The Society of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature

The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24—30): Is Thomas's Version (Logion
57) Independent?
Author(s): JOHN P. MEIER
Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 131, No. 4 (2012), pp. 715-732
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23488264
Accessed: 13-01-2018 11:34 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature
This content downloaded from 150.216.68.200 on Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:34:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
JBL 131, no. 4 (2012): 715-732
The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds

(Matthew 13:24-30): Is Thomas's Version
(Logion 57) Independent?
JOHN P. MEIER
Meier.10@nd.edu
The University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556
I.I. Introduction
The discovery in 1945 of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas among the codic
found at Nag Hammadi ignited a controversy about Thomas's relation to the
optic Gospels that continues to this day.1 The debate, though, has tended to f
on certain types of material rather than others. Since it is a catena of sayings a
1 On the question of the exact date of the discovery, see James M. Robinson, "From the C
to Cairo," in Colloque international sur les textes de Nag Hammadi (Québec, 22-25 août 197
Bernard Bare; Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section Etudes 1; Quebec; L'Université
Louvain; Peeters, 1981), 21-58, esp. 29. For brief histories and overviews of the debates abo
relation of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (as well as the Greek fragments preserved in P.Oxy
and 655) to the Synoptics, see Jôrg Frey, "Die Lilien und das Gewand: Ev Thorn 36 and 37 a
adigma fur das Verhàltnis des Ihomasevangeliums zur synoptischen Uberlieferung," i
Thomasevangelium:Thomasevangelium: Entstehung-Rezeption-Theologie (ed. Jôrg Frey, Edzard Popkes, an
Schrôter; BZNW 157; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008), 122-80, esp. 124-47; cf. Wo
Schrage, Das Verhàltnis des Thomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den k
schenschen Evangelieniibersetzungen (BZNW 29; Berlin: Tôpelmann, 1964), 1-27; Michael Fieg
Thomasevangelium:Thomasevangelium: Einleitung, Kommentar und Systematik (NTAbh 22; Munster: Aschend
1991), 1-11, 281-89; Reinhard Nordsieck, Das Thomas-Evangelium (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
kirchener Verlag, 2004), 7-30; Nicholas Perrin, Thomas, the Other Gospel (Louisville/Lo
Westminster John Knox, 2007), 1-69; April D. DeConick, The Original Gospel of Thomas in
lation:lation: With a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel (Library o
Testament Studies 287; London/New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 2-42; Uwe-Karsten Plisch
Gospel Gospel of Thomas: Original Text with Commentary (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft
9-36.
715
716 Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 4 (2012)
uted to Jesus, the Coptic Gospel of Thomas has often been compared to the hypo
thetical Q document. While that correlation is understandable, it hardly does jus
tice to the complexity of the material contained in Thomas. The sayings in Thomas
that have close parallels in the Synoptics (roughly half of the 114 sayings) range
over the triple tradition (Mark, often with a strong Lukan tone), the Q tradition,
Mark-Q overlaps, special Matthean material (M), and special Lukan material (L).
The Q material above all, but also the Markan and the L material, have all received
due consideration in the last two decades.2 Much of the M material, by compari
son, has received scant attention. The present essay seeks, in some small measure,
to remedy that lacuna by focusing on a well-known piece of M material, the para
ble of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matt 13:24-30).3 This parable has a clear parallel
2 The importance of the Gospel of Thomas in the reconstruction of the hypothetical Q doc
ument is taken for granted by the methodology used in The Critical Edition ofQ: Synopsis Includ
inging the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French
Translations Translations of Q and Thomas (ed. James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppen
borg; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress; Leuven: Peeters, 2000); in the project, Thomas is a co
equal partner with Matthew and Luke in constructing the Q text. For a study of some instances
of Thomas paralleling the triple tradition and Q material, see Charles L. Quarles, "The Use of the
Gospel Gospel of Thomas in the Research on the Historical Jesus of John Dominic Crossan," CBQ 69
(2007): 517-36. For selected examples of Thomas paralleling Lukan redactional material, see
Simon Gathercole, "Luke in the Gospel of Thomas? NTS 57 (2011): 114-44.
31 use the expression "M material" rather than "M tradition" because it is difficult in this
case to decide whether the parable of the Wheat and the Weeds represents M tradition heavily
redacted by Matthew (so, e.g., Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A Study
in in Redaction-Criticism [London: SPCK, 1969], 65) or a pure creation of Matthew himself (so, e.g.,
Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1982], 265; M. D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew: The Speaker's Lectures in
Biblical Biblical Studies, 1969-71 [London: SPCK, 1974], 367-69). Obviously, if one were to adopt the
view that the parable itself was a pure Matthean creation, the dependence of CGT 57 on Matthew's
Gospel would necessarily follow. In any case, many commentators view the allegorical explana
tion of the parable to be Matthew's redactional creation; see the full argument in Joachim Jeremias,
The The Parables of Jesus (rev. éd.; NTL; London: SCM, 1963), 81-85; cf. his supplement and correc
tions in his "Die Deutung des Gleichnisses vom Unkraut unter dem Weizen (Mt. 13,36-43)," in
idem, Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Théologie und Zeitgeschichte (Gôttingen: Vanden
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 261-65. Hence, if elements or echoes of the allegorical interpretation
could be found in CGT 57 (which I think is the case), that too would argue for dependence on
Matthew. Klyne R. Snodgrass (Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008], 207-12) is one of the few recent authors to argue that the inter
pretation itself goes back to Jesus; in my opinion, his argument is not convincing. One may cer
tainly argue, as Snodgrass does, with this or that judgment of Jeremias on what counts as Matthean
redactional style and vocabulary; Jeremias himself revises some of his arguments in "Die Deu
tung." But the massive convergence of evidence from vocabulary and style, especially when joined
to the redactional theology seen in the allegorical interpretation, points clearly to a Matthean ere
ation. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to Saint Matthew [3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997], 2:407-15,
Meier:Meier: The Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30) 717
in logion 57 of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (hereafter, CGT). In this essay I pose a
simple question. Is it more probable that CGT 57 shows dependence, direct or indi
rect, on the canonical Gospel of Matthew, or is it more probable that the logion is
independent of the Gospel of Matthew?4 Let us begin by laying out the basic facts
of the case.
II. The Basic Story Line of the Parable
Following the pattern set by Mark's agricultural parable of the Sower (Mar
4:3-9 parr.), Matthew supplies his parable of the Wheat and the Weeds with a
lengthy allegorical interpretation (Matt 13:36-43). Indeed, many commentator
hold that the interpretation of the Wheat and the Weeds is Matthew's own creatio
A much shorter version of the parable, without a separate interpretation, is fou
in CGT 57. The text of the two versions of the parable reads as follows:5
esp. 407 n. 1) represent many commentators in claiming that the parable proper should
assigned to the M tradition, while the interpretation is Matthean redaction; so, e.g., Petra vo
Gemiinden, Vegetationsmetaphorik im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (NTOA 18; Freibu
Universitàtsverlag; Gôttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 247-48. While I agree with th
about the allegorical interpretation, I remain uncertain about the parable proper. The strange
tures of this parable, when compared to most other Synoptic parables (see Ulrich Luz, Matthe
A A Commentary [3 vols.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989, 2001, 2005], 2:252-53), cou
point to a creation by Matthew himself, who then purposely shifts the theological emphasis
his allegorical interpretation. In any case, if there is an underlying M tradition, Kingsbury is
rect in judging that it has been heavily rewritten by Matthew in his own style and theology.
sequently, any attempt to reconstruct the previous tradition is highly speculative; see some of th
various attempts listed by Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:409-10; cf. Luz, Matthew, 2:253
idem, "Vom Taumellolch im Weizenfeld," in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus: Fiir Joachim Gnilka (ed
Hubert Frankemôlle and Karl Kertelge; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 1989), 154-71, esp. 15
55. Tellingly, Adolf Jiilicher (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu [2 vols, in 1; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftli
Buchgesellschaft, 1963; unaltered reprint of the 1910 ed.; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck], 2:559) is
intent on preserving all the parables as coming from the historical Jesus that he maintains t
in the parable of the Wheat and the Weeds, Matthew has reworked a genuine saying of Jesus
hence that there is an authentic kernel in the parable. However, says Jiilicher, we cannot tell wh
was the original content of the parables teaching. This is having your exegetical cake and eat
it too.
4 This second option includes the possibility that Thomas was influenced by a form of the
parable circulating in the M tradition prior to its incorporation into the Gospel of Matthew. Since
the parable of the Wheat and the Weeds is not preserved in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri fragments,
within the compass and scope of this article I will use the designations the Gospel of Thomas,
Thomas,Thomas, and CGT interchangeably.
5 The translations of the Greek and Coptic texts are my own. I have tried to keep my trans
lations as literal as possible while still being intelligible to English speakers who do not know the
original languages. Hence, for instance, historical present tenses (e.g., "the slaves say," "he says,"
when most translators use the past tense for these present-tense verbs) are kept in the present.
Matthew 13:24-30Matthew 13:24-30Matthew 13:24-30 CGT 57
The kingdom of heaven is like The kingdom of the Father is like

