifications, lack of implied or expressed messianism, its faithfulness to the eschatological tone of the Ezekiel text and its xenophobic intent, one is driven to conclude that (3) Thomas's version
of the parable is more primitive than the synoptic versions of the
parable.
variance rests on an Aramaic substratum, which read X?3, equivalent to the
Greek E8oxeiv. "XoaIpeLvdes synoptiques a pu en 6tre aussi une traduction,
moins bonne peut-ftre, mais suffisamment exacte."
42) H. MONTEFIORE and H. E. W. TURNER, Thomas and the Evangelists,

SBT 35 (London, I962), p. 50, feel that the direct address is "an authentic
touch."
48)

F. SCHNIDER, op. cit., p. I46, n. 3.

This content downloaded from 190.122.252.18 on Thu, 07 Aug 2014 19:31:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions