Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GOSPEL OF THOMAS
by
Milan Vukomanovic
University of Pittsburgh, 1993
U•M•I
300 N. Zeeb Rd.
ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
PART ONE
I. THE HERMENEUTICAL CHALLENGE OF THE
GOSPEL OF THOMAS.
A. AN INVITATION FOR INTERPRETATION
B. SOME ASPECTS OF THE CURRENT DEBATE
1. The Problem of Dependence
2. The Jewish-Christian Features of the Gospel
3. The Modes of Ascesis in the Gospel of Thomas
PART TWO
III. THE ORIGIN OF THE NAASSENES
A. THE IMPORTANCE OF HIPPOLYTUS' ATTESTATION
1. The Character of Hippolytus' Account
2. The Analysis of the Naassene Thomas-Fragment
B. THOMAS AND HIPPOLYTUS' NAASSENE SOURCE
C. WHO WERE THE NAASSENES?
1. The Name and Origin
2. Myth, Doctrine, Ritual
2
IV. PHRYGIAN RELIGIOUS SYNCRETISM AND
THE SYMBOLISM OF THOMAS
A. THE EVIDENCE FOR THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN
MISSIONS IN THE LYCUS VALLEY
B. SOME EARLY FORMS OF RELIGIOUS SYNCRETISM
IN PHRYGIA
1. The Mysteries of the Great Mother
2. Some Aspects of the Cult of Sabazius
C. THE SYMBOLICAL WORLD OF THE
NAASSENE-THOMASINE COMMUNITY
1. The Symbol of the Kingdom
2. Ascesis, Baptism and the Primeval Androgyny
SUMMARY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
3
ABBREVIATIONS
4
INTRODUCTION
The main thesis of this book is based upon the plausible assumption that an
inquiry into the background of a religious sect which delivered, edited and probably
composed the Gospel According to Thomas may provide the decisive clue as to the origin
and transmission of this early Christian document. However simple and reasonable this
assumption may seem, it has not, as far as I know, been proposed in the domain of
Thomas' scholarship.
Indeed, soon after the publication of the first translations of the most complete,
Coptic, version of the Gospel of Thomas 1 (which was found in 1945/46 along with the
rest of the "Nag Hammadi Library"), several scholars found it appropriate to renew our
specifically, they referred again, this time in the light of the new discovery, to the most
account, the Naassenes "expressly delivered" their discourse about the kingdom of heaven
"in the gospel entitled according to Thomas" (Refutatio 5.7.20). It is certainly no accident
that some of these scholars (primarily Grant and Schoedel), prompted by Hippolytus'
striking testimony,4 proposed very reasonable hypotheses that the Naassenes were the
1 In my analysis of this document I rely upon the editio princeps of the Gospel of Thomas, edited and
translated by an international group of scholars: Antoine Guillaumont, et al. The Gospel According to
Thomas, New York: Harper and Row, 1959. Copyright © E. J. Brill 1959. All excerpts from this translation
are used by permission of E. J. Brill.
2 Hippolytus of Rome, Refutatio omnium haeresium, ed. by M. Marcovich, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1986.
3 Cf. Jean Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, New York: The Viking Press, 1960; Robert
Grant, "Notes on the Gospel of Thomas," VC 13 (1959): 170-80; Robert Grant and D. N. Freedman, The
Secret Sayings of Jesus, New York: Doubleday, 1960; W. R. Schoedel, "Naassene Themes in the Coptic
Gospel of Thomas," VC 14 (1960): 225-34; E. M. J. M. Cornelis, "Quelques éléments pour une
comparaison entre l'Evangile de Thomas et la notice de Hippolyte sur les Naasènes," VC 15 (1961): 83-104.
4 See pp. 120ff. It is important to notice that Hippolytus' direct testimony is further supported by an offhand
quotation from the Gospel of Thomas which roughly corresponds to its logion 4. Since Hippolytus'
reference to the kingdom of heaven "which is to be sought for within man" corresponds to log. 3 of the
Gospel of Thomas, the relationship between the so-called "Naassene source" of Hippolytus' and our gospel
5
authors, or, at least, redactors, of the Thomasine collection of Jesus' sayings. Furthermore,
Grant and Schoedel embarked upon the more detailed analyses of the textual as well as
phraseological parallels between the Gospel of Thomas and Hippolytus' Naassene source.
no further study has been proposed with respect to the social-historical background of the
Naassene sect as well as the relevance of this question for the problem of provenance and
themselves with Puech and Doresse in maintaining that this apocryphal work "originated
in, or near, Syria."6 Such an assumption, as we will have the occasion to observe later in
this study, has been based predominantly upon the traditional association of the apostle
In his own "Notes on the Gospel of Thomas," Robert Grant goes so far as to
suggest that, since "many of the sources of the Gospel of Thomas have passed through
Naassene hands...we cannot expect to find any authentic sayings of Jesus accurately
reproduced in it."7 In other words, since the Gospel of Thomas, edited by the Naassenes,
most likely represents a "secondary" gospel (in redaction-critical terms), one infers that it
may not contain any authentic sayings of Jesus. Eventually, this line of inquiry prompted
Grant and Freedman to conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic document which
canonical gospels as well. All these gospels are "secondary" in the sense that their authors
make use of older, more or less independent material and, as the redactors of this
material, they combine, rearrange and accommodate it to their own specific theological or
is even more strengthened: namely, here we have a case of parallelism in which the cluster of sayings in
Thomas (log. 3 and 4) are evoked, in the same order, in the Naassene fragment (5.7.20)!
5 For example, Schoedel concludes in his article that "the evidence [furnished by these textual parallels]
seems sufficient to lend some support to the hypothesis that the Gospel of Thomas is a Naassene document,
i.e., that it was either composed or thoroughly redacted by members of this sect" (Schoedel, 233).
6 Grant and Freedman, 67.
7 Grant 1959: 179.
6
polemical purposes. Are we ready to admit that, such being the case, their final literary
products do not contain any authentic or independent traditions of Jesus' sayings? Not at
all. We only know that some criteria should be applied to each saying (or groups of
sayings) in order to determine their authenticity. But these same criteria could be applied
to the Gospel of Thomas as well. The fact that it represents, in redaction-critical terms, a
"secondary" gospel, does not necessarily go against an independent origin of its earlier
strata and the posibility that one of these strata may indeed include some authentic
sayings of Jesus.8
Now we may ask ourselves why none of these scholars, who are strongly inclined
to ascribe to the Naassenes the authorship of the Gospel of Thomas, have investigated the
ideological and geographical milieu of this sect. I believe that one of the reasons for such
source as to the provenance of this sect . And Hippolytus is the only source of our
However, as I will argue in the second part of this work, a closer scrutiny of
Hippolytus' account points to Phrygia, and it is quite possible that the Phrygian-Egyptian
trajectory may suggest the most probable clue as to the transmission of the Gospel of
Several reasons prompted me to consider the course of transmission that, thus far,
has not been investigated in the growing literature on the Gospel of Thomas.
A number of historians who wrote before the discovery of the Coptic manuscript
7
Unfortunately, since they were not familiar with the full content of the document which
Hippolytus had known as euangelion kata Thôman, these authors did not pay any
particular attention to the Naassene relationship with Thomas. On the other hand, I
believe that scholars such as Grant, Doresse and Schoedel, who otherwise emphasize the
Naassene affiliation with our gospel, did not find any particular reasons to inquire into the
Phrygian connection. In fact, soon after the discovery of this document, they had available
two other relevant hypotheses as to the background of the Gospel of Thomas (i.e., eastern
Syria and Egypt). However, as I will soon be able to reckon, both these hypotheses
landscape as well as the emergence of Christian Gnosticism11 in this area (as early as the
first century C.E.) provides the most significant clue as to the question of origin and
transmission of the Gospel of Thomas, I will have to pursue two successive stages of
redaction-critical methods, I will confirm that the Naassenes played the major role in the
Second, on the basis of the historical as well as textual evidence, I will not only
seek to demonstrate that this sect originated in Hierapolis, Phrygia, but also that this
locale may be considered the most relevant setting indicating the growth and transmission
of Thomas from Palestine to Egypt via Asia Minor. Hence the principal theoretical goal of
this book is to trace the most probable trajectory in early Christian thought that directly
contributed to the growth and development of the Gospel of Thomas. In order to achieve
this goal, we will have to rely on some very strict methodological principles. Not only
must we formulate a hypothesis that could provide answers to most of the questions and
dilemmas disscussed above, but also the validity of its arguments will have to be
8
One of the preliminary results of such a critical appraisal will be the complete
rejection of the thesis regarding Syrian origins of the Gospel of Thomas. The examination
of an alternative view (i.e. the idea of the Egyptian provenance of this document), taken
as an auxiliary hypothesis, will aid us in determining the more familiar part of the history
of transmission of our document in the period between the second- and fourth-century.
This alternative view may also contribute to our better understanding of an early religious
community that transmitted and edited the collection of sayings known as the Gospel of
Thomas. Finally, a closer inquiry into the background of this community (the Naassenes)
will not only cast doubts on the Egyptian origin of the Gospel of Thomas, but aid us in
proposing a more primitive setting of ideas that inspired the first composition of this
document as well.
A further investigation of the earliest transmission of the logia Iêsou in the first
century will lead us to assume that the most authentic kernel of the Gospel of Thomas had
already existed in the first century, but that the critical step in its composition was made
by the redactors of these logia. In that sense, the Gospel of Thomas had a redactional
history similar to that of the synoptic gospels. A major difference is that Thomas was
originally composed in a markedly syncretistic milieu that very early (as early as the first
century C.E.) reflected strong gnosticizing tendencies. However, I will not seek such an
I believe that all the enumerated problems that still surround one of the most
enigmatic documents of early Christian literature increase the need for its reassessment.
My new proposal adopts the evidence for the independence of at least part of the sayings-
willing to align myself with the school of thought that regards Thomas as a collection of
9
sayings having a development more or less independent of the synoptic gospels.12 Any
further scrutiny leading in that direction would have to provide answers to the following
independent transmission of particular sayings? If Thomas did not use any of the synoptic
gospels as its common written source, could it perhaps have used an underlying tradition
in its oral or written form? Finally, are we able to trace that initial trajectory of the
sayings-material from its hypothetical Aramaic kernel to its first, and perhaps most
the growth of an early Christian tradition, an occurrence which may indicate that it could
have originated in more than one geographic location. In terms of the temporal
of this collection of sayings. Indeed, there is internal, textual evidence in Thomas that
points to the layered redactional structure of this document, containing at least two major
These theoretical insights are very important and, in my view, they might
transmission of the Gospel of Thomas. Also, the divergent traditional elements of this
document need to be precisely delineated by means of a redaction-critical analysis. We
12 Cf., for example: Oscar Cullmann, "The Gospel of Thomas and the Problem of the Age of the Tradition
Contained Therein," Interpretation 16 (1962): 418-38; Stevan Davies, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian
Wisdom, New York: The Seabury Press, 1983; John Dominic Crossan, Four Other Gospels, Minneapolis:
Winston Press, 1985; Charles Hedrick, "Thomas and the Synoptics: Aiming at a Consensus," SC 7
(1989/90): 39-56; Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, London:
SCM Press, 1990; Stephen Patterson, "The Gospel of Thomas Within the Development of Early
Christianity," Ph.D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1988.
13 R. McL. Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas, London: Mowbray, 1960.
14 Kenneth Neller, "Diversity in the Gospel of Thomas," SC 7 (1989/90): 1-18.
15 James Robinson, "On Bridging the Gulf From Q to the Gospel of Thomas (Or Vice Versa)," in Hedrick,
Charles and R. Hodgson, Jr., eds., Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity, Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1986: 162.
10
have to realize that it is not sufficient to separate only those logia in Thomas that
represent more or less apparent parallels with the synoptic gospels. One should also be
able to single out a considerable number of logia that have no echoes or parallels in the
synoptic writings and then explain their origin and function in the Gospel of Thomas. An
indicates that more than half of these sayings may be understood in the light of
Hippolytus' "Naassene source."16 I am inclined to believe not only that there are
redactional traits betraying the secondary recension of older sayings-material, but also
that it is possible to determine the character of that recension through the examples of
particular logia in Thomas.
On the basis of such a textual analysis, I reject the positions of those authors who
defend the complete dependence of the Gospel of Thomas upon the synoptic gospels. On
the one hand, I believe that the Coptic Gospel of Thomas represents a secondary
recension of an older sayings corpus, greater parts of which are independent of the
synoptic gospels. On the other hand - against the extreme positions of some of the
adherents of the independence school (such as Stevan Davies) - I do not see any particular
problem in the fact that Thomas may contain larger units of an independent sayings
tradition and still be a "secondary gospel" even in its first, Greek, recensions. Of course,
this quality of the Gospel of Thomas brings about another methodological as well as
hermeneutical problem: Are we in this case examining "the gospel within the gospel"
(i.e., a more authentic stratum of the Gospel of Thomas) or the final product taken as it is?
My proposal will suggest that this final product is no less important for the history
of earliest Christianity than its original kernel, because it bears witness to a specific line
Phrygia.
16 For a more detailed account of this special sayings material, cf. our list on pp. 130ff.
11
A methodological problem that usually accompanies most of the historical
investigations of this type (in which the lack of explicit evidence opens up several
avoid circular argumentation in this case is one of the preliminary questions requiring our
attention. In other words, if we assume that the Gospel of Thomas was composed in
Phrygia or Egypt, and only then look for the evidence that could confirm such a
hypothesis, we would be exposed to this sort of criticism. Or, again, some authors who
have written on the Gospel of Thomas tended to make a pars pro toto movement and
propose theories concerning the origin of this document solely on the basis of some, more
or less evident, parallels with the works whose provenance is well-attested in the
scholarly literature. It is, indeed, hard to avoid criticism in theoretical quests of this kind.
problem is a very specific course of inquiry that relies predominantly upon the material
evidence and explicit testimonia regarding authorship and provenance of our gospel. We,
therefore, begin with the more familiar in order to illuminate the less familiar through an
entire series of coherent deductions. Once we come to the point at which we may
formulate a distinctive hypothesis concerning the origin and transmission of the Gospel of
Thomas, we will not only tend to support our theory by the available evidence, but also
describe why that particular point of view has greater persuasive power than any other
rival hypothesis. Furthermore, if the new thesis about the provenance and transmission of
the Gospel of Thomas may shed additional light on some other questions and problems
(such as the Colossian conflict or the origins of Gnosticism in Asia Minor) the proposal
On a more general plane, this work consists of two parts. In Part One I survey
some of the major theoretical problems in the area of Thomasine studies. These problems
17 The course of a further research in this area is only briefly suggested on pp. 224-5. A thorough
investigation of these problems is something that goes beyond the primary theoretical goals of this
dissertation.
12
include the question of Thomas' possible dependence upon the synoptic gospels, the
in this document (chapter I). Such a survey is accompanied by a critical assessment of the
two extant proposals concerning the provenance of the Gospel of Thomas (chapter II).
These two hypotheses are examined in the light of the linguistic, redaction-critical as well
transmission of the Gospel of Thomas is followed from the provenance of the Greek and
Coptic manuscripts of this document in the Nile Valley (in the period between the second
and the fourth century C.E.) back to the most reliable attestation, that of Hippolytus,
about the use of this document at the beginning of the second century. This period of
we have firm evidence that the Gospel of Thomas was used in Egypt in the second half of
the second century. Unfortunately, the paucity of evidence as to the nature of first-century
Christianity in Egypt prevents us from postulating any direct transmission of the logia
In the second part of this book, Hippolytus' Naassene source (Refutatio 5.6-11) is
analyzed with a view both to the redaction-critical (parallels with the Gospel of Thomas)
origin). An inquiry into the background of the Naassene tradition in Hierapolis, Phrygia
as well as its association with the apostolic preaching and the tradition of Jesus' sayings
transmitted from Palestine to Phrygia through various apostolic channels (e.g. Papias'
testimony; apocryphal traditions about James, Mariamne, Philip and Thomas) represents
take a closer look at the heresiological problem related to the origins of the Naassene sect
and its identification with the Ophites (chapter III). Hippolytus' Naassene Sermon is
13
account is that he is the only Christian author who furnishes evidence about the sect
its Christian and pre-Christian forms) and examine the probable relation of these
syncretic ideas to the symbolic universe of the Gospel of Thomas (chapter IV).
Finally, the new hypothesis regarding the origin and transmission of the Gospel of
Thomas (chapter V) emerges not only as a necessary alternative to the theses proposing
either Egyptian or Syrian provenance of this gospel, but also as a logical outcome of an
examination that gives precedence to Hippolytus' valuable information about the sect
which preserved an ancient collection of Jesus' sayings under the name of his mysterious
apostle Thomas.
14
PART ONE
15
I. THE HERMENEUTICAL CHALLENGE OF THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS
The Gospel According to Thomas, one of the most significant and most intriguing
exciting scholarship. However, half a century after its discovery in the sands of Upper
Egypt this short but powerful text continues to challenge the experts with a myriad of
apostle Thomas, passed through several distinct phases of transmission and perhaps
through more than two purely linguistic alterations. The document is preserved in Greek
and Coptic versions, the second being the most complete text that we possess.
Coptic text is a translation of the original Greek document which was not preserved in its
entirety, but only in fragments. These fragments, on the other hand, pertain to three
independent manuscripts - i.e., P. Oxy. 1, P. Oxy. 654 and P. Oxy. 655. Furthermore, a
comparative textual analysis of all three different versions indicates that the Coptic
3. The final, Coptic version of this document does not reveal the real name of its
compiler, nor does it offer any decisive clue to the community that produced and sealed
for the future this masterpiece of religious literature. More than a dozen attestations and
1 For a more detailed discussion of this problem, cf. Attridge's article in Bentley Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi
Codex II, 2-7: Together with XIII, 2, Leiden: Brill, 1989: 96-102. Also Joseph Fitzmyer, "The Oxyrhynchus
Logoi of Jesus and the Coptic Gospel According to Thomas," in Essays on the Semitic Background of the
New Testament, London: Chapman, 1971: 355-433; and Miroslav Marcovich, "Textual Criticism on the
Gospel of Thomas," JTS (1969): 53-74.
16
references to the euangelion kata Thôman encountered in the works of the Church
fathers bring still more confusion to the problem of Thomas' authorship. Even if we take
into account that some of these testimonia refer to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and not
to our collection of sayings, one is still perplexed by the information that the
Manichaeans not only used, but wrote this document2; or, again, that both Didymus Judas
Thomas, the apostle of Christ, and Thomas, the successor of Mani,3 are related to the
composition of this text, etc. Except from Hippolytus' attestation (Refutatio 5.7.20) -
which is accompanied by a fragment from Thomas that, most likely, represents an echo of
its log. 4 - we are even more confused by the testimonia of Christian writers who simply
refer to the Gospel of Thomas as one of the better-known heretical gospels.
4. The question of the provenance of this gospel brings about a rather disturbing
ambiguity that may seriously challenge the scholarly consensus about Thomas' Syrian
origin. Both versions of the document were found in Egypt and there is no extant Syriac
text or fragment that could conclusively confirm the Syrian phase of transmission of this
"gospel." It is quite possible that particular sayings of Thomas, taken as isolated units, had
circulated in the first century in the Aramaic language. We may uncover a certain number
of Semitisms behind the existent Coptic text, but we do not have enough linguistic
history. Besides, the work itself was not attested by contemporary or later Syrian authors.
Although thoughtful and provoking, Antoine Guillaumont's (1958 and 1981) attempts to
uncover a possible Syriac recension under the Coptic text remained rather isolated in the
which has many parallels in other works of early Christian literature. The questions of
2 An obviously anachronistic note from the mid-fourth century, provided by Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesis
4.36). For the critical rejection of this idea, cf. pp. 50-1. For the recent, more comprehensive, collection of
testimonia to the Gospel of Thomas, cf. Attridge, 103ff.
3 Again, Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesis 6.31) is the source of this confusing information.
4 For a more elaborate discussion concerning this linguistic problem, see pp. 88-91.
17
relationship, dependence and, most importantly, the precedence of some of these parallels
definition and typology) further complicates the discussion of the textual history of this
document.
On the more general, exegetical plan, the text of Thomas confronts us with an
gospel.
First, not only does the dynamic world which produced Thomas appear as an
intellectual inspiration for any daring "archeologist" of Christian origins, but also the text
itself, by its programatic introductory logion, invites the interpreter to embark upon an
unusual hermeneia which is announced there as a matter of life and death (cf. log. 1)! A
great deal of the hermeneutical challenge associated with the text of Thomas consists of
its capacity to promote an unprecedented inquiry into the meaning of Jesus' words
philosophical sayings with no apparent formal structure or plan. We may recall here the
Greek fragment of the Thomasine prologue (P. Oxy. 654.1) in which it is explicitly
claimed that the sayings in question are, in fact, hoi logoi hoi apokryphoi, i.e., the "secret"
or "apocryphal" words of the 'living Jesus.' Does this actually mean that in the so-called
"gospel" of Thomas we are dealing with an original compilation of Jesus' secret sayings,
or is it more likely the case that the religious group which had compiled these utterances
18
considered itself the bearer or successor of an apocryphal, esoteric tradition? In other
Even if we accept the first alternative, that is, the definition of Thomas as a unique
anthology of Jesus' secret or "esoteric" discourses, we may not so easily skip over the
paradox inherent in the very "anatomy" of this text: namely, those are the secret sayings
which reveal the mystery of life and death. And even a quick view of the content of those
utterances only confirms that the religious language of the Gospel of Thomas is inherently
paradoxical; taken also as separate units, Thomas' sayings aim at "revealing mysteries" by
concealing them!
The paradoxical nature of some of the Thomasine utterances strikingly resemble
certainly no accident that the paradoxical world of the text of Thomas has been created by
an almost exclusive use of parables, proverbs, aphorisms, brief dialogues as well as short,
instructive stories. For these are some of the most condensed generic forms of religious
discourse that quite adequately express a very distinctive "tension in language" resulting
from the creative encounter with the non-verbal domain of the ultimate. In this realm,
sense, one may speak about good poetry as disclosing certain aspects of being by the
discoursive process of distorting the standards or limits of everyday language. This kind
of verbal "distortion" or commitment to paradox appears in the Gospel of Thomas as a
mysterious key to revelation, as a way of disclosing the grand mystery embedded in the
deep structure of reality opened up by the 'living Jesus.' One may only wonder, or remain
silent, before the tremendous power by which the new awareness of reality (the reality of
To put it differently, Thomas' Jesus did something with the words. His profound,
19
soteriological function, an effect which the canonical gospels partly produce with the help
related to the question ofpossible dependence of the Thomasine sayings tradition upon the
synoptic gospels. In its radical form, this question could perhaps be formulated as
collection of Jesus' sayings (with a form-critical status similar to that of the synoptic
gospels), or an entirely dependent "gnostic" product with no specific value with respect to
the synoptic problem? Or is it a palimpsest, a multi-layered document containing the
elements of both?
In this case, as I will be inclined to argue in the next section, one is not confronted
with a simple alternative (pro- or against the dependence) that does not allow for the
third, or even fourth possible solution. My position concerning this form-critical question
necessarily indicate the dependent status of the Gospel of Thomas. On the contrary, an
have been used in a gnosticizing or syncretistic manner as early as the first century. The
New Testament epistles themselves are probably the best witnesses to such a process, at
least in the social-historical context of Asia Minor. In that same turbulent religious
landscape of the first and early second century, I will be inclined to seek for the origins of
Suffice it to say for the purpose of this hermeneutical propaedeutics that the
Gospel of Thomas invites potential interpreters on at least two textual levels. On the first
level, one should be able to deal with various "external," that is, historical, textual-
critical, redactional and form-critical problems. An adequate solution of these problems
20
may significantly facilitate our hermeneutical approach to individual logia. On the
in which the word of 'living Jesus' is considered a deed leading to an ultimate revelation
or 'perfection.'
However, without the proper understanding of the origins, character and the ways of
transmission of this apocryphal work, the Gospel of Thomas remains, in many respects, a
"ghost-document." Unexpectedly found in a mysterious jar buried in an old monastic
cemetery near the village of Hamra Dom in Upper Egypt, Thomas may, therefore, easily
deceive its readers by a plethora of ambiguous messages and symbols appearing in the
boundless holographic field of potential meanings for which one hardly finds any
It is difficult indeed to estimate if any broad scholarly consensus has been reached
in the area of Thomasine studies. I am inclined to believe that in this case such an
agreement depends on the types of questions that have been asked in the still growing
Even a brief survey of this literature indicates that the more comprehensive of
those studies usually address the general questions as to Thomas' possible dependence
upon the synoptic tradition, or its Gnostic vs. non-Gnostic origin, whereas some of the
more specialized essays and articles deal with the various parallels of the Gospel of
21
Thomas with other pieces of early Christian literature. Some detailed examinations of the
composition and redaction of this document, as well as the analyses of particular logia in
The issues of Thomas' possible dependence upon the synoptic gospels5 as well as
its parallels with the works of Syrian and Egyptian Christianity are meaningful starting
points of any inquiry into the origin and transmission of this document. For in this context
we are dealing with the theories of the two major groups of scholars who support two
The advocates of the "independence school" generally maintain that the Gospel of
Thomas is not a Gnostic composition, but an early Jewish-Christian document that had a
compositional as well as terminological features of the whole series of logia and their
Edessan, milieu).
Some of the arguments that frequently occur in the books and essays of these
scholars emphasize, for example, the following features of the Thomasine collection of
sayings:
- the absence of the framework material as well as redactional traits typical of the
synoptic gospels;6
5 For the most recent discussion of this problem, cf., for example, John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking
the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1, New York: Doubleday, 1991: 127ff.; Koester 1990: 84ff.; Hedrick 1989/90;
Klyne Snodgrass, "The Gospel of Thomas: A Secondary Gospel," SC 7 (1989/90): 19-38; and Patterson
1988.
6 For the best summary of this argument, cf. Crossan 1985: 35ff.
7 E.g. Gilles Quispel, Gnostic Studies, Vol. 2, Leiden: NHA Institut te Istanbul, 1975a: 3ff.; Charles-Henri
Puech, "The Gospel of Thomas," in Hennecke and Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament Apocryphal Books.
Vol. 1, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963: 306; or Cullmann 1962.
22
- wisdom proclivities of the Gospel of Thomas characteristic of the Jewish-
Aramaic words or phrases which were translated differently in the synoptic gospels, but
- the parallels with some other, Jewish-Christian and Syrian documents, such as
the Acts of Thomas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Egyptians, Pseudo-
Robinson, Koester and their followers have been mostly engaged in proving that
the Gospel of Thomas reflects the existence of an independent tradition of Jesus' logia
that are either alternative to, or older than, the synoptic redaction of these sayings. One
line of their argumentation has led toward an inquiry into the genre of Thomas (identified
by Robinson as the logoi sophon, "words of the wise," and by Koester as the gnomai
8 Cf. especially Davies 1983 and Robinson and Koester, Trajectories through Early Christianity,
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971: 71-157.
9 Cf. Gilles, Quispel, "Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas," NTS 5 (1958/59): 276-90; Antoine
Guillaumont, "Sémitismes dans les logia de Jésus retrouvés à Nag Hammadi," JA 246 (1958): 113-23; " Les
sémitismes dans l'Evangile selon Thomas: Essai de classement," in R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren,
eds., Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, Leiden: Brill, 1981: 190-204.
10 Cf. Quispel 1975a and "The 'Gospel of Thomas' and the 'Gospel of the Hebrews'," NTS 12 (1965/66):
371-82; Puech 1963: 293ff.; Aelred Baker, "The 'Gospel of Thomas' and the Syriac 'Liber Graduum'," NTS
12 (1965-66): 49-55; "The Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron," JTS 16 (1965a): 449-54; A. F. J.
Klijn, "Das Thomasevangelium und das alt-syrische Christentum," VC 15 (1961): 146-59.
11 Cf., for example, Koester 1990: 78-80; Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, New York: Doubleday,
1987: 360ff.; Han Drijvers, "Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity," SC 2 (1982):
158ff.; Tai Akagi, "The Literary Development of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas," Ph.D. dissertation,
Western Reserve University, 1965: 50ff; Puech 1963: 286ff; Klijn 1961: 148ff and "Christianity in Edessa
and the Gospel of Thomas," NovT 14 (1972): 76ff; Grant 1960: 67.
12 Cf. particularly Quispel 1975a: 98-112.
13 Cf. Koester 1990; Patterson 1988; Robinson 1986; Cullmann 1962.
23
diaphoroi).14 Both these authors - joined later by Davies, Crossan, Patterson and others -
argue for an inherent connection between the Q-element of the synoptic gospels and the
collection of Thomas' sayings in terms of origin as well as literary genre. Not only is the
tendencies of that community as well. To an examination of this last thesis Stevan Davies
mid-first century) that served primarily as instruction for the newly baptized members of
the Christian community.17
devoted much more attention to the examination of the synoptic parallels of the Gospel of
Thomas. In his latest book Ancient Christian Gospels (1990) he argues, very persuasively,
for the form-critical independence of the logia in Thomas. A greater part of his analysis
deals with the Q/Thomas parallels, as well as the comparative analysis of the parables in
Thomas and in Mk 4. Koester asserts, in his own right, that only a careful, step-by-step,
analysis of these parallels may conclusively prove or disprove possible dependence of one
document upon the other. As we will be able to reckon soon, the absence of any common
redactional traits between Thomas and the synoptists may, of course, be an important clue
as to the history of the tradition of these documents.
own theories, these scholars offer equally interesting arguments. For example, if Thomas
24
bears witness to an independent development of Jesus' sayings, how can we explain the
fact that the document itself contains such diverse parallels with all four canonical
gospels, some Pauline epistles, apocryphal gospels of the Hebrews and the Egyptians, as
well as a plethora of other, non-canonical, sources and documents from the Syrian and
of Thomas from the synoptic gospels could be obtained by proving that the author or the
redactor of this collection of sayings made use of the special Matthean or Lukan material
(M or L) and hence relied upon Matthew's or Luke's redaction of the logia Iêsou. This
argument has very recently been supported in John Meier's book on the historical
Jesus.18 Because of its methodological importance for the problem of Thomas' relation to
Meier's argumentation has been developed in the chapter regarding the Nag
Hammadi material as a possible source in the quest for the historical Jesus. As far as the
relevance of that material is concerned, Meier's answer is negative. The only Nag
Hammadi document to which he pays much attention, however, is the Gospel of Thomas.
Meier's arguments are interesting, because they tend to embrace most of the
typical objections to the thesis concerning Thomas' independent status. Admittedly, some
of these arguments are general in their character and, therefore, do not pretend to be
conclusive in any meaningful sense.19 However, the most specific of Meier's objections
aim at showing that the Gospel of Thomas made use of the special Matthaean and special
Lukan material, and hence apparently relied upon Matthew's or Luke's redactions of the
sayings of Jesus. If correct, this would lead us to concede that the Gospel of Thomas itself
may not be considered a relevant source for determining the authenticity of Jesus' logia.
The most we could say in that case would be that this document has secondary
18 Meier 1991.
19 Meier, 130-32.
25
importance for the problem of authenticity, because its sayings were mediated by the
synoptic gospels.
A closer look at Meier's examples of GTh/M and GTh/L parallels will not,
however, convince everyone that Thomas was directly influenced by Matthew or Luke.
On the contrary. Believing perhaps in their cumulative power, Meier submits at least
eleven GTh/M and five GTh/L instances of parallelism respectively.20 Although these
Lukan parallels are not to be found in Matthew, they have a strong probability of being
derived either from Q or the common underlying source of tradition. John Kloppenborg,
for example, includes them all, except 17:20ff., in his collection of the "Sayings Gospel
Q,"21 whereas Koester and Patterson refer to them as QLk (including 17:20-21 as well22
). But, most importantly, all five GTh/L parallels represent different recensions of that
underlying material. And Thomas' own versions of these logia (log. 3/113, 10, 63, 72 and
79) do not indicate that their redactor relied on, or was influenced by, any of the Lukan
In the case of the Matthaean parallels listed by Meier, one is mostly dealing with
the echoes, and not with the clear, verbatim, parallels that would betray the influence of
Matthew's redaction on Thomas. Four of these parallels are the parables (with different
recensions in Thomas) which might have been known to both Matthew and Thomas from
the common underlying source. One of the seven other examples is the general
community rule about fasting, almsgiving and prayer which is very briefly mentioned in
Thomas (log. 6, 14), but widely elaborated in a different context in Mt 6:1-18. Another
parallel (Mt 11:28-30=log. 90) may apparently represent an echo of the common wisdom-
20 Ibid., 134-6.
21 John Kloppenborg et al., eds., Q-Thomas Reader, Sonoma, Ca.: Polebridge Press, 1990: 31ff.
22 Helmut Koester and S. J. Patterson, "The Gospel of Thomas: Does It Contain Authentic Sayings of
Jesus?" BR 6/2 (1990): 31ff.
26
Only three of these cases should be considered somewhat closer parallels (i.e.,
"city on the hill," "serpents and doves," and "pearls before swine"), but, again, they might
have been well known in both traditions (Thomasine as well as Matthean) as proverbs
traditions all over the world, these types of sayings are most easily remembered and had
been orally transmitted for a long time before they were written down in some document.
As such, they are methodologically very unreliable witnesses in terms of the precedence
of one version over the other. This applies especially in the cases of those GTh/Mt
parallels concerning which one may not conclusively prove the redactional precedence of
any of the extant versions of these sayings.
Finally, as far as the last two examples are concerned, Mt 18:20 represents a very
remote parallel to either Coptic or Greek variant of log. 30, whereas the relationship
between Mt 15:13 and log. 40 (one of Meier's crucial examples) may be explained by a
Remote parallels with some sayings that pertain even to the special Matthaean or Lukan
material, do not constitute sufficient evidence with respect to Thomas' dependence upon
these sources. One may, for example, be able to find such parallels or echoes through
comparative analysis of the synoptists and John, but that, of course, does not necessarily
mean that John relied on the synoptic writings at the time when he composed his own
versions of these parallels. The existence of a common underlying source as well as the
durative force of the oral tradition in relationship to parables, proverbs and aphorisms
I contend, therefore, that Meier has not succeeded in showing that the Gospel of
Thomas expressly employed, in any phase of its redaction, either the Matthean or Lukan
special material. A more detailed analysis of his examples reveals that the occurrence of
27
this type of parallels in Thomas may equally well be explained either by a common
underlying source of Mt, Lk and the Gospel of Thomas, by a common catechetical fund of
sayings, or by the durative force of the oral tradition - i. e., by those elements that could
have contributed to similar redactions of particular sayings in both the Gospel of Thomas
Yet another challenge to the thesis concerning the independent origin of the
Gospel of Thomas is to be found in works of the scholars who unambiguously argue for
the Gnostic character of this work. Robert Grant's book The Secret Sayings of Jesus
represents an exemplar of this type of analysis. I agree with Grant's theory insofar as it
brings Thomas in connection with the Naassene source quoted in Hippolytus' Refutatio
omnium haeresium. In my own investigation, I will be inclined not only to pursue that
"Naassene connection," but to support it with additional, even more specific arguments as
demonstrate that in the case of this writing one is concerned with a multi-layered
document that passed through at least two distinct phases of transmission, should
certainly allow the possibility of a later, secondary recension of this document in a more
or less apparent "gnostic key." But, as we have already argued in the introduction, the fact
that the Gospel of Thomas may indeed represent a "secondary" gospel, does not conflict
with the very persuasive form-critical evidence indicating that it contains, as one of its
earlier strata, a Jewish-Christian collection of Jesus' sayings developed independently of
28
The thesis regarding the Jewish-Christian23 origins of the Gospel of Thomas was
originally proposed by the international group of scholars24 who prepared and published
the editio princeps of this document in 1959. The ground-breaking studies which paved
the way to such a theory have been done by Henri-Charles Puech and Gilles Quispel, in
origin and transmission of the Gospel of Thomas. Some of these arguments may
are the Greek and the Aramaic variants of the same epithet - "the twin") as an indicator of
- The exaltation of James the Just (log. 12) as the bearer of the tradition which has
milieu, but may also indicate an early Palestinian background of the Gospel of Thomas (in
- The parallels with other Jewish-Christian documents such as the Acts of Thomas,
Gospel of Thomas. The greater part of these essays were collected and reprinted in the
second volume of his Gnostic Studies (1975).29 Quispel argues not only that the Gospel
23 In this book, I use the term 'Jewish-Christian' in a very broad sense: it simply refers to early Christian
groups of Jewish background or origin.
24 Primarily by Puech, Quispel and Guillaumont. Cf. Introduction, note 1.
25 Cf. Puech, 286-7.
26 Ibid., 306.
27 Ibid., 293.
28 Ibid., 286ff.
29 Cf. above, note 7.
29
of Thomas is a Jewish-Christian document that originated in Syria, but also that its text
itself refers to the character of the community which transmitted these sayings.
the canonical and non-canonical Christian literature, Quispel came to the following
important conclusions:
synoptic, gospels. This may be claimed on the basis of its internal evidence, the textual as
well as terminological features of the whole series of logia and their parallels in Jewish-
Christian writings.30
(monasticism), again with Jewish-Christian origins. There are some historical and textual
Thomas. 31
- In the case of this community one is, furthermore, dealing not only with the
encratite type of asceticism, but also with an ideology which promotes a very specific
form of l'ascèse itinérant characteristic of the first Jewish-Christian groups that made the
- The text itself was written around 140 C.E. in Edessa, eastern Syria. Its parallels
with other works of the same, Edessan milieu (such as the Diatessaron of Tatian, or
Syriac Recognitions) implies the existence of a third, older, document as their common
source. That document was, in all likelihood, the Gospel According to the Hebrews.33
30
- About half of the logia in Thomas are, however, of the syncretist type and
probably derive from the second major source of the Gospel of Thomas - the Gospel
French author Antoine Guillaumont, the third member of this international team
to the Jewish-Christian origins of this document. His investigations are important insofar
as he was able, in a few of his articles,35 to identify some of the Aramaisms in Thomas,
but, in my opinion, he overstated the argument by proposing the Syriac Vorlage of the
Gospel of Thomas. Aside from the fact that we do not possess any extant version of this
gospel in Syriac (nor is this document attested in the works of the later Syrian authors),
one may conclude that it is methodologically untenable, without some further evidence, to
make an arbitrary move from the assumed Aramaic substratum of Thomas to the Syrian
The genuine hypothesis as to the background, milieu and character of the Gospel
of Thomas, originally proposed by Puech and Quispel, has challenged the initial
assumptions about this work as one of the Gnostic documents found in the predominantly
"heretical" library at Nag Hammadi. The theses of the aforementioned scholars have
found a significant number of supporters (as well as critics) in the United States, Canada,
Germany, Netherlands and Japan. Among these scholars there are, of course, authors who
disagree with Quispel or Puech on a number of issues, but today one may at least admit
that the majority of scholars pertaining to the "independent school" tend to support at
2. Even if Gnostic in its general proclivity, it was somehow related, in one of its
31
3. Thomas promotes an ascetic ideology of the Syrian-Encratite type.
(Edessan) provenance of this gospel. The thesis regarding the Edessan birthplace of
Thomas is certainly one of those theses which gain almost instant confirmation among the
most renowned scholars in the field. Hence I am inclined to believe that there does exist a
broad scholarly consensus in Thomasine studies, at least with respect to the Syrian origin
of the Gospel of Thomas. This consensus, however, will be more systematically contested
Thomas is concerned, we may conclude that it is based upon a correct preliminary insight.
Indeed, the Gospel of Thomas is a document composed of at least two different types of
sayings. A greater part of these sayings have scriptural parallels and may, in particular, be
related to the synoptic material. In a broad sense, most of these sayings may be designated
as Jewish-Christian in tone. The second type of logia in Thomas are different in character,
and derive, in all likelihood, from another, syncretistic, source which Quispel too quickly
of scholars believed that the Oxyrhynchus sayings of Jesus (i.e. the Greek version[s] of
this gospel) represented a portion of either the Gospel of the Egyptians or the Gospel of
the Hebrews.39 And that is certainly no accident. Although we now possess very
scattered fragments of both "Alexandrian gospels," they contain some striking parallels
even with our Coptic version of Thomas. Based upon the facts that Thomas includes very
idiosyncratic sayings material which may be encountered in both the Egyptians and the
37 That is, the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Egyptians.
38 As may be observed from our list of the special Thomasine material on pp. 35-38, at least 29 logia in the
Gospel of Thomas pertain to that second, very distinctive, sayings corpus.
39 Cf. Puech, 297.
32
Hebrews, as well as that the latter two texts do not share any common material, one might
GEg GHeb
\ /
GTh
According to this scheme, Thomas would be the latest of the three documents. Let
me, therefore, briefly consider the nature of this relationship as well as the general
segments of the traditions that are independent of the canonical gospels. Second, they
were all presumably written within the same period - i.e., at the beginning, or toward the
5.7.8ff. and 5.7.20), at least two of these documents were known to the Phrygian religious
With regard to the type of parallels that exist between Thomas and the Gospel of
the Hebrews, one might emphasize the importance of the following features:
1. Both texts ascribe a prominent role to James, the brother of Jesus, which may
2. Both Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews were, admittedly, used in early
Greek-speaking Christian circles of Alexandria and Egypt. The existence of the Greek
copies of Thomas as well as the peculiar title 'Hebrews' (referring usually to the Greek-
wisdom proclivities. With respect to the second text, one should note the function of the
33
Holy Spirit, shaped according to the image of the divine wisdom in the Jewish sapiential
literature.40
4. A very peculiar parallel has also been recognized in the similar usage of the
formula seek - find - (be afflicted) - marvel - reign - (rest) in Thomas' log. 2 (P. Oxy.
654.5-9) and the Gospel of the Hebrews (Clement, Stromateis 5.14.96). Whereas Thomas
inserts 'affliction' as an existential condition preceding the state of perfection, the author
of the other gospel insists on the eschatological connotations of the state of 'rest.' In any
case, Thomas is known for its general disregard of the eschatological material.
Let me now specify the resemblances between Thomas and the Gospel of the
Egyptians:
as a very peculiar feature (cf., for example, log. 22 = Stromateis 3.13.96 = Second
2. common baptismal symbolism (i.e., the motif of the 'garment of shame' in log.
4. the importance of the Naassenes as the group which used both gospels
Despite these striking similarities between the Gospel of Thomas and the other
two apocryphal gospels, the fragmentary character of both the Gospel of the Egyptians
and the Gospel of the Hebrews prevents us from deriving any firmer conclusions
concerning the possibility of their direct relationship or dependence. Especially after the
methodologically problematic to advance any form-critical hypothesis that would treat the
Gospel of Thomas as a simple combination of the other two documents. The least we may
contend in this respect is that Quispel relied upon some very isolated (however important)
34
parallels between Thomas and the Gospel of the Egyptians and the Gospel of the Hebrews
respectively. Put simply, the origin of 114 sayings of the Coptic Thomas may not
sayings material, one of which is more syncretistic in its tone. In the case of the second
stratum of the Gospel of Thomas, we are most likely dealing with an independent Jewish-
sayings. But, even though this Jewish-Christian source comprises a greater part of the
sayings material in Thomas, we may ask ourselves if the Gospel of Thomas, taken as a
negative. And I am ready to submit at least two major reasons for this claim.
logia indicates that we are dealing here with a composite, multi-layered, document that
strongly reflects not only the variety of sources of tradition, but the syncretistic religious-
philosophical milieu as well. Although the sayings from the following list represent less
than a quarter of the entire Gospel of Thomas, they are peculiar enough to indicate a
"gnosticizing" context:
logion #
4a - Jesus said: The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a little child of seven days
about the place of Life, and he will live.
35
7 - Jesus said: Blessed is the lion which the man eats and the lion will become man; and
cursed is the man whom the lion eats and the lion will become man.
11b - In the days when you devoured the dead, you made it alive; when you come into
light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you
have become two, what will you do?
15 - Jesus said: When you see Him who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves
upon your face and adore Him: He is your Father.
18 – The disciples said to Jesus: Tell us how our end will be. Jesus said: Have you then
discovered the beginning so that you inquire about the end? Blessed is he who shall stand
at the beginning, and he shall know the end and he shall not taste death.
22c - Jesus said to them: When you make the two one, and when you make the inner as
the outer and the outer as the inner and the above as the below, and when you make the
male and the female into a single one, so that the male will not be male and the female
(not) be female, when you make eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in the place of a
hand, and a foot in the place of a foot, (and) an image in the place of an image, then shall
you enter [the Kingdom].
28 - Jesus said: I took my stand in the midst of the world and in flesh I appeared to them;
I found them all drunk, I found none among them athirst. And my soul was afflicted for
the sons of men, because they are blind in their heart and do not see that empty they have
come into the world (and that) empty they seek to go out of the world again. But now they
are drunk. When they have shaken off their wine, then will they repent.
29 - Jesus said: If the flesh has come into existence because of <the> spirit, it is a marvel;
but if <the> spirit (has come into existence) because of the body, it is a marvel of
marvels. But I marvel at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty.
49 - Jesus said: Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you shall find the Kingdom; because
you come from it, (and) you shall go there again.
56 - Jesus said: Whoever has known the world has found a corpse, and whoever has
found a corpse, of him the world is not worthy.
59 - Jesus said: Look upon the Living (One) as long as you live, lest you die and seek to
see Him and be unable to see.
60 - <They saw> a Samaritan carrying a lamb on his way to Judea. He said to His
disciples: (Why does) this man (carry) the lamb with him? They said to Him: In order that
he may kill it and eat it. He said to them: As long as it is alive, he will not eat it, but
(only) if he has killed it and it has become a corpse. They said: Otherwise he will not be
36
able to do it. He said to them: You yourselves, seek a place for yourselves in Repose, lest
you become a corpse and be eaten.
67 - Jesus said: Whoever knows the All but fails (to know) himself lacks everything.
70 - Jesus said: If you bring forth that within yourselves, that which you have will save
you. If you do not have that within yourselves, that which you do not have will kill you.
74 - He said: Lord, there are many around the cistern, but nobody in the cistern.
77b - Cleave a (piece of) wood, I am there; lift up the stone and you will find Me there.
80 - Jesus said: Whoever has known the world has found the body, and whoever has
found the body, of him the world is not worthy.
83 - Jesus said: The images are manifest to man and the Light which is within them is
hidden in the Image of the Light of the Father. He will manifest himself and His Image is
concealed by His Light.
84 - Jesus said: When you see your likeness, you rejoice. But when you see your images
which came into existence before you, (which) neither die nor are manifested, how much
will you bear!
85 - Jesus said: Adam came into existence from a great power and a great wealth, and
(yet) he did not become worthy of you. For if he had been worthy, [he would] not [have
tasted] death.
87 - Jesus said: Wretched is the body which depends upon a body, and wretched is the
soul which depends upon these two.
97 - Jesus said: The Kingdom of the [Father] is like a woman who was carrying a jar full
of meal. While she was walking [on a] distant road, the handle of the jar broke. The meal
streamed out behind her on the road. She did not know (it), she had noticed no accident.
After she came into her house, she put the jar down, she found it empty.
98 - Jesus said: The Kingdom of the Father is like a man who wishes to kill a powerful
man. He drew the sword in his house, he stuck it into the wall, in order to know whether
his hand would carry through; then he slew the powerful (man).
101b - And whoever does [not] love [his father] and his mother in My way will not be
able to be a [disciple] to me, for My mother [ ] but [My] true [Mother] gave me the Life.
105 - Jesus said: Whoever knows father and mother shall be called the son of a harlot.
110 - Jesus said: Whoever has found the world and become rich, let him deny the world.
37
112 - Jesus said: Woe to the flesh which depends upon the soul; woe to the soul which
depends upon the flesh.
114 - Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go out from among us, because women are not
worthy of the Life. Jesus said: See, I shall lead her, so that I will make her male, that she
too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes
herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
A further inquiry into the background of the Naassene sect will certainly
determined the character of the Gospel of Thomas. On the one hand, such a process has
Vorlage of the Gospel of Thomas. On the other hand, Grant clearly emphasizes the
importance of that secondary recension, but argues against the possibility that Thomas
contains some genuine and autochthonous sources of the Jesus tradition. Since our own
analysis aims to show that the Naassenes were a syncretistic religious sect of Greco-
Phrygian (and not Jewish-Christian) origin,41 and since I consider the members of this
group as the original editors of Thomas, one may hardly regard this gospel in toto as a
Jewish-Christian document.
And now we come to the second major reason why the Gospel of Thomas does
the Gospel of Thomas betrays certain inconsistencies in terms of its general, Jewish-
Christian proclivities. This phenomenon has already been noticed by several scholars.42
The Thomasine community, for example, respects sabbath (log. 27), but condemns
41 Suffice it to say at this point that the Naassenes, according to Hippolytus' account (Refutatio 5.9.10),
"attend" the mysteries of the Great Mother Cybele!
42 E.g. Grant and Freedman 1960; R. McL. Wilson 1960; Otto Piper, "The Gospel of Thomas," PSB 53
(1959): 22-23; Johannes Munck, "Bemerkungen zum koptischen Thomasevangelium," ST 14 (1960): 130-
47.
38
circumcision (log. 53); extols James the Righteous (log. 12), but gives precedence to
Thomas, the most "gnostic" of Jesus' disciples (incipit, log. 13); praises 'fasting from the
world' (log. 27), but, generally, expresses reserve toward fasting, prayer and almsgiving
(log. 14).
which the Thomasine Jesus speaks about the Pharisees and the Scribes (log. 39 and 102),
twenty four prophets of Israel (log. 52) as well as the Jews in general (log. 43). Finally,
that this same logion sounds more "orthodox" in its Oxyrhynchus version (P. Oxy. 1.23-
All these eclectic, and somewhat contradictory, ideological features of the Gospel
concerned here not only with a kind of palimpsest which reflects expansion of an early
tradition of Jesus' sayings, but also with a markedly syncretistic document whose
39
3. The Modes of Ascesis in the Gospel of Thomas
seems, at first sight, that we are dealing with a relatively limited number of common acts
directed toward a variety of goals which are more or less specifically defined within
different religious traditions. Among that common fund of practices one may, for
example, include fasting, prayer, almsgiving, meditation, vigils, different kinds of manual
pain, etc...
On the other hand, it appears that the variety of religious teachings, ideas and
symbols provides these fundamental expressions of religious life with rather divergent
At second glance, however, one realizes that it would be too simplistic if one
would aim at explaining varieties of ascetic expressions in terms of "similar means which
lead to different goals" (established within the particular religious contexts). Very soon it
comes to be realized that in the case of religious asceticism one is dealing with a far more
meditation reveals that in similar context (i.e. religions of India), the classical system of
yoga on the one hand, and the Buddhist practice of dhyana on the other, represent two
44 I am particularly inclined to understand the term ascesis in its original, Greek, sense - i.e., as 'exercise',
'discipline' or 'training'.
40
understood only as a common noun, or common denominator, for the two different
On the other hand, in purely practical terms, the Eastern Orthodox technique of
hesychia (understood as the "prayer of the heart") and some forms of the mantra-yoga
appear to be closer to each other than we admit in regard to the previous example.
expression both in the common cenobitism of the desert fathers and in the baroquesque
philosophy" of the begging ascetics and charismatics, familiar from the Cynic, Early
Christian and Buddhist traditions, may equally be promoted through the itinerant, non-
encounters a very recognizable dualistic rhetoric (and symbolism) which tends to provide
the basic religious or metaphysical justifications for such an ascetic behavior. And
immediately a plethora of symbols and metaphors that are usually associated with the
"extinction") begin to function within the broader dualistic schemes of spirit and matter,
world and kingdom, samsara and nirvana, prakrti and purusa, etc. But again, this dualistic
Particular religious communities may find their own, specific ways of formulating the
Let us, therefore, turn to the more specific expressions of ascetic symbolism
and transmitted the collection of Jesus' sayings known as the Gospel of Thomas.
41
In the case of Thomas we may recognize at least five, rather typical, emblems of
asceticism familiar from some other religious traditions as well. What I have in mind here
in the first place are the themes, images and symbols related to the following general
ascetic attitudes:
I. Renunciation of the World (an attitude typical of the early Christian, early
Buddhist, as well as Jain ascetic systems): cf., for example, log. 27, 56 or 80.
II. Itinerantism (log. 14b or 42). In social-historical terms, this was the earliest,
apostolic, mode of transmission of the Christian message in Palestine, Asia Minor, Syria,
Egypt and some other parts of the Mediterranean world. In the more general religious
the Didache or the Acts of the Apostles) with the Cynic or Buddhist mendicants.
III. Encratism - expressed through the variety of symbols such as the 'monachos'
(log. 16, 49, 75), 'the single one' (log. 4, 22, 23), the male/female symbolism (log. 22,
114), etc...45
IV. The Ritual Ascesis. Sets of symbols related to the preparation for baptism,
such as : treading the 'garments of shame' (log. 37),46 'becoming a child' (log. 4, 21, 22,
37, 46),47 'bubbling spring' (log 13), 'bridegroom' and 'bridal chamber' (log. 75, 104),
etc...
manual of ascetic discipline, but the text which presumably served for the purposes of
should pay attention to the frequent presence of the seek-find formula in some "strategic"
logia of this document (e.g. log. 2, 38, 59, 92); or, again, to the theme of self-recognition
(cf. log. 3, 111). In the cross-cultural perspective, one may also compare the
45 Cf., for example, A. F. J. Klijn, "The 'Single One' in the Gospel of Thomas," JBL 81 (1962): 271-78.
46 Cf. Jonathan Z. Smith, "The Garments of Shame," HR 5 (1965/66): 217-38.
47 Cf. Howard Kee, "'Becoming a Child' in the Gospel of Thomas," JBL 82 (1963): 307-14.
42
corresponding functions of the Dhammapada in the Buddhist tradition or the Lao-tzu and
the Yoga Sutras in the early Taoist and Yoga systems respectively.
All these recognizable patterns of ascetic religiosity are expressed in the Gospel of
Thomas by some very distinctive symbols and metaphors. Let us consider only a few
examples.
between the symbols of the 'world' and the 'kingdom'. The anti-cosmic attitude of this
gospel is perhaps best exemplified by frequent rejections of 'body', 'flesh', and the 'corpse'
(cf. log. 29, 56, 60, 80, 87, 112). Such a world-view may remind us, to a certain extent, of
the "philosophy of disgust" of the early Buddhist mendicants. Hence, for example, in the
selective corpus of the Thomasine "special material"48 we find the following saying:
"Whoever has known the world has found a corpse, and whoever has found a corpse, of
him the world is not worthy" (log. 56; also in 80). Or, again, "wretched is the body which
depends upon a body, and wretched is the soul that depends upon these two" (log. 87). To
this general negative attitude of Thomas, we may also ascribe the theme of the 'fasting to
I have already mentioned some symbols that reflect either encratite or ritual
modes of ascesis. We might perhaps add that the symbol of monachos appears in the
Gospel of Thomas as an ideal of virginity, purity and perfection, whereas the male/female
dichotomy reflects some peculiar aspects of the Naassene ideology.50 The Gospel of
Thomas is probably the earliest Christian document in which the word 'monachos' ("the
solitary") is employed almost as a terminus technicus. Its Coptic variants oua ("one") and
oua ouôt ("the single one") appear even more often in sayings referring to the celibate
person or the spiritual ideal of perfection. In the Gospel of Thomas, however, the Greek
term monachos - which is, in fact, an etymological antecedent of the English words
43
'monk', 'monastic', and 'monasticism' - does not have any specific connotations related to
the later sense of monastic order, society or community. Monachos appears here as an
ideal state of purity, virginity, celibacy and perfection, but, at the same time, does not
refer to any institutional form of asceticism, such as the cenobitism or monasticism of the
desert fathers.51 Thus I am inclined to locate the community of Thomas along the
historical trajectory that both connects and divides the itinerant radicalism of the first
apostolic missions of the first century and the more developed forms of monasticism of
say at this point that the Thomasine community tends to express some sort of "proto-
monastic" ideology, i.e., an ascetic system in which the notions of solitude, male/female
unity, androgyny and celibacy play an unusually important role. In the paradoxical realm
of the Thomasine symbols, 'woman' should make herself 'male' in order to enter the
kingdom of heaven (log. 114). Only the solitary ones, who are able to 'find themselves',
Another dominant ascetic feature that brings Thomas even closer to its Jewish-
Messages like 'Become passers-by' (log. 42) or 'Go into any land and wander in the
regions' (log. 14) only confirm that the community which created the original stratum of
this document did not favor static or institutional forms of life. These sayings more likely
reflect the spirit of the first apostles and wandering charismatics who travelled all over
the Mediterranean world in order to proclaim the gospel of their exalted teacher.
Kingdom which is spread upon the earth, but is not visible to everyone. In order to enter
it, one has to become like a 'little child' or 'monachos', the single one. This kind of
51 See ch. II, sec. B.2. There is a possibility, however, that the Coptic redactor of Thomas understood the
term monachos as already applicable to "a recognised social type in Egypt" (cf. E. A. Judge, "The Earliest
Use of Monachos for 'Monk' (P. Coll. Youtie 77) and the Origins of Monasticism," JAC 20 (1977): 87).
44
"realized eschatology" went hand in hand with some of the early Christian groups that
stance toward the common ascetic practices of fasting, prayer and almsgiving. This
problem has been discussed briefly in our previous section. I believe that such an
exception from the (ascetic) rule may be explained by another, unusually emphasized
aspect of the Thomasine ascesis - the ascesis of examination. In the same way in which
the expectation of the future, apocalyptic, events does not aid in the search for the
Kingdom, fasting and prayer may not substitute for an esoteric hermeneia of Jesus' words
which has programatically been announced, at the very beginning of this gospel, as the
45
II. THE QUESTION OF THE PROVENANCE
It is interesting that the problem of the independence of the Gospel of Thomas, the
idea of an autonomous development of this collection of Jesus' sayings, has, from the
very beginnings of scholarly investigation, been closely related to the issue of Thomas'
Syrian provenance. It is certainly no accident that the authors who strongly support the
Jewish-Christian character of this text are particularly apt to advance the idea of its Syrian
origins. In this context, Thomas would bear witness to an early presence of Jewish-
In his series of articles on this gospel, Quispel, for instance, has argued that some
Syria. Not only are we confronted here with an encratite type of asceticism, but the
Gospel of Thomas (like the Acts of Thomas, the text which is believed to pertain to the
same tradition) promotes a very specific form of itinerant ascesis characteristic of the first
particularly prone to advocate the eastern Syrian, Edessan, birthplace of this gospel.1
Such a hypothesis has rarely been seriously disputed2 and it seems to me that now most
of the scholars who work on the Gospel of Thomas tend to adopt this view without further
consideration. Let me mention only two, relatively recent, examples of such a conviction
46
In his rather informative article on the meaning and origin of the name 'Judas
Its traditions took shape in a wealthy (log. 29, 45, 63, 81, 85, 100, 110)
commercial (64, 95) center where merchants transporting a load of goods might
find it advantageous to sell it all unexpectedly (76). Richly attired kings and
nobles (81) were characteristic of Edessa...The reference to a rider on horseback
drawing a bow (47) would be commonplace in Osrhoene.3
Aside from the fact that the notions of 'wealth,' 'treasure,' 'kingship' or 'richness' in
logia 29, 81, 85 and 110 are employed in a predominantly symbolic manner (and, as such,
may hardly be treated as the social-historical "ciphers" pointing exclusively to Edessa), all
the other examples furnished by Gunther (i.e. log. 45, 47, 63, 64, 76, 95, 100) represent
the well-known parables, proverbs and community rules familiar also from the synoptic
material and mostly deriving from the common sayings source (usually designated as Q).
Even a brief account of these logia reveals that Gunther employed some very traditional
and common sayings in Thomas in order to illuminate the specific, Edessan, origin of this
gospel.4 Suffice it to say that if we would apply such a methodological procedure to our
synoptic gospels, we would easily be able to "prove" that all these texts, and not only the
Gospel of Thomas, had originated in Edessa. What's good for the goose, is good for the
gander! In other words, it is hardly possible for a man to mount two horses not only in
examines the literary background of this document and concludes that the place of its
composition "may be Edessa in northern Mesopotamia (see map 6), or another city of the
3 J. J. Gunther, "The Meaning and Origin of the Name 'Judas Thomas'," Muséon 93 (1980): 121, n. 42.
4 The only exceptions to this are the already mentioned logia 29, 85 and 110 which, according to our list on
pp. 35-8, pertain to the special Thomasine material. However, their symbolical content does not provide any
idiosyncratic clue that could possibly refer to the presupposed Edessan milieu of the Gospel of Thomas.
5 Layton, 1987: 377.
47
"Historical Introduction" of his book in which he has enumerated several scholarly
Let me just briefly examine the character of these arguments with respect to the
The first argument is designed to persuade the reader that - since the content of the
Acts of Thomas, the work which contains a few parallels with the Gospel of Thomas,
points to Mesopotamia as the place of origin of its literary hero - the provenance of any
other work ascribed to the same apostle (including the Gospel of Thomas) should indicate
The major intent of argument no. 2 may perhaps be formulated as follows: the fact
that the Acts of Thomas was transmitted in Syriac as well as Greek (Syriac being the
6 Ibid., 361.
48
original language of this document) should lead one to assume the existence of a Syriac
about the existence of St. Thomas' relics in Edessa (the testimony preserved in a travel
diary of a Christian lady from France or Spain) may also indicate the probable place of
writings, deals with the peculiar ethos of the wandering ascetics. However, this
characteristic alone could point not only to Syria, but in any other direction in which one
may witness the spread of the earliest Christian missions, including Asia Minor, Egypt or
Western Syria as well. In any case, the acceptance of Thomas' Jewish-Christian ascetic
origin does not tell much about its assumed Syrian roots.
With respect to the last argument, the possible use of the Gospel of Thomas by the
Manichaeans in the third century does not necessarily indicate the provenance of the
Gospel of Thomas, because the Manichaeans could have used our document in Egypt as
well as in Syria. Finally, the model of the divine "twinship" influenced not only the father
of the Manichaean religion, but some earlier Gnostics such as Carpocrates as well.8
It is strange that some advocates of the Syrian, Edessan, provenance of the Gospel
of Thomas argue that the supposed use of this gospel by the Manichaeans "strongly
supports a Syrian origin" of Thomas.9 First of all, it is not clear, either in Cyril's
attestation (ca. 348 C.E.)10 or in the testimonia of later authors (which are presumably
based upon Cyril's Catechesis), that it was our gospel, and not the Infancy Gospel of
Thomas, that was used by the Manichaeans. Cyril's claim that this gospel "destroys the
souls of the simpler folk" (Catechesis 4.36) may, in my opinion, be more aptly applied to
49
the infancy narratives about Jesus and his portrayal as an enfant terrible. But even if the
Manichaeans used and accepted our gospel, as Layton and Klijn maintain, they could
have used it in Egypt as well as in Syria, where their missions were already active in the
middle of the third century. Finally, it is logically impossible, as Cyril tended to believe,
that they "wrote" (egrapsan) our collection of sayings, because the Greek version of
Thomas is dated in the second century (ca. 140 C.E.), and Mani, the very founder of this
Generally speaking, what most of these five arguments have in common is the
conviction that, if the so-called "school of St. Thomas" could be attested in Edessa, Syria,
all the other documents ascribed to this apostle may be expected to point to this same
geographic region. In the next section I am going to argue that even if the existence of
would not necessarily confirm the Edessan, Mesopotamian or eastern Syrian provenance
Contrary to the views of the aforementioned scholars, there are, of course, authors
who maintain that this document was not only found in Egypt, but written in this
geographic area as well.11 Nevertheless, the adherents of the two "rival" hypotheses
concerning the origins of the Gospel of Thomas have not shown much interest in to
examine carefully each others' positions. An exception to this case is Barbara Ehlers'
article entitled "Kann das Thomasevangelium aus Edessa stammen?" in which she very
reasonably objects to the supporters of the "Syrian" circle. Some of her arguments will be
discussed later on in this section. Unfortunately, Ehlers does not propose any alternative
11 Cf., for example, Grenfell and Hunt, Logia Iêsou: Sayings of Our Lord, London: Frowde, 1897: 16;
Piper, 23; Kendrick Grobel, "How Gnostic is the Gospel of Thomas?" NTS 8 (1961/62): 373; R. McL.
Wilson, "Thomas and the Synoptic Gospels," ExpTim 72 (1960): 39; L. Cerfaux and G. Garitte, "Les
paraboles du royaume dans l'Evangile de Thomas," Muséon 70 (1957): 319.
50
As far as the less numerous advocates of the idea of Thomas' Egyptian roots are
concerned, we may contend that they are not particularly inclined to support their theses
in any systematic manner. Moreover, most of them belong to the academic group which
favors the view of Thomas' Gnostic character as well as its dependence upon the synoptic
gospels. One of the reasons for such a scholarly assessment of the logia in Thomas is to
be sought in these authors' rejection of the possibility that the sayings could have been
directly transmitted from Palestine to Egypt. It seems that even W. H. C. Frend, a scholar
hypotheses concerning the origin and milieu of the Gospel of Thomas in greater detail.
First I will summarize and dispute the most frequent arguments of the advocates of the
A vast majority of scholars who argue for the Syrian background of this document
1) The Argument from the Name: The work Gospel of Thomas is ascribed to
Didymus Judas Thomas; therefore, it pertains to the broader corpus of the Thomasine
literature, including the Acts of Thomas as well as the Book of Thomas the Contender.
And since this "Thomas-school" as well as the peculiar name of the apostle (Didymus)
Judas Thomas have traditionally been associated with eastern Syria and Edessa, the
2) The Argument from the Parallels: The fact that the Gospel of Thomas has many
parallels in the works of the Syrian Christian literature represents a strong indication of its
12 W. H. C. Frend, Town and Countryside in the Early Christian Centuries, London: Variorum Reprints,
1980: III, 18ff.
51
3) The Linguistic Argument: A number of Semitisms (Aramaisms) that may be
recognized even behind the Coptic version of the Gospel of Thomas point to an Aramaic-
speaking environment, such as the eastern Syria or, more specifically, Edessa.
Due to their cumulative value, these arguments have prompted many scholars to
contend that the Gospel of Thomas was written in eastern Syria. In the forthcoming
sections I will, therefore, examine these suppositions in greater detail. The principal goal
of such a scrutiny will be to show that the arguments in question are founded on some
Thus far we have referred only to a more general form of the argument claiming
the Syrian background of the Gospel of Thomas on the basis of the common Thomasine
already pointed out, this basic idea has determined the course of Layton's conclusions
regarding the origin of this gospel. In the growing corpus of literature on the Gospel of
Thomas one encounters, however, a few other, very distinctive, variations of the argument
Henri-Charles Puech is, for example, one of the first scholars to have emphasized
the importance of the apostle's triple designation as a plausible clue to Thomas'
provenance.13 Puech has assumed that the pleonastic and very peculiar form of the name
Didymos Judas Thomas, appearing in the incipit of the Coptic version of our gospel, may
of the Aramaic Thomas, meaning "the twin." And although Thomas Didymus is a familiar
figure in the Western tradition, the addition of the third, peculiar, name Judas to this
double epithet, may indicate the Eastern provenance of our gospel. Moreover, such a
52
triple designation occurs again in the Acts of Thomas, a Syrian work from the third-
century C.E. The cumulative weight of these facts led Henry-Charles Puech to assume,
almost four decades ago, that this document originated in Syria. This argument has
In his most recent book Ancient Christian Gospels (1991), Helmut Koester argues
again (on the basis of Thomas' triple name as well as the significance of this apostle for
the Eastern Church) "for an east-Syrian origin of the Gospel of Thomas."14 Moreover, A.
F. J. Klijn, Tai Akagi and J. J. Gunther have provided three interesting variations of this
basic argument. Because of their more developed outlines, these three arguments deserve
our greater attention.
In several of his articles,15 Klijn refers to the evolution of the apostle's name from
Judas (appearing as a single name in the oldest Syriac version of the Acts of Thomas); via
Judas "the twin" (appearing in the Greek text of the Acts as Ioudas ho kaì Thômas,
whereby "thomas" should be understood only as the epithet 'twin'); to Didymus Judas
Thomas (an idiosyncratic triple name encountered both in the Acts of Thomas and the
gospel under his name). In his 1972 response to Barbara Ehlers, Klijn concludes that the
later two additions of the proper name Judas (i.e. 'Thomas' as well as 'Thomas Didymus')
reflect the influence of the canonical gospels, and the Gospel of John in particular. In any
case, contends Klijn, "we may be sure that the word 'Thomas' originated within an
Aramaic speaking environment."16
composite structure of the apostle's name as a result of the fusion of the two traditions
("Eastern" and "Western") which reflect the literary transmission and development of the
Gospel of Thomas from its Syrian birthplace to the original provenance of the Coptic
14 Koester 1991: 78-80. Cf. also his Gnomai Diaphoroi in Robinson and Koester, 134-5.
15 Cf., for example, Klijn 1972, 1961 or "John XIV 22 and the Name Judas Thomas," in Studies in John,
Leiden: Brill, 1970: 88-96.
16 Klijn 1972: 76.
17 Akagi, 50-68.
53
manuscript. In line with Klijn's treatment of Thomas' name, Akagi argues, first, that
"because the Acts of Thomas are believed to have been composed in Edessa sometime
during the first half of the third century, it is to be inferred that these developments in
Thomas' name and capacity [i.e. as the "twin" and the apostle, partaker in the divine
mysteries] most uniquely have belonged to the Syrian Christian tradition, particularly as it
According to Akagi, the two distinctive traditions, echoed in the two variants of
the apostle's name (i.e. the Johannine 'Thomas Didymos' and the Syrian 'Judas Thomas')
independently reached Alexandria and "finally became transformed into a new name,
'Didymos Judas Thomas'."19 Hence this triple designation should be understood as an
'artificial product', an outcome of "mixing up the two distinct early Christian traditions
concerning Thomas..."20
the two different names - Judas Thaddaeus, the "brother of Jesus and apostle of Syria and
Didymus Thomas, "the alleged spiritual twin of the Lord and apostle of Parthia."21
Gunther, furthermore, supposes that "in the second quarter of the second century, the
portraits of the apostles of east and west Parthia were successively blurred, merged and
the Acts of Thomas probably took a course of literary development similar to that of the
Gospel of Thomas, in the way of assuming the unusual triple name, 'Didymus Judas
Thomas.'"23
18 Ibid., 53.
19 Ibid., 67.
20 Ibid., 68.
21 Gunther, 113.
22 Ibid., 147.
23 Akagi, 68.
54
It is apparent, I think, that the scholars who argue for the eastern Syrian
provenance of the Gospel of Thomas have made various attempts to relate our document
I agree with these scholars insofar as they maintain that Judas was the original,
proper, name of the disciple in Syria, whereas Thomas represents only an epithet,
meaning "the twin."24 I also admit that the peculiar designation 'Didymus Judas Thomas'
names. However, these various forms of the argument which are meant to support the
Syrian origin of Thomas by referring to the peculiar name of this apostle are very often
built upon some problematic presumptions. In fact, the argument itself may be questioned
(1) Even if the existence of the so-called Thomas'-tradition (or "school") in Syria
is historically confirmed, the ascription of our text to this apostle does not tell much about
its assumed provenance. Several early Christian writings were attributed to bishop
Clement, but it is well known that they were not written in the same location; they do not
pertain to any common "Clementine tradition" either. Furthermore, the relationship of the
Gospel of Thomas and the Book of Thomas the Contender on the one hand, and the Acts
of Thomas on the other, reminds us, in terms of their different forms and contents, of the
relationship of the First and Second Clement to the Pseudo-Clementines. More precisely,
the Acts of Thomas and the Pseudo-Clementines are, in all likelihood, both written in
Syria, and belong to the same genre of "romance," whereas the literary format of the other
pair of the "Thomasine" and "Clementine" writings is different, and their provenance is
24 Besides the already discussed works, cf. Fitzmyer, 369 or Judah Segal, Edessa: The Blessed City,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970: 65-66.
55
Against Klijn's proposal,25 I would like to state that it is methodologically
illegitimate to derive the Syrian roots of the work Gospel of Thomas from the fact that
the name 'Thomas' originated in the Aramaic speaking environment. If this principle had
any methodological importance, we would easily be able to locate the provenance of the
Coptic Gospel of Bartholomew somewhere in Palestine because the name of this apostle
linguistic milieu that is not exclusively limited to the city of Edessa and its vicinity, but
(2) The triple name 'Didymus Judas Thomas' does not appear in the Greek incipit
of our gospel, that is, in an older version of this document. If the Gospel of Thomas was
first translated from Syriac to Greek, and then to Coptic (as some supporters of the Syrian
hypothesis presume), it is very unusual indeed that the redundant, Syriac, version of the
apostle's name did not appear already in that first transmission or translation. Let us not
forget, first, that the only extant manuscript whose prologue reads 'Didymus Judas
Thomas' is the Coptic version of this gospel itself. And the Coptic Thomas is dated in the
fourth or fifth century.26 Even the Greek copy (P. Oxy. 654), which may not be dated
earlier than the mid-third century,27 contains only K[……………..] KAI ΘΩMA, leaving
56
version, we are now able to restore at least the first two words of the missing Greek text
of this prologue, i.e. K[AI EΓPAΨEN……..] KAI ΘΩMA. The problem, however occurs
when one attempts, on the basis of the available Coptic text, to reconstruct the rest of the
lacuna. The name ΘΩMA<Σ> may be supplemented by only one additional designation
Although most of the scholars tend to align themselves with Lake's reading of the
P. Oxy. 654.2,30 it is apparent that the missing half of 654.2 allows for the second
alternative as well. It is interesting that R. McL. Wilson included […ΔIΔYMO TO] KAI
ΘΩMA (in dative), instead of […IOYΔA O] KAI ΘΩMA as a variant reading of the
same line.31
To sum up. If 'Didymus Thomas', and not 'Judas Thomas', is the person introduced
in the Greek incipit of our gospel, the entire "argument from the name" automatically
loses its relevance, because (Didymus) Thomas is the apostle's name common in the
"western" tradition (canonical gospels, Acts, Diatessaron) and, as such, does not indicate
(3) As Klijn, Akagi and others rightly maintain, the triple designation 'Didymus
Judas Thomas' represents, indeed, the secondary modification of the name of the apostle
who, according to the synoptic tradition, is known to us only as Thomas. Now, instead of
supposing that Thomas' proper name was Judas, while 'Thomas' represents only his
second(ary) name-epithet, why do not we admit that Judas, and not Thomas, may be a
[i.e. in the Oxyrhynchus Thomas]." Our proposed reading ...AI EΓPAΨEN ΔIΔYMOΣ O... adds up to no
more than seventeen letters.
29 Cf. Marcovich, 53; Fitzmyer, 369-70; Attridge, 113.
30 Kirsopp Lake, "The New Sayings of Jesus and the Synoptic Problem," HibJ 3 (1904-5): 339.
31 R. McL. Wilson, "The Coptic 'Gospel of Thomas'," NTS 5 (1959): 275.
32 I will return to this problem later on in this section.
57
(even as the name-epithet) is the original Aramaic name of the apostle, whereas 'Judas' is
the secondary addendum, coming up as a result of the later confusion of the apostle
whose original name accidentally meant "the twin," and the traditional (historical) brother
In any case, we do not know with absolute certainty that 'Judas Thomas' or 'Judas
Thomas Didymus' was the name of the alleged compiler of the Gospel of Thomas in the
original version of this document whose terminus a quo may perhaps be put in the first
century C.E. On the other hand, works such as the Acts of Thomas as well as the Coptic
version of our Thomas and the Book of Thomas the Contender (where 'Judas' and
'Thomas Didymus' appear as a joint name) may not have been written before the third
century. And in all the extant attestations our work is known only as the "Gospel
according to Thomas."
(4) Unlike the Acts of Thomas, Thomas is not the major character of this
composition. Beside the two, already mentioned, instances in which his name passively
one logion (log. 13) in which Thomas is mentioned at all. But even this logion is
problematic, in a certain sense, because it raises the question of the double authority of
Jesus' followers. In log. 12, for example, James the Righteous is the only legitimate
bearer of the tradition, while in the very next logion (log. 13) Thomas appears as the
recipient of Jesus' secret words. Instances like these may sometimes suggest the
document from the same Nag Hammadi Codex (The Book of Thomas the Contender, II,
7), bearing the name of the apostle Judas Thomas, had, in all likelihood, been composed
58
Thus far we have raised several objections to the views of some scholars who
argue, either on the basis of the apostle's peculiar name or his traditional association with
Edessa, for the eastern Syrian origin of the Gospel of Thomas. However, despite these
objections, there remains the fact that the most complete, Coptic version of Thomas
(probably from the fourth century) still introduces the apostle called Didymus Judas
Thomas. It would be helpful, therefore, to inquire into the identity of this mysterious
person and possibly determine the relationship between Didymus Thomas and some other
figures of the early apostolic tradition with the proper name Judas.
Who is, then, Didymus Judas Thomas? The biblical traditions distinguish at least
a dozen characters with the name Judas,35 but only three of them are relevant in the
present context. For, according to the gospel tradition, these three figures were the
disciples or relatives of Jesus. Since the "Thomasine tradition" - recorded in the works
such as the Acts of Thomas, Book of Thomas the Contender or the Gospel of Thomas -
acknowledges Judas Thomas as the disciple as well as the relative ("brother", "twin
brother") of the Lord,36 it would be worthwhile to examine his association with the three
First of all, we realize that the gospel tradition clearly distinguishes Judas Iscariot
both from the apostle Thomas and the other two Judases who might be considered the
relatives of Jesus.37 Thus it is not difficult to "eliminate" this person first as a possible
recipient of Jesus' secret words recorded in the Gospel of Thomas. His second name
Iskariôth (Mk 3:19; Lk 6:16) or ho Iskariôtês (Mt 10:4; Jn 14:22) is already a differentia
specifica which apparently separates this apostle from the other disciples of Jesus with
the same first name. Moreover, there are at least two other disciples (i.e. Thomas and
35 Cf., for example, Paul Achtemeier, ed., Harper's Bible Dictionary, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985:
513-14.
36 Cf. Acts of Thomas 39:12-15; Book of Thomas the Contender 138:5ff; Gospel of Thomas, incipit, log.
13.
37 Mt 10:3-4; Mk 3:18-19; 6:3; Lk 6:15-16; Jn 11:16; 14:22.
59
Judas, the brother of Jesus) who, in contrast to Iscariot, may have been identified in the
The difficulties, however, arise when one tries to determine the relationship of the
apostle Thomas, who in the New Testament gospels is never called Judas, and the other
two followers of Christ with the proper name Judas; one of them is identified as his
brother, and the other as one of the Twelve. Let me, therefore, pay more attention to the
lists of the disciples of Jesus as they are recorded in the New Testament gospels and some
It should be noted, first, that Luke is the only New Testament evangelist who
clearly differentiates Thomas (6:15) from Judas, the son of James (6:16). On the other
hand, both Matthew and Mark mention in their lists, instead of Ioudas Iakôbou, the
disciple called Thaddaeus (Mt 10:3 and Mk 3:18). This has led many scholars to assume
that Thaddaeus and Judas, the son of James, are, in fact, one and the same person.
Whatever be the case, they are both unambiguously distinguished from the apostle
Thomas.
Such a distinction is not completely evident from Jn 14:22, which reads Ioudas,
ouch ho Iskariôtês. We are only informed that the Judas in question is not to be identified
with Iskariot. This sentence from John is especially important, because Thomas is also
mentioned in the same section (14:5), and the only other interlocutor of Jesus who
appears in chapter 14 is Philip.
Regarding Thomas' relation to this 'Judas not Iscariot', we may suggest the
Thomas (and thus may probably be identified with Ioudas Iakôbou, or Thaddaios) or
John is the only New Testament evangelist who refers to Thomas under the proper name
Judas. And it is reasonable to assume that the synoptists - who do not ascribe any
38 Thomas is, of course, marked by his own name-epithet, whereas Judas or Jude (Iouda) from Mk 6:3 and
Mt 13:55 is identified as one of the four brothers of Jesus (besides James, Joses or Joseph, and Simon).
60
prominent role to Thomas, and mention him only as one of the twelve - had to distinguish
this apostle from the other two Judases (i.e. the Iscariot as well as Judas, son of James).39
On the other hand, it is possible that John, who mentions Thomas on several other
occasions (e.g. 11:16; 14:5; 20:24; 21:2), regarded it as appropriate to introduce him at
least once (i.e. in 14:22) under his proper name. But why would the author of John
choose, at this point, "Judas, not Iscariot" as Thomas' differentia specifica, if otherwise he
designates this disciple with an additional, pleonastic, nickname Didymos? Or why would
not he simply pick Judas Thomas, instead of an unusual negative designation Ioúdas ouch
ho Iskariótes? Since Thomas is already clearly distinguished, by his own name epithet
"the twin", from the other disciples, it seems more likely that John employed this negative
designation in order to discern another disciple with the proper name Judas from Ioúdas
ho Iskariótes.40 We may, therefore, infer that all four canonical gospels unanimously
distinguish this second Judas (Thaddaeus or Jacobi) from our apostle Thomas.
The evidence furnished by the Acts of the Apostles and the Diatessaron once again
from Ioúdas Iakóbou; the same distinction is made in the list of the Twelve encountered
(1.13.16ff.), mentions "Judas, also known as Thomas" as the successor of Jesus who
sends the apostle Thaddaeus, one of the seventy, to king Abgar's court. In any case,
39 In contrast to Luke, who makes this distinction clear by distinguishing Thomas, Judas Iscariot and Judas-
the son of James, Matthew and Mark found necessary to introduce that third Judas as Thaddaeus, and thus
eliminate any reason for his confusion with Iscariot or, perhaps, Thomas.
40 We may agree with Klijn (1970: 89) that in "the Johannine tradition the word 'thomas' was used as an
epithet and not as a proper name," but this does not mean that 'Judas' in Jn 14:22 should be understood as
Thomas' proper name. We just do not know if John himself knew the apostle, whose traditional epithet was
thomas, under the proper name Judas or any other proper name. This is certainly not evident from the Greek
Jn 14:22. All that we know is that the Old Syriac redactors identified this "Judas not Iscariot" with Thomas
(Sinaitic Syriac) or Judas Thomas (Curetonian Syriac). Cf. Gunther, 125 and Klijn 1970: 88ff.
41 Hamlyn Hill, ed., The Earliest Life of Christ (The Diatessaron of Tatian), Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1894.
61
Eusebius preserves yet another tradition in which (Judas) Thomas and Judas Thaddaeus
At some point in the history of the early Christian tradition, this Judas Thaddaeus
(or Judas, the son of James) began to be identified with the apostle Thomas of the
canonical gospels. Moreover, a twofold identification occurred whereby Judas, the son of
James, was blended with Judas (or Jude), the brother of James, the brother of Jesus.
Let us now take a closer look at the documents which contributed to the confusion
of these names.
order to support Thomas' Edessan provenance. Some of these scholars believe, in fact,
that such a secondary modification of the apostle's name occurred as the outcome of a
subsequent blending of the "western" tradition concerning the apostle Thomas Didymus
and the "eastern," Syrian, tradition regarding Judas Thaddaeus, the son or brother of
'Didymus Judas Thomas', a character appearing in the Syrian works such as the Acts of
Thomas or the other two writings commonly ascribed to the same, Thomasine tradition
(i.e. the Coptic Gospel of Thomas and the Coptic Book of Thomas the Contender). Since
the Doctrine of Addai associates Judas Thomas with Edessa, and since at least the Acts of
Thomas (another work which bears witness to the conflation of two names) derive from
the eastern Syrian milieu, these scholars conclude that the other two Thomasine works,
including our Gospel of Thomas, should have originated in the same area.
We have already raised several objections to this line of reasoning. However, none
of these objections addressed the character of the tradition which associates Judas
Thomas or Judas Thaddaeus with eastern Syria. Now I would like to address this issue in
42 Cf., for example, Akagi, 67-8 or Puech, 286. Gunther, on the other hand, describes this process as a
merging of the "portraits of the apostles of east and west Parthia" which took place in the second quarter of
the second century (147).
62
more specific terms, and explain why I believe that this confusion regarding the name
It is important to notice, first, that the crucial literary witnesses that relate the
apostle Thomas to the origins of the Edessan Christianity are to be found in two legends,
both unknown before the third century C.E. Besides the already mentioned romance
recorded in the Acts of Thomas, scholars who argue for the Syrian origin of the Gospel of
Thomas are particularly fond of using the so-called Doctrina Addai, the work which Han
Drijvers aptly describes as "a piece of historical fiction that was completely unknown
before the time of Eusebius."43 Admittedly, this legend represents a third-century anti-
Manichaean polemic designed to emphasize the pre-eminence of Jesus' direct followers
to Mani, the so-called 'apostle of Jesus Christ.' At any rate, Doctrina Addai itself, as
Barbara Ehlers has pointed out, is imbued by "a strong anti-Jewish tendency,"44 and,
therefore, brings even more confusion into the debate regarding the Jewish-Christian
because, according to Eusebius' account, it associates the apostle Judas Thomas with
Thaddaeus, his envoy to the court of king Abgar. As we have already remarked, Eusebius
nowhere identifies these two persons. Unlike Judas, son of James, or Thaddaeus of the
synoptic gospels, this Thaddaeus is not even a member of the Twelve.45 Most
importantly, however, he is the product of Eusebius' own editing. Namely, the original
Doctrina Addai does not know of any Thaddaeus, but only of Addai (or Adda) - most
likely, the Manichaean missionary "who was active in the Syrian-Mesopotamian area in
43 Drijvers, 160.
44 Ehlers, 309.
45 Eusebius of Caesarea, The Ecclesiastical History (1.13.4, 11), Vol. 1, Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1953.
63
the years 261-62 and earlier."46 As Drijvers correctly observes, "Thaddaeus" is not even
Consequently, this whole legend does not represent a reliable witness either with
It is, therefore, rather unusual that the advocates of the "Syrian" Thomas
(including Drijvers) employ this story in order to strengthen their case. In order to
Thomas, Drijvers, for example, opts for 200 C.E. as a 'plausible' date of composition of
our document.49 Let us recall at this point that the date proposed by Drijvers is already a
Hippolytus of Rome bears witness to the use of this gospel by the Naassenes of Phrygia at
least before the beginning of the third century (and probably much earlier).50
In contrast to these spurious, but, obviously, very popular, legends concerning the
origins of Syrian Christianity, we would perhaps be better off if we would employ some
other sources of information which directly refer to the missionary activity of the apostle
Judas Thaddaeus. This information is preserved in various redactions of the Acts of Judas
Thaddaeus.51
According to Amrus, "Judas, the brother of James, with the surname Lebbaeus
and Thaddaeus, had preached the Gospel in Antartosa (Antarados) and Laodicea, and then
46 Drijvers, 161.
47 Ibid., 160.
48 In this respect, Walter Bauer's assessment of the Doctrina Addai is still sound in its own right (cf. his
Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).
49 Drijvers, 173.
50 His Refutatio is, namely, written between 222 and 235 C.E. and we should certainly allow some
reasonable period of time between the date of the original composition of Thomas and Hippolytus'
knowledge about the Naassene use of this document. For a more precise dating of Hippolytus' Naassene
source, cf. n. 184.
51 Cf. Richard Lipsius, Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, Vol. 2.2, Braunschweig:
Schwetschke und Sohn, 1884: 154ff.
64
went to Thodmora (Palmyra) and Raka (Kallinikos), Kirkesion (Karkemish), Theman
and, accompanying Thomas, to India."52 After staying for some time in India, he
Some other sources (such as the Syrian recension of Transitus Mariae) also
connect Thaddaeus with Laodicea,54 whereas in Horreum Mysteriorum we find that his
other name was Judas, son of James, that he preached at Laodicea and was buried at
Aradus.55
Finally, in the Sahidic Coptic fragment of the Acts of Thaddaeus,56 this apostle is
identified with Judas, brother of Jesus. The Coptic tradition, including the Ethiopic text
of Certamen apostolorum,57 associates Thaddaeus with Syria, Dacia and Mesopotamia.
In the light of this literary evidence which goes beyond the data supplied by the
Doctrina Addai and the Acts of Thomas, one could certainly argue for Judas Thaddaeus'
genuine connection with Laodicea or some other place in Asia Minor, Parthia or Syria.
A plethora of toponyms associated with the missionary activity of Judas, the son
or brother of James might provoke some other interesting hypotheses concerning his
relationship with the apostle Thomas. Unfortunately, as in the case of the Abgar legend,
we may hardly, just on the basis of these sources, prove or disprove the origin and milieu
of the Gospel of Thomas. The most I could suggest in this respect is that the apostle Judas
Thaddaeus, one of the twelve, is recognized in all these various traditions as a close
relative of James (i.e. his son or brother) and, therefore, of Jesus himself. He could easily
Jewish-Christian proclivities. At some point in the history of the early Christian tradition,
the name of Judas, the son or brother of James, was conflated with Thomas. If Didymus
52 Lipsius, 155-6.
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid., 155, n. 3.
55 Ibid., 156.
56 Ibid., 176.
57 Ibid.
65
Judas Thomas from the incipit of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas58 represents an authentic
designation, and not a subsequent addition of the proper name Judas to the Aramaic
emblem of the tradition which claimed the secret sayings of Jesus as their own. But such
a tradition would primarily lead to James, the brother of Jesus, and, consequently, to
Jesus himself. In the case of the Gospel of Thomas, the prominence of the James tradition
could additionally be confirmed by log. 12; and even more importantly, Thomas from log.
13 (this time recognized as Judas Thomas) would support the tradition preserved by
James and reflected in the collection of logia which bears Thomas' name. But at the same
time we should bear in mind that eastern Syria is only one, however relevant, locale in the
ancient Christian world where this James-Thomas tradition could have developed its
roots.59
I will end this part of our discussion with the following negative conclusions:
dissertation has traditionally been ascribed to the apostle Thomas, and all the extant
testimonia refer to that document as the "Gospel according to Thomas." If the work itself
had originally been ascribed to Didymus Thomas, and not to Judas Thomas, that is, if
'Judas' from the incipit of the Coptic codex represents a subsequent addition (interpolated
perhaps during the later course of transmission of this document in Egypt), the name
Didymus Thomas itself would not provide any significant clue as to the provenance of the
original composition. For Thomas, or Didymus Thomas, is the name of the apostle known
to us from the traditional lists of the Twelve supplied by the canonical gospels and Acts
as well as the Diatessaron. In terms of the origin of the Gospel of Thomas, the mere name
Thomas does not say anything more than the names of some other disciples (such as
58 As I have already pointed out, it may still not be conclusively confirmed that the Oxyrhynchus Thomas
(654.2) reads Judas Thomas instead of Didymos Thomas.
59 As we have mentioned earlier, James occupies a prominent place in the Gospel of the Hebrews (which
probably originated in Egypt), in the Hippolytus Naassene source (which points to Asia Minor and Phrygia)
as well as the Letter of James, the epistle presumably written by a Hellenistic Christian.
66
Matthew, John or Bartholomew) tell about the provenance of the documents ascribed to
them.
2. If the Judas from the Coptic incipit does not represent a secondary addition but
a genuine part of the apostle's name from the original composition of Thomas, the
problem of the secondary conflation of the two names (i.e. Judas, the son or brother of
James and Thomas, called Didymus) becomes relevant for our discussion. Although we
do possess some evidence from the Syrian Christian context (cf. Doctrina Addai, Acts of
legitimately expect that such a blending of the two names as well as the two traditions
(sometimes designated as "eastern" and "western") could have also occurred somewhere
else in the early Christian world. As Tai Akagi has suggested, this could have happened
in Egypt as well as Syria. Let us not forget that at least two Coptic works (the Gospel of
Thomas and the Book of Thomas the Contender), found in Egypt, testify to the conflation
of these two names. And it still remains to be proven that these two texts were written in
Syria (and not in Egypt), as the supporters of the Syrian hypothesis would have.59a
The prominence of the James tradition in Asia Minor,60 as well as the literary
evidence about the presence of Judas Thaddaeus in Laodicea, opens up the possibility that
such a process might have taken place even in Asia Minor, in the eclectic encounter of the
59a In other words, their inductive argument is based upon the following reasoning: If the two texts from
the Syrian background display one common peculiar characteristic (i.e., they refer to the apostle Thomas as
Judas Thomas), then any other text manifesting the same feature (even if composed in Egypt) should
unambiguously point to the "original," Syrian milieu. A subtle, and easily overlooked, exchange of an
inductive and deductive reasoning lurks beneath the surface of this argument.
60 Cf. Refutatio 5.7.1 and the Acts of Philip (Lipsius, 7). J. Munck, for example, maintains that "auch bei
den Heidenchristen hat Jacobus eine hohe Stellung innegehabt..."(138-9). Munck supports his claim by
referring to the New Testament Letter of James.
61 Whereby the Johannine Didymus Thomas, with his image of the "twin," could have, for example, been
conflated with Judas Thaddaeus or Judas Jacobi of the Palestinian tradition even before this "dual tradition"
was introduced to Syria.
67
At any rate, it may not be conclusively determined whether the triple name from
the Coptic incipit of the Gospel of Thomas represents the result of such a blending in
One may, therefore, conclude that the name of the apostle Judas Thomas does not
represent any reliable indicator concerning provenance of the Gospel of Thomas. The
problem related to his name may bring even more confusion into the already complicated
analysis, I will, accordingly, suggest the extant testimonia about this gospel in the works
a) The earliest Christian tradition bears witness to a close kinship between James,
the brother of Jesus, and the apostle Judas Thaddaeus (his own son or brother).
identified with the apostle Thomas. Both Thomas and James appear as the bearers of the
c) The Naassenes, who "expressly deliver" their tradition about the kingdom of
heaven in the "gospel entitled according to Thomas" (Ref. 5.7.20), received that tradition
(in the form of the pollôn pany logôn) through James and a woman called Mariamne
(5.7.1).
d) The tradition recorded in the Acts of Philip connects both Mariamne, the sister
Aside from this last information, there are some other indications which associate
the Naassenes with Phrygia and Hierapolis. I will closely examine that evidence in the
62 Cf. Montague James, ed., The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924: 448ff. or
Lipsius, 7ff.
68
2. The Question of Parallels
It is quite understandable that the adherents of the Syrian hypothesis have laid
much emphasis upon the parallels of the Gospel of Thomas with Syrian Christian
literature. Indeed, a significant number of very peculiar parallelisms have been detected in
this context.63 However, a direct dependence of Thomas on any known Syrian text (or
vice versa) has never been proven. Unlike the parallels with the Hippolytus Naassene
source (Ref. 5.6-11), the similarities between our gospel and works such as the
Diatessaron, Liber Graduum, Acts of Thomas, Pseudo-Clementines, Odes of Solomon
(or any other document which is believed to be written in Syria) are not accompanied by
know, do not necessarily imply a direct dependence. It is, therefore, certainly no accident
that Dom Aelred Baker, an expert in Syrian Christianity who, beside Quispel, has
published the most scholarly articles on this matter, categorically rejects any direct
correlation between the Gospel of Thomas and some of the aforementioned Syriac
writings.64
At any rate, a large number of parallels to the Gospel of Thomas exist in some
other, canonical as well as non-canonical, Christian documents that were most likely
composed in Alexandria or Asia Minor. In order to determine the possible relationship of
all these documents (including the Syrian ones) with the Gospel of Thomas, we would
63 Cf. Gilles Quispel, Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas, Leiden: Brill, 1975b; "L'Evangile selon Thomas et
les Clementines"; "L'Evangile selon Thomas et le Diatessaron"; "The Syrian Thomas and the Syrian
Macarius"; "The Latin Tatian or the Gospel of Thomas in Limburg" (Gnostic Studies, 1975a: 17-55; 113-
21; 159-68); Aelred Baker, "Pseudo-Macarius and the Gospel of Thomas," VC 18 (1964): 215-25; Baker
1965/66; Drijvers 1982; Klijn 1961.
64 Cf. his methodologically very instructive article "Early Syriac Asceticism," DR 88 (1970): 393-409.
69
It would be impossible, of course, in the present context, to undertake a detailed
investigation of all these various parallels with the Gospel of Thomas. A more
comprehensive examination of the Naassene material, including its relevance for the
Gospel of Thomas , is the primary subject of our next chapter. In regard to the Syrian
sources we may concede that their possible relationship with our gospel has already been
Thomas. Suffice it to say that Gilles Quispel himself has dedicated a whole book to an
inquiry into the correlations between the Thomasine logia and the sayings encountered in
various versions of the Diatessaron.65 One should remark that most of the Thomasine
parallels with some other Syrian works (such as the Liber Graduum or Aphraates) could
be explained through their mutual relationships with the common source underlying
Tatian's Diatessaron. In any case, the alleged resemblances between the Gospel of
Thomas and some later Syrian writings will be rejected in principle as a reliable clue as to
the origin of our gospel. But before I raise some of the general, methodological,
objections to such a view, let me provide a general account of the primary sources in
which one may encounter most of the parallels with the Gospel of Thomas.
I. The New Testament, primarily the synoptic gospels and the Johannine writings.
II. Tatian's Diatessaron, its use by the Syrian authors of Liber Graduum,
IV. Various other works with Gnostic proclivities, such as the Book of Thomas the
V. The Naassene Source, which will be separately analysed in the third chapter.
70
Thomas' relationship with the synoptic as well as Jewish-Christian gospels has
already been discussed in the previous chapter. We have concluded that our document is
not dependent upon the extant redactions of Matthew, Mark or Luke. As far as the Gospel
of the Egyptians and the Gospel of the Hebrews are concerned, the unavailability of the
original documents prevents us, of course, from deriving any categorical conclusions.
However, it must be noted that except for the close verbal connection of the Thomasine
logion 2 with the Gospel of the Hebrews (Strom. 5.14.96), and the similar use of the
male/female dichotomy and baptismal symbolism in the log. 22c, 37b of Thomas and in
the Gospel of the Egyptians (Strom. 3.13.92 and 96),68 we do not possess enough explicit
evidence that could allow us to admit any direct dependence in this case. And even these
close verbal resemblances between the three non-canonical gospels are mediated by
Furthermore, the Gospel of Thomas is not the only document which contains these
parallels. The same saying from the Gospel of the Hebrews is reflected in the Book of
Thomas the Contender 140:41- 141:2, and the fragment from the Gospel of the Egyptians
the other hand, the Naassenes employed the male-female dichotomy and the idea of
Finally, I would like to align myself with the discoverers of the Greek copies of
the Gospel of Thomas who, back at a time when only scattered fragments of this
document were known, simply proposed the following, very convincing, argument:
A far graver and in fact almost fatal objection, however, to regarding the
[Oxyrhynchus] Sayings as extracts culled from either the Gospel according to the
Hebrews or the Gospel according to the Egyptians is the irreconcilability of such a
view with the introduction of [the P.Oxy.] 654. It is very difficult to believe that
an editor would have boldness to issue extracts from such widely known works as
an independent collection of Sayings claiming the authority of Thomas...69
71
Although this argument had originally been related to the question of the
relevant, I think, even with regard to the problem of the possible inter-dependence of
these three gospels. Judging from the incipit as well as the title of Thomas, the
compiler(s) of this work obviously had their own sources of the tradition of Jesus'
sayings.
Before paying some closer attention to Thomas' relationship with the Syrian
documents, I would like to briefly address the "Johannine overtones" of the Gospel of
this problem.70 Brown discusses it with respect to the general problem of the Gnostic use
of John.71 His main theoretical objective is, however, to inquire into the "possible
Johannine conceptual or literary parallels" with Thomas.72 Even when John and Thomas
use the same terminology, Brown maintains, they use it "in an entirely different
theological framework."73 The Gospel of Thomas is thus considered the later work, "a
theological adaptation and reorientation of gospel ideas."74 Brown also argues for the
Thomas and John in the history of the tradition. Aware of the methodological problems
inherent to the different linguistic versions of both documents (in Greek and Coptic),
Brown confines himself to an investigation of the parallels in the Coptic translations of
the two works. Moreover, his principal criterion of selection demands that the analysis be
70 Raymond Brown, "The Gospel of Thomas and St. John's Gospel," NTS 9 (1962/63): 155-77. Cf. also
Davies, 106-16 and Koester 1990: 113-24.
71 Brown, 156.
72 Ibid., 157. Among the Johannine writings he subsumes the Gospel of John, First John and the
Revelation.
73 Ibid.
74 Ibid.
72
focused upon phrases and ideas which are found in John, but not in the synoptic
gospels.75
Almost every second logion has been discussed in this context! Among the most frequent
points of comparison we find the following features: the themes of 'light', 'world', 'life',
unity, the 'beginning' and the 'end'. The flesh-spirit dichotomy is also encountered in both
contexts, but the most peculiar common expressions are, in my view, the '(Living) Father',
the 'twenty four prophets (elders)' of Israel as well as the very name of the apostle
2) many of the other resemblances should not be ignored because they indicate
3) the absence of any verbatim citations suggests that the contact between John
Since most of the Johannine parallels are encountered in complex sources such as
the Last Supper discourse, no hypothetical source in the form of the Offenbarungsreden is
evident in this context either. Brown also rejects the possibility that Thomas made use of
either the recollections of the fourth gospel or memories of the oral preaching underlying
this text. He, therefore, ends up his inquiry into the possible dependence of the Gospel of
Personally, we are inclined to believe that the Johannine elements came into this
source not from any contact with John itself, but from an intermediary which
made use of John. We emphasize that this is only one possible interpretation of
the evidence we have presented.77
75 Ibid., 158.
76 Ibid., 174-5.
77 Ibid., 177.
73
Despite certain methodological problems inherent to Brown's comparative
procedure,78 we have to admit that, in many instances, John and Thomas share not only
idiosyncratic terms or concepts, but also a similar ideology which is more characteristic
of the "western" than of the "eastern" tradition of Jesus' sayings. Such a remark is not so
much a product of our conviction that the Johannine parallels have a greater "probative
value" than the Syrian ones, as an attempt to show how literary parallels themselves may
suggest various, mutually discordant, possibilities. In line with Brown's treatment of the
two documents, we may not, however, exclude the possibility that the non-synoptic and
gnosticizing layers of Thomas may have been influenced by similar currents of early
Christian tradition which made an impact on the Gospel of John or the Apocalypse as
well.
The parallels between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron are, on the other
hand, of an entirely different sort. None of the 54 textual variants discussed in Quispel's
monograph79 (which connect the Gospel of Thomas with the Diatessaron against the
synoptic readings of the same parallels) are to be found in the special Thomasine source.
78 At this point, I would like to mention four of those problems: (1) Brown apparently presupposes that the
Gospel of Thomas is both a Gnostic and a later document (pp. 156-7), but he does not justify the criteria by
which he makes such a characterization of this work. In other words, what is the definition of "Gnosticism"
that Brown operates with, and what are the form-critical principles by which he declares Thomas as a later
document? (2) Although he analyses the Coptic versions of both writings, we should bear in mind that these
versions were not composed by the same Coptic redactor, but through the two independent Coptic
recensions of the two original Greek documents. The language problem pertinent to any comparative
analysis of this kind is thus only partially avoided by Brown's linguistic choice. (3) Unfortunately, there is
no extant or identifiable intermediary source in early Christian literature that could decisively connect the
Gospel of Thomas with John. There is an intriguing possibility, however, that the Naassene redaction of the
Gospel of Thomas was influenced by Johannine ideas. First of all, according to Hippolytus' account, the
Naassenes made use of the Gospel of Thomas as well as several quotations reflected in the Johannine
writings (e.g. Ref. 5.7.40; 5.8.5, 11, 14, 20, 27, etc...). Secondly, according to some other accounts
(Epiphanius, Panarion 37.1.2), the Naassenes were closely related to the Nicolaitans, the heterodox
Christian group condemned in the Revelation (2: 6,15). Thirdly, in Brown's detailed list of the
Johannine/Thomasine parallels we encounter at least eleven possible correlations between John and the
special Thomasine material (i.e. log. 4a, 15, 22d, 28, 29, 42, 49, 56, 101b, 110, 114). Even if taken as very
remote congruences, these cases might perhaps jointly support Brown's plausible assumption that "the traces
of the Johannine influence could be attributed to the second general source of the Gospel of Thomas" (i.e. a
Gnostic or semi-Gnostic source; cf. Brown, 177). (4) Finally, even more striking parallels to the Gospel of
Thomas are found in the synoptic gospels, but there are still very convincing arguments for the tradition-
historical or form-critical independence of Thomas.
79 Quispel, 1975b.
74
And this is certainly not an accident. Although the original text of Tatian's Diatessaron
has not been preserved,80 we may agree with the general results of Quispel's inquiry into
the various "western" versions of this document. These results may, perhaps, be summed
1) The Sayings of Thomas had many variants in common with the Western Text.
This would seem to prove that the Western Text was influenced by an
extracanonical tradition of the Sayings of Jesus also to be found in the Gospel of
Thomas. Further investigations seemed to show that the Western Text originated
in Antioch and was brought to Rome in the first half of the second century...Tatian
is supposed to have brought such a Western Text of the Gospels with him from
Rome, when he returned to the East and wrote his Diatessaron there (+- 170
A.D.). The Old Syriac version contained in the Syrus Sinaiticus and the Syrus
Curetonianus is of a much later date and leans heavily upon the Diatessaron...
2) The Gospel of Thomas contained many Sayings which showed a marked
affinity to the Gospel quotations of the so-called Pseudo-Clementine writings. The
latter contain the views of Jewish Christians, as opposed to the Gentile Christians.
Therefore, their Gospel quotations also would seem to have been transmitted in a
Jewish-Christian milieu and not necessarily to have been derived from the
canonical Gospels...
3) The Gospel of Thomas had many variants in common with the Diatessaron of
Tatian, as preserved in its Syriac, Armenian, Persian, Italian, English, and Dutch
translations. This confirmed the old and well-founded hypothesis that Tatian,
when composing his Diatessaron in the East, had not only used the four
Gospels, but also a Jewish-Christian source [emphasis added].81
Be that as it may, I would like to discuss the tendency of some authors who use
the Gospel of Thomas. Indeed, the Thomasine parallels with the Diatessaron readings of
Jesus' sayings are so numerous, that it would be normal to inquire into their possible
interdependence.
We should primarily bear in mind that many scholars in this area tend to believe
that Tatian was originally from the "blessed city" of Osrhoëne.82 Accordingly, they
80 A part of Baker's critique of this document as a reliable source for Syrian encratism is based upon this
fact. Cf. Baker 1970: 397ff.
81 Quispel, 1975b: 27-8.
82 It is interesting that no historical evidence corroborates Tatian's connection with Edessa. As Arthur
Vööbus has pointed out, "behind [this] view is the feeling that such a great spirit should be linked with such
a great place, as the Mesopotamian metropolis" (Arthur Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient,
Vol. 1, Louvain: Durbecq, 1958: 38). If this really were the case, infers Vööbus, Tatian would certainly be
75
assume that the parallels with Tatian's major work indicate that the Gospel of Thomas
influenced, or was influenced by, the text of the Diatessaron. If either of these cases were
true, these authors surmise, one would be able to connect the Gospel of Thomas with
Edessa as well.
Thus, for example, Han Drijvers, in order to find "an organic place" forThomas in
Encratism in the second half of the second century," as a "good starting point."83 And
"instead of assuming an independent Jewish-Christian gospel that was used as well by the
author of the Gospel of Thomas as by Tatian, it seems a much simpler and more satisfying
explanation," contends Drijvers, "to assume that the author of the Gospel of Thomas used
Tatian's Diatessaron; at least this would apply to the author of an original Syriac version
that might have been different from the preserved Coptic version."84 This line of
argumentation has prompted Drijvers to alter the standard date of composition of the
Gospel of Thomas (140 C.E.) and put it after Tatian's Diatessaron and closer to the third
century Syrian writers such as Bardaisan or the Manichaeans (i.e. around 200 C.E., which
is, in fact the date of the Greek Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1 found in the Nile Valley).
First of all, let us point out that no "original Syriac version" of the Gospel of
Thomas has ever been found or attested in the literature, and there is no persuasive
next section.
For the sake of argument, however, let us suppose that Tatian was a 'typical
mentioned in the Chronicle of Edessa, along with Marcion, Mani and Bardaisan. However, the chronicle is
totally silent about the author of the Diatessaron.
83 Drijvers, 172.
84 Ibid., 173.
76
Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron, and, ultimately, the Edessan Sitz im Leben of our
collection of sayings.
1. All that we know about the history of the original Diatessaron is that Tatian
brought a Western Text of the gospels from Rome and probably wrote his own version of
the Diatessaron in Syria about 170 C.E.85 But the assumed dependence of the Gospel of
Thomas upon Tatian's variant of the Gospel "Harmony" may easily be compromised by a
simple circumstance that the author or a compiler of Thomas may have relied on some
earlier version of the Western Text even before Tatian composed his Diatessaron in
Syria. Gilles Quispel, who himself supports the Edessan provenance of our document, has
been cautious enough to admit that "the Diatessaron may prove too late to be relevant,
because some readings which these [Thomas'] Logia and the 'Western Text' have in
common are already found in the Gospel quotations of Justin Martyr and Marcion, who
lived before Tatian wrote his Diatessaron."86 I would like to add that it is not improbable
that the Gospel of Thomas derived some of its sayings from the original version of the
Western Text. In any case, we do not have any reason to extend the date of composition
of the hypothetical Syriac Vorlage of the Gospel of Thomas up to the date assigned to one
simply remember that Tatian is supposed to have brought his "Western Text" of the
gospels from Rome. It is, therefore, not necessary to postulate a eastern Syrian provenance
of the Gospel of Thomas in order to elucidate the variant readings of the gospel sayings in
the Diatessaron. The most one could admit at this point is that both collections of logia
(i.e. the Diatessaron as well as the Gospel of Thomas) could have been influenced by a
common, or similar, traditional source of sayings which has independently been reflected
in both these documents. In all likelihood, that was the same Jewish-Christian source
77
which pervades an earlier, and non-syncretistic, layer of Jesus' sayings in Thomas.
should be identified as the Gospel of the Hebrews, I am ready to admit that the significant
number of the variant readings of the gospel quotations, underlying both the Diatessaron
and the Gospel of Thomas, has to be explained by a common Semitic source of tradition.
In the next section I am, furthermore, going to argue that the existence of some Semitisms
Now I would like to emphasize that most of the other, very peculiar Syriac
parallels to the Gospel of Thomas may be understood either in the light of their
subsequent use of the Diatessaron,87 or perhaps this common Semitic substratum of
Whatever be the case, I will reject all these Syriac parallels with the Gospel of
Thomas as a possible clue regarding the origin of this document on the basis of the
methodological principles which will be introduced at the end of this section. Before that,
however, I am going to briefly address the last group of parallels that have to be discussed
prior to our detailed examination of Hippolytus' Naassene source. What I have in mind
here in the first place are the Thomasine parallels with the more or less Gnostic works
such as the Gospel of Philip, the Book of Thomas the Contender and Pistis Sophia.
I would like, first, to explain the reasons for my selection of these three particular
documents. It is well known that the Gnostic tradition recorded in the Pistis Sophia
identifies Philip, Thomas and Matthew as the only three disciples of Jesus to whom it was
given to write his secret words.89 The Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas as well as
the Book of Thomas the Contender (the work which was originally ascribed to Mathaias)
would, in that case, represent three documents that, according to the heterodox tradition,
have been "authorized" by the disciples who are considered recipients of Jesus' secret
87 This is the case with Liber Graduum and Aphraat (cf. Baker 1965: 452).
88 This is probably the case with the Pseudo-Clementines and the Acts of Thomas.
89 Carl Schmidt, ed., Pistis Sophia (1.42.18-22), Leiden: Brill, 1978.
78
sayings. It is, therefore, certainly no accident that both the Gospel of Thomas and Thomas
the Contender begin with the references to Thomas and Mathaias, respectively, as the
"authorized" recorders of Jesus' schaje ethêp. We may assume at least that the editors of
these two texts were familiar with the tradition about Jesus' close circle of disciples, the
Moreover, all three of these texts have been preserved in the same Nag Hammadi
Codex II (II, 2; II, 3; II, 7), and, due to a significant number of very idiosyncratic
parallels, may perhaps be considered the parts of a very unusual "apostolic trilogy."
Aside from these coincidences, I would like to emphasize that four early Christian
testimonies (i.e. Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, Eusebius of Caesarea and
the author of the Acts of Philip) quite independently bring each of these three disciples in
Both Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.31 and 3.39.9) and the Acts of Philip (107ff.)90 report
that Philip preached and ended his life in Hierapolis. The Acts, furthermore, mention
many Ophites who were converted by him.91 In any event, Philip's martyrion in
Clement of Alexandria, on the other hand, relates the deacon Nicolaus with a
certain Matthias, who taught the similar doctrine that we must "slight the flesh and abuse
it, yielding nothing to it for pleasure, but to make the soul grow through faith and
knowledge" (Miscellanies III in Hist. eccl. 3.29.4). It is interesting that such an ideology
goes hand in hand with the philosophy of the Book of Thomas the Contender (authorized
by Mathaias), and that the deacon Nicolaus, the proponent of the same doctrine, is treated
79
Finally, Hippolytus testifies that to the Gospel according to Thomas was delivered
by the Naassenes, the sect which claimed to possess "very many sayings" which James
himself handed down to Philip's sister Mariamne (Ref. 5.7.1). Later on in the same book
received from the Savior himself (Ref. 7.20.1). It is also interesting that Papias of
Hebrew language; and everyone interpreted these logia "as best as he could" (Hist. eccl.
3.39.16).
What can be gleaned from all this various information? John Turner, discussing
the independent sources of tradition recorded in the Book of Thomas Contender (and
originally ascribed to two different disciples of Jesus, Matthias and Thomas), has
In any event, it is intriguing that Philip, Matthias and Thomas are somehow all
Matthias - as an ascetic related to Nicolaus, the precursor of the Ophites; and Thomas - as
the alleged compiler of the gospel delivered and probably originally composed by the
Naassenes.
80
With regard to the parallelisms between the Gospel of Thomas and the two other
works from the Nag Hammadi Codex II95, a rather simple comparative analysis displays
1. The most idiosyncratic parallels between the Gospel of Thomas on the one
hand, and the Gospel of Philip as well as the Thomas the Contender on the other, are all
the fund of sayings which indicate the Naassene recension of the sayings reflected in the
New Testament as well.97 Most of the parallels with the Gospel of Philip pertain to that
second group.
3. Only two parallels from Thomas the Contender may not be classified in either
of the former two groups. However, even these two congruences are very peculiar
because they may be found only in the incipit of the Gospel of Thomas and the logion 2
Thomasine parallels with Pistis Sophia are also very interesting, but almost all of
them have their counterparts in the synoptic gospels.99 No peculiar Naassene echoes may
be detected in this case either. The only remarkable characteristic is that the majority of
these parallels with Pistis Sophia are to be found on plate 84 of the Coptic Thomas
95 That is, Thomas the Contender (II, 7) and the Gospel of Philip (II, 3).
96 Cf. log. 4a = Cont. 139: 11-12; log. 7 = Cont. 139: 2-3; 141: 27-29; log. 11b = GPh 73: 20; log. 15 =
Cont. 139: 8-11; log. 22c, 114 = Cont. 139: 41-42 = GPh 67: 31-35; log. 28 = Cont. 139: 37; log. 29, 56,
60, 80, 87, 112 = Cont. 141: 24-25; log. 83, 84 = GPh 67: 15-16; 84: 20-21. For the Naassene parallels with
the same logia in Thomas, cf. pp. 131-34.
97 Log. 3, 111 = Cont. 138: 8-9; 15-17 = GPh 76: 19-21; log. 13b = GPh 54: 11-13; log. 19a = GPh 64: 10-
11; log. 24 = Cont. 139: 18-19?; log. 37 = Cont. 139: 11-12 = GPh 75: 24-26; log. 50a = Cont. 139: 21; log.
50b = Cont. 140: 42; 145: 11 = GPh 72: 22; log. 75 = GPh 69: 1-4. For the Naassene parallels, cf. pp. 134-
36.
98 Cf. Gospel of Thomas, incipit = Contender, incipit; 142: 7-8; log. 2 = Cont. 140: 41-141:3; 145: 11-14.
99 Cf. PS I, 1.5 = log. 16b; PS I, 17.10 = log. 21; PS I, 54.15 = log. 61b; PS III, 116.5 = log. 19c; PS III,
135.10 = log. 23. All sayings except log. 19c are paralleled in the synoptic gospels as well.
100 That is, PS I, 1.5 = GTh 84: 1-2 (log. 16b); PS I, 17.10 = GTh 84: 34 (log. 21); PS III, 116.5 = GTh
84: 22-23 (log. 19c).
81
The purpose of this section is not, however, to initiate the discussion regarding
possible Naassene connection with the aforementioned Nag Hammadi "trilogy," but
rather to show how very peculiar parallels to the Gospel of Thomas may be encountered
display some rather atypical common features, it is difficult, indeed, to conclusively prove
a direct influence of one text upon another. It is even harder, I think, to manifest that such
Without any further probative clues, it is, in fact, often possible to explain the existence
of even the most peculiar parallels by use of an intermediary, or common underlying,
source.
This is how we may very efficiently interpret the resemblances between the
Gospel of Thomas and the Johannine, Syriac and Gnostic writings discussed above. A
great number of the parallels could also be understood in the light of the prevalent
features, however, do not necessarily refer to the same provenance of some of these
groups that influenced the development of the new religion in the first few centuries of
additional and more precise methodological criteria. Some of these principles could,
1) The literary parallels between the two documents have a greater probative value
in cases in which one of these documents provides a direct attestation to the other
document.
82
subsequent textual segments from one document are reflected, in the same order, in
another document, there is a high probability that either one of these documents is
expressly dependent upon the other or that both documents derive from the same
underlying tradition.
3) If the same quotations encountered in the two documents (e.g. the sayings of
Jesus) are introduced by the same framework material, there is a high probability that one
of these texts borrowed from, or was dependent upon, the other text.
None of these criteria apply in the context of the parallels discussed in this
section. The first two of them, however, do function in the case of the Naassene parallels
with the Gospel of Thomas. These parallels will, therefore, be more thoroughly examined
The third, and the least supported argument of the proponents of the Syrian origin
of the Gospel of Thomas implies that a number of Semitisms identified in this work attest
an argument,101 this line of reasoning is not without a certain appeal. One should bear in
mind that the Syriac language, a dialect of Aramaic, was particularly cultivated in Edessa.
This fact (along with some other, already discussed arguments) brings some cumulative
Guillaumont himself has been very attentive in presenting this argument. He first
makes a distinction between the Semitisms in Thomas which, on the one hand, reflect the
101 Beside A. Guillaumont (1958 and 1981), very few scholars from the "Syrian circle" found this
argument convincing. Cf., for example, J.-E. Ménard's monograph L'Evangile selon Thomas, Leiden: Brill,
1975: 3ff.
83
Hebraic, Judaeo-Aramaic or Aramaic Judaeo-Christian substratum, from the particular
Among the examples from this second group we find, for instance, the peculiar
Thomasine reading of the log. 14 - "and if you give alms, you will do evil to your
spirits"103 - a phrase which is characteristic of the Syriac dialect. Or, again, Guillaumont
supposes that the original term which lurks beneath the Greek word monachos in the
logia 16, 49 and 75104 is, in fact, the Syriac îhîdâyâ - the "unmarried" or "single."105
Some of these concepts are thoroughly discussed in the literature on the Gospel of
Vorlage of the Gospel of Thomas. Recall that Guillaumont's colleague Gilles Quispel,
who believes in the Edessan origin of this gospel, has put forward a very instructive
warning concerning these peculiar Semitisms uncovered in our document. In the context
Syriac readings of the New Testament, Quispel makes the following remark:
The expression 'as your soul' for 'as yourself' is typically Semitic too. It is found
very often in the Syriac versions of the New Testament, even in the well-known
commandment to love your neighbour as yourself. This, however, does not mean
that this Logion in this form originated in a Syriac milieu, for instance in Edessa,
where the Gospel of Thomas is supposed to have been composed about 140 A.D.
The same idiomatic expression can be found in Hebrew, even in the Old
Testament (Gen. 27, 19 and 31; Isaiah 43, 4).106
84
The most we could say in this respect is that "the logion was originally transmitted
Jerusalem."107
event, one reads in Thomas the Greek term monachos instead of the Syriac îhîdâyâ, and
how some of these peculiar concepts find themselves in the Coptic manuscript is not
detect the phrase pertaining to a specific dialect, if such a phrase is also encountered in
the language from which this dialect has originally been derived.110
linguistic argument:
(1) Due to the non-existence of any Syriac version of Thomas, there is no material
(2) There is no persuasive linguistic evidence either that would corroborate the
Syriac-Greek-Coptic course of transmission of the Gospel of Thomas. The only extant
versions of this collection are written in Greek and Coptic, and, today, a broader scholarly
consensus has been reached with respect to the Greek Vorlage of the later Coptic
document. Of course, one might uncover in the Gospel of Thomas a certain number of
Aramaisms, but this is also the case with other (canonical) gospels! The most we could
85
admit is that these Aramaisms (including the ones which are characteristic of the Syrian
milieu) may suggest an independent, Palestinian, origin of at least part of the sayings in
Thomas. But this thesis alone does not necessarily point to the eastern Syrian trajectory.
(4) Even at the end of the second century there existed an insignificant number of
Christian works that were translated from Syriac into Greek.112 If that was the situation
at the end of the century, we may infer that this was even more likely the case in the first
half of the century, i. e., at the time when that hypothetical translation from Syriac into
Greek should have taken place.113
(or dialect) does not necessarily indicate that the document itself was written in the area
It seems to me that the aforementioned problems related to the idea of the Syrian
provenance of the Gospel of Thomas become even more manifest in light of a "rival"
hypothesis which locates this document in the geographic area in which it was actually
found, that is, in Egypt. Let me, therefore, develop an alternative set of arguments that are
86
commensurate with the first intuitions of Grenfell and Hunt,114 the scholars who
discovered and edited the Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas at the time when
the title of this work was yet unknown to the academic world. On the basis of the
provenance of the papyri themselves, as well as on the reasonable assumption that the
extant parallels with the Gospel of the Egyptians could indicate the probable locus of the
logia Iêsou, these two authors were inclined to believe that the entire collection originated
in Egypt.115
Hammadi), the circumstance that the only extant texts of Thomas were found in the Nile
valley, and not in Syria, provides us with one of the most effective arguments against
document was found is Greek/Coptic and not Greek/Syriac, as the promoters of the
Moreover, linguistic evidence, the fact that the Greek manuscripts belong to the
second- and the third-century (whereas the Coptic codex should be dated later in the
fourth-century) suggests that the most probable course of transmission and translation of
the Gospel of Thomas should be located within this period. That is to say, the Coptic
version is, most likely, a translation and an adaptation of the original Greek text.116
have already pointed out, close connections between the Jews of Palestine and Alexandria
were developed in the first century. We have evidence of independent and very original
ascetic traditions of Jewish origin that flourished in the Alexandrian region in the middle
of that century. On the other hand, it would be very hard indeed to establish such early
Christian connections between Jerusalem and the Edessan diaspora. All the evidence that
87
we possess in favor of the Syrian context is the spurious tradition recorded in the so-
called Doctrine of Addai, which we have already rejected as an unreliable guide regarding
relevance, the Thomasine parallels with the two "Alexandrian gospels" (i.e., the Gospel of
the Egyptians and the Gospel of the Hebrews). It is apparent from our previous
analysis118 that the similarities between these works and our gospel are at least as
should bear in mind that one of the earliest testimonia about the Gospel of Thomas is
provided by an Alexandrian Christian author (Origen, ca. 233 C.E.).119 We have already
the works of the Syrian writers. In the Syrian chronicles there is a complete silence about
this document.
Thomas along with the two other heterodox gospels that probably originated in Egypt.120
They are the already mentioned Gospel of the Egyptians and the so-called Gospel of
Matthias, which we may have reasons to believe represents an original version of the
Book of Thomas the Contender, a previously unknown manuscript discovered with the
of logia indicates that we are dealing here with a composite, multi-layered, document that
strongly reflects not only a variety of sources of tradition, but also a syncretistic
88
Christian features and Gnostic, Orphic, Hellenistic mythemes and mysteries) is more at
home in first- and second-century Alexandria than in the "traditionalist" eastern Syria or
Edessa.
Despite all these intriguing presuppositions which certainly may contest the
alternative hypothesis regarding the Syrian provenance of the Gospel of Thomas, the idea
Thomas and pursue the theory concerning an early and independent substratum of this
as the end of the first-, beginning of the second-century C.E.122 Regrettably, we do not
possess any firm historical evidence that such a collection of logia could have reached
Egypt at such an early period of its Christian history. As a matter of fact, there is no
Syrian context, a chronic lack of historical data prevents us from deriving any plausible
Oxyrhynchus in the late second century. The most we could guess is that Thomas may
have reached Alexandria as early as the mid-second century, but before this very tentative
of Thomas may have been composed as early as the first century, the applicability of this
hypothesis to the Egyptian context would mean that Thomas is the earliest available
witness to the development of Christianity in this geographic area. Attractive though it is,
122 This is because one has to allow a reasonable period of time between such a hypothetical transmission
and the composition of this gospel in Greek before, or about, 140 C.E.
89
Third, if Thomas was truly composed in Egypt before 140 C.E., one could at least
period,123 or at least to contain some literary parallels with contemporary works such as
reflected in Barnabas is incomparably different from the ideological world of the Gospel
of Thomas.
Finally, Hippolytus bears witness to the use of this document by the Naassenes as
early as the beginning of the second century.124 But, as I will be able to demonstrate in
the next chapter, the Naassenes were originally a Phrygian, and not an Egyptian religious
sect. It is almost impossible to demonstrate that this group used or compiled our
document so early in Egypt, rather than in their original homeland in Asia Minor.
In this century, the view of the earliest Church history in Egypt has been subjected
to two quite radical reformulations. Adolf von Harnack's authoritative study on primitive
Church history, written at the turn of the century, proclaimed "our almost total ignorance"
of Christianity in Egypt and Alexandria until the episcopate of Demetrius (ca. 189-231
C.E.).125
In 1934, Walter Bauer was the first scholar to challenge this rather discouraging
orthodox Christianity in Egypt. According to Bauer, it is not the case that we do not
123 For example, the annihilation of the Egyptian Jews under Trajan, at the beginning of the second
century.
124 This approximation is based upon the fact that the song to Attis quoted in Hippolytus' "Naassene
chapter" is generally dated in the reign of Hadrian (117-38 C.E.). I take this first date as a tentative terminus
a quo for the Hippolytus Naassene source.
125 Adolf von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, Vols. 1-2,
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1908: 158.
126 Cf. Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
90
possess enough evidence as to the origins of Christianity in the land of the Nile; the
problem is that we do not take into consideration gnostic sources which widely circulated
The problem of Bauer's theory is, however, that he put into the same gnostic
basket works such as the Epistle of Barnabas, The Gospel of the Egyptians or the Gospel
of the Hebrews along with the treatises of the Valentinians, Carpocratians and Basilides.
If these works are "heretical" by definition, then the history of Egyptian Christainity
cannot be other than gnostic. Bauer believed that this was the main reason why the
ecclesiastical sources had been so silent about Christian origins in this country.
If we set aside the problem of Egyptian gnosticism, we may contend that Bauer's
challenge has been progressive for at least two reasons: (1) he encouraged scholars to
look into the whole variety of available sources in order to advance their knowledge of
Egyptian Christianity; (2) he drew our attention to the existence of two different groups of
Christians - Gentile and Jewish - who were, according to Bauer, definitely present on the
Alexandrian scene at the very beginning of the second century (and, presumably, some
time before that). He also maintains that they used two different gospels, the Gospel
Bauer's investigations paved the way to the second, even more significant,
of scholars (including Pearson, Klijn, Koester, Green and others)129 have contributed to
91
What kind of evidence do we possess for the existence of the Jewish-Christian
movement in Egypt that scholars like Harnack could not take into consideration?
To begin with, entire corpora of manuscripts have been found and studied, in the
course of this century, that shed light on the generally obscure periods of Christian history
in Egypt. Besides the Coptic Christian sources, including the Nag Hammadi Library, we
are now in possession of a certain number of Greek and Latin literary papyri (both
biblical and non-biblical), as well as letters and other manuscripts and inscriptions.
Although none of those papyri represents a manuscript evidence for the first century, they
at least testify to the very early Christian contacts that existed between Alexandria and
Middle and Upper Egypt. Furthermore, C. H. Roberts called our attention to the
occurrence of the nomina sacra, a silent mark of the earliest Christian presence in this
country. On the basis of these investigations and some other papyri evidence, Roberts
concluded that Christianity must have reached Egypt from Jerusalem and Palestine "in a
form strongly influenced by Judaism."130 According to this scholar, the low profile of
the first Christians at that early period of Church history as well as the extinction of
Egyptian Jewry at the beginning of the second century (the revolt under Trajan in 115-
17), contributed very much to the significant lack of available documents from the first
two centuries of the common era.131 In any case, contemporary events such as wars, riots
and massacres, rather than the heretical character of Egyptian Christianity, contributed to
the fact that we still have a very fragmentary picture of that earliest period.
However, in the light of these new discoveries and theories, modern scholars
Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity, Vol. 2, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982: 219ff.; H.
A. Green, The Economic and Social Origins of Gnosticism, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.
130 Roberts, 49.
131 Ibid., 54ff.
92
As a result of this increasing scholarly interest, a whole series of significant
studies and monographs has recently begun to cope with the different aspects of Egyptian
Christianity, such as: the social and economic background of Christianity in Egypt;132
provided us with further knowledge about the doctrines and ideologies of some Christian
of the Gospel of Thomas as one of the most original early Christian documents that had
somehow been introduced in this very obscure period of Egyptian Church history. One
should bear in mind that this document incorporates some of the significant features that
early Egyptian Christianity could have acquired in its transitional period of development.
In the late second-century Egyptian context, Thomas certainly provides an important link
between the Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Hebrews and the more developed
the desert fathers. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to reflect upon these specific
features of Thomas which must have made an impact on some early trends in Egyptian
Christianity.
First of all, Thomas is a document found at two different locations in the Nile
valley - Oxyrhynchus and Chenoboskion. The manuscript evidence from this area
indicates that these two places had frequent and very close contacts with the city of
93
Alexandria.136 In the light of the aforementioned sources and theories, it is not difficult
to suppose that the early Christians from Alexandria may have transmitted this document
deeper into the land of Egypt. As noted by Puech, Quispel and some other scholars, the
Gospel of Thomas has very distinctive Jewish-Christian features. These are, for example,
the prominent position of James, "the righteous one" (log. 12); an understanding of the
Pharisees as the legitimate recipients of the Mosaic tradition (log. 39); various other logia
that either reflect the life-situation of the Jewish-Christian community (cf. log. 16 and 64)
or may be distinguished as typically Semitic modes of expression (e.g. log. 12b, 25,
etc...).
Furthermore, the Gospel of Thomas is a text with apparent wisdom
Egypt between the time of Philo on the one hand, and the Alexandrian theologians and
desert fathers on the other (i.e. between the first- and the fourth-century). The fact that
Thomas may be very easily embedded in the course of development of various sapiential
ideas may additionally speak in favor of its early acceptance in Egypt. It is, in fact, very
easy to understand Thomas' wisdom proclivities if they are placed on the same line of
thought leading from Philo and the Alexandrian gospels to the Teaching of Silvanus and
Finally, as we have already pointed out in the first chapter, this gospel is marked
by the typical characteristics of an ascetic attitude. Thomas' Jesus recommends literal as
well as spiritual fasting ("fasting to the world"); he glorifies virginity, singleness and
celibacy; he expresses a negative attitude toward wealth and instructs renunciation of all
possessions. These distinctive features of ascetic and monastic ideologies and practices
trend characteristic of the Christian missionaries in Egypt even before the time of Antony.
94
As far as this proto-monasticism is concerned, we may primarily refer to Philo of
would perhaps pertain to an important stage in the development of the wisdom and
ascetic ideas, the stage that links bios theoretikos of Philo and the Therapeutae with the
bios praktikos of the desert monks from the third or fourth century.
Christian asceticism in Egypt was a very gradual and natural process which had been, in
some way, already "prepared" by the works and ideas of Philo, the Jewish Platonists, as
well as the numerous, but nameless, philosophic and ascetic groups that either lived in the
Alexandrian metropolis or spread their doctrines to some other cultural centers along the
Nile valley.
One course of our inquiry into the Egyptian trajectory of Thomas could perhaps
drive us from the earliest stages of consolidation of Jewish Christianity in Egypt, to the
monastic asceticism of the desert fathers as the culminative point of such a development.
In historical terms, this course is, however, very hypothetical and related to the more
obscure periods of the Egyptian Christian history. Therefore, I think that it would be
methodologically justified if we would trace one more, reversed, line of inquiry in order
to see if the occurrence of the Gospel of Thomas in this ancient country may be observed
in the light of some more familiar phases of the Egyptian Church history.
What I have in mind here, in the first place, is a brief consideration of the
developed forms of monasticism in Egypt in the late third and fourth century.
the figure of St. Antony as portrayed by Athanasius; 2) the figure of St. Paul of Thebes;
138 Cf. Richard Baer Jr., Philo's Use of the Categories Male and Female, Leiden: Brill, 1970.
139 Philo of Alexandria, The Contemplative Life, etc. New York: Paulist Press, 1981: 41-57.
95
and 3) the Pachomian cenobitic community, whose work is nowadays often associated
Sources such as the Vita Antonii, Vita Pachomiii, Apophthegmata Patrum or the
Historia Monachorum in Aegypto enable us to take a closer look at the life and doctrines
of the Egyptian monks who were either the immediate predecessors or the contemporaries
of the Coptic editor of the Gospel of Thomas. After a brief examination of these
anchoritic, cenobitic and monastic movements and trends, we will probably be able to
provide the missing link that connects our gospel with the official history of Coptic
Christianity.
In the third- and fourth-centuries, two major forms of asceticism had been
developed in Christianized Egypt: the anchoritism of the Antonian type and the
Although regarded as "the father of the monks," St. Antony (251-356) was
certainly not the first Christian hermit to withdraw from his village and begin to live an
ascetic life. What is so unique about Antony, however, is that he (owing primarily to
Athanasius' Vita Antonii) has been praised for centuries as a paradigm or a prototype of
ascetic religiosity. Despite its clearly propagative character, Athanasius' work on Antony
provides us, I think, with some valuable historical information as to the beginnings of
Christian anchoritism in Egypt. We learn, for example, that at the time when Antony was
still a youth there existed some monasteries in Egypt, as well as ascetics who used to
140 St. Athanasius, The Life of Saint Antony, Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1950: 20.
96
well.141 As a form of group protest, anachoresis originally meant an act of flight or
"Antonian" form of anchoritism in Egypt: the letters of Saint Antony (seven of which are
Some aspects of Antony's teachings, scattered both in the Vita Antonii and the
1) a strong, almost literalist attachment to the precepts of the Scriptures and the
deeds of the saints;143
2) constant prayer as well as meditation upon the messages of the apostle Paul,
such as: "I die daily" or "Do not let the sun go down upon your wrath";144
design;146
5) the simplicity of life corresponds to the simplicity of mind and intellect, etc...
Antony's ascetic practices included the well-known acts of fasting, constant prayer
and almsgiving; reduced sleep (on the ground), manual labor as well as disregard for
dress and bodily needs.147 Moreover, according to Athanasius, Antony was a healer and
141 Cf. James Goehring, "The World Engaged: The Social and Economic World of Early Egyptian
Monasticism," in J. E. Goehring et al., eds., Gnosticism and the Early Christian World, Sonoma, Ca.:
Polebridge Press, 1990: 138-39.
142 Cf. The Desert Christian: Sayings of the Desert Fathers (Apophthegmata Patrum), trans. by B. Ward,
New York: Macmillan, 1980: 1-9.
143 Cf. The Life of Saint Antony, 33-57; The Desert Christian, 5-9 (sayings 19, 22, 32, 37).
144 The Life of Saint Antony, 36 and 67.
145 Ibid., 37-38.
146 Ibid., 78-9; 87-9.
147 Ibid., 21ff.
97
a wonder-worker, able not only to predict various events,148 but to fall into deep
contemplation as well.149 He was not a philosophos, but he was indeed a sophos, a wise
emphasized even at the very beginning of Athanasius' work.150 Indeed, owing primarily
well as programatic aspects of the Vita Antonii were perhaps some of the main reasons
which, at the end of the last century, prompted several historians to contest the
authenticity of this biography.151 Moreover, some authors have characterized it as a pure
romance or, at best, a literary classic pertaining to the same genre as, say, Philostratus'
Life of Apolonius.
The existence of some other sources of our knowledge about Antony (such as the
the context of the Arian controversy. This fact alone, however, does not prevent us from
examining some historical-biographical facts which apparently lurk beneath the surface of
this celebrated work. Besides, we should constantly bear in mind that the notion of
history, as developed in Late Antiquity, was quite different from our own concept of
148 Ibid., 87-93. Also, The Desert Christian, p. 3 (say. 12); p.4 (14).
149 The Life of Saint Antony, 74ff.
150 Ibid., 17.
151 Cf. Armitage Robinson, ed., The Lausiac History of Paladius (Texts and Studies, 6) Cambridge:
University Press, 1904: 215ff.
98
The Life of Antony supplies us, first, with some very important historical
information: despite the fact that no man before Antony knew the great desert, there were
indeed some monasteries in Egypt, as well as ascetics who used to withdraw from the
villages.152 If Vita Antonii was a pure romance designed to praise Antony's "orthodoxy,"
anti-Arianism or, most importantly, an unprecedented status of a monk, its author would
not have any particular need to stress this fact. Furthermore, Jerome bears an independent
witness to Paul of Thebes' withdrawal into the Arabian desert in order to avoid Decian
persecutions.153 Although Paul's biography had been modelled under the influence of
Vita Antonii, it seems that he was an authentic ascetic of Alexandrian origin who
presumably met St. Antony shortly before his own death.154
At any rate, I am inclined to support an earlier date for the origins of Christian
asceticism in Egypt and hence to accept some valuable hints provided by Athanasius' own
account.
Christians withdrew into the desert under the persecution of Decius (249-51).155 The
same practice of anachoresis, as we know, has been confirmed by the Life of Antony. I do
not see any particular reason why these Christian withdrawals, prompted either by
taxation or severe persecutions, may not have occurred at the beginning of the second
century as well, that is, at the time when Egyptian Jewry (including probably the Jewish-
Christians) was exposed to tragic extermination caused by Trajan's armies (115-17 C.E.).
fourth centuries was primarily motivated by religious reasons. The renunciation of the
99
world is, certainly, a major aspect of Christian ascesis. In this sense, again, Athanasius
The Antonian type of ascetic anachoresis was later developed among those monks
who first followed Antony. By the end of the fourth century this form prevailed north
from Lycopolis, especially in Nitria and Scetis (Wadi Natrun). Among other historical
sources that supply us with informations concerning this particular form of ascetic
monasticism one may include John Cassian, the Lausiac History of Palladius as well as
We learn, for example, that a great number of monks lived in Nitria, Scetis and
Celia in the "inner desert" of the cells. On Saturdays and Sundays these monks used to
share agape, the common meal. Also, they committed themselves to manual work and
residence in cells. "Sit in your cell" was one of the major precepts for this kind of
monastic life.158 The monks also practiced meditation and a "silent prayer" or the
Here, therefore, we encounter the forms of a purely eremitical life, without any
regulated monastic system. This is one of the basic features which clearly contrast
anchoritism of the Antonian type from the Pachomian koinonia. Such a form of anchoritic
ascesis may perhaps be labeled as a "spiritual democracy." It should be noted that only the
oldest ascetics served as the spiritual leaders and nobody was subordinated to anyone
else.
This tradition is still alive in the Eastern Orthodox Church, in some forms of
eremitism encountered on Mount Atos, or among the Russian "holy men" (the so-called
156 According to his account, these religious motives prompted St. Antony to start his anchorite life as a
youth, soon after the death of his Christian parents (cf. The Life of Antony, 19ff.).
157 Cf. Joannes Cassianus, Institutions cenobitique (Sources chrétiennes, 109), Paris: Editions du Cerf,
1965; The Lives of the Desert Fathers (The Historia Monachorum in Aegypto), London: Mowbray, 1980
and A. Robinson 1904.
158 Cf., for example, The Desert Christian, 63, 139.
159 Ibid., 13, 57, 179, etc.
100
stareci). Even nowadays a starec lives an eremitical, solitary life, but, on the other hand,
he is highly venerated both by the official church and the common folk.
The communal or cenobitic asceticism was developed in the fourth century, south
contrast to Antony, whose parents were already Christians, Pachomius was born of pagan
parents in the Thebaid.160 At the age of twenty, while he was a recruit of the Roman
Army, Pachomius came under the influence of Christianity.161 Soon after being
Palamon,163 who himself lived near Chenoboskion. He spent seven years with this
experienced anchorite who taught him how to practice the "hard ascesis." About 322 C.E.
ascetic practices. Soon after, a whole community gathered around him. There he
established the rules of common labor, common meals and prayer. According to these
rules, each member of the koinonia was responsible for all the others. It is striking indeed
that, in the case of the Pachomian community, a completely new monastic system,
160 Cf. "The First Greek Life of Pachomius," in Pachomian Koinonia, Vol. 1, trans. A Veilleux,
Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Pubs., 1980: 299.
161 Ibid., 300.
162 Ibid., 301.
163 Ibid.
164 Ibid., 305.
165 Namely, it was fully organized in both the material and "ideological" aspects.
166 Cf. Armand Veilleux, "Pachomius, Saint," in Atiya Aziz, ed., The Coptic Encyclopedia, Vol 6, New
York: Macmillan, 1991: 1860.
101
1) "an integral sharing and mutual service under a monastic rule" (in contrast to
congregation;167
4) monasteries for women were established side by side with nine Pachomian
monasteries.169
Abba ("the father") was at the head of the monastic community of the Pachomian
type.170 He was normally accompanied by a second (ho deuteros).171 A great steward
(ho oikonomos) was responsible for the material organization of the monasteries.172
According to the Greek Life of Pachomius, which is the main source of our knowledge
about this cenobitic koinonia, the whole community participated in the morning and
evening prayers.
Without going into further detail, it is important to notice at this point that the
Pachomian koinonia represented the type of monastic community which may have
composed the Coptic version (translation) of the Gospel of Thomas. Indeed, several
scholars have already associated this community with the compilation of the Nag
Hammadi codices.173 Some of the reasons which may support this reasonable hypothesis
are summarized as follows:
167 Athanasius reports that Antony was sometimes visited by the common folk, but he also tended to
withdraw deeper into the desert in order to avoid major crowds.
168 This was certainly not the case with the anchorite monasticism.
169 This was apparently not the case with the eremits in Nitria or Cellia. Even today women are not
allowed to visit monasteries on Mount Atos.
170 Pachomian Koinonia, 316.
171 Ibid., 315-16.
172 Ibid., 315.
173 Cf. James Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Codices, Claremont: The Institute for Antiquity and
Christianity, 1974: 3ff.; John Barns, "Greek and Coptic Papyri from the Covers of the Nag Hammadi
Codices," in Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts, ed. M. Krause, Leiden: Brill, 1975: 9-17; Charles Hedrick,
"Gnostic Proclivities in the Greek Life of Pachomius and the Sitz im Leben of the Nag Hammadi Library,"
102
1) The codices themselves were found in close proximity to the Nag Hammadi
village (Chenoboskion) where the Pachomian koinonia had one of its monasteries.
2) On an internal basis, most of the documents from the Nag Hammadi Library
are dated in the fourth century, the time framework which corresponds to the period of an
3) There are some indications that the cartonage used for the binding of these
codices contained letters and other documents with the names of the people who might
have been the Pachomian monks. It is, however, impossible, at the present state of
same codex as our Gospel of Thomas, is an extraneous part of the document itself. The
text reads: "Remember me also, my brethren [in] your prayers: Peace to the saints and
those who are spiritual,"176 and thus sugests that the scribe himself could easily have
been a monk.
5) Some scholars have detected Gnostic proclivities in the Greek Vita Pachomii
and hence have challenged the belief in the absolute "orthodoxy" of the Pachomian
NovT 22 (1980): 78-94; James Goehring, "New Frontiers in Pachomian Studies," in Pearson and Goehring
1986: 236-57. Also, Wisse 1978 and Goehring 1990.
174 Cf. Goehring in Paerson and Goehring 1986: 237ff.
175 Cf. Barns in Krause 1975: 9-17. Also, the critique of Barns' proposal in J. C. Shelton, "Introduction," in
J. W. B. Barns, G. M. Browne and J. C. Shelton, Nag Hammadi Codices: Greek and Coptic Papyri from
the Cartonage of the Covers, Leiden: Brill, 1981: 1-11; Armand Veilleux, "Monasticism and Gnosis in
Egypt," in Pearson and Goehring 1986: 278ff.
176 The Book of Thomas the Contender 145: 20-23 (trans. by J. Turner).
177 Hedrick 1980.
103
All these interesting coincidences do not, of course, conclusively confirm that the
this monastic community may indeed provide a sufficiently authentic Sitz im Leben for
the Coptic version of Thomas. Even if the Meletian monks,179 or some other
contemporary ascetic group had (for whatever reason) preserved our document for
posterity, in terms of the provenance of the Gospel of Thomas they represented only the
It is, therefore, quite probable that some of these monachoi used and, most likely,
translated the Gospel of Thomas from Greek into Coptic. Nevertheless, the Sitz im Leben
for the original, Greek document should be sought elsewhere in the early Christian world.
Three different Greek recensions of this work found in Oxyrhynchus indicate that
the course of transmission of the Gospel of Thomas led from Lower and Middle to Upper
Egypt (and not vice versa). Indeed, the Greek Thomas arrived at Oxyrhynchus already in
the second century, that is, before 200 C.E. Regrettably, we still know very little about the
striking, however, that one copy of Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses, written in Lyons about
180 C.E., found its way to Oxyrhynchus "not long after the ink was dry on the author's
manuscript."181 If this were the case with an anti-heretical treatise, we may just imagine
how fast the circulation of the "heretical" literature would have been!
In any event, at the present state of research and evidence, it is most likely that the
Oxyrhynchus scriptoria represented only a "transitory stop" for the original version of the
Gospel of Thomas. In order to be able to pursue the earlier course of transmission further
178 Cf. the objections raised by Armand Veilleux in Pearson and Goehring 1986: 277ff.
179 Cf. ibid., 284.
180 Cf. Eric Gardiner Turner, Scribes and Scholars of Oxyrhynchus, MPER, n.s. 5.
181 Roberts, 53.
104
The two earliest and the most reliable attestations regarding the Gospel of Thomas
come to us from Hippolytus (222-35 C.E.) and Origen (233 C.E.). Hippolytus' testimony
has already been mentioned several times in this work, and I will analyse it in greater
historical link in terms of the transmission of the Gospel of Thomas in Egypt. More
precisely, about 233 C.E. Origen bears an Alexandrian witness to the "circulation" of
works such as the Gospel according to Thomas, the Gospel according to Matthias (an
original version of the Book of Thomas the Contender?), and "many others" (kaì alla
pleiona).182 It is apparent, therefore, that by the beginning of the third century our
document was known in the scholarly circles of Alexandria. However, at least one
version of Thomas had been transmitted to Oxyrhynchus before 200 C.E. Due to the fact
that this version is composed in Greek, as well as that the academic connections between
Alexandria and Oxyrhynchus were surprisingly frequent at that time,183 one might
expect that Thomas was read in Alexandria already in the second half of the second
century. In any case, it circulated there during Origen's life-time (185-255) and
presumably represented a relatively recent literary phenomenon for the early Christian
circles of this city. Unfortunately, there is no other extant evidence that could corroborate
the existence of this document in Egypt earlier than the late second century.
Hippolytus, on the other hand, unambiguously points to the Naassenes as the sect
which played a prominent role in the transmission of the Gospel of Thomas. Even if the
Naassenes were not the redactors of the Greek version discovered in Oxyrhynchus, it may
be inferred, on the basis of Hippolytus' account, that they used this gospel in the second-
century .184 But, as we will be able to demonstrate in the next chapter, they were the
105
religious sect related to Hierapolis, Phrygia, and not Alexandria, Egypt. Therefore, if the
Gospel of Thomas circulated in Phrygia before or at the time when it was known in
Alexandria, it would be reasonable to assume that it may have been composed in Asia
Minor or perhaps in some other location from where it could have been delivered to both
Phrygia and Alexandria. However, we have already raised some serious objections as to
concerned, one does not possess any evidence that document of this type could have
On the other hand, such a collection of sayings would be at home in Asia Minor,
and Papias of Hierapolis himself provides testimony as to the Logia Iêsou composed in
Furthermore, if the Naassenes were the redactors of the Gospel of Thomas, then
the tentative terminus a quo determined by the hymn to Attis185 may be extended back to
the reign of Trajan (98-117) when, according to the Acts of Philip, "many [Ophites] were
converted" to Christianity by Philip and his sister Mariamne.186 One may certainly
expect that the earlier missionaries such as Epaphras, who had "worked hard" in Laodicea
and Hierapolis (Col. 4: 12-13), succeeded, as early as the mid-first century, in converting
their name187 - were indeed able to produce a document such as the Gospel of Thomas
between 100 and 138 C.E.188 This assumption is, of course, commensurate with the
"Lesefruechte," Hermes 37 (1902): 329. Wilamowitz is very confident not only regarding this date, but the
provenance of the Attis-hymn in Asia Minor as well.
185 Cf. ch. I, n. 124.
186 Cf. Acts of Philip 107-13.
187 Hoi Naassenoi is, most likely, a secondary Greek transliteration of the Hebrew designation for the
Ophites.
188 This time-framework is determined by the aforementioned evidence (Acts of Philip, Hymn to Attis)
related to the reigns of the two Roman emperors - Trajan and Hadrian. In any case, the Platonist Celsus,
who himself lived in the time of Hadrian, had been familiar with a rather complex metaphysical diagram
106
form-critical analysis of this gospel. In other words, it allows for the existence of an
earlier stratum of sayings in Thomas deriving from a first-century Palestinian source. Due
to the lack of any relevant historical information, such a hypothesis would be hardly
tenable in the Egyptian context. Therefore, the most we could suggest at this point is that
the Gospel of Thomas reached Alexandria from Asia Minor, where it had already been in
which Origen unambiguously ascribes to the Ophites (see Contra Celsum 6.24ff.). On the basis of this
information one may rightly contend that at least some of the Ophites developed their religious-
philosophical system (under the influence of Judeo-Christianity) no later than the beginning of the second
century. In the middle of the third century, when Origen completes the critique of his philosophical
opponent, the Ophites were already an insignificant sect (Ibid., 6.24).
107
PART TWO
108
III. THE ORIGIN OF THE NAASSENES
In our introduction it has already been pointed out that the new hypothesis
concerning the origin and transmission of the Gospel of Thomas is to be built upon an
sect. The most detailed account of the Naassene doctrine is furnished by Hippolytus of
Rome, a presbyter and the leader of the Greek-speaking Christian community of this city
comprehensive and the most significant one is certainly the Refutation of All Heresies
(Ho kata pasôn hairesêon elenchos), written between 222 and 235 C.E. Our conclusions
about the Naassenes will be based upon the conviction that Hippolytus' information
independent attestation regarding the Gospel of Thomas in early Christian literature, but
own exposition in the framework of a relatively mild polemic. He also repeatedly refers
109
represented a selection of excerpts from some book.1 Moreover, thanks to Hippolytus'
heresiological procedure which is commensurate with Irenaeus' idea that the exposition of
a heretical teaching itself is the most effective way of refuting it,2 we are now in a
position to assess a rather unique anthology of various Gnostic doctrines, including the
circumstance that this author often plagiarizes his source in order to demonstrate that the
Gnostics themselves borrowed most of their ideas from Greek philosophers and poets.
interesting, however, that some authors who wrote at the end of the last century (e.g.
Hippolytus' Refutatio.4 And even before Salmon and Staehelin formulated these
objections, there had been some problems in terms of establishing the authorship of this
heresiological treatise.5
The discovery of the Nag Hammadi literature, which supplies us with some very
teachings and concepts. I, therefore, follow Miroslav Marcovich, the most recent editor of
the Refutatio, who maintains not only that "Hippolytus' passion for plagiarizing his
1 Cf. Marcovich's "Introduction" to Refutatio, pp. 49-50; also, F. Legge, "Introduction" to Hippolytus'
Philosophumena or the Refutation of All Heresies, London: Macmillan, 1921: 17ff.; R. Reitzenstein,
Poimandres, Leipzig: Teubner, 1904: 82; Josef Frickel, Hellenistische Erlösung in christlicher Deutung:
Die gnostische Naassenerschrift, Leiden: Brill, 1984: 19ff.
2 Cf. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 1. 31. 3. This polemical method is discussed in greater detail in
Gérard Valée's book A Study in Anti-Gnostic Polemics, Waterloo, Ont., Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University
Press, 1981: 51ff.
3 Marcovich, "Introduction," 36.
4 For this debate, see Legge, "Introduction," 8ff.
5 For the decisive critique of such an opinion, cf. Marcovich's argumentation elaborated in his
"Introduction," 10-17.
110
sources is a blessing for us,"6 but also that his work "remains a reasonably reliable, first-
In the context of our discussion of the relationship between the Gospel of Thomas
the Gospel of Thomas (log. 3 and 4) are evoked in the same order in Refutatio 5.7.20.
Thomasine "special material" as well as some other logia which themselves reflect the
look at the Naassene Thomas-Fragment as well as to examine the nature of the parallels
between the Gospel of Thomas and Hippolytus' own source of the Naassene doctrine.
Refutatio 5.7.20 containing the reference to the Gospel of Thomas together with an echo
of its logion 3 and a non-verbatim citation of the logion 4. This small textual segment is,
in fact, the most reliable extant testimonium to the Gospel of Thomas. Scholars
111
unanimously acknowledge the importance of this fragment for the discussion of the
history and authenticity of our collection of sayings. Hence, for example, Harold Attridge
whereas Marvin Meyer, in the most recent critical edition of Thomas, classifies it as "the
most secure" of the references encountered in the church fathers.9 Finally, in his own
source."10
In contrast to the "Hymn to Attis" (Ref. 5.9.8-9) or the so-called "Naassene Psalm"
(Ref. 5.10.2), NTF does not represent a direct, verbatim quotation of the passage from the
Gospel of Thomas, but, more likely, an excerpt from an intermediary source. Fortunately,
this fragment has been preserved in its complete form, with only a few lacunae in the text
background and transmission of the Gospel of Thomas, I will first quote the original text
of Hyppolytus, and only then provide the translation as well as interpretation of this entire
fragment.
fundamentally differ from the one prepared by Paul Wendland in 1916. The NTF reads as
follows:
112
And this is the translation of NTF based upon Marcovich's edition of Hippolytus'
Refutatio:
<And> they12 say that not only the mysteries of the Assyrians and the Phrygians
<but those of the Egyptians as well> bear witness to their discourse regarding the
blessed nature, hidden and yet revealed, of the things that were, and are, and will
be, which, he says, is <the> kingdom of heaven sought for within man.
Concerning this, they expressly deliver their tradition in the gospel entitled
according to Thomas, saying: "The one who seeks shall find me in children from
seven years; for there, hidden in the fourteenth aeon, I am revealed."
It is important to notice first that I do not consider Ref. 5.7.21 an original part of
the NTF. Although this passage clearly represents an interpretation of the cited logion
from the Naassene Thomas, I assume that it is actually Hippolytus' own interpolation,
designed to demonstrate that the Naassenes "borrowed" most of their ideas from classical
Greek sources. As such, this interpretation does not illuminate the genuine relationship
between the Gospel of Thomas and Hippolytus' Naassene source in any meaningful sense.
At any rate, we do not find this interpretation of log. 4 in any of the extant versions of the
Gospel of Thomas.
Now I would like to discuss, in more detail, the content as well as context of NTF
itself. To bring these out, we first note that the entire NTF consists of at least three
Refutatio 5.7.20.
"<And> they say that not only the mysteries of the Assyrians and the Phrygians, <but
which Hippolytus apparently excerpts from his own source (cf. phasin in 5.7.20.101).
113
The Naassene Discourse Coptic Thomas, log. 3
"...(their discourse) regarding the a) Jesus said: If those who lead you say
blessed nature , hidden and yet to you: "See the Kingdom is in
revealed, of the things that were, heaven," then the birds of the heaven
and are, and will be, which, he says, will precede you. If they say to you: "It
is <the> kingdom of heaven is in the sea," then the fish will
sought for within man." precede you. b) But the Kingdom is
within you and it is without you. If
you (will) know yourselves, then you
will be known and you will know that
you are the sons of the Living Father.
But if you do not know yourselves,
then you are in poverty, and you are
poverty.
according to Thomas,' accompanied by the quotation paralleled in both the Greek and the
Concerning this, they expressly a) Jesus said: The man old in days
deliver their tradition in the gospel will not hesitate to ask a little child of
entitled according to Thomas, saying: seven days about the place of Life, and
"The one who seeks shall find me in he will live. b) For many who are first
children from seven years; for there, shall become last and they shall
hidden in the fourtheenth aeon, become a single one.
I am revealed."
Hippocrates. But in the Naassene version of the saying Christ is not even introduced as
the author of this logion! We may, therefore, contend that Hippolytus himself implicitly
reveals that, in the history of the (Naassene) tradition, this saying was originally ascribed
to Christ. And indeed, according to the Gospel of Thomas, log. 4, Jesus is the genuine
Two points should be noted from what has just been said:
114
(1) It seems that Hippolytus somehow knew that the quoted Naassene saying had
originally been ascribed to Jesus Christ. Such being the case, we may argue that the
(2) Not only is Hippolytus' own citation derived from an intermediary source (cf.
phasin from the previous sentence), but the author of Elenchos also makes an attempt to
re-interpret that Thomasine saying in a new key, in order to uphold his general view that
the Naassene had plagiarized from classical sources.13 Due to such an intention of the
Roman presbyter, the saying from the "Naassene Thomas" represents only a summary,
and not a direct, verbatim, quotation of our logion 4. Nevertheless, as I will attempt to
demonstrate soon, the saying from the "Naassene Thomas" preserves all the important
elements that are to be found both in the Greek and Coptic versions of this logion.
Finally, Hippolytus ends up this entire passage by pointing to the "unutterable and
mystical" character of the Naassene saying (ho aporretos kai mystikos logos - Ref.
5.7.22a).
Now that we have established three major hermeneutical units of NTF, it would
be worthwhile to reflect upon this passage from the standpoint of both the immediate and
the broader contexts within Hippolytus' "Naassene chapter" (i.e. Ref. 5.6-11).
With respect to this general perspective, we realize that NTF finds its place within
a broad framework of the so-called Naassene Sermon, or the commentary to the hymn to
Attis. Reitzenstein and his followers proposed that this sermon, representing the major
portion of the "Naassene chapter" of Hippolytus, begins at Ref. 5.7.3, and ends with the
this major literary segment.15 Whatever be the case, it is important to notice that both
these reconstructions of the Naassene commentary begin with the discussions of the
115
myths and mysteries of the ancient nations (Assyrians, Phrygians, Egyptians, etc.), which,
With this in mind, let us consider the narrow context of NTF. The Naassene
mysteries of the most ancient peoples with Greek philosophy and earliest Christian
tradition. Such a view is clearly emphasized at the very beginning of book 5 (Ref. 5.2;
5.7.1) and it is certainly relevant to our understanding of the immediate context of NTF.
More precisely, the proclamation that the mysteries of the Asssyrians, Phrygians and
Egyptians confirm the Christian doctrine about the kingdom of heaven16 is preceded in
Hippolytus' Refutatio by a reference to the "secret and unutterable mystery of the blessed
pleasure [of baptism]."17 After a short exposition of the Naassene interpretation of the
mystery of baptism, Hippolytus introduces NTF with a reference to the "blessed nature"
of the kingdom of heaven which, according to the Naassenes, may, again, be understood
in the light of ancient mysteries. Hippolytus then explains the Naassene version of logion
4 as an "unutterable and mystical saying" (Ref. 5.7.22a), whereas the new passage
(5.7.22bff.) begins with an additional reference to Egyptian and Phrygian "initiations and
What can be gleaned from this information regarding the immediate context of
NTF? It is important to notice that NTF is an organic part of the Naassene Sermon in the
sense that the Christian mystical rites and doctrines (sayings) find their fulfillment in the
mysteries of the most ancient nations of the world, and vice versa. It seems that in the
syncretistic world of the Naassene sect, the elements of the new, Christian, religion are
approved by religious and mystical doctrines of the ancient civilizations; at the same
time, however, these ancient teachings find their completion in the Naassene
16 The symbol of the kingdom (of heaven) is the most employed theme in the Gospel of Thomas.
17 Ref. 5.7.19: to kryphion autôn kai arreton tês makarias mystêrion hedonês.
116
interpretation of Christianity. On both sides of this typological relationship,18 an
emphasis is laid upon the mystical aspects of the two sources of the Naassene tradition -
i.e. ancient, pre-Christian, and Christian. In such a context one encounters the most
Let us now, again, consider NTF, this time from the perspective of its parallels
with the Gospel of Thomas as well as its relevance for the question of the origin of our
document. Allusions to the mysteries of the ancient nations (Assyrians, Phrygians and
Egyptians) provide in Ref. 5.7.20 an appropriate framework for the exposition of the
Naassene doctrine about the kingdom of heaven. Two striking parallels with the Gospel
of Thomas are then introduced along with an explicit reference to euangelion kata
The first of these parallels is available in NTF in the form of a summary of the
Naassene discourse concerning the kingdom of heaven, whereas the second one
Thomas. However, this fact alone should not confuse us, especially if we take into
seems likely that the schismatic bishop of Rome had primarily relied on incomplete
excerpts from a book. In other words, most of the information about the Naassene sect
comes to us already mediated by Hippolytus' summarized reading of another source.
correspondences between NTF and the Gospel of Thomas, log. 3 and 4. Logion 4 is
adequately reflected in Hippolytus' own quotation through the presence of at least three
common motifs: the themes of the search, little child and the symbolical meaning of the
number seven.19 Moreover, both versions of the logion are, in a certain sense, related to
18 Which reminds us, to a certain extent, of the typological exegesis of the Old Testament with the help of
the New Testament.
19 Cf. Cornelis, 90ff.
117
the theme of the kingdom of heaven. In NTF, this is suggested by an explicit reference to
aeon.20 In the Gospel of Thomas, the kingdom is, again, evoked by the very idea of
If we take into account that the symbol of the kingdom is the most elaborated
topic in the Gospel of Thomas,22a as well as that Hippolytus was aware of the
significance of this symbol for the Naassene system,23 we may conclude that NTF is a
very relevant passage in terms of understanding the principal ideas of the Gospel of
Thomas. And unlike any other parallel with Thomas in early Christian literature, this
With regard to logion 3, one may infer that the Naassene discourse mentioned in
NTF, even in its abbreviated form, strikingly reflects the major point of the Thomasine
saying. The message of the logion 3 is, in fact, that the "blessed nature" of the kingdom of
heaven is both hidden and revealed, both concealed and manifest, and that the right way
to know it is to know oneself, one's own nature which resembles the nature of the Living
Father.24
Thomas and the Hippolytus Naassene source by many other, very suggestive, parallels.
These parallels will be discussed in the next section.
20 I am not inclined to follow Hippolytus in his understanding of the fourteenth "aeon" as the biological age
of the boy at the time when he becomes a father. The theme of the fourteenth aeon is, for example, present,
in a more esoteric context, in the teaching of Nicolaus' sect, who, according to Epiphanius, are considered
the predecessors of the Ophites (cf. Panarion 25.7.1-2 and 37.1.2). For the discussion of fourteen aeons in
Nicolaus' teaching, cf. Panarion 25.5.1, and for the use of this term in the Naassene system, cf. Refutatio
5.6.5; 5.8.45; 5.9.5; 5.10.2.17.
21 Cf. also log. 16, 22, 23, 49.
22 Cf. 21, 22, 37, 46.
22a See p. 206.
23 Cf. Ref. 5.7.20.101-2.
24 Cf. also the Naassene views recorded in Ref. 5.6.6-7; 5.8.8; 5.8.38.
118
In line with our treatment of NTF, I would like to conclude that this textual unit
itself is a genuine part of the Naassene teaching presented by Hippolytus. Refutatio 7.5.20
is not only the most secure attestation as to the Gospel of Thomas, but also an important
link which relates this document to an unusual syncretistic system of Gentile Christian
thought, developed in Asia Minor already by the end of the first century C.E.
I have already stated in the introduction that the main thesis of this study is built
upon the hypothesis that the background of the sect which delivered and edited the
Gospel of Thomas may eventually lead us to the provenance of this document itself. A
thorough investigation of that initial thesis should consist of at least two steps. First, we
will have to be able to demonstrate that the proposed sect (the Naassenes) had
traditionally been associated with the transmission of the Gospel of Thomas and,
likewise, that they played an important role in the recension of this document. Secondly,
we should put forward persuasive evidence that the Naassenes indeed originated in
Phrygia. The ideological background and the social-historical milieu of this specific
association with our gospel and its early transmission by an analysis of the most reliable
testimony concerning the Gospel of Thomas. Now I would like to strengthen such a
I have also argued in the introduction that the Coptic Gospel of Thomas represents
a secondary recension of an older sayings collection (material closely resembling the
119
synoptic sayings source[s] of Matthew and Luke). I have, furthermore, suggested that the
provide an important clue as to the redaction, and probable authorship, of the Gospel of
Thomas. In terms of this proposal, I would like to discuss two types of parallels between
Thomas and Hippolytus' Naassene source. First I will analyze ideological as well as
terminological correspondences between the Naassene source and the special Thomasine
material, and then I am going to investigate whether the synoptic-like material of this
gospel might also have passed through Naassene hands. The positive results of such an
analysis would corroborate Hippolytus' statement that the Naassenes "expressly delivered
their tradition [of Jesus' sayings] in the gospel entitled according to Thomas." Let me,
therefore, first emphasize some common ideological features encountered in the special
Thomasine material and the relevant parallels from the Hippolytus Naassene source
(including NTF).
The Synopsis*
log. Refutatio
4a: Jesus said: The man old in days will not 5.7.20: Thus they [the Naassenes] say: "The
hesitate to ask a little child of seven days one who seeks shall find me in children from
about the place of Life, and he will live. seven years; for there, hidden in the
fourteenth aeon, I am revealed."
11b: (Jesus said:) In the days when you 5.8.32: They [the Naassenes] say indeed: "If
devoured the dead, you made it alive; you ate dead things and made them
when you come into light, what will you living ones, what will you do if you eat
do? living things?"
120
15: Jesus said: When you see Him who was 5.7.26: ...and nothing comes into being
not born of woman, prostrate yourselves from theprocreated.
upon your face and adore Him: He is your
Father.
22c: Jesus said to them: When you make the 5.7.14-15: For, he says, the Man is masculo-
two one, and when you make the inner as the feminine. And this thought is in harmony
outer and the outer as the inner and the above with their [the Naassene] teaching that the
as the below, and when you make the male intercourse of woman with man is the most
and the female into a single one, so that the wicked and forbidden act. For, he says, Attis
male will not be male, and the female (not) was castrated, that is to say, he ascended
from be female...then shall you enter [the the lower region of earthly creation up to the
Kingdom]. eternal realm, where, he says, there is
neither female nor male, but "a new
creature," "a new Man,"<who> is masculo-
feminine.
(comp. 5.9.10-11!)
29: Jesus said: If the flesh has come into 5.8.18: This is the marvel of marvels.
existence because of <the> spirit, it is a
marvel; but if <the> spirit (has come into
existence) because of the body, it is a marvel
of marvels. But I marvel how this great
wealth has made its home in this poverty.
56: Jesus said: Whoever has known the 5.8.22-24: But this same one, he says, the
world has found a corpse, and whoever Phrygians call Papas, because he put to rest
has found a corpse, of him the world is everything that had ben moved in disorderly
not worthy. and discordant manner before his
appearance...And the Phrygians call <this>
same being the Corpse, for he is buried in
the body as in a monument and tomb.
60: ...He said to them: You yourselves, seek
a place for yourselves in Repose, lest you
become a corpse and be eaten.
67: Jesus said: Whoever knows the All but 5.8.38: For, he says, "the beginning of
fails (to know) himself lacks everything. perfection is the knowledge of man, but the
knowledge of God is complete perfection."
121
man and the Light which is within them 5.7.36: Allegorically, he says, he speaks
is hidden in the Image of the Light of the about the image of the Man.
Father. He will manifest himself and His 5.7.33: This is the Christ, he says, who
among Image is concealed by His Light. all the procreated things is portrayed by the
unportrayable Logos, as the Son of Man.
84: Jesus said: When you see your likeness,
you rejoice. But when you see your images 5.8.21: But the one who says this, he says,
which came into existence before you, is the perfect Man who is, again, portrayed
(which) neither die nor are manifested, by the Unportrayable One.
how much will you bear!
85: Jesus said: Adam came into existence 5.6.5: So this Man is masculo-feminine and
from a great power and a great wealth, and is called by them [the Naassenes] Adamas .
yet he did not become worthy of you. For if 5.7.6-7: ...and the Chaldaeans (tell the same)
he had been worthy, [he would] not <have> about Adam. And they say that he was the
tasted> death. man alone created by the earth. And he lay
breathless, without motion unshaken, like a
statue, being an image of the one on high,
praised in the hymn as the Man Adamas.
And he was created by many powers....
image of the great and most praiseworthy
and perfect Man - this is how they call him.
log. Refutatio
87: Jesus said: Wretched is the body 5.7.40: For mortal, he says, <is> everything
which depends upon a body, and wretched that is born below, but what is born in high
is the soul which depends upon these two. is immortal; for the spiritual <man>, and not
the earthly one, is born "of water" alone "and
spirit;" and the earthly man is of the flesh.
112: Jesus said: Woe to the flesh which This, he says, is what is written: "That which
depends upon the soul; woe to the soul is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is
which depends upon the flesh. born of the spirit is spirit" (Jn 3:6).
101b: And whoever does [not] love [his 5.7.39: ...that is, to flee from earthly
122
father] and his mother in My way will intercourse to Jerusalem on high, which is
not be able to be a [disciple] to me, for My "the Mother of <all> the Living" (Gen
mother [ ] but [My] true [Mother] gave 3:20).
me Life.
5.6.5 [the Naassene hymn]: "From thee,
105: Jesus said: Whoever knows father Father, and through thee, Mother, the two
and mother shall be called the son of immortal names, parents of the Aeons
a harlot.* citizens of heaven, Man of the great name!"
114: Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go 5.7.15: ...to the eternal realm where, he
outfrom among us, because women are not says, there is neither female nor male, but
worthy of the Life. Jesus said: See, I shall “a new creature,” a "new Man," <who> is
lead her, so that I will make her male, masculo-feminine.
that she too may become a living spirit,
resembling you males. For every woman 5.8.44-45: For this, he says, is the "gate to
who makes herself male will enter the heaven," and this is the "house of Kingdom
Heaven. God," where the good God dwell as the
single one; where no unpurified person,
says he, will enter, no psychic or carnal one;
but it is kept for the spiritual ones only. And
there everyone must disrobe their
"<wedding> garments," and they become
bridegrooms, transformed into males
through the virgin spirit.
According to our view, the following parallels betray traces of the Naassene
* According to Augustine (in Hoseam 1.4.14), dea meretrix, "the harlot mother," is an epithet of the Great
Mother Cybele! Cf. Ref. 5.9.10.
* This logion is not reflected in Hippolytus' Naassene source, but, interestingly enough, occurs in Origen's
work Contra Celsum, in the context of his discussion of the Ophite system, and, as such, is relevant for the
present analysis (cf. Contra Celsum, 8.15-16).
123
The Gospel of Thomas Hippolytus' Naassene Source
log. Refutatio
12: the prominence of James 5.7.1: the Naassenes as the bearers of the righteous
the tradition of "many sayings" (pollôn pany logôn)
transmitted through James, "the brother of the Lord"
and Philip's sister Mariamne (cf. The Acts of Philip,
107);
13: the motifs of the "bubbling 5.9.19: zôn hydôr and zôntos hydatos;
spring," "three (powerful) words," 5.8.4: hoi treis hyperonkoi logoi;
and "living stones;" 5.7.10: hoi lithoi empsychoi;
33: "preaching from the housetops" 5.7.28: phôs <ouch> hypo ton modion and "the
light under a bushel;" kêrygma kêrysomenon epì tôn dômaton
124
theme of the "rest" (Papas, pauo,
paûe); there is an etymological
connection between the verb pauo ("to
cause to stop," "to cease") and the
name Papas.
66: the proverb about the "rejected 5.7.35: ho lithos, ho eis kephalên
stone/corner-stone" gegenêmenos gônias (cf. also
Ps 118:22; Mt 21:42 and the parallels);
76: the parable of the pearl 5.8.33: the Naassene use of the proverb
"...margaritas tois choirois;"
93: the proverb about the pearls
and the swine
96: the parable of the leaven 5.8.8: the kingdom of heaven (within
us) as a leaven and a treasure;
106: the themes of androgyny and 5.6.5: (the Naassenes) exalt the Man
the Son of Man and the Son of Man; this Man is
masculo-feminine and is called
by them Adamas;
111: the theme of finding oneself 5.8.38: archê teleiôseôs; 5.6.6: gnôsis
anthrôpou (estin)
Now that we have displayed these various echoes and parallels between
Hippolytus' Naassene source and the two major strata of the Gospel of Thomas,
respectively, it would be helpful to provide a brief description as well as systematization
125
A preliminary statistical survey of those examples indicates that more than one
third of the logia in Thomas are echoed, or closely paralleled, in Hippolytus' source of the
Naassene teaching. More precisely, in the first major group of parallels (a total of 29
sayings) sixteen sayings from the Thomasine special material are reflected in the
Naassene source (i.e. logia 4a, 11b, 15, 22c, 29, 56, 60, 67, 83, 84, 85, 87, 101b, 105,
112, 114). One more logion from this same group (log. 74) is not paralleled in Refutatio,
but Origen ascribes this saying to the Ophites. In the second group, one finds twenty three
instances of parallelism between the Naassene source and the synoptic-like material in
Thomas (i.e., log. 3, 9, 12, 13, 19, 20, 24, 30, 33, 37, 39, 50, 61a, 66, 75, 76, 93, 96, 104,
106, 109, 111, 113).
Since Hippolytus' own excerpts from the Naassene source are mediated by at least
one more, intermediary, informant, one may not expect to encounter in Refutatio a large
number of clear, verbatim, citations from the Gospel of Thomas. However, at least two of
these parallels (log. 4a=5.7.20 and 11b=5.8.32) come to us almost in a verbatim form.
Also, it is striking that the selection of parables quoted by Hippolytus, and ascribed to the
Naassene use of the traditional material, corresponds to the choice made by the redactor
more specifically determine the contents of the two discussed documents, I would like to
emphasize a few additional formal aspects of this comparison. First, as has been
previously pointed out, all the Naassene congruences with the Gospel of Thomas are
encountered in one chapter of a heresiological work (Refutatio 5.6-11), and are supported
most of the parallels mentioned above are relatively condensed and grouped around the
clusters of logia. This fact brings an additional weight to the hypothesis claiming the
24a More precisely, all four parables mentioned in the Naassene source (the parables of the sower, mustard
seed, treasure and leaven) are included in the Gospel of Thomas (log. 9, 20, 109 and 96)!
126
Naassene redactional impact on an older sayings source in Thomas. For example, eight
out of the ten concluding logia in the Gospel of Thomas are parallelled in Hippolytus'
Naassene source (i.e. 104, 105, 106, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114)! Another small cluster of
this type is, of course, the Naassene Thomas-Fragment itself (i.e. the Naassene parallels
with log. 3, 4a), and we encounter at least three more groups of logia that are closely
related to Naassene phraseology or doctrine (i.e. 11b - 12 - 13- 15; 74- 75 - 76; 83 - 84 -
85 - 87).
After these preliminary considerations, let us take a closer look at some common
terminological and ideological aspects of the two writings. In his article published in
Vigilae Christianae in 1960, William Schoedel made an effort to classify at least seven
major Naassene themes appearing in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas. As I have already
remarked in the introduction, this examination led Schoedel to assume that the Gospel of
Thomas is "a Naassene document, i.e. that it was either composed or thoroughly redacted
by members of this sect."25 In a similar attempt to demonstrate that the Naassenes played
conclusions by an additional inquiry into the nature and character of these common
themes.
We first note that some of the parallels from our former lists are more relevant
from the aspect of the common religious-philosophical themes and doctrines, whereas
others are interesting with regard to their phraseological or terminological idiosyncrasy.
The following themes could, perhaps, be included in the first of those two groups:
Cf. log. 3=Ref. 5.7.20; 5.8.8; log. 9=5.8.29-30; log. 20=5.9.6; log. 76=5.8.33;
127
II. The Theme of Androgyny
Cf. log. 22c=Ref. 5.7.14-15; log. 75=5.8.44; log. 104=5.8.44; log. 106=5.6.5;
Cf. log. 3=Ref. 5.7.20; 5.6.6; 5.8.38; log. 67=5.8.38; log. 111=5.8.38; 5.6.6.
Cf. log. 85=Ref. 5.6.5; 5.7.6-7; 5.9.5. Also 5.7.30; 5.7.36. Log. 106=5.6.5.
128
All these religious-philosophical themes and symbols are of fundamental
importance for the ideological world of the Thomasine community. They will be more
A further classification of some common terms and phrases, occurring both in the
1. The peculiar use of the expression "marvel of marvels" in log. 29 and Ref.
5.8.18;
"bubbling spring," "living water" (log. 13=Ref. 5.9.19 and 21); "bridegroom" and the
"bridal chamber" (log. 75, 104=5.8.44); "disrobing the garments" (without being
4. The common motif of the "living stones" (hoi lithoi empsychoi in Ref. 5.7.10
and the belief in the mystical powers of the stones in log. 13 and 19);
5. The "three gods" and "three (powerful) words" (log. 30=Ref. 5.12.3; log.
6. The theme of the "image" (the use of eikôn in log. 50 or plasma in Ref. 5.7.7
and 5.7.36);
7. The peculiar symbol of the cistern (log. 74 and Origen, Contra Celsum 8.15-
16);
8. The use of the idiosyncratic phrase "the son of a harlot" in the Gospel of
9. The common motif of the celestial or "true" parents (log. 101b=Ref. 5.7.39 and
105=5.6.5);
such as the "pearl" (log. 76, 93 = Ref. 5.8.33) or the "rejected stone/corner-stone" (log.
66=5.7.35);
129
11. A very peculiar usage of the terms "rest" (log. 50, 61a=5.8.22) and "gnosis"
Admittedly, some of these symbols and expressions are very common in the early
Christian tradition (e.g. the "bubbling spring," the "bridegroom," and the "bridal
chamber;" the "pearl," the themes of androgyny, gnosis or "rest"), whereas the others
(such as the "marvel of marvels," "three words," "three gods," the "living stones," or the
"cistern") are very peculiar, especially in the context of our understanding of the Naassene
relationship with the Gospel of Thomas. Most of these common features are very specific
and atypical in their nature and may not so easily be explained by the general fund of
early Christian ideas and themes. This strongly suggests that the Naassenes may have
been the sect which adapted an earlier tradition of Jesus' logia to produce the present form
of the Gospel of Thomas. Like Grant, Freedman and Schoedel, I believe that the
recension of older material. To summarize the arguments which clearly support the first
part of our hypothesis - that is, that the Naassenes should be considered as the redactors
or even the genuine authors of the original Greek version of the Gospel of Thomas:
quotation which corresponds to the log. 4a of the extant versions of the Gospel of
Thomas.
3. More than half of the sayings belonging to the Thomasine "special material"
(i.e. sayings with no parallels in the synoptic gospels) are either echoed or closely
parallelled in Hippolytus' Naassene source. This fact supports the possibility that the
Naassenes were responsible for the secondary recension of the synoptic-like material in
Thomas.
130
4. There are at least 23 parallels which suggest the Naassene recension of that
5. Both types of parallels (cf. 3 and 4) are relevant for our comparison in terms of
two documents. In other words, the focal themes, concepts and expressions of the
community which produced the Gospel of Thomas are reflected in the Naassene source of
Hippolytus.
Thomas even closer to the Naassene source. This connection becomes apparent through
their mutual emphasis upon the authority of James, who is considered by the Naassenes
apostolic channels.26 These sayings were presumably recorded in the earliest version of
The second step in our main argument will consist of an attempt to demonstrate
that the Naassenes were a sect which originated in Phrygia, and that the Phrygian
religious landscape most accurately reflects the ideas encountered both in Hippolytus'
who furnishes evidence about the Hellenistic sect with the name Naassenes. Nonetheless,
26 That is, through the mediation of Philip's sister Mariamne (cf. Ref. 5.7.1; 10.9.3; Acts of Philip 107-108
and Origen, Contra Celsum 5.62.
131
his own etymological clarification of this name, provided in Refutatio 5.6.3-4 and 5.9.11-
13, enables us to derive rather firm conclusions regarding the identity of this sect.
The Naassenes were given their unusual name because they venerated nothing else
than the serpent (timôsi de ouk allo ti ê ton naas, 5.9.11) and dared to sing hymns to it
(ophin hymnein, 5.6.3). In fact, "the priests and the leaders of this doctrine were the first
who were called the Naassenes (hoi Naassenoi, 5.6.3)," a name which is derived from
the Hebrew word nâhâsh (Gk. translit. naas), meaning the 'serpent' or 'snake.'27
represents, however, a less persuasive attempt to demonstrate that there is some genuine
connection between the snake (as naas) and the temple (naos): "...all the temples under
heaven are called naos [from naas]; and for this náas alone is devoted every shrine, and
every rite, and every mystery, and no rite may be found under heaven in which there is no
temple (naos) and the snake (naas) in it, from which the name naos is derived."
Suggestive though it is, this etymological speculation on the words naos and naas
age.28 On the other hand, one should certainly pay more attention to Hippolytus'
information that "afterwards" (meta de tauta) the Naassenes "called themselves gnostics"
(hoi gnôstikoi)," claiming that "they alone knew the depths (ta bathê ginôskein, 5.6.4)." It
seems, therefore, that in the history of the Naassenes there was a time when the members
of this sect had been known only as the snake-worshippers or perhaps the "snake(-like)
132
people,"29 and only later they assumed the epithet hoi gnôstikoi, attributed to the
There are two other things in Hippolytus' report that draw our attention in this
context. First, as Hippolytus puts it, "many others" have split off from the Naassenes and
"divided the heresy, which is really one, into many factions, describing the same (thing)
exposition of the gnostic heresies, Hippolytus not only gives absolute priority to the
Naassenes (he discusses their teaching at the very beginning of the fifth book),31 he also
states that the sects discussed after the Naassenes (such as the Peratae, Sethians,
Justinians and probably some others) originate from the same type of heresy described in
the "Naassene chapter." This is, I think, further supported by Hippolytus' reference to ho
katholikos ophis, the "universal serpent," in the section on the Peratae (Ref. 5.16.8).
the Naassene tradition, transmitted to this sect a great number of sayings originally
ascribed to James.32 It is striking indeed that some of the most important information
concerning the origins of the Naassene sect, which comes to us through Hippolytus, is
First of all, one should notice that these other sources (including the Acts of
Philip, Epiphanius, Origen and Philaster of Brescia) generally use the Greek name
Ophites while describing the sect known to Hippolytus under their Hebrew designation.
Since Hippolytus himself very precisely defines the term naas as a Hebrew equivalent to
133
the Greek ophis, and since the crucial information concerning the Ophites, provided by
these other sources, generally corresponds to Hippolytus' own account about the
Naassenes, it is probable that in the case of the Naassene sect we are dealing with one of
5.16.8. At any rate, there is no particular reason why we should not discuss Hippolytus'
report on the Naassene sect in the light of the other authors' knowledge about the
Ophites.32a
regarding the sect which received its name "because of the serpent which they
magnify."33 Moreover, Epiphanius himself traces the origin of this heresy back to the
his report should be read with a great deal of caution and reserve. However, at least a part
of the information encountered in his Panarion seems to be authentic, and I will refer to
that in the subsequent discussion. Epiphanius provides not only the basic description of
the Ophite mythos and ritual, but also indicates that the Serpent of the Ophites was
Origen is yet another Christian author who provides some information about the
Ophites,37 but his own characterization of this sect is confusing. He attacks Celsus for
his belief that the Ophites were Christians and then depicts the Ophites not only as "a
32a For an inherent connection between the Naassenes and the Ophites, see Mansel 1875: 95-109; Legge
1915: 25-82 and 1921: 118ff.; Casey 1925/26; Leisegang 1955: 39; Goodenough 1958: 75-77; Grant and
Freedman 1960: 76ff.; Jonas 1963: 93.
33 Pan. 37.1.2. Like the Naassenes of Hippolytus, Epiphanius' Ophites sing hymns in the presence of the
serpent (35.5.7)!
34 Compare also Pan. 25.2.1 and 25.7.2.
35 Cf. Pan. 37.1.2; 2.4.
36 Cf. ibid., 37.2.6; 6.5; 8.1.
37 Contra Celsum 6.28.
38 Ibid., 6.24.
134
I will clarify this confusion regarding the actual ideology of the Ophites later.
Now it is important to notice that Origen was aware of the sect whose members
the unnamed heretics with Philip's sister Mariamne.41 A more detailed account of this
Another apocryphal work, The Acts of Philip, is one of the crucial literary
witnesses to the Phrygian origin of the Naassenes. But before we consider in more detail
the question of the provenance of this sect, let me briefly enumerate several notices of
Hierapolis:42
Even granting that a greater part of this account about the travels of the apostle
Philip described in these Acts represents a legend, one should not discount too quickly the
39 Ibid., 6.61.
40 Ibid., 6.28.
41 Ibid., 6.62.
42 This text is preserved in three different recensions and is compiled both by Montague James in his
edition of the Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 448ff. and Richard Lipsius, Die Apokryphen
Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, pp. 7ff.
43 James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 448.
44 Cf. Lipsius' discussion on pp. 11ff.
135
First, Eusebius is a very reliable witness to Philip's mission and death in
Hierapolis is highly embellished, we may not discount the significance of the toponyms
listed in the Acts. It is quite probable that in some circles from the end of the first century
(and later) Hierapolis was known as Ophioryme, and, furthermore, that it was the seat of
some local Phrygian cult of the serpent. The pre-Christian background of these cults in
Phrygia, originating from the worshipping of the Great Mother Cybele, Attis and
Sabazius, will be discussed in the next chapter. In this context I would like to remark that,
according to the Acts, the snake-worshippers were active in Hierapolis, Asia, even before
the coming of Philip and his companions. And at least some of them were converted to
Christianity.47
the Acts of Philip pertains to the role of Mariamne, the alleged transmitter of Christian
doctrine to the Naassenes. According to the Acts, Mariamne, Philip and Bartholomew talk
privately in Hebrew,48 an occurrence that indicates the Gentile background of the local
cult. Later in the Acts there is a reference to the priests of this sect devoted to Echidna, the
Viper.49 The cruelty of these priests and the snake-worshippers is certainly exaggerated
for literary purposes, but at some points the careful reader may recognize features
characteristic of the heresiologists' descriptions of the Naassenes/Ophites. Among these
features I would like to include the references to the "deep,"50 the cult of virginity51 and
Philip's allusion to the image of the First Man.52 Finally, one encounters here a striking
136
parallel to the Gospel of Thomas, log. 22: "For the Lord said to me: Unless ye make that
which is beneath to be alive, and the left to be right (and the right left), ye shall not enter
into my kingdom."53
All these various sources of our knowledge about the Naassenes and the Ophites
agree at several critical points and thus enable us to derive some preliminary conclusions
pre-Christian forms of worshipping the snake as a symbol of the divine. The name of the
sect itself, along with the heresiological descriptions of some of their rituals and
doctrines, strongly suggest such a background.
2. Only later did the Ophites accept some of the elements of the Hebrew religious
tradition, primarily the Adamic myth and the story of the creation described in the first
three chapters of Genesis. During the rise of Christianity in Asia Minor and some other
parts of the Mediterranean world, some of these Ophite groups accepted the basic
components of the new religion and adapted them to an already existing syncretistic
system of beliefs. Very early they came under the influence of various apostolic traditions
which, in the case of the Naassenes, were associated in a legendary fashion with the
apostle Philip and his sister Mariamne. It is very likely that the Naassenes did not begin to
call themselves "Gnostics" before such an unusual syncretistic blending of the ancient
Greco-Phrygian, Jewish and Christian beliefs had actually taken place. The chance that
some of the Ophite factions did not accept Christianity led to the confusion of some
church fathers (as is to be inferred from Origen's refutation of Celsus). It is quite possible
that those non-Christian Ophites were antagonistic to the followers of Jesus and such an
animosity was reflected in the Acts of Philip, Epiphanius' Panarion and Origen's writing.
Now I would like to propose a very tentative "definition" of the Naassene sect
with respect to their geographic as well as ideological background: The Naassenes are a
53 Ibid.
137
syncretistic religious-mystical sect with its origin in Asia Minor - more precisely,
Hierapolis, Phrygia; in their rites and doctrines they tended to integrate elements of
ancient Phrygian religion, magic and Hellenistic mystery cults with their own
(re)interpretation of the Old Testament creation-myth and the Christian Gospel. The basic
components of this syncretism were developed in Asia Minor and Phrygia already in the
first century.
Be that as it may, we still have to support the thesis concerning the Phrygian
origin of the Naassenes by some explicit arguments. Also, a question needs to be asked as
to how these syncretistic elements of the three religious traditions (i.e., Greco-Phrygian,
Jewish and Christian) found themselves creatively united in the Naassene doctrines and
rituals. Finally, how did these various ideological trends influence the Naassene redaction
of the Gospel of Thomas ? Some aspects of these questions will be elaborated in our next
chapter.
What I would like to affirm at the end of this section is that the Naassenes really
originated in Phrygia. Also, there are some clear textual indications that their syncretism
following evidence:
evidence about the preaching of the Apostle Philip in Hierapolis, we assume that these
Refutatio 5.7.1 and in the Acts of Philip). Her role as the bearer of the tradition of one of
the heterodox groups is also attested in Origen's Contra Celsum 5.62.
138
3. Hippolytus explicitly asserts (Ref. 5.9.10) that the Naassenes "attend
(paredreuousin) the so-called mysteries of the Great Mother" (tois legomenois Mêtros
megalês Mystêriois), whose main centers of worship were located in Phrygia. The
Phrygian background of this sect is further indicated by their praises to Attis (Attis as
Adonis in Ref. 5.7.11; Attis as Papas in 5.8.22ff.; also 9.1-10) as well as their imitation of
the Galli,54 the eunuch-priests of the Great Mother who were traditionally active in
Hierapolis.55
It is quite possible that their veneration of the serpent as a religious symbol was
related to the syncretistic worship of Sabazius, a god often associated with the snakes.55a
The ancient sources clearly indicate that Sabazius is a Phrygian deity,56 and his
association with various forms of the Great Goddess is confirmed both by archaeological
and literary evidence.57 William Ramsey specifically links Sabazius with the Phrygian
goddess Leto, a manifestation of the Great Mother as she was celebrated in Hierapolis
during the great religious festivals of Letoia.58 In such a context, Sabazius and Leto were
normally identified with Attis and Cybele as two aspects of the same deities.
Naassene Sermon of Hippolytus (e.g. the already discussed motifs of the corpse, lion,
trees, living stones; note also the importance of the "Mother of All," androgyny and
Delphic ideology).59
139
5. According to Epiphanius (Pan. 37.1.2), the Ophites "took their cue from the
sect of Nicolaus," the heterodox Christians who were active in Asia Minor in the first
century (cf. the Revelation to John 2:6, 15). It seems that the Nicolaitans significantly
(Pan. 25.7.2; 26.1.3, 3.3). In fact, this is an epithet originally ascribed to Hippolytus'
Naassenes.60 At any rate, it is interesting that some of the Ophite themes are reflected in
the Apocalypse, and we have already referred, in a similar context, to the importance of
The cumulative impact of all these arguments will be tested further through a
comparative analysis of Phrygian religious syncretism and the symbolism of Thomas. But
before I embark upon an inquiry into the symbolic world of the text which, according to
our evidence, was edited by the Naassenes, I would like to assess the type of syncretism
that pervades the heresiological accounts of the Naassene-Ophite doctrines and practices.
There are four patristic sources relevant to our discussion of the Ophite religious
system: Hippolytus' Refutatio (5.6-11), Epiphanius' Panarion (chs. 37 and 26), Irenaeus'
teachings and beliefs and there are, in my view, two major reasons for that.
60 It is striking, indeed, that Epiphanius' theory concerning the background of the Ophites is corroborated
by Hippolytus of Rome himself. In his treatise "On Resurrection" (De Resurrectione, frg. 1), Hippolytus
claims that Nicolaus of Antioch "was the first to affirm that the resurrection had already come; meaning by
'resurrection' the fact that we believe in Christ and have received baptism; but he denied the resurrection of
the body. And several, at his instigation, have founded sects. Among these were all the self-styled Gnostics
to whom Hymenaeus and Philetus belonged" (cf. Doresse, 301). This type of "realized eschatology" would
certainly go hand in hand with the ideology of the Gospel of Thomas (cf. log. 3, 51, 113) or Hippolytus'
Naassene Gnostics. In any case, the existence of Hymenaeus and Philetus as well as the content of their
teaching is further corroborated by 2 Tim 2:17-18. We should also remember that this epistle itself reflects
the spiritual landscape of Asia Minor at the end of the first century of the common era.
61 Cf. ch. II, n. 78.
140
First, since the Ophites themselves were a "sectarian family" with several
branches that, according to our proposal, gradually evolved from the common syncretistic
ancestor,62 it is quite understandable that these early Christian authors, who wrote at
different times, left accounts describing the teachings of different Ophite factions. This
particularly applies to Irenaeus63 and Origen,64 whereas Hippolytus, on the other hand,
is the best informed anthologist of the Ophite heresies. Epiphanius' own report is
somewhat confusing, not only because of his partisanship, but also because he describes
the elements of the Ophite system in two different chapters: "Against Ophites" (ch. 37)
different sources of information about the Ophites. Hippolytus, for example, wrote after
Irenaeus, but possessed much more textual material, coming from a new source
syncretism. However, the unsystematic mode of his presentation causes some problems
- Irenaeus, on the other hand, provides the most homogeneous description of the
Ophite myth, especially with respect to their reinterpretation of the biblical themes and
doctrines. However, the fact that his report could have reflected the more specific views
62 Hippolytus himself distinguishes at least four such groups: the Naassenes, Peratae, Setians and Justinians
(cf. Ref. 5.1-5).
63 According to Theodoret (Haer. Fab. 1.14), Irenaeus actually describes the Sethian-Ophite system.
64 Origen is primarily focused on one aspect of the Ophite doctrine, related to the description of the so-
called "Diagram of the Ophians." It is not completely clear which Ophite faction he actually had in mind.
65 Cf. Marcovich, "Introduction," 32ff.
141
- Epiphanius is the most biased source, but his own account corroborates Refutatio
- Origen is certainly the most specific of all four authors. He picks only one aspect
of the Ophite symbolic system and his explanation of the Ophite "diagram" is set in the
context of his polemics with Celsus. In any case, I will make only occasional references
to his work.
primary source of our knowledge about the Naassene myth, doctrine and ritual. Indeed, he
is the only heresiologist who explicitly refers to the Naassene Ophite faction. And,
according to our evidence, the Naassenes were the redactors of the Gospel of Thomas.
Irenaeus of Lyons is a valuable informer too, especially with respect to the biblical
background of the Ophite myth, but one should bear in mind that the interpretation of the
opening chapters of Genesis represents only one, however important, aspect of the Ophite
religious-mystical system.66
religious climate in which works such as the Apocalypse or the Naassene Psalm were
Christianity.
Finally, a selective and critical reader of Epiphanius' Panarion (ch. 25, 26 and 37)
may grasp the basic context in which various heterodox groups known as "Gnostics"
that tended to comprise in their teaching the elements of the Greco-Phrygian, Jewish and
Christian myths and doctrines. Nowhere is that more obvious than in Hippolytus'
66 It is not entirely clear if the teaching of the "others" (alii), presented in Against Heresies 1.30.1-15,
reflects the general views of the Ophites, or, perhaps, the more specific features of the Sethian gnostic
cosmogeny. The most comprehensive scholarly attempt to define the phenomenon of "Sethian Gnosticism"
is to be found in B. Layton, ed., The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Vol. 2, Leiden: Brill, 1981.
142
Refutatio. Although three other refuters of Ophitism do not explicitly refer to the
According to Hippolytus, the Naassenes attend the mysteries of the Great Mother
(5.9.10), sing hymns to Attis (5.9.8-9) and adopt a concomitant syncretistic mythology.
We have already suggested that the Naassene worship of the serpent could have been
related to the local Phrygian veneration of Sabazius. Sabazius, on the other hand, is easily
associated, or even identified, with Attis. As William Ramsey has put it, "the serpent,
εηιδνα in Hierapolis, was usually the species with swoln cheeks (παρεíασ), and he
impersonated Sabazios; hence, when the superstitious man of Theophrastus saw a παρεíας
On the other hand, the immediate context for the mysteries of Attis and Cybele is
Sicca, Diodorus Siculus, Ovid and Firmicus Maternus.68 Legge conveniently summarizes
Cybele, called also Agdistis, Rhea, Gê, or the Great Mother, was said to have been
born from a rock accidently fecundated by Zeus. On her first appearance she was
hermaphrodite, but on the gods depriving her of her virility it passed into an
almond tree. The fruit of this was plucked by the virgin daughter of the river
Sangarios, who, placing it in her bosom, became by it the mother of Attis, fairest
of mankind. Attis at his birth was exposed on the river bank, but was rescued,
brought up as a goatherd, and was later chosen as a husband by the king's
daughter. At the marriage feast, Cybele, fired by jealousy, broke into the palace
and, according to one version of the story,69 emasculated Attis who died of the
67 Ramsay, n. 1, p. 94. Cf. Theophrastus, Characters, 16.4 and 27.8 in Lane 1985:46.
68 Cf. Paus. 7.17.9-12; Arnob., Adv. nat. 5.5-7, 16-17; Diod. Sic. 3.58, 59; Ovid, Fasti 4.221-46; Firm.
Mat., De Error 3. A more detailed account of these stories is to be found in Grant Showerman, The Great
Mother of the Gods, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1900: 240-45. For the most recent
compilation of some of these myths, cf. Marvin Meyer, The Ancient Mysteries, San Francisco: Harper,
1987: 116ff.
69 According to Pausanias, Arnobius and Ovid, Attis, in a state of frenzy, emasculated himself.
143
hurt. Then Cybele repented, and prayed to Zeus to restore him to life, which
prayer was granted by making him a god."70
Against the background of this myth, we are now in a better position to appraise
"green ear of grain harvested,"74 represent the components of the same symbolism
myth, which comprise a great deal of the Naassene Sermon (or the so-called Attis-
tripartite conceptions of the Man and the Universe.75 Even though the Naassenes
worship the serpent and attend the mysteries of the Great Mother, they, "according to
their own teaching, revere beyond all others, the Son of Man."76
Some other aspects of the same doctrine include the belief in Adamas-Anthropos'
androgyny77 as well as the triple division of the Man, Soul, Church or even the new
grammatikê technê.78
their unique Christology,79 baptismal practice80 and the doctrine of the kingdom of
heaven.81
144
At first sight, Hippolytus' account of the Naassenes seems artificial. The reader
can hardly comprehend that all these divergent doctrinal elements could find themselves
first- and second-century Asia Minor could have, indeed, provided a fertile soil for the
Phrygia, by which is meant the entire central part of Asia Minor or, to use its
modern name, Anatolia, must from its situation have formed a great meeting-
place for different creeds, among which that of the Jews occupied in the first
centuries of our era a prominent place...These Jews of the Eastern Diaspora or
Dispersion had, however, by no means kept whole the faith of their forefathers,
and there seems in consequence to have been less racial hatred between them and
the earlier inhabitants of the country here than elsewhere. In religious matters,
these last, too, seem to have been little affected by the Euhemerism that had
destroyed the faith of the more sophisticated Greeks, and the orgiastic worship of
Cybele, Attis, and Sabazius found in Phrygia its principal seat.82
Therefore, it is not unusual that a unique sort of religious syncretism could have
worshipping with the elements of the Old Testament religion and early Christian
kerygma. Indeed, Irenaeus', Epiphanius' and Origen's reports unambiguously confirm that
Jewish-Christian doctrines were the original and authentic components of the Ophite
original blending of the Phrygian Attis, biblical Adamas and Christ84 as well as the Naas
and the serpent of Eden;85 and then, through subsequent adaptation of Phrygian and
145
speculations. Irenaeus' selective, but detailed, report supplements Hippolytus' Naassene
source insofar as it provides a more developed version of the Ophite Adamic myth,
cosmogeny or the role of the snake as an agent of gnosis. Even though this rather
I contend, to trace the roots of this thought back to the proto-Ophite (or Naassene) views
of the androgynous Primal Man, Adamas,88 the demiurge Esaldaeus (later Ialdabaoth)89
In contrast to both Hippolytus and Epiphanius, Irenaeus is not dealing with the
Ophite ritual. Let us, therefore, concentrate on some of the "Naassene themes" in
Irenaeus' work Against Heresies (Adv. haer. 1.30.1-15) and try to understand them against
the background of the common fund of Ophite symbols, mythemes and metaphors.
employment of the biblical figures and motifs than is the case in Hippolytus' Refutatio.
One should also remember that Hippolytus himself relied upon excerpts from an
unknown Naassene source, and that the most complete units of such a composition are
the two songs to Attis (5.9.8-9) as well as the so-called "Naassene Psalm" (5.10.2).
In spite of severe textual and methodological limitations that must accompany any
comparison of this type, we are still in a position to assess the meanings and functions of
some common images and concepts pervading the two well-known chapters of the
first note that the account itself is composed of two distinctive sections (1.30.1-10 and
87 It is important to notice that, according to Hippolytus' account, the Sethians should represent one of the
"many factions" (Ref. 5.6.4) that split off from the Naassenes. Namely, the Sethians assume the third place
in his exposition of the Ophite sects.
88 Ref. 5.7.30.
89 5.7.30.
90 5.9.5.
146
11-15), dealing with the Ophite reinterpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis and an
epitome of the New Testament gospels respectively. Most likely the Christian portion of
The theme of the "first light in the power of the deep" which represents the Father
of all or the First Man (1.30.1) closely resembles the Naassene speculations about the
Primal Man91 and the knowledge of the depths leading to the ultimate knowledge of the
Perfect Man.92
The Thought (Ennoia) which proceeds from the First Man is recognized as the
Son of Man,93 whereas the third member of this primordial triad is the Holy Spirit, the
First Woman or the "Mother of the Living."94 As a result of the union of these primordial
entities, the Third Man is born, whom the Ophites call Christ.95
Four elements which separated from the primeval trinity are water, darkness,
The Church is described as the gathering place of the First Man, Son of man,
Christ and the First Woman. At one point, a portion of Woman's power and light fell
downwards, and was drawn to the region on the "Left," creating a female figure
(Prunicos) with the qualities of the Lewd, Wisdom (Sophia) and an Androgyne (Adv.
haer. 1.30.3). At the same time, Christ was lifted up to the higher regions on the "Right,"
she obtained a body. Such an event gave rise to another cycle of creation whereby seven
archontic sons were born, becoming the rulers of both the heavenly and earthly realms.
147
However, the first-born of these archons, Ialdabaoth,98 rebelled against his mother and
thus created various angels, powers and authorities. One of his sons, Nous, the Mind (or a
Nun, Hebrew letter)99 took the form of a snake (Adv. haer. 1.30.5).
Ialdabaoth then proclaimed himself the only God and Father, an event which
provoked the anger of his mother. He also created a man and a woman, Adam and Eve
(Adv. haer. 1.30.6-7). Further genealogy generally corresponds to the accounts provided
by the introductory chapters of Genesis, with an important difference. The Ophite snake
of Eden assumes a positive role as an agent of Sophia Prunicos, initiating Adam and Eve
into the powers higher than Ialdabaoth himself. Ialdabaoth was, therefore, defeated by the
results of his own creation (1.30.7). He sent the flood on disobedient humankind, but
Sophia, again, intervened and saved Noah's ark. According to this account, Ialdabaoth is
the god who makes covenant with Abraham and, through Moses, leads the Jews out from
Egypt (1.30.10).
In the second part of this exposition (1.30.11-15), which reminds us, to a certain
extent, of the second, Christianized, segment of the Naassene Psalm (Ref. 5.10.2.10ff.),
Christ unites with Sophia and assumes the role of the Savior of the world. According to
Irenaeus' Ophites, Christ and Sophia are united as a "bridegroom" and a "bride"
corporeal form. Against Heresies 1.30.14 is the passage which calls to mind some
Valentinian speculations regarding pneumatic, psychic and fleshly body, and it is
certainly no accident that Irenaeus himself, in the concluding passage of this presentation
98 Jalda-bahuth is literally the "Son of Chaos"; compare Ref. 5.7.30 and 5.10.2.
99 The first letter of the Hebrew word nâhâsh (a 'serpent'), presumably representing a vox solemnis which
served as the basis for an etymological interplay of the Greek words naas, naos and nous. Compare
prototokos noos of the Naassene Psalm (Ref. 5.10.2.1). Cf. also note 109a of this chapter.
100 Compare this common symbolism with Ref. 5.8.44-5.
101 Cf. Adv. haer. 1.30.15.
148
To sum up, several "Naassene themes" may be recognized in Irenaeus' exposition
1. An identification of the primordial "trinity" as the (First) Man, Son of Man, and
2. The belief in the "power of the deep" (Adv. haer. 1.30.1=Ref. 5.6.4; 5.6.6-7;
5.8.38);
3. The positive role of the serpent as an agent of wisdom, and knowledge (sophia
4. Speculations concerning the water, darkness, abyss and chaos (Adv. haer.
1.30.1=Ref. 5.8.10; 5.9.13ff.; 5.10.2.2 and 13);
6. The theme of androgyny in Adv. haer. 1.30.3 and 12 and Ref. 5.6.5.
7. The role of Jesus as a Savior in Adv. haer. 1.30.11ff. and Ref. 5.10.2.10ff. (or
8. The cosmic place of Christ in the "imperishable" or fourteenth aeon (Adv. haer.
9. The pneumatic meaning of the symbols of the "bridegroom" and "bride" (Adv.
we realize that the elements of the Judeo-Christian myth of the fall and salvation
of these two fundamental layers of the Naassene religious system is already familiar to us
from Hippolytus' work. On the other hand, it seems that Epiphanius himself made use of
102 In the forthcoming exposition, I will quote from F. Williams' translation of The Panarion of
Epiphanius, Leiden: Brill, 1987.
149
Irenaeus' "Ophite chapter" (1.30.1-15) in order to provide an account of the major Ophite
myth. Nevertheless, the fierce heresiologist of Salamis, who, according to his own words,
had personal contact with some of the later Ophite sects,103 conveys two very important,
and previously unknown, pieces of information concerning the origin of the Ophites and
Let me, therefore, consider Epiphanius' description of the Ophites proper (ch. 37)
and then supplement it with some additional references to the "Gnostics" (ch. 26). Since
the Naassenes very early called themselves gnostikoi (cf. Hippolytus' Ref. 5.6.4), it is
possible that Epiphanius of Salamis knew them under this second name, too, as one of the
Ophite factions that were explicitly labeled as Gnostics.
the question of the Ophites' origin. Epiphanius expressly declares: "As I said, the Ophites
took their cue from the sects of Nicolaus and the Gnostics, and the ones before them. But
they are called Ophites because of the serpent which they magnify." (37.1.2).
The expression "as I said" (hos proeipon) indicates in this context that Epiphanius
has already made some references to the Ophites earlier in the same work. Indeed, the
principal textual link with hos proeipon is to be sought in the concluding sentences of his
account about the Nicolaitans (25.7.2), as well as at the very beginning of the next chapter
(Against Gnostics 26.1.1-2), where the sects which were "partially" or "closely"
associated with Nicolaus have been discussed.104
Returning to the "Ophite chapter" itself, Epiphanius bears witness to the Ophite
glorification of the serpent as a "new divinity" (37.1-2). They exalt their snake as God
this information goes beyond the data provided by Hippolytus, Epiphanius' statement that
the Ophites "ascribe all knowledge to this serpent and say that it was the beginning of
150
knowledge for men,"105 could easily be understood in the light of both Irenaeus' and
the Ophite principal myth, the basic elements of which are already known to us from
Irenaeus.106 The same story about Prunicus' mistake, Ialdabaoth's arrogance and Adam's
and Eve's deception is retold only in a more sarcastic manner. It is very likely that
The next segment of this chapter (37.5.6-8) is, however, completely new and
represents a unique description of the Ophite mystical ritual with the serpent. This
account itself is so significant that I will cite it in its entirety:
5, 6 For they [the Ophites] have an actual snake, and keep it in a sort of basket.
When it is time for their mysteries they bring it out of the den, spread loaves
around on a table, and call the snake to come; and when the den is opened it
comes out. And then the snake - which comes up of its own purpose and villainy,
already knowing their foolishness - crawls onto the table and coils up on the
loaves. And this is what they call a perfect sacrifice.
5, 7 And so, someone has told me, not only do they break the loaves the snake
has coiled on and distribute them to the recipients, but they each kiss the snake
besides. The snake has either been charmed into tameness by some sort of sorcery,
or cajoled for their deception by some other work of the devil.
(8) But they worship an animal like this, and call what has been consecrated by
its coiling around it the eucharistic element. And they offer a hymn to the Father
on high - again, as they say, through the snake - and so conclude their mysteries.
1. The parallel between the Ophite ritual and early Christian eucharist is evident.
We may, in fact, contend that the ritual itself represents a conscious synthesis of the pre-
Christian and the earliest Christian forms of worship. The fact that the Ophites, in the
presence of a serpent, offer hymn to the "Father on high" goes hand in hand with
151
2. As Leonhard Fendt pointed out more than a half a century ago,108 the serpent-
ritual of the Ophites is composed of at least five acts familiar from the Christian eucharist
not difficult to suppose that this ritual had been practiced by some proto-Ophites in
Phrygia even before the acceptance of Judeo-Christianity, i.e., before the divine serpent
began to be identified with the snake of Eden or, perhaps, Christ himself. In other words,
Epiphanius' description of the Ophite ritual, its association with the myth of Genesis,
together with the conception of Christ (Messiah) as a divine serpent,109a may
additionally corroborate our initial assumption that the Naassene Ophite religious
syncretism was composed of at least three layers of tradition: 1) Greco- Phrygian forms of
of this ritual with the Adamic myth of Genesis; 3) with emergence of Christianity, a
reinterpretation of this initial syncretism in the light of the Christian Gospel. The
introduction of that third element is suggested in Epiphanius not only by the Ophite
association of the sacred serpent with Christ, but also by a reference to the Gospel of John
One may conclude that Epiphanius' own report on the Ophites supports
Hippolytus' description of the Naassenes as a religious-mystical group that, in its
In order to confirm that this type of eclecticism was not just an artificial
heresiological invention, we may refer both to the textual and archaeological evidence
152
supplied by the Nag Hammadi Library as well as some ancient artifacts presumably
originating from the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. What I have in mind here in
the first place is a text from the Nag Hammadi collection generally ascribed to the
Ophites ("The Hypostasis of the Archons") as well as the "Jewish-Gnostic amulet" and an
respectively.
The Hypostasis of the Archons is a Christian Gnostic midrash on the first six
authority of the "great apostle" Paul.113 The work itself strongly reflects the spirit of the
Ophite gnosis as it has been described by Irenaeus and Epiphanius. The familiar figures
and themes of the arrogant archon,114 imperishable aeon,115 Adam, Eve and the serpent-
instructor,116 together with the Father of the All, Mother of the Living, Cain, Norea and
the androgyne,117 exchange their roles and places in this cosmic drama which closely
In this text we may recognize at least two constitutive elements of the Ophite
syncretism: that is, the reinterpretation of Genesis and the subsequent addition of
Christian themes and motifs. It is not unimportant, I think, that the gnostic group standing
behind this anonymous work acknowledges the authority of the apostle Paul by referring
to the concepts familiar from the two letters which circulated widely among the Phrygian
Christian communities.118
111 Erwin Goodenough, "A Jewish-Gnostic Amulet of the Roman Period," Greek and Byzantine Studies 1
(1958): 71-80.
112 Hans Leisegang, "The Mystery of the Serpent," in Pagan and Christian Mysteries, ed. by Joseph
Campbell, New York: Harper & Row, 1955: 3-69.
113 Cf. "The Hypostasis of the Archons," in the Nag Hammadi Library in English (II 86.21-26), ed. by J.
Robinson, San Francisco: Harper, 1988: 162ff.
114 Ibid., II 86.29-32.
115 Ibid., II 87.1-2.
116 Ibid., II 88.16ff.; 89.32ff; 91.31ff.
117 Ibid., II 88.11; 89.15; 91.12; 92.14.21; 94.18, etc.
118 That is, the epistles to the Colossians (1:13) and the Ephesians (6:12); cf. "Hypostasis," 86.22 and 25.
153
In the case of the Jewish-Gnostic amulet which Goodenough very tentatively dates
in the third or fourth century C.E.,119 we recognize (this time in an explicit, pictorial
form) a symbolical universe evoking many of the themes discussed above. What is
striking about this amulet is that it contains, in a single piece of black steartite, a number
of very suggestive images and symbols familiar to us from the "Ophite chapters" of
Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Epiphanius. The parallels with Epiphanius' Ophites are
particularly apparent. The original users of this amulet venerated a serpent coiled around
an omphalos, believed in astrology, and, at the same time, adopted the myth of Adam and
Eve in Paradise, where, according to their views, the snake played an unusually important
role. In the light of Epiphanius' report, one may recognize on this amulet several other
symbols, such as: the Dionysiac basket (resembling the cista mystica used in the Ophite
rite); a table (the gathering place for the Ophite eucharist); the allusions to the "heavenly
city" with three levels; and, finally, four mystical masks.120 The letter nun on one of the
accompanying inscriptions represents, perhaps, a verbal symbol for nâhâsh, the vox
mystery ritual with a winged snake. The snake itself is twined around an omphalos in a
persuasively argues for the Orphic-Dionysiac background of this serpent ritual. His
interpretation significantly highlights the early origin of the cult itself. This alabaster
119 Cf. Goodenough, 73. On the basis of the characteristic inscription of the letter nun, Gershom Sholem
has dated this piece as early as the second century, which is my preferable date, too.
120 Cf. Goodenough, 78-80.
121 Cf. especially n. 99 above. It is interesting that, according to Epiphanius, some of the Gnostic sects
"transform the good Hebrew expressions, correctly rendered in Greek, <still> clear to those who read
Hebrew, and containing nothing obscure, into images, shapes, real principles, practically statuary, on the
model of the things their disgraceful, phony craft sows" (Pan. 25.4.3).
122 Originating probably from the first- or second-century Syria or central Asia Minor. Cf. Leisegang, 5
and 27.
154
bowl, serving in Late Antiquity as a ritual vessel, is an important clue to the pre-Christian
roots of the Naassene-Ophite eucharist.123 One should also remember that the cult of
Sabazius, the deity often identified or associated with Zeus, Apollo, Dionysus, Attis,
Asclepius and the Great Mother,124 was widespread in central Asia Minor and Phrygia at
the dawn of Christianity. In this area the cult itself was enriched with various elements of
the Attis-Cybele worship. In such a religious atmosphere, the components of the Jewish-
Christian tradition, developed in the Phrygian diaspora as early as the first century, could
have been easily amalgamated to an older stratum of Gentile beliefs and practices.125 In
the next chapter I will reflect more thoroughly upon this syncretistic process.
How might this whole inquiry into the complexity of the Naassene-Ophite
syncretism prove to be helpful for our central discussion concerning the origin and
transmission of the Gospel of Thomas ? I would like to conclude this section with a few
The analysis applied in this chapter has been essential for the formulation of our
main hypothesis. Not only have we been able to examine the textual material
demonstrating the Naassene role in the redaction of the Gospel of Thomas, we have also
furnished evidence indicating that this sect originated in Phrygia. Moreover, there are
some explicit indications that the major cult of the Naassene Ophites was located in
the Gospel of Thomas in direct connection with Hippolytus' Naassene source. A number
of additional parallels with the Gospel of Thomas could, perhaps, be uncovered beneath
155
In any case, the syncretistic structure of the Naassene-Ophite system is certainly
much more complex than the symbolic universe of a single document such as the Gospel
of Thomas. And this is quite understandable. The rich texture of an entire religious-
philosophical system, imbued by ancient rituals, magic and esoteric theology, composed
of so many divergent doctrinal elements, may not be fully expressed in a single collection
of 114 sayings. However, our current stratification of the Ophite religious edifice enables
us to distinguish at least three major constitutive factors contributing not only to the
emergence of Ophitism, but to the rise of Christian Gnosticism in Asia Minor in general
as well. Those three components have been identified as the Greco-Phrygian mystery
tradition, Judaism of the "Asian" diaspora and the earliest Christian kerygma transmitted
through various apostolic channels. At one point in the history of Asian Phrygia (roughly
corresponding to the end of the first, beginning of the second century C.E.), these three
elements contributed to the emergence of a whole variety of sects known under the
common denominator Ophites ("the snake people"). After the acceptance of Christianity
in Asia Minor, the doctrines and writings of these sectarians began to differ in scope and
interest, ranging from slightly Christianized treatises such as the Hypostasis of the
Epiphanius' discussion of the Gnostics.127 One of these "other gospels" that, in orthodox
Christian circles, was labeled relatively early as "heretical,"128 was our Gospel of
Thomas. At the time when it was written, some of the Naassene Ophites had already
combined the power of the mighty Echidna, the sacred viper, with the salvific magic of
127 For example, "The Gospel of Perfection," "The Gospel of Eve," "Questions of Mary," etc...(cf.
Panarion 26.2.5-6; 26.8.1).
128 Cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.25.6.
156
IV. PHRYGIAN RELIGIOUS SYNCRETISM AND THE SYMBOLISM OF THOMAS
A. The Evidence for the Earliest Christian Missions in the Lycus Valley
closely related to the work of the apostle Paul and his circle. It is interesting, however,
that neither Acts nor the epistles provide any explicit evidence that Paul himself visited
any of the three cities of the Lycus Valley, i.e. Hierapolis, Laodicea or Colossae.
According to Luke-Acts 16:6, Paul and Timothy "went through the region of Phrygia and
Galatia," but were "forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia" (i.e. the
province which included western Phrygia and the Lycus Valley itself).
What is the significance of Luke's statement that Paul and his associates were
"forbidden" to preach the gospel in this part of the Phrygian land? This question itself is
open to conjecture. The least one could assume at this point is that, for some reason, the
conditions met during this journey were not favorable for such a task. On the other hand,
one has to be fully aware in this context of the disputable character of Luke's account in
the Acts. Luke, furthermore, reports that Paul had another chance to visit the cities of
Phrygia. In Acts 18:23 we read that he "went from place to place through the region of
Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples." Then, having "passed through the
upper country" (i.e. inner Asia Minor, 19:1), he arrived at Ephesus. After almost three
years of Paul's sojourn in Ephesus, "all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord,
The impression left by this second account of Paul's travels in central Asia Minor
is that the apostle himself only passed through certain regions of Phrygia (we do not
know for sure if the cities of the Lycus Valley were on his route). Apparently, Luke
thought that his mission in this area was directed from Ephesus. After all, Paul's own
157
letter to the Corinthians leaves such an impression. In First Corinthians 16:19, Paul sends
From the Letter to the Colossians, which is the earliest evidence of Christian
presence in Laodicea, Hierapolis and Colossae, we finally learn that the foundation of the
churches in the Lycus Valley itself should be attributed to Paul's disciples. One of those
disciples, who himself was originally from Colossae,1 played an especially important role
in this context. His name was Epaphras, and the author of this letter1a "bears witness"
that this envoy of the Apostle to the Gentiles "worked hard" not only for the Colossians,
but for those in Laodicea and Hierapolis as well (Col 4:13). One detail, in particular,
demands our attention in the concluding greetings to the Colossians. Not only does the
apostle advise the Colossian brethren to read this letter once again "in the church of the
Laodiceans," but he insists also that the "Letter from Laodicea" is read among them.
There is no clear evidence as to who wrote that second letter, the epistle from
Laodicea. There are some reasons to believe that Epaphras himself could have been its
author.2 Even if the Colossian ambassador of Paul was not the writer of this epistle, one
may argue that Epaphras had been the principal figure in the earliest stage of formation of
Christian churches in the Lycus Valley. We may even suppose that in the first period of
Phrygian Christian history Epaphras assumed a role as important as that of his more
famous successors Philip and Papias (who himself concluded the process of consolidation
of the Phrygian Church in Hierapolis).
To assess how successful 3 that initial impetus had been is not an easy task.
According to Walter Bauer, it is quite possible that "Epaphras is not entirely blameless
for the fact that in the community he established at Colossae, peculiar syncretistic ideas
158
were introduced such as the worship of the cosmic elements - or perhaps it would be
more accurate to suggest that such ideas were present from the very beginning in
Colossae, but that Epaphras did not take the trouble to eliminate them."4
Whatever be the case, the author of the Apocalypse bears witness to some
common ideological "disturbances" that took place in the "seven churches of Asia,"
including Epaphras' Laodicea. Although Colossae and Hierapolis are not mentioned in the
Johannine list of the Asian churches, one may assume that the situation in Laodicea
perhaps reflected the current status of the other two congregations as well.
as well as those who claim to "know the deep things of Satan" (egnôsan ta bathea tou
satana, Rev 2:24). According to Hippolytus of Rome, it was Nicolaus of Antioch, the
person mentioned on several other occasions in this study, who "was the first to affirm
that the resurrection had already come, meaning by 'resurrection' the fact that we believe
in Christ and have received baptism; but he denied the resurrection of the body. And
several, at his instigation, have founded sects. Among these were all the self-styled
Now, both Hymenaeus and Philetus are rebuked in 2 Tim 2:17, in a context
concerned with Christians who "turned away" from the Pauline mission in Asia.6 In 1
Tim 1:20, Hymenaeus is condemned once again along with a certain Alexander.7 The
letter itself concludes with the admonition to "avoid the godless chatter and
contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge" (he pseudônymos gnôsis, 1 Tim 6:20).
When the apostle Philip arrived in Hierapolis with his daughters and his sister
Mariamne, one may assume that the ideological profile of Christians in Phrygia did not
4 Bauer, 235.
5 Cf. n. 60 on p. 152.
6 Cf. 2 Tim 1:15.
7 Alexander the coppersmith from 2 Tim 4:14.
159
significantly differ from the situation described in the Revelation or the Pastoral Epistles,
that is, in the writings which reflect some trends in "Asian Christianity" operative by the
end of the first century. If Epaphras himself contributed to the emergence of a new
religion among the Phrygians of the Lycus Valley, Philip and his followers were
confronted with the difficult task of providing a definition of their movement in the
syncretistic context of Phrygian spirituality. The religious landscape of this country had
been composed of the temples dedicated to Greco-Phrygian deities and the Jewish
synagogues. It was, moreover, inhabited by people like Hymenaeus and Philetus who
were not hesitant to proclaim that the resurrection had already come.
In the days of Trajan (98-117), when Philip was preaching "through all the cities
of Lydia and Asia" (including Hierapolis),8 the second stage in the history of early
Phrygian Christianity had just begun. In this period, I submit, the Naassene Gospel of
Several ancient sources connect the apostle Philip and his family with Hierapolis.
Three independent and reliable witnesses confirm some details concerning Philip's
mission and death in the "holy city" of Phrygia. Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus (c.
190), writes to Victor, bishop of Rome (189-99) that "Philip, one of the twelve apostles...
sleeps at Hierapolis with his two daughters, who grew old as virgins and his third
daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and rests in Ephesus."9 The Dialogue of Gaius, a
churchman of Rome who wrote against the Montanist Proclus, informs us that Philip's
daughters were gifted with the prophetic spirit. It is interesting that, according to the Acts
of the Apostles (21:9), it was Philip the evangelist (and not Philip the apostle) who "had
four unmarried daughters, who prophesied" (Acts 21:9). Also, the Montanist Proclus, a
native of Phrygia, is familiar with the tradition regarding "four prophetesses at Hierapolis
160
Finally, according to Eusebius, Papias of Hierapolis himself personally knew
Philip's daughters who transmitted to him a story about the miraculous resurrection of the
wife of a certain Manaen, as well as "another miracle connected with Justus surnamed
Barsabbas, for he drank poison but by the Lord's grace suffered no harm."11
The information provided by the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Philip relates
some more details of Philip's life. It is interesting that Luke associates another Philip
(who, in his own tradition, is known as the evangelist, and not an apostle)12 both with
Nicolaus of Antioch (6:5) and Simon Magus (8:13), the alleged forerunners of Christian
Gnosticism. It is, therefore, no accident that one of these "Philips", along with Thomas or
Matthias, assumes a privileged status in the Gnostic traditions.13 On the other hand,
Philip the apostle encounters strong opposition among some Hierapolitan Ophites. "Many
We have already expressed some doubts about the historical authenticity of the
data furnished by the Acts of Philip. One may, however, admit that the basic tradition
recorded in these Acts only corroborates some other, more reliable, accounts concerning
Philip's activity in Hierapolis as well as the location of a sect whose members we identify
as the Ophites. The role of Mariamne, Philip's sister, as a person who played an important
role in the conversion of some of these Ophite groups is, again, confirmed by Hippolytus
of Rome (Ref. 5.7.1). The evidence furnished by Hippolytus has prompted us to assume
that, long before Papias wrote his Interpretation of the Lord's Sayings, the Christians of
Hierapolis, including the Naassene-Ophite converts, had been familiar with an ancient
In the light of all these various sources of information about Philip, it is somehow
surprising that he is not considered by the ecclesiastical tradition as the first bishop of
11 Ibid., 3.39.9.
12 Cf. Acts 21.8. Acts, in fact, distinguishes between Philip the Apostle (1:13) and the Philip who was a
member of "the seven" headed by Stephen (6:5).
13 Cf. pp. 84ff.
14 Cf. Acts of Philip, 113.
161
Hierapolis. Heros, an almost unknown churchman appointed by Philip, is known as the
first bishop of the "holy city." Heros was then succeeded by Papias and Claudius
Apollinaris. We can only guess as to the reasons for such an episcopal order. Perhaps
Christianity in Hierapolis before Philip had been so heterodox that he personally decided
to appoint a "right person" as the first bishop. Or, although Philip's family, his daughters
and his sister, assumed more prominent roles in the conversion of the local population,
the office had nonetheless been granted to a male bishop, presumably one of Philip's own
disciples. Or, was it perhaps that Philip was not "orthodox" enough for the taste of the
later ecclesiarchs who themselves did not witness the consolidation of the Phrygian
churches before the time of Papias?
Many similar questions might be asked at this point, but most of them, like the
ones already posed, would be merely speculative. In any event, with Papias of Hierapolis,
himself a Phrygian, the short history of the Church in this area enters a new stage, the
stage of the consolidation of ecclesiastical authority. Papias himself is the first known
annalist of the early Church. He was born by the end of the first century, and we may
assume that his major work in five volumes, Logiôn kyriakôn exêgêseis,15 originated in
the second half of the second century. According to tradition, he died as a martyr at
Papias is yet another important witness to the fact that some of Jesus' "oracles" or
"sayings" had already been differently interpreted at the beginning of the second century.
Let us remember, in this context, the incipit of the Gospel of Thomas which introduces
Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (3.39.16) represents the most decisive historical clue
linking an independent tradition of Jesus' sayings with the Naassene setting in Hierapolis.
If the Gospel of Thomas was truly composed in the Hierapolis region, that would explain
the existence of Aramaisms in this document. The bishop of Hierapolis himself bears
162
witness to the fact that at least one collection of logia Iêsou compiled in the Aramaic
language may have already circulated in this area by the end of the first century. In any
case, Eusebius' low opinion of Papias may be taken as one of the criteria for authenticity
of Eusebius' own account.16 Among other things, we read that Papias "inquired into the
words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas (sic!) or James or
John or Matthew... had said, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, the Lord's
disciples, were saying. For I did not suppose that information from books would help me
Can we assume in this context that the utterances of the "living Jesus" recorded in
the Aramaic Vorlage of the Gospel of Thomas had been transmitted in a similar way to
"other accounts, as though they came to him from unwritten tradition and some strange
parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical accounts."18 As we
know, experts in Thomasine studies are still perplexed by the existence of synoptic-like
parables in the Gospel of Thomas that have no counterpart in the synoptic tradition.19
Phrygia in the first century C.E. In addition to the Apocalypse, the Epistle to the
Colossians bears witness to the development of a syncretistic or proto-gnostic type of
Christianity that emerged more or less independently of the Pauline mission (represented
tradition, preserved in Eusebius' History, describing the apostle Philip as the first
163
buried at Hierapolis. His martyrion has recently been identified by Italian archaeologists.
Finally, there is an apocryphal tradition recorded in the Acts of Philip that connects this
apostle not only with Hierapolis, but with the Ophites as well! According to this tradition,
in the days of Trajan, Philip, "successor to James," was preaching with his sister
Mariamne in the "Ophite Alley."20 Not only does this tradition confirm the presence of
an early apostolic preaching in Hierapolis, but it also associates Philip with James and
Mariamne who, according to Hippolytus' testimony (Ref. 5.7.1), were championed by the
Naassenes as the bearers of their own tradition of a "great number of sayings" (Ref.
5.7.1). It is plausible to assume that some of these sayings, pertaining to the Jewish-
Christian tradition of Jesus' words (and transmitted by James' followers), found their way
to the Naassenes, and hence, to our own version(s) of the Gospel of Thomas.
We have already suggested at the end of the previous chapter that the roots of the
Naassene-Ophite veneration of the serpent should be sought not only in the underlying
myth of Genesis (as well as the later identification of the serpent of Eden with Christ), but
actually embedded in traditional Anatolian spirituality as well as the Hellenistic cults and
"holy city"21 of Phrygia, was known in Late Antiquity as a religious stronghold of such
20 In Greek: Ophioryme.
21 As W. Ramsay aptly remarks, by its very name "Hierapolis was marked as...a place of approach to God;
and a great religious establishment (hieron) existed there. At first it was called Hiero-polis, the city of the
hieron; and on a few coins of Augustus this name appears. But as the Greek spirit became stronger in the
Lycus Valley, the strict Greek form, Hiera Polis, established itself" (Ramsay, 87). The city itself was
164
beliefs and rituals.22 We will take a closer look at these pre-Christian forms of religious
syncretism that were developed in Phrygia and Hierapolis long before Epaphras, Philip
and Mariamne introduced the Christian Gospel in the cities of the Lycus Valley. The
question needs to be asked about the religious or ideological profile of the Ophites of
1) the local Anatolian cult of the Great Goddess and her consort Attis;
2) the closely related worship of the Phrygian god Sabazius, the deity
Earlier we have recounted an abbreviated version of the myth of the Great Mother
of the Gods and Attis.22a Some of the basic elements, motifs and symbols recognized in
Indeed, Hippolytus himself refers to Attis and the Great Mother on several occasions in
his Refutatio 5.6-11, but once he explicitly states that the Naassenes actually attended the
mysteries of the Great Mother, "thinking that through those rites they will comprehend
mysteries as priests of the Great Mother, for Hippolytus remarks that they themselves "are
not castrated,"23 but, through sexual abstention, only "accomplish the acts of those who
founded in the Hellenistic period and was well-known for a great number of sanctuaries (cf. Stephanus of
Byzantium, Ethnika, Graz: Akademische Druck, 1958: 327). One of them, the temple of Apollo Archegetes,
the patron-deity of the city, has recently been excavated.
22 Besides Acta Philippi, cf. Stephanus of Byzantium, Ethnika, 327-8; Strabo, Geography 13.4.14. For the
inscriptions, see M. Vermaseren, Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque, Vol. 1, Leiden: Brill, 1987: 30 and
Ramsay, 115ff. (especially inscription no. 17).
22a See p. 155-6.
23 Hippolytus, in fact, refers to the galli, the eunuch-priests of the Great Goddess.
165
are castrated" (5.9.10-11). Moreover, according to Hippolytus' Naassene source, the
members of this sect claimed that "of all men (they) alone are Christians," because they
were able to "enter the true gate24 which is Jesus the blessed" (5.9.22).
Viewed in terms of Hippolytus' own account, we may assume that the Naassene
Christians attempted to understand the ancient mysteries (and, more specifically, the cult
of the Great Mother and Attis) in the light of the new, Christian, religion which itself had
At the time when the Naassene Ophites accepted Christianity, the cult of the Great
Mother was actually very popular in the Roman Empire. Especially with the reign of
Hadrian, the figure of Attis began to occupy a more prominent place in this religion. Of
course, it is difficult to assess, just on the basis of Hippolytus' report, the true character of
the Naassene involvement in the cult of Attis and Cybele. One does not have the
impression that the Naassenes were devoted worshippers of this cult prior to their
acceptance of Christianity. It seems that they selectively adopted some elements of the
traditional Phrygian religiosity (such as the worship of the serpent as an aspect of both the
ancient cult from the perspective of the Genesis-myth and early Christian thought and
practice. At all events, even the pre-Christian Ophites may not be considered exclusively
Attis-Cybele devotees. Their relationship with the Sabazius-cult will be discussed later on
in this section.
the oriental religion of the Great Mother (Lat. Magna Mater) was introduced to Rome in
204 B.C.E., and the cult itself survived, both under the republic and empire, for almost
six centuries. However, it was not until the reign of Claudius that Roman citizens began
officially to serve the cult of Magna Mater. The original homeland of this ancient cult was
Phrygia in Asia Minor, but the religion itself had even more archaic roots which may be
166
traced further East, all the way to the Indian subcontinent. In Asia Minor and Syria the
Great Mother of the Gods was worshipped under different names and manifestations, the
most notable ones being those of Cybele or Kybéle, Agdistis, Leto, Mâ and Atargatis.
Classical authors identify her with Gaia, Demeter or Rhea.25 She is traditionally
associated with the mountains and wild forests, and in her Phrygian homeland she was
believed to live on the sacred heights of Mt. Ida (near Troad), Mt. Dindymum, Mt.
Sipylus and Mt. Cybela. Some of her names and epithets are closely associated with these
regions.26
snakes and wild animals. The scepter is usually in her hand and sometimes she nourishes
a child. In connection with the myth of Cybele and Attis, we have already made
references to the symbolism of the sacred trees and animated stones. The instruments
used in her worship ranged from cymbals and tambourines to flutes, drums and
castanets.28
Since the most ancient myth of Attis - ascribed to the elegiac poet Hermesianax
and summarized by Pausanius - may hardly be dated before the mid-fourth century
B.C.E., one may agree with Showerman that the "Cybele-Attis legend had not taken on
definite shape much before 340 B.C., the floruit of Hermesianax..."29 As Vermaseren
correctly remarks, "in the story of Cybele's advent in Rome no mention is made of
Attis,"30 but during the early Imperial period, his cult was so popular that he began to be
25 Cf., for example, Julian, Oratio 5.159; Euripides, Bacchae 59; Sophocles, Philoctetes 391 or Lucian of
Samosata, De Dea Syria 1.15.
26 Cf. Strabo, Geography 10.3.12; Stephanus of Byzantium, 389 or Catulus, Poem 63.13 and 30.91. For a
more detailed account of various representations of the Great Mother in the Greek and Roman literature, cf.
M. Vermaseren, Cybele and Attis: The Myth and the Cult, London: Thames and Hudson, 1977: 81ff.
27 Cf. Franz Cumont, The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, Chicago: The Open Court, 1911: 48.
28 Cf. Catulus, Poem 63.20-25; Lucian, De Dea Syria 50; Strabo, Geography 10.3.13,15.
29 Cf. Showerman, 248.
30 Vermaseren 1977: 96.
167
worshipped as a divinity. Hippolytus of Rome was certainly one of the witnesses to such
a theosis, whereas a century later Julian the Apostate refers to Attis already as the "great
god" or "king."31 Attis was also identified with the sun,32 and in some circles he was
Minor for the god of the Hebrews.34 On coins and artefacts Attis was usually depicted
with the Phrygian cap, standing near the pine-tree or accompanied by the Mother of the
Gods. With the sun as his symbol, he was also related to the signs of the zodiac.
We know very little about the actual content of the mysteries of the Great Mother
and Attis. On the other hand, we do know that the mystic cult of Cybele and Attis did not
remain unchanged during six centuries of their worship in the Greco-Roman world.
Furthermore, as G. S. Gasparro has pointed out in her recent study,35 the cult itself had at
least two forms: one related to the public ceremonies "known to everybody"36 (with its
practice."37 Moreover, according to some sources, the ritual actions of the galli were
The galli themselves have been mentioned on several occasions in this work, and
it would be appropriate, I think, to say a few words about their actual function in this cult.
The very name Galloi was a source of some speculation among the ancients. Some
believed, for example, that it was derived from the Latin word for the cock (gallus),
which itself appears as an important symbol of these priests.39 Others, again, noted a
genuine connection between these galli and the king Gallus who, like Attis, emasculated
31 Oratio 5.168c.
32 Ibid.
33 Cf. Georg Kaibel, ed., Epigrammata Graeca, 824, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965.
34 Cf. Cumont, 62.
35 Cf. Giulia Sfameni Gasparro, Soteriology and Mystic Aspects in the Cult of Cybele and Attis, Leiden:
Brill, 1985.
36 Julian, Oratio 5.169a; cf. Gasparo, 76.
37 Gasparro, 119.
38 Ibid., 77.
39 Cf. Vermaseren 1977: 96.
168
himself.40 Stephanus records yet another, similar, legend about the Phrygian priest who
castrated himself near the stream which was later called Gallus.41 Whichever may be the
case, the name Galloi, as a technical term, is first mentioned in the Anthologia Palatina
(second century B.C.E.), where these eunuch-priests were also known as the 'sorcerers'
the archetypal act of Attis, the priests of Cybele performed castration, usually at the
climax of an orgiastic ritual characterized by wild, rapid dances, sacred songs and
ecstasy.43 After those gruesome acts of emasculation, the galli would literally attain the
the begging priests47 of the Mother Cybele. Before the emperor Domitian declared the
practice of eviratio illegal,48 the Roman citizens themselves participated in the rites of
emasculation.
It seems that the practices of the galli, related to the cult of Cybele and Attis,
provoked bewilderment among the Roman citizens. Obviously disturbed by the actions of
these initiates, Catulus, for instance, sarcastically addresses the Great Goddess with the
following words: "Great Goddess, Goddess Cybele, Goddess lady of Dindymus, May all
your fury be far from my house. Incite the others, go. Drive other men mad."49
40 Ibid.
41 Ethnika, 198.
42 Meaning, presumably, the inner chambers of the temples, where the esoteric initiation of mystes takes
place. Cf. Anth. Pal. 6.173,220; 9.340 (Showerman, 236).
43 Cf. Catulus' description in Poem 63.20-26 or Lucian's account in De Dea Syria 50ff.
44 Minutius Felix, Oct. 22.4 (cf. Vermaseren, 96).
45 Anacreon 2.2 (cf. Vermaseren, 96).
46 Lactantius, The Divine Institutes 1.21; transl. by M. F. McDonald, Washington, DC: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1964: 83.
47 Cicero, De Legibus 2.22.40.
48 Cf. Digest. 48.8.4.2 (cf. Vermaseren, 97).
49 Catulus, Poem 63. Transl. by C. H. Sisson in M. Meyer, ed., Ancient Mysteries, 128.
169
On the other hand, an aura of mystery and extraordinary power50 surrounds the
deep opening in the earth, full of toxic, mephitic vapour that appears to be fatal for
anyone except for the eunuch-priests of Cybele. The passage from Strabo's Geographica
reads as follows:
But the Galli, who are eunuchs, pass inside with such impunity that they even
approach the opening, bend over it, and descend into it to a certain depth, though
they hold their breath as much as they can (for I could see in their countenances an
indication of a kind of suffocating attack, as it were), - whether this immunity
belongs to all who are maimed in this way or only to those round the temple, or
whether it is because of divine providence, as would be likely in the case of divine
obsessions, or whether it is the result of certain physical powers that are antidotes
against the vapour.51
Cybele and Attis and her discussion of the relationship between the public and esoteric-
initiatory forms of this cult.52 A thorough examination of the evidence related to the cult
itself led Gasparro to conclude that the "formation of mysteries in the Phrygian cult was
not an original element but a later addition, the result of an encounter with Greek
know very little about the actual content of these esoteric rites, it is quite natural that the
galli not only played a central role in the public, orgiastic or dramatic, aspects of this cult,
but that at least some of them (as archigalli) performed significant functions in the inner
chambers of the temple as well, where the 'mystes of Attis' were initiated into the secrets
50 As William Ramsay puts it, "these priests, having separated themselves from the world, already
possessed some of the divine nature, and could support unharmed the terrors of the world of death...the
annihilation of the distinction of sex brings the man closer to the divine life. Hence it is part of the religion
to confuse in various ways the distinction; to make the priest neither male nor female, and to make
mutilation the test of willingnes to enter the divine service" (pp. 93-4). Such a conception of the divine
androgyny is already familiar to us both from the Gospel of Thomas and the Naassene source.
51 Strabo, 13.4.14.
52 Cf. Gasparro, 65ff.
53 Ibid., 122.
170
The only two sources which give some hints as to the character of that inner,
esoteric ritual are Clement of Alexandia and Firmicus Maternus. In his Protrepticus 2.15,
Clement quotes the formula used in these esoteric initiations εκ ησμπανοσ εθαγον εκ
κσμβαλοσ επιον εκιρνοθορηζα σπο ηον παζηον σπεδσν ("I have eaten from the
tympanum; I have drunk from the cymbal; I have born the cernus; I have entered the
chamber").
religionum: "In a certain temple a man who is dedicated to die pronounces the following
formula in order to be admitted into the temple: de tympano manducavi, de cymbalo bibi,
et religionis secreta perdidici, which in Greek reads: εκ ησμπανοθ βεβρωκα, εκ κσμβαλοσ
Whereas the first two statements of the initiatory formula ("I have eaten from the
tympanum; I have drunk from the cymbal...") are identical in Clement and Firmicus (and
refer to the preparatory acts of eating and drinking from the cultic instruments), the
A synoptic view of a, b and c also suggests that the culminative point of the
mystery of Attis and Cybele, the revelation of the secrets, took place in the inner chamber
or cell of a temple. At all events, the highest initiation into the esoteric aspects of the
Phrygian cult of the Goddess finds its parallel in Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries and, as
171
Gasparro and others rightly argue, this part of the ritual was very likely shaped after the
Naassenes "attended the so-called mysteries of the Great Mother, thinking that through
those rites they will comprehend the complete mystery" (Ref. 5.9.10), we may ask
ourselves if the drômena mentioned by the bishop of Rome should refer to the "public"
rites, performed in the theaters (5.9.7), or perhaps to some esoteric type of initiation as is
The most one can infer from Hippolytus' report is that some of the Naassenes
probably attended the public (or theater) performances in which the hymns to Attis had
been sung as a part of the Festival of the Great Mother.57 Apparently, these singers
enacted ta megala mystêria through their songs to Attis (5.9.7), and "because of these and
similar words," the Naassenes themselves attended such public performances. As a result
of that, they were able to get a better grasp of the "universal mystery" (to holon mystêrion,
5.9.10). Hippolytus clearly indicates that the Naassenes, despite their praise of an extreme
continence and androgyny, were not the galli, the priests of the Great Mother. There are
no hints that they were the mystes of Attis either, so that the most realistic conclusion one
may derive from this passage in Hippolytus is that the Naasenes attended the festivals and
they treated the Genesis-myth of creation as well as the Christian Gospel.59 This is
exactly the sense in which Hippolytus himself understood their efforts to reveal the
spiritual essence of all things: "Thus they go astray," says Hippolytus, "and alter
172
everything that has been said or done by anyone to their own understanding, claiming that
all the things become spiritual" (5.9.7). As an example of such an eclectic procedure
in which the Great Mysteries of the Mother of the Gods and Attis were acted out (5.9.7-
10).
What has been said thus far indicates that the Naassenes most likely adapted to
their own teaching the elements of the Phrygian mysteries of the Great Mother pertaining
only to the public ceremonies and festivals performed in honor of the two Phrygian
deities. Be that as it may, one may also assume that the two songs to Attis, quoted at the
end of Hippolytus' Naassene Sermon, were just a part of this common syncretistic corpus.
On the other hand, we do not have any evidence that the Naassenes participated in
other more esoteric aspects of this oriental cult, and Hippolytus certainly does not identify
them as the authentic mystes of Attis. Nevertheless, some of the Ophites did take part in
the mystic rituals associated with the serpent, and the question still needs to be asked as
Before we make an attempt to relate these other, "ophitic," mysteries with the
coeval forms of worshipping the Phrygian god Sabazius, we have to admit that the
Naassene unique syncretism could have been significantly enriched (at least in its
"theoretical aspect") by a polyvalent symbolism of the religion of the Magna Mater. Even
before the rise of Christianity in Asia Minor, some of the Greco-Phrygian sects (the
Attis, the galli popularized various ascetic techniques, ranging from begging and fasting
became some of the ideals of these religious communities.60 The extent to which the
60 For the rituals of taurobolium and criobolium, cf. Vermaseren, 101-7 or Showerman, 280ff.
173
peculiar Naassene-Thomasine symbolism may have been influenced by these ideas is the
A direct encounter with Judaism of the Asian diaspora as well as the contacts with
the first Christian missions additionally contributed to the rise of various types of
syncretism which certainly flourished at the time when the Naassene Ophites formulated
their own soteriological system. Not only the traditional Greek mysteries of Orpheus and
Dionysus, but Semitic ideas, too, made a significant impact upon the local Phrygian
Semitic people and the Phrygians were the Lydians, who represented the Semitic stock in
Asia Minor...The revolting sensual rites, the presence of the hermaphroditic element, and
the mountain temples of the Cybele cult all have their parallels in Semitic worship."61
Among these Semitic influences upon the indigenous cult of the Great Mother,
the problem of the modification and adaptation of these Gentile Hellenistic traditions
syncretism discussed by Cumont, one may, however, speak of the problem of Judaized
61 Showerman, 246-7.
62 The place in Galatia in which the cult of the Great Mother was particularly prominent.
63 Cumont, 62-3.
64 Ibid., 63.
174
Hellenism, an ideological synthesis that also developed its roots in the Phrygian,
For example, the magical texts which, according to Cumont, "are almost the only
theology with that of other peoples. In them we frequently find names like Iao (Yahweh),
Sabaoth, or the names of angels side by side with those of Egyptian or Greek
divinities."65 The Nag Hammadi Library contains texts with these features.
The question of the influence of the biblical traditions upon the local, Greco-
Phrygian stratum of beliefs and rituals will not lose its relevance in the context of our
discussion of the cult of Sabazius. In fact, this problem gains an additional, specific
weight in terms of a more general inquiry into the nature of the Naassene Ophite
syncretism.
In the previous chapter we have already made reference to the cult of the Phrygian
the religion of ancient Hierapolis. On the basis of some analogies with the nearby
Dionysopolis, Ramsay infers that "the great religious festival of Hierapolis was the
Letoia, named after the goddess Leto. She was a local variety of the Mother Goddess,
who was worshipped under many names but with practical identity of character in all
parts of Asia Minor."67 Since Apollo was the traditional patron of the city, the festivals
of Letoia tended to unify the two most important deities - Apollo and Leto.68 Now, as the
65 Ibid.
66 See pp. 151-2.
66a Cf. Ramsay, 90.
67 Ibid., 89.
68 Hence the name of the festival - Letoeia-Pythia (cf. Ramsay, 90).
175
local manifestation of the Great Goddess, Leto was normally identified with Cybele, and
sometimes with Artemis.69 On the other hand, Leto's son Sabazius, through the same
analogy, became Attis,70 the consort of the Great Mother of the Gods.
According to Strabo's account, the temple of Hierapolis was served by the galli,71
and the analogy with Lydian customs suggests that this hieron may have been served by
consecrated prostitutes as well.72 Among other features of the Hierapolitan religion, one
may perhaps emphasize the importance attached to the corpse in the ceremonies of
burial.73
usually accompanied by the moon and the stars.77 His most significant symbol is the
snake, but on the votive hands and other artefacts he also appears with frogs, lizards,
turtles and rams. The presence of the snakes, lizards and turtles on various bronze
hands78 may suggest the regenerative attributes of this deity,79 that is, the characteristic
176
belief in renovatio linked with the cult itself. The figure of the ram evokes the ritual of
criobolium (the sacrifice of the ram),80 practiced probably as a part of the common
worship of Sabazius and the Great Mother. As in the case of the cult of Attis, trees,
especially the pine, find a prominent place in Sabazius iconography.81 He also wears the
Phrygian cap, but, unlike the androgynous Attis, Sabazius is often represented with a
beard.
Of the more specific artefacts which demand our special concern in this context, I
would include the large crater (amphora, cista mystica),82 table83 and the loaf of bread84
- all of which presumably served as ritual objects that, in my view, bring the Sabazius-
cult closer to the religious universe of the Ophites of Hierapolis. These objects strongly
suggest the possibility that the Sabazius worshippers participated in a common cultic
meal, which was more or less esoteric in its character. In such a rite, the described cista
mystica may have functioned as a ritual vessel, whereas the table and the loaf of bread
could serve as the elements of a sacred meal.85 If we observe these symbols and objects
from the perspective of Epiphanius' description of the Ophite communion (Pan. 37.5.6-
8), we may not avoid the impression that the worshippers of Sabazius, who historically
and geographically coincide with the Ophites, should somehow be related with the
strengthened if one would be able to demonstrate that ophis or naas played an equally
important role in the "eucharist" of the Sabazius devotees. Unfortunately, one may only
177
What is more evident, however, is that the snake, both as an object and a symbol,
was an inseparable element of the Sabazius-cult,86 and that the sacred echidna had been
worshipped in Hierapolis, Phrygia (and probably in Laodicea, too)87 before and after the
advent of Christianity.88 One may also assume that some sort of ideological interaction
occurred when the members of this and other Phrygian sects began to be influenced by
Judeo-Christian monotheism. Some authors, for example, argue that the "modern
itself, and not grounded in any clear evidence."89 But even if we admit that the coexistent
Judaism of the Anatolian diaspora was not influenced by these Gentile cults in any
meaningful sense,90 one may certainly expect that the beliefs of the early Ophites,
Sabazius worshippers and some devotees of the Great Mother may have been transformed
in such a religious encounter. Franz Cumont, for example, noted the striking resemblance
between the expression kyrios Sabaoth in the Septuagint and the epithet kyrios Sabazios
interpret the identification of the Ophite serpent with Christ93 as well as the presence of
Adam and Eve, a cultic serpent, a table and a cista mystica on the same magic amulet
from the Imperial period? Let us not forget that "the purifications practiced in the
86 Such as the pareias snake in Theophrastus, Characters 16.4 and Demosthenes, De Corona 259-60 (cf.
Lane 1985: 46 and 52). From the polemical context of Demosthenes' work, we learn, for example, that the
thiasoi, crowned with wreaths, practiced to lift these cultic snakes over their heads. At the same time, the
other participants in this mystery would dance and invoke the name of the deity with the words euoi saboi
as well as hyês attes, attes hyês!
87 Cf. Nicetas Paphlago, quoted in Ramsay, 51ff.
88 Aristophanes bears witness to an early Phrygian origin of the cult (e.g. Horae, frag. 566; cf. Lane 1985:
46). Cf. also an Anatolian inscription from the period of Artaxerxes II in Lane 1985 (plate 13, 31).
According to Valerius Maximus (1.3.2), in 139 B.C.E. the members of the cult of Jupiter Sabazius were
already expelled from Rome (cf. Lane 1985: 47). For the popularity of Sabazius in the Imperial period, cf.,
for example, the Bithynian inscription (from 99 C.E.) in Lane 1985 (plate 9). Also, Lane 1989: 38ff.
89 Lane 1989: 55.
90 Although we have to admit that the phenomenon known as "Hellenistic Judaism" was a result of at least
a philosophical impact of the Greco-Hellenistic culture upon Judaism.
91 Cf. Cumont, 64.
92 Cf. Lane 1985: plate 5 (16) and 1989: 11. The inscription reads: Zeus Hêlios megas kyrios Sabazios
Arsilenos. On some Roman inscriptions, Atis is called 'Hypsistos' (Inscr. graec. 14.1018), which is an
epithet characteristic of the Old Testament God. Cf. Cumont, 62.
93 Epiphanius, Pan. 37.2.6; 6.6.
178
mysteries were believed to wipe out the hereditary impurity of a guilty ancestor who had
aroused the wrath of heaven against his posterity, much as the original sin with which
Adam's disobedience had stained the human race was to be wiped out."94
between the dominant religious trends of Late Antiquity. Oddly enough, the "celestial
feast can be seen in a fresco painting on the grave of a priest of Sabazius called
Vincentius, who was buried in the Christian catacomb (!) of Praetextatus."95 Cumont
argues that this priest "belonged to a Jewish-pagan sect that admitted neophytes of every
Ophites. Is this syncretism reflected in the symbolism of the Naassene Gospel of Thomas?
works have paid attention to the analysis of its symbols. Even in those few cases where
such an inquiry has been undertaken, it has been within the broader framework of
More comprehensive studies of this document, published soon after the first
94 Cumont, 64.
95 Cumont, 64-5. Cf. plate 27 in Lane 1985.
96 Ibid., 65.
97 Cf., for example, Bertil Gärtner, The Theology of the Gospel According to Thomas, New York: Harper
& Bros., 1961; Ernst Haenchen, Die Botschaft des Thomas-Evangeliums, Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann,
1961; H. Turner and H. Montefiore, Thomas and the Evangelists, Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1962.
98 Such as those of Klijn 1962 and Kee 1963.
179
univocal with respect to their basic presumptions. The standard theoretical
- As such, it may be understood from the broad context of gnostic mythology and
- The symbols of Thomas "find" their meaning and significance in this larger
interpretive macrocosm.
The initiators of this methodology were the eminent German scholars Rudolf
Bultmann and Hans Jonas.100 Following this same syllogistic procedure, both authors
defined the "original" or "genuine" Gnosticism according to some "typical" (=universal)
gnostic patterns (dualist cosmology, myth of the Anthropos, the cosmic Logos, world as a
tragic event, etc.) and then applied that "ideal type" to the alleged Gnosticism of the
distinctive early Christian works (such as the Gospel of John or some non-canonical
writings). This entire procedure cannot, however, escape the charge of circular reasoning.
Gärtner's, otherwise magisterial, work on the Gospel of Thomas. Let me mention one
typical example from his book. One of the most obscure sayings encountered in the
Gospel of Thomas inaugurates the symbol of the lion "who becomes man" (log.7). The
author first refers to the usage of this symbol in the Mandaean literature as well as the
Valentinian Excerpta ex Theodoto, and then makes an anachronistic attempt to illuminate
the mystical "lion" from Thomas by reading in the connotations characteristic of these
99 See Morton Smith's criticism of this "ideal type" in his book review in JBL 89/1 (1970): 83. Also, in
1981: 796ff.
100 Cf., for example, Jonas' classic The Gnostic Religion, Boston: Beacon Press, 1963 or Rudolph
Bultmann's Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting, trans. by R. H. Fuller, New York: The
World Publishing Company, 1956: 162-171 and The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. by G. R.
Beasley-Murray, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971: 13-83.
101 Cf. Gärtner, 162ff. For a comprehensive study of this leontomorphic symbol in Thomas , cf. Howard
Jackson, The Lion Becomes Man, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.
180
deciphering of the lion-symbol with the actual Thomas logion, not even the principle of
symbolic polysemy may aid us in better understanding its "message." Is it because of the
fact that Lidzbarski's significant translation of the Mandaean Ginza introduced a kind of
"Mandaean fever" among contemporary biblical scholars, that Gärtner himself resorted to
Our own hermeneutical investigation begins, therefore, with the particular, with
the text itself in its uniqueness as well as symbolical autonomy and difference. It will not
presuppose any universal "gnostic" system of symbols; actually, the only dynamic context
Viewed in terms of the interpretive procedure described above, one may observe,
for instance, the symbol of the kingdom of God in the lengthy history of its origination,
apocalyptic connotations emerging from the real life of the Jewish and Jewish-Christian
myths; and, finally, elaborated in speculative thought), one should agree with Norman
Perrin's statement that the kingdom of God, being dependent on a prior myth, is not an
archetypal or primordial symbol.102 In other words, we would not have had the symbol
without the corresponding mythos. Despite the fact that the Jesus of the New Testament
gospels frequently employs this symbol in a very personal manner, in our reading we
102 Cf. Norman Perrin, "The Interpretation of a Biblical Symbol," JR 55/3 (1975): 362-5.
181
Discussing the interpretation of the idea of the kingdom of God in the message of
Jesus, Norman Perrin has put forward two important theses. For Perrin, kingdom of God
If the symbol of the kingdom of God truly evokes a myth, then one may argue that
in the history of the tradition this myth preceded, or gave rise to, the symbol. If the
opposite were the case,104 the myth of the kingdom would evoke a primordial symbol of
the kingdom. The logic of such an inference should lead us to assume that in the case of
the Judeo-Christian religious tradition we are not dealing with any primordial symbol of
the kingdom of God, but with a fundamental or primal myth that had given rise to a
whole series of (re)interpretations and semantic alterations in Judeo-Christian history.105
In the symbolic universe of the Gospel of Thomas we may hardly recognize traces
absence of any trace of eschatologization of the symbol of the kingdom, the symbol itself
begins to live its own, independent, semantic life. It is specifically redescribed to function
in the personal context. This, however, does not necessarily mean that the 'kingdom of
heaven' in Thomas does not historically presuppose the traditional myth of the kingship
of God. Rather, the basic myth which preceded the symbol of the kingdom of God "fades
away" in this text, and is no more a necessary condition for its proper understanding. This
atypical feature of Thomas may prompt one to surmise that the text of this gospel, at the
moment when it was used by the Naassene community, had already passed through an
consequences for our diachronic reading: namely, the history of the symbol may indicate
a later date for Thomas' composition. But what about the possible redactional priority of
103 Perrin, 355. Also in Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976: 33ff.
104 E.g. the relationship of the symbol of guilt or sin and the Adamic myth in the Ricoeurian interpretation
(cf. Perrin 1975: 363).
105 Ibid., 348.
182
the kingdom really preceded, in the history of the tradition, some later "adjustments"
'Kingdom,' 'kingdom of the Father' or 'kingdom of heaven' are not fully elaborated
concepts in the Gospel of Thomas as they are, for instance, in the works of Augustine or
some modern theologians. Evolution, mediation and interraction are terms that most aptly
explain the development of this symbol in a diachronic perspective. Such a process might
↓
symbol
conception
Ancient Near Eastern (including Israelite) myths of the kingship and reign of God, via the
prophets' and Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom of God, up to the more or less
speculative redescriptions of this symbol in works such as the Gospel of Thomas as well
Perrin rightly insisted that the origins of the symbol of the kingdom of God lie in
the Near Eastern myths of divine kingship.106 All these myths have some common
features, such as the confirmation of one god (be it Marduk, Baal, Yahweh or Zeus) as a
king by the others, usually after his great victory over the monsters, powers of evil, chaos
psalms and lists of divine attributes. Although in the case of YHWH we do not have firm
evidence for the existence of a festival of his enthronement, most of the deities were
celebrated in annual festivals and rituals. Some of them were considered not only 'a great
183
king above all gods' (Ps 95:3), but as a 'king of kings' as well (2 Macc 13:4). In their
kingship they combine divine and human sovereignty, being thus universal rulers of the
world. In ancient Israel, the sovereignty of YHWH, his 'kingship of heaven' (malkuth
shamayim) had gradually embraced two distinctive aspects: he is not only the main "hero"
of the creation myth, but the principal agent in the history of salvation as well. Perrin
believes that the synthesis of these two mythological aspects contributed to the emergence
justice, together with the idea of God as the "judge over the nations," were particularly
figure that has been granted covenantal kingship over the God's people.108
Some of the elements of the Israelite myth of the divine kingship have been
reinterpreted and further developed in the deuteronomistic history and the works of the
prophets.109 It seems that in this period of Jewish history the myth of the divine kingship
assumes some of its more profound symbolical features. The prophets, for example,
restate the myth, but redescribe it in the more augmented ethical or eschatological
stage of Jewish literature. In the symbolical milieu of the Hellenistic age, the kingdom of
God expresses the ultimate hopes of the nation. A new language of the kingdom, a rich
apocalyptic imagery, provides a transition from the underlying myth to a profound
emphasize this trajectorial development as a shift "from the group to the individual,"111
184
i.e. to personal experience. This shift is characterized, among other things, by a
personalization of the language of the kingdom (as, for example, in Lk 11:20 or 17:20ff.).
According to Perrin, the (re)interpretation of the symbol of the kingdom of God in the
reinterpret Jesus' message of the kingdom in a more or less distinctive manner. Matthew
is closer to the rabbinic tradition when he uses the term 'kingdom of heaven'. In Luke the
symbol of the kingdom has already been placed in the context of the "realized
agenda, in which the idea of the kingdom becomes overshadowed by some other images
and symbols.
At least four types of discourse refer to the kingdom of God in the New Testament
gospels:
When we apply this standard categorization to the text of the Gospel of Thomas,
we realize that only a few of these aspects have been emphasized in its kingdom
discourses. Statistical analysis shows that the word 'kingdom' appears twenty-two times in
the logia of Thomas. The word itself is predominantly used in the parables and kingdom-
185
sayings. With one exception, we do not find it in proverbial sayings. The Lord's Prayer is
On the other hand, we encounter the term 'kingdom' at least four times in the
contexts of ascetic symbolism. This fact indicates one of the major concerns of this
document: whoever seeks to enter the kingdom, should "fast from the world" and become
like a child, solitary and elect. In order to achieve this, a woman needs to become 'male'
and all the seekers have to attain the state of singleness (cf. log. 4, 16, 22, 23, 49,
114).114
themes of entering and search are equally well represented in the logia of the kingdom
(cf. log. 3, 22, 27, 49, 82, 99, 113, 114). Again, this may indicate the mystical and non-
eschatological proclivities of this gospel. The polarization between the 'world' and the
kingdom of God from the canonical gospels somehow express the tension between the
eschatological and existential dimensions of human life, the Thomasine basileia is almost
generally, between the present and the future. The kingdom of the Father is eternal and is
to be found everywhere, but the people do not see it (log. 3, 13). One should know
himself or herself in order to understand that. Until the moment of that inner, mystical,
186
If the parables of Jesus in the synoptic gospels reflect the paradoxical nature of the
kingdom of God, each mention of it in the Gospel of Thomas invokes that paradox.
recontextualization of the traditional Jewish idea of the kingdom of God. This process of
"liberation" of the symbol from the traditional bondage of the myth had already begun
with the prophets and was especially advanced in the message of the Jesus of the synoptic
gospels. Works such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Luke have somehow
completed that process of symbolization and internalization of the 'kingdom' and thus
paved the way to a later conceptualization of this idea in the history of Christian theology.
On the synchronic, non-historical, level of our inquiry into the symbolic world of
images and symbols. Some of them are familiar from the New Testament, whereas others
are characteristic of the text of Thomas only. We have already referred to the symbol of
the 'kingdom' (mentero)117 as the central or focal symbol of the Gospel of Thomas.
Furthermore, it is the most frequently mentioned symbol. It appears twenty- two times,
which simply means that it may be encountered in almost every fifth logion of this
gospel!
Other frequently used symbols include 'the world' (kosmos), 'the solitary'
(monachos; appearing also as oua -"one", and oua ouôt -"the single one") and the 'little
child' (schêre schêm). Less numerous, but equally suggestive, are the symbols of the
'living one' (etonh), 'the light' (ouoein), 'the fruit' (karpos), 'the body' (sôma), 'the corpse'
(ptôma), 'the spring' (pêgê), 'the beginning' (archê), 'the bridegroom' (numphios), etc...118
117 Appearing in two additional Coptic variants as 'the kingdom of the Father' (mentero empeiôt) and 'the
kingdom of heaven' (mentero nempeue, pl.).
118 Compare Ref. 5.7.28 ('the light'); 5.8.22 ('the corpse'); 5.8.23 ('the living man'); 5.9.19, 21 ('the living
water'); 5.8.44 ('the bridegroom'); 5.7.40 ('the body'), etc...
187
Even from this partial selection of symbols in Thomas, we are able to recognize a
familiar lexical fund encountered (in Greek) throughout the greater corpus of early
Christian literature. What, then, is so unique about the symbolism of this particular
Christian document?
It has already been pointed out that the programatic statement - "Whoever finds
the interpretation of these words will not taste death" - proclaimed at the very beginning
of this gospel, invites the reader to embark upon an unusual hermeneutical search for the
meaning of Jesus' words. Indeed, the sayings of Jesus recorded by Judas Thomas do
conceal as much as they disclose. Technically, they are hoi logoi hoi apokryphoi, that is,
the secret or apocryphal words of the 'living Jesus.' They are esoteric, secret words which
reveal the mystery of life and death, the world and the kingdom, male and female. The
religious language of the Gospel of Thomas is, therefore, inherently symbolical and
paradoxical.
What has been said on the level of this text as a whole is even more applicable in
the case of specific symbols and metaphors within the microcosm of the Thomasine
inclined to regard the 'world' as a tensive symbol which is primarily used in order to stress
a polarization between the kingdom (seen as the state of purity, perfection, asexuality,
oneness, etc.) and the imperfect, dualistic realm of human life. In other words, 'world' is
the symbol which represents the negative aspects of an imperfect carnal existence. The
metaphors of the 'body' (sôma) and the 'corpse' (ptôma) are closely related to this focal
119 Philip Wheelwright, Metaphor and Reality, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962.
188
symbol, and as such, they participate in an entire network of antagonistic root-metaphors.
Quite the opposite, the 'spring,' the 'beginning' and the 'light' form another cluster of
Some of the symbols and metaphors that are used in the Gospel of Thomas have
meanings and functions similar to their doublets in the New Testament gospels. For
synoptists. On the other hand, the 'single one' or the 'solitary' is a symbol with very
peculiar connotations. In the Gospel of Thomas 'monachos' is not yet a terminus technicus
referring to any developed form of monastic life. However, it has the capacity to embrace
a whole set of meanings related to the idea of singleness, celibacy, androgyny, perfection,
metaphor which interacts with other images and expressions reflecting the ascetic
the other two focal symbols, the 'world' and the 'kingdom.' Monachos (along with its
Let us examine more closely the polarization between the image of the sunken,
"intoxicated," world on the one hand, and the symbol of the kingdom (seen also as the
'new world')121 on the other. Between the 'world' as an existential, personal, symbol and
the 'kingdom' as the focal image of the whole gospel, one may place two "transitionary"
symbols: that of the 'little child' and the 'monachos,' the 'solitary one.' This relationship
120 Cf. Paul Ricoeur's "definition" of a metaphor in his Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus
of Meaning, Fort Worth: The Texas University Press, p. 64.
121 Cf. log. 51.
189
WORLD → /MONACHOS, CHILD/ → KINGDOM
dispersed throughout the "world" of Thomas' text. These axial symbols, interpreted in a
non-eschatological context, indicate the course of the spiritual or, rather, ontological,
transformation that should ultimately result in a new religious awareness of reality. Some
of these symbols refer to the need for self-transformation, characteristic of the initiatory
references to baptism (e.g. the metaphor of the 'bubbling spring' in log. 13 or the 'garment
of shame' motif in log. 37), one should take into account that the whole symbolic pattern
of transition from the 'world' to the 'kingdom' (the transition conditioned by the solitary
and the child-like state of the initiant) may be interpreted in strictly cultic terms. The
symbols of the 'monachos,' the 'single one,' and the 'child' are dispersed, in a rather
unsystematic manner, throughout this gospel.122 They tend, however, to gravitate toward
the de-eschatologized symbol of the 'kingdom' that, itself, has marked baptismal
connotations.
enhance the esoteric aspects of Thomas, and suggest its possible function as a "manual of
attitude toward circumcision (log. 53), along with the baptismal connotations of some of
122 Cf. the random order of the logia in which they appear: 4-11-16-22-23-49-75-106-114, etc.
123 In log. 2; cf. also log. 92.
190
Thomas' symbols, prompt us to consider some of these logia in light of the famous
How much does this entire symbolism of initiation have to do with the more
early Christian circles (including Hippolytus' exposition of the major Naassene doctrine)?
symbolism of Thomas (e.g. log. 21, 22, 37) and the recurrent themes of celibacy,
elements of the baptismal initiation: 1) nudity; 2) the state of "nakedness without shame";
3) the theme of "treading upon the garments;" 4) the metaphor of a "little child." Smith
relates this symbolism to the Adamic myth of Genesis and interprets these basic elements
Smith, "the disciple is called upon to transfigure himself, to appear naked and
unashamed; to transcend himself, trampling on the fleshly sinful garments of the Old
Man; and to become reborn, to be as a little child."127 In such a condition, the initiant
typologically, corresponds to the state of the New Adam in the New Kosmos130 or Eden.
the theme of androgyny which, according to him, pervades the symbolic universe of the
earliest Christian communities. The Thomasine ideal of "singleness" has a double
124 With reference to this point, Wayne Meeks' seminal article "The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses
of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity," HR 13/3 (1974): 165-208, is particularly helpful.
125 J. Z. Smith 1965/66.
126 Ibid., 237.
127 Ibid., 234.
128 Ibid., 236.
129 Ibid., 237.
130 Smith reflects upon the theme of "taking off the clothing" in log. 21 and the corresponding acquisition
of the "new field" or "new kosmos" (cf. pp. 235-6). Cf. also the eschatological theme of the "new world" in
log. 51.
191
significance for Meeks; it refers both to celibacy and asocial isolation.131 In the
sexuality, and therewith a renunciation of all ties which join the 'unified' individual with
society."132
with the apostle Paul. The baptismal reunification implied by a formula expressed in Gal
3:28, 1 Cor 12:13 and Col 3:10-11 may have prompted some of the early Christian
congregations, established through the Pauline mission, to think of themselves "as a new
the Creator," the Adamic "robe of light"134 as well as an inclination to restore that
bisexual image through a particular ritual - the baptismal rite. "The new man" would,
therefore, represent a being "clothed with Christ" (Gal 3:28),135 the one who rejects the
and an all-pervading "anti-cosmic" attitude would fit well into this pattern. Moreover, our
inquiry into the background of this religious group concurs with Meeks' assumption that
the ideal of androgyny, enacted through the baptismal practice, was one of the basic
ideological features of the communities associated with Paul and his school. The
Naassene Christians of Phrygia could certainly represent one such community.
In his book The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom Stevan Davies identifies
a whole series of logia in Thomas that may be interpreted in the context of the ritual of
192
baptism.136 Such an investigation prompts Davies to conclude that the Gospel of Thomas
is "probably part of the post-baptismal instruction of new Christians and was probably
read aloud to such persons, with explanations added orally for at least the more difficult
This "practical" aspect of the Gospel of Thomas has been neglected in some
earlier studies on the symbolism of this document.138 On the other hand, scholars like
Klijn and Kee contributed to our better understanding of the theological or ideological
framework in which symbols such as the 'single one' or 'little children' find their
appropriate place. More precisely, A. F. J. Klijn interprets the theme of "oneness" in the
return to the original state.139 Klijn contends, in his own right, that the "doctrine of the
Gospel of Thomas was influenced by Jewish ideas about the original Adam being
'one'."140 However, he is not inclined to understand the Thomasine ideal of the "single
one"141 in the light of the gnostic symbol of androgyny.142 Obviously assuming that the
Gospel of Thomas is a Jewish-Christian, and not a "gnostic" gospel, Klijn concludes that
the idea of "oneness" should be derived from the Jewish circles that influenced both the
Relying upon Klijn's conclusion that the "goal of redemption [for Thomas] is the
return to the prefall condition of Adam,"144 Howard Kee develops the idea of a
136 Cf. Davies 1983: 117-37. Besides log. 21 and 37 (already analyzed by Smith), he attempts to uncover
traces of baptismal symbolism in sayings 22, 44, 46, 53 and 108.
137 Ibid., 136.
138 E.g. Klijn 1962 or Kee 1963.
139 Klijn, 273ff.
140 Ibid., 278.
141 According to Klijn, 'monachos' is the word employed by the fourth-century translator of Thomas (as a
supplement to Coptic oua and oua ouôt, meaning "one" or the "single one"), in order to "render a term
unknown to him with the help of a word familiar to his readers" (p. 272).
142 Ibid., 276.
143 Ibid., 278.
144 Kee, 308.
193
primordial, childlike, innocence in the more specific context of the doctrine of the
kingdom. In contrast to the canonical tradition, "entering the kingdom according to these
logia is not the consequence of childlike acceptance of a gift, but the spiritual return to the
primordial state in which a man may regain the asexual innocence of Adam...Here [i.e. in
the Gospel of Thomas, log. 22] it is evident that becoming as a child and entering the
kingdom, and achieving a state of asexuality are very nearly interchangeable terms."145
The scheme introduced on page 212 is further clarified by other specific examples
redactional compatibility of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas with references to the
one may regard the same terms and concepts as symbols or metaphors whose meaning
may be construed on a hermeneutical level. For example, the symbols of the 'body' and
'corpse', encountered both in Thomas and the Naassene source,146 might be understood
in the context of our discussion concerning the "old" and the "new" man as well as the
theme of "taking off the world" (as a sôma or ptôma) in order to attain a "pneumatic" state
of purity, asexuality and perfection. The ritual components of such a transformation are
asexuality, is granted to those who, by "taking off their garments,"149 become (through
the baptismal reunification) like 'little children,'150 'neither male nor female,'151 the
194
'solitary'152 and the 'spiritual' ones.153 Becoming thus perfect, they will not only regain
the image of the Primal Man,154 but receive the knowledge (gnôsis) of God, which,
generation,"156 the Naassene-Thomasine neophytes, the spiritual ones, are able to enter
the kingdom of the Father, "the house of God where the good God dwells alone
(monos!)."157
It is not the major purpose of this study to carry out a systematic hermeneutical
analysis of the symbolism of the Gospel of Thomas. Our primary concern here is to
demonstrate that the ideological background of this document is to be sought in various
doctrines and practices of the Naassene sect. But even on the basis of these few examples
it is apparent, I think, that the Naassene-Ophite Christians, who compiled the Gospel of
Thomas as "their gospel," were able relatively easily to accommodate their pre-Christian
heritage to the elements of the new religion of salvation. In the case of this religious-
mystical faction (whose immediate ancestors and contemporaries still frequented the
Christian community formed in the period between the earliest Pauline mission in Asia
Minor and the subsequent preaching of Philip and his companions. Whereas the majority
of their contemporaries in Phrygia still attended the mysteries of the Great Mother, the
fashion, the Hellenistic myth of the androgyne with the Judeo-Christian soteriological
195
conception of a return to the original condition of humanity before the fall (i.e. to the
According to our evidence, supplied both by the Gospel of Thomas and the
of its principal function and motivation. This means that the asceticism of the Naassene-
network of symbols and metaphors familiar both from the Gospel of Thomas and the
Naassene source - had been inspired primarily by an idea of salvation. The myth itself
toward procreation were some of the most visible characteristics of this attitude. We may
not expect that the Gospel of Thomas, as a highly condensed document, should epitomize
content of Jesus' sayings, but also to reduce the elements of an underlying Adam-
Androgyne myth to a bare minimum.159 Hence in the religious language of the Gospel of
Thomas one encounters a unique class of "strong" or "creative" symbols and metaphors
inhabiting the more subtle domains between the typical allegorical metaphors and
symbols proper. A tensive use of language in the Gospel of Thomas, resorting both to
158 These accounts very often ridicule the pre-Christian heritage of the Ophite circles.
159 As a character, Adam appears only twice in this gospel (log. 46, 85).
196
symbols and metaphors, seems to uphold a 'tensive concept of reality'160 of a particular
Naassene congregation.
One may argue that the Naassene Christians who actually composed the Gospel of
Thomas as their scripture were already acting out an archetype of singleness or androgyny
that had been presupposed by an underlying myth of their Ophite ancestors. Both
church heresiologists.
In our view, the Gospel of Thomas itself would correspond to the final stage of
system had already been established. Shortly after, the Gospel of Thomas found its way to
197
V. THE NEW HYPOTHESIS
The principal theoretical goal of this work has been to identify the most probable
trajectory in early Christian thought which directly contributed to the growth and
transmission of the Gospel of Thomas. We have presented various arguments against the
eastern Syrian or Egyptian origin of Thomas and, furthermore, we have discussed and
analyzed the evidence for the Phrygian provenance of the original, Greek, recension of
this document. It would be worthwhile, I think, to recapitulate at this point some of the
important preliminary conclusions. In line with the arguments proposed in the first part of
the second chapter, we have, first, rejected the idea that the Gospel of Thomas was
originally composed in Syria. Then we challenged the view that this collection of sayings
could have reached Egypt before the end of the first half of the second century (i.e. 140
C.E.).
social-historical inquiry into the background of the Naassene sect indicated not only that
the Naassene Ophites originated in Phrygia, but also that they played a decisive role in the
composition and transmission of our gospel. I am unaware of any other study that has
198
Thomas, along with the very peculiar parallels between the Naassene doctrines and the
symbolism of the Thomasine community, have shown that the history of this Phrygian
sect is compatible with the original composition of the Gospel of Thomas. This fact alone
does not, of course, necessarily entail that Thomas was written in Hierapolis, Phrygia.1 In
this respect, not even a discovery of another Greek version of Thomas at the side of
prove conclusively that the gospel itself was written in Hierapolis! On the other hand, a
discovery of the Syriac version of the Gospel of Thomas in Edessa would certainly have a
in Asia Minor or Syria. And in this case, unfortunately, the provenance of the manuscript
that of the first supporters of the Edessan milieu of the Gospel of Thomas. We have to
suggest a course of transmission of this work which would take into account the Egyptian
phase in the history of its redaction, and, at the same time, be able to point to an earlier
provenance of Thomas somewhere else in the early Christian world. Any such theory
should rely on, or start with, Hippolytus' crucial testimony. This attestation, as we have
already demonstrated, brings the Gospel of Thomas into direct relationship with the so-
called Naassene Sermon presented in the fifth chapter of the Refutation of All Heresies.
One of the most intriguing outcomes of our inquiry is the discovery that the
original Thomasine community which composed and used the Greek version of this
gospel, was, in all likelihood, closer to the Pauline missions in Asia Minor and Phrygia
1 But we should also not forget that the novel of an American author, although written in Japan, is still an
American novel! In other words, the Gospel of Thomas would be a Phrygian gospel (containing the
ideological and symbolical features typical of this provenance) even if the Naassene Ophites composed it on
their "pilgrimage" to Egypt, and not in Hierapolis itself!
2 This is because their theory is partly based upon the linguistic argument claiming the hypothetical Syriac
recension of Thomas.
199
than to the eastern Syrian "encratites" or later Egyptian hermits and monks. With this in
mind, let us proceed to formulate a new hypothesis regarding the origin and transmission
I contend that the original kernel of the Gospel of Thomas consisted of a relatively
sayings were transmitted in the Aramaic language in the earliest Christian circles
associated with Jesus' brother James. At all events, such a collection had circulated
already in the first century, being delivered through some special apostolic channels. We
know almost nothing about this earliest phase of transmission of the "inchoate" Gospel of
Thomas. We do not even know if such a collection was originally ascribed to Thomas.
version of Thomas as well as the status attributed to James as a bearer of this tradition,
one may infer that an original stratum of Jesus' sayings, representing a sort of Vorlage of
the Gospel of Thomas, was subsequently edited and translated into Greek.
The second, and the most decisive, phase in the history of this document is related
to the transmission of these logia to Asia Minor and Phrygia at the end of the first,
beginning of the second century C.E. Fortunately, there are some indications that Philip's
sister Mariamne played a major role in the transmission of this corpus of Jesus' sayings to
the Naassenes. At this stage, I submit, the original kernel of the Gospel of Thomas was
not only translated into Greek but underwent its first complete redaction in the
collection was carried out in a manner similar to Matthew's or Luke's treatment of the
Synoptic Sayings Source (Q). The major difference, however, is that the Naassenes, the
genuine editors of this collection in Greek, did not include in "their gospel" any narrative
segments, such as the ones compiled in the Gospel of Mark. We may assume that the
"snake-people" did not even know of any other literary units beside the logia Iêsou
expressly transmitted to them by Mariamne, and allegedly authenticated by the apostle
200
Thomas or, probably, James the Righteous himself. The members of this sect should,
nevertheless, be regarded as responsible for the first Greek recension of this document.
As I have noted previously, their compilation contained not only the major segments of
an earlier tradition of Jesus' sayings, but also their own ideas and concerns regarding
community developed its ideas and practices in close proximity to the earlier Pauline
missions in the Lycus Valley, the Naassenes interpreted, and often adapted, those logia
Adam/Anthropos;
c) the soma-sema identification; furthermore, the division of human nature into its
All these doctrinal elements are already familiar to us from the Pauline epistles.
The parallels with the Johannine writings, discussed in the first chapter, reinforce
our conviction that the roots of Thomas' gospel should not be sought in eastern Syria.
These roots are, in fact, connected with the "western branch" of Early Christianity.3
I have already suggested that the Naassene recension of Thomas took place
between 100 and 138 C.E.4 Since, according to the tradition, Philip and Mariamne
sojourned in Hierapolis "in the days of Trajan," I am inclined to locate the date of
composition of the Naassene Gospel of Thomas closer to the beginning of the second
century.
3 One of the rare, but praiseworthy, attempts to link the Gospel of Thomas with this western trajectory is to
be found in Michel Desjardins' recent article "Where was the Gospel of Thomas Written?", TJT 8/1 (1992):
121-33. Desjardins argues that the Gospel of Thomas originated in Antioch.
4 Cf. p. 115.
201
The last stage of the transmission of this collection of sayings corresponds to its
circulation in Alexandria and Upper Egypt. This period has been reviewed in our second
chapter (section B). At the present state of evidence, it is, unfortunately, impossible to
determine exactly how the Naassene Thomas found its way to Alexandria. Origen bears
credible witness to the fact that this gospel circulated there in the second half of the
second century.5 One may argue that the religious connections between Alexandria and
Asia Minor were rather developed in the second century, and that the great number of
syncretistic cults and sects could only facilitate the delivery of a document such as the
Gospel of Thomas through some of these religious channels. Perhaps the Naassene
Ophites themselves transmitted their gospel to Egypt. Or maybe some of the Ophite
factions found their permanent seat in Alexandria as early as the mid-second century C.E.
the most secure starting point of inquiry into the origin of the Gospel of Thomas.
Viewed in terms of this proposal, we should remark that the Phrygian Hypothesis
supports the form-critical independence of this document from the synoptic gospels and,
at the same time, opens up the possibility for an even earlier transmission of an oral
version of Thomas from Palestine or western Syria (Antioch?) to Asia Minor. In the first
and early second century the cities of the Lycus Valley such as Colossae or Hierapolis
represented an area relatively isolated from the major trends in "orthodox" Christianity.
This fact may have contributed not only to the transmission of an independent tradition of
Jesus' words, but a subsequent interpretation of that tradition in the "gnostic key" as well.
The Phrygian provenance of the Gospel of Thomas could, moreover, easily explain the
Some of the significant gaps related both to the "Syrian" and the "Egyptian"
hypotheses regarding the origin and provenance of the Gospel of Thomas could, perhaps,
be adequately covered with the new insights into the character of the Naassene
202
community which, in my view, played the crucial role in the history of the composition of
this document. As a result of this analysis, the new hypothesis emerges as a necessary
alternative to these two traditional views. Although a few scholars have already referred
to the importance of the Naassenes as the bearers of the tradition promoted in the Gospel
of Thomas, thus far no detailed investigation of the background of this sect has been
This study has also paid attention to the relationship between Phrygian religious
syncretism and the symbolism of Thomas. The more general issue of the origins of
Christian Gnosticism in Asia Minor and Phrygia is especially relevant in this context. It
would certainly be interesting to know whether the Nicolaitans or the Naassenes were the
first to attract the epithets "gnostics" and "heretics" by which they were often classified in
the treatises of the Church heresiologists. An inquiry into the philosophical nature and
syncretistic forms of the earliest Christian "Gnosticism" is, therefore, closely related to
Further research in this direction should shed more light on the background of the
Colossian controversy and may identify the character of the group(s) that instructed the
first Christian converts in this area. On the basis of an implicit (deutero-)Pauline polemics
with the "false teachers" who were active in Phrygia and Colossae in the second half of
the first century, one learns that the issues of esoteric gnosis and philosophy (the worship
of angels, observance of sabbath, mystery cults, ascetic rites and animism) were closely
associated with the phenomenon that is now termed "Colossianism" or the "Colossian
of the community that composed and edited the Gospel of Thomas.6 The spirit of gnosis,
angelology, Greek philosophy and Hellenistic rites and mysteries were some of the
6 On the previous pages we have discussed in some detail the character of the Naassene-Thomasine
asceticism as well as the mystery cults associated with the Naassene Ophites. For the importance of sabbath
in this syncretistic system, cf. the Gospel of Thomas, log. 27.
203
elements that marked this early Colossian instruction. The scholarly proposals that have
usually been advanced with respect to this problem seem to me highly unrealistic. In
some works the Colossian heresy is now identified as Essenism, now as Iranian religion,
and now as Judaizing theosophical speculation.7 It is apparent, however, that in this case
we are concerned with a more diverse, syncretistic, milieu that was open to many
different streams of influence. The teaching of the Naassene sect, for example, embraced
elements of the old Phrygian religion, Greco-Roman cults and mysteries as well as
Jewish-Christian tradition. All these doctrinal aspects were linked in a very eclectic
manner, so that it would be almost impossible to single out any of these features as the
most important for the Naassene speculation.
we are, for example, concerned with the form of Hellenistic religiosity in which the cults
of Attis, Cybele, Sabazius and some other, Egyptian, deities, played a prominent role.
early sources of the Jesus tradition, so that they eventually composed an eclectic,
As noted earlier, the thesis about the origin of the Gospel of Thomas in Asia
Minor could provide an explanation for the unusual presence of Johannine and Pauline
This new hypothesis may illuminate some more specific parallels of the Gospel of
Thomas which occur in Syrian Christian literature. It is reasonable to assume that these
similarities originated from the common underlying tradition of Jesus' sayings that were
7 Cf. the survey of these different proposals in F. Francis and W. Meeks, ed., Conflict at Colossae,
Missoula: University of Montana, 1973.
8 Cf. Ref. 5.6.4.
204
first transmitted to western Syria and Asia Minor (including Phrygia), and later to the
provide the link between the most primitive sources of the Jesus tradition (exemplified by
different collections of logia Iêsou) and the subsequent use of these collections in a
syncretistic or gnosticizing manner. It is important both for Thomasine studies and the
history of earliest Christianity, to understand that such collections could have reached
some of the proto-gnostic sects already in the first century. The fact that the logia of the
Savior were interpreted in a non-ecclesiastical manner should not go against their early
transmission or authenticity. Indeed, the sayings of Jesus could have been preserved in a
more primitive manner before they were finally recorded in the four canonical gospels.
Even if that historical task was first accomplished by the "heretics," we do not have
particular reasons to suspect their authenticity, especially where they do not betray traces
205
SUMMARY
The Gospel According to Thomas, one of the most significant and most intriguing
exciting scholarship. However, half a century after its discovery in the sands of Upper
Egypt, this short but powerful text continues to challenge the experts with a myriad of
problems. In this work I have proposed a new solution for at least one major issue in the
area of the Thomasine studies - i.e., the question of the origin and transmission of this
ancient document.
The question of the provenance of the Gospel of Thomas brings about a rather
disturbing ambiguity that may seriously challenge the current consensus regarding
Thomas' Syrian origin. Both versions of the document (in Greek and Coptic) were found
in Egypt and there is no extant Syriac text or fragment that could conclusively confirm the
scholars as to the eastern Syrian, Edessan, birthplace of our document is adamant. This
view has rarely been seriously disputed after having gained almost instant confirmation
among the most renowned scholars in the field. There are, of course, authors who still
believe in the possibility that this document was not only discovered in Egypt, but written
in this geographic area as well. The two rival hypotheses have thus presented scholarship
with an impasse.
In the first part of this book I have, therefore, disputed the most frequent
arguments of the advocates of the Syrian origin of Thomas: 1) the argument based upon
the triple name of the apostle Thomas (i.e. Didymus Judas Thomas); 2) the argument
based on the parallels with Syrian Christian documents; 3) the linguistic argument.
206
The first, and the most important, argument has been rejected on two different
grounds. First, the original, Greek, version of the Gospel of Thomas does not contain in
its incipit the triple name of the apostle Thomas. It is therefore, plausible to assume that
such a triple name is the product of a later tradition (which has been partly preserved in
the Coptic Thomas from the fourth century C.E.) and that the apostle himself was known
to the original editors of this gospel only as "Thomas" or "Thomas the Twin" (Didymus
Thomas). Without the proper name Judas (which is an emblem of the apostle in some
Syriac Christian works), "Thomas (the Twin)" does not necessarily point to eastern Syria
as the provenance of this document. Second, even if we assume that the Judas from the
Coptic incipit did represent a genuine part of the apostle's name in the original Greek
version of this gospel, some literary evidence from the non-Syrian tradition about Judas
Thaddaeus indicates that the conflation of the two names (i.e. Judas, the son or brother of
James, and Thomas, called "the Twin") could also have occurred somewhere else in the
philological or material evidence verifying the existence of the Syriac recension of the
Gospel of Thomas.
Finally, the most serious objection to the second argument is the very fact that a
large number of important parallels to the Gospel of Thomas exist in non-Syrian Christian
documents composed in Alexandria, Egypt or Asia Minor. In order to be able to
distinguish parallels indicating a direct dependence of one text upon another from all the
According to these criteria, the parallels between the Gospel of Thomas and Hippolytus'
Naassene source (the major topic of our third chapter) possess a greater probative value
With regard to the problem of the origin and transmission of the Gospel of
Thomas, I have also discussed an alternative to the view of the scholars who tend to
207
locate the gospel in the geographic area in which it was actually found, that is, in Egypt.
that transmitted, edited and most likely composed our document, not only casts doubts on
the Egyptian and Syrian hypothesis, but also aids us in proposing a more primitive setting
for the ideas that inspired the first composition (redaction) of this document in Greek.
Furthermore, I argue that the Naassene redaction of Thomas is to be dated between 100
and 138 C.E., with the preference given to the first quarter of the second century.
In the second part of the book, I have made an attempt to trace the most probable
trajectory in early Christian thought that directly contributed to the growth and
development of the Gospel of Thomas. An inquiry into the earliest transmission of the
sayings of Jesus in the first century has led us to surmise that the most authentic kernel of
the Gospel of Thomas had already existed at that time, but that the critical step in its
composition was made by the redactors of these logia. In that sense, the Gospel of
Thomas had a similar, although a more complicated, redactional history as the synoptic
syncretistic milieu that very early (as early as the first century C.E.) reflected strong
Alexandria or Edessa. This course of inquiry leads us directly to Phrygia, more precisely,
Naassene Ophites has enabled us to derive some firm conclusions concerning the identity
of this sect. I maintain that the Naassenes were a syncretistic religious-mystical sect with
its origin in Hierapolis, Phrygia. In their rites and doctrines they tended to integrate the
elements of ancient Phrygian religion (the myth of the Great Mother and Attis and some
aspects of the cult of Sabazius) with their own (re)interpretation of the Old Testament
208
The main thesis of this study has been based upon the idea that the geographic as
well as ideological background of the Naassenes, the sect which composed and delivered
the Greek Gospel of Thomas, should normally indicate the provenance of the document
itself. In the third chapter we have demonstrated, first, that the Naassenes played a crucial
role in the composition of the Gospel of Thomas, and second, we have submitted several
arguments supporting the Phrygian origin of the sect. In the fourth chapter an additional
attempt has been made to understand the Naassene system in the light of the coeval
does not have enough evidence to identify the pre-Christian Ophites as initiants of
Cybele, Attis or Sabazius, we have been able to illuminate some aspects of Naassene
syncretism with the help of the local mystery religions and cults of their time.
redaction-critical) analysis of the Gospel of Thomas, I reject the positions of some authors
who defend the complete dependence of our collection of sayings upon the synoptic
gospels. On the one hand, I believe that the Coptic Gospel of Thomas represents a
secondary recension of an older sayings corpus, greater parts of which are independent of
the synoptic gospels. On the other hand, my proposal suggests that this secondary
recension is no less important for the history of earliest Christianity than its original
kernel, because it bears witness to a specific line of development of the sayings material
in the primitive Gnostic circles of first-century Phrygia.
As far as I have been able to determine, the Phrygian religious landscape has
never been treated as a possible geographical or ideological setting in which most of the
Thomasine syncretistic concepts may have converged. Such being the case, this
hypothesis could have important theoretical consequences not only for the textual history
of the Gospel of Thomas, but for some aspects of earliest Christian history in general as
well.
209
First, we may be in a position to provide answers to most of the perplexing
questions and problems that still surrond the history of transmission of this small
apocryphal document. Moreover, I expect that this thesis will initiate a new field of
Second, in support of this new line of inquiry, I have scrutinized other, rival,
hypotheses as to the origin and milieu of the Gospel of Thomas. As a result of this
views.
Third, our study has paid particular attention to the relationship between the
Phrygian religious syncretism and the symbolism of the Gospel of Thomas. A more
general issue of the origins of Christian Gnosticism in Asia Minor and Phrygia has been
the link between the most ancient sources of the Jesus tradition and the subsequent use of
indeed, both for Thomasine studies and for the history of earliest Christianity to
understand that such collections could have reached some of the proto-Gnostic sects
210
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achtemeier, Paul, ed. Harper's Bible Dictionary. San Francisco: Harper &Row, 1985.
Anderson, Charles. "Who wrote the Epistle from Laodicea." JBL 85 (1966): 436-40.
Athanasius, Saint. The Life of Saint Antony. Trans. by R. T. Meyer. Westminster, Md.:
Newman Press, 1950.
Atiya, Aziz, ed. The Coptic Encyclopedia, Vols. 1-8. New York: Macmillan, 1991.
Baer, Richard A. Jr. Philo's Use of the Categories Male and Female. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
________. "The Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron." JTS 16 (1965a): 449-54.
________. "The 'Gospel of Thomas' and the Syriac 'Liber Graduum'." NTS 12 (1965-66):
49-55.
Barns, John. "Greek and Coptic Papyri from the Covers of the Nag Hammadi
Codices." Pp. 9-17 in M. Krause, ed. Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts.
Leiden: Brill, 1975.
Barns, J. W., J. M. Browne and J. C. Shelton. Nag Hammadi Codices: Greek and Coptic
Papyri from the Cartonage of the Covers. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Bean, George. Turkey Beyond the Meander: An Archaeological Guide. London: Ernest
Benn, 1971.
211
________. "Hierapolis." Pp. 390-1 in R. Stillwell, ed. The Princeton Encyclopedia of
Classical Sites. Princeton: University Press, 1976.
Brock, Sebastian. "Greek into Syriac and Syriac into Greek." Essay II in Syriac
Perspectives on Late Antiquity. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984.
Brown, Raymond E. "The Gospel of Thomas and St. John's Gospel." NTS
9 (1962/63): 155-77.
Cannon, George. The Use of Traditional Materials in Colossians. Macon, Ga.: Mercer
University Press, 1983.
Crossan, John Dominic. Four Other Gospels. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1985.
Cullmann, Oscar. "The Gospel of Thomas and the Problem of the Age of the Tradition
Contained Therein." Trans. B. H. Kelly. Interpretation 16 (1962): 418-38.
Cumont, Franz. The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism. Chicago: The Open Court,
1911.
Davies, Stevan. The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Wisdom. New York: The Seabury
Press, 1983.
Desjardins, Michel. "Where was the Gospel of Thomas Written?", TJT 8/1 (1992): 121-
33.
Doresse, Jean. The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics. New York: The Viking Press,
1960.
212
Drijvers, H. J. W. "Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity." SC 2
(1982): 157-175.
Ehlers, Barbara. "Kann das Thomasevangelium aus Edessa stammen?" NovT 12 (1970):
284-317.
Eusebius of Caesarea. The Ecclesiastical History. Vols. 1-2. Trans. by K. Lake and J. E.
L. Oulton. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Oxyrhynchus Logoi of Jesus and the Coptic Gospel according
to Thomas." Pp. 355-433 in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New
Testament. London: Chapman, 1971.
Gärtner, Bertil. The Theology of the Gospel According to Thomas. New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1961.
Gasparro, Giulia Sfameni. Soteriology and Mystic Aspects in the Cult of Cybele and Attis.
Leiden: Brill, 1985.
Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. Grand Rapids, Mi.: Eerdmans, 1969.
Goehring, James E. "The World Engaged: The Social and Economic World of Early
Egyptian Monasticism." Pp. 134-44 in J. E. Goehring et al., ed. Gnosticism and
the Early Christian World. Sonoma, Ca.: Polebridge Press, 1990.
Goodenough, Erwin. "A Jewish-Gnostic Amulet of the Roman Period." Greek and
Byzantine Studies 1 (1958): 71-80.
213
Grant, Robert M. "Notes on the Gospel of Thomas." VC 13 (1959): 170-80.
Grant, Robert M. and D. N. Freedman. The Secret Sayings of Jesus. New York:
Doubleday & Comp., 1960.
Green, H. A. The Economic and Social Origins of Gnosticism. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1985.
Grenfell, Bernard P. and A. S. Hunt. Logia Iêsou: Sayings of Our Lord. London: Henry
Frowde, 1897.
________. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Pt. 4. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1904.
Grobel, Kendrick. "How Gnostic Is the Gospel of Thomas?" NTS 8 (1961/62): 367-73.
Guillaumont, Antoine. "Sémitismes dans les logia de Jésus retrouvés à Nag Hammadi."
JA 246 (1958): 113-23.
________. "Les sémitismes dans l'Evangile selon Thomas: Essai de classement." Pp. 190-
204 in R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren, eds.Studies in Gnosticism and
Hellenistic Religions. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Guillaumont, Antoine et al., trans. The Gospel According to Thomas. New York: Harper
& Row, 1959.
Gunther, J. J. "The Meaning and Origin of the Name 'Judas Thomas'." Muséon 93
(1980):113-48.
Harnack, Adolf von. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three
Centuries. Vols. 1-2. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1908.
Hedrick, Charles. "Gnostic Proclivities in the Greek Life of Pachomius and the Sitz im
Leben of the Nag Hammadi Library." NovT 22 (1980): 78-95.
Hill, Hamlyn. The Earliest Life of Christ (The Diatessaron of Tatian). Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1894.
214
Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. Trans. by J. Keble. Oxford and London: James
Parker and Co., 1872.
Jackson, Howard. The Lion Becomes Man. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1985.
James, Montague. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924.
Jerome, Saint. Life of Saint Paul the First Hermit. Willits, Ca.: Eastern Orthodox Books,
1976 (repr.).
Judge, E. A. "The Earliest Use of Monachos for 'Monk' (P. Coll. Youtie 77) and the
Origins of Monasticism." JAC 20 (1977): 72-89.
Julian, the Apostate. The Works of the Emperor Julian. Trans. by W. C. Wright. Vol. 1.
New York: Macmillan, 1913.
Kee, Howard C. "'Becoming a Child' in the Gospel of Thomas." JBL 82 (1963): 307-14.
________. "The 'Single One' in the Gospel of Thomas." JBL 81 (1962): 271-78.
________. The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text, Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 1962.
________. "John XIV and the Name Judas Thomas." Pp. 88-96 in Studies in John
Presented to Prof. Dr. J. N. Sevenster. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
________. "Christianity in Edessa and the Gospel of Thomas." NovT 14 (1972): 70-77.
Kloppenborg, John et al. Q-Thomas Reader. Sonoma, Ca.: Polebridge Press, 1990.
________. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. London: SCM
Press, 1990.
215
Koester, Helmut and S. J. Patterson. " The Gospel of Thomas: Does It Contain
Authentic Sayings of Jesus?" BR 6/2 (1990): 28-39
Labib, Pahor, ed. Coptic Gnostic Papyri in the Coptic Museum at Old Cairo. (Vol. 1,
plates 80-99). Cairo: Government Press, 1956.
Lake, Kirsopp. "The New Sayings of Jesus and the Synoptic Problem." HibJ 3 (1904-5):
332-41.
Lane, E. N. The Other Monuments and Literary Evidence (Corpus Cultus Iovis Sabazii,
II). Leiden: Brill, 1985.
Layton, Bentley, ed. The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
________. The Gnostic Scriptures. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1987.
________. Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7. Together with XIII, 2. Leiden: Brill, 1989.
Leisegang, Hans. "The Mystery of the Serpent." Pp. 3-69 in J. Campbell, ed. Pagan and
Christian Mysteries. New York: Harper and Row, 1955.
Lucian of Samosata. The Syrian Goddess (De Dea Syria). Missoula, Mt.: Scholars Press,
1976.
Mansel, H. L. The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries. London: John
Murray, 1875.
Marcovich, Miroslav. "Textual Criticism on the Gospel of Thomas." JTS (1969): 53-74.
Meeks, Wayne. "The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest
216
Christianity." HR 13/3 (1974): 165-208.
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. 1. New York:
Doubleday, 1991.
Meyer, Marvin, ed. The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook. San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1987.
________, trans. The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus. San Francisco:
Harper, 1992.
________. Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New
Testament Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.
Philo of Alexandria. The Contemplative Life, The Giants and Selections. Trans. by D.
Winston. New York: Paulist Press, 1981.
Quispel, Gilles. "Some Remarks on the Gospel of Thomas." NTS 5 (1958/59): 276-90.
________. "The 'Gospel of Thomas' and the 'Gospel of the Hebrews'". NTS 12 (1965-66):
371-82.
217
________. Gnostic Studies. Vol 2. Leiden: NHA Institut te Istanbul, 1975a.
Ricoeur, Paul. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth:
The Texas Christian University Press.
Roberts, C. H. Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt. London: Oxford
University Press, 1979.
Robinson, Armitage, ed. The Lausiac History of Palladius (Text and Studies, vol. VI).
Cambridge: University Press, 1904.
Robinson, James. The Nag Hammadi Codices. Claremont: The Institute for
Antiquity and Christianity, 1974.
________, ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. San Francisco: Harper, 1988.
Robinson, James M. "On Bridging the Gulf From Q to the Gospel of Thomas (Or Vice
Versa)." Pp. 127-75 in Hedrick Ch. and R. Hodgson, Jr., eds. Nag Hammadi,
Gnosticism and Early Christianity. Peabody, Ma.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986.
Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature and History of an Ancient Religion. Edinburgh:
Clark, 1983.
Russell, Norman, trans. The Lives of the Desert Fathers (The Historia Monachorum in
Aegypto). London: Mowbray, 1980.
Segal, Judah B. Edessa: The Blessed City. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.
218
Showerman, Grant. The Great Mother of the Gods. Ph.D. dissertation. University of
Wisconsin, 1900.
Smith, Morton. "The History of the Term 'Gnostikos'." Pp. 796-807 in B. Layton, ed.
Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1981.
Spivey, R. A. "The Origin and Milieu of the Gospel According to Thomas." Ph.D.
dissertation. Yale University, 1960.
Taylor, Charles. The Oxyrhynchus Sayings of Jesus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905.
Turner, Eric Gardiner. Scribes and Scholars of Oxyrhynchus. MPER. New Series 5.
Vienna, 1932.
Turner, John. The Book of Thomas the Contender. University of Montana: Scholars Press,
1975.
Veilleux, A., trans. Pachomian Koinonia: The Lives, Rules and Other Writings of Saint
Pachomius and His Disciples. Vols. 1-3. Kalamazoo, Mi.: Cistercian Pubs.,
1980-82.
Vermaseren, Maarten. Cybele and Attis: The Myth and the Cult. London: Thames and
Hudson, 1977.
________. Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque (CCCA). Vol. 1. (Asia Minor). Leiden:
Brill, 1987.
Vööbus, Arthur. History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient. Louvain: Durbecq, 1958-60.
219
Ward, Benedicta, trans. The Desert Christian: Sayings of the Desert Fathers
(Apophthegmata Patrum). New York: Macmillan, 1980.
Wisse, Frederick. "Gnosticism and Early Monasticism in Egypt." Pp. 431-40 in B. Aland,
ed. Gnosis. Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978.
220