a a man sowing good seed a man who had good seed,
in his field.
While the men were sleeping,

his enemy came and sowed weeds His enemy came at night and sowed weeds
in the midst of the wheat and left. upon the good seed.
When the plants began to sprout and
produce grain,
then the weeds also appeared.
Approaching, the slaves of the house
holder said to him, "Sir, did you not
sow good seed in your field? How
then does it have weeds?"
He said to them, "An enemy did this."
The slaves say to him, "Do you wish The man did not allow them
us then to go out and gather them?" to pull up the weeds.
He says, "No, lest in gathering the weeds He said to them, "Lest you go in order that
you uproot the wheat with them. we pull up the weeds and you pull up the
the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest,
and at the time of the harvest For on the day of the harvest,
I will say to the harvesters,
'Gather first the weeds and tie them the weeds will appear.
into bundles in order to burn them, They pull them up and burn them."
but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
A number of possibilities present themselves: CGT 57 may be an abbreviation

of the text in Matthews Gospel, an abbreviation of the M tradition that Matthew
also used, or a completely independent tradition that need not be seen as an abbre
Some of my decisions are of course debatable. For example, I have left the Greek particle 5e
untranslated, since I think translating it as "but" is too heavy-handed when it basically serves in
this story as a connector of the narrative tissue. I have also translated the initial verb ûpoiûôrj as
a present tense; it may reflect a Semitic perfect tense referring to general truths (so Matthew Black,
An An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts [3rd ed.; 1967; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1998], 129); alternately, it may simply reflect an imitation of LXX Greek. However, Kingsbury
(Parables(Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13, 67) takes the aorist tense literally as indicating that "the King
dom of Heaven ... is a present reality and already has a certain history behind it." Granted that
this is a possible meaning of the Greek aorist, would not the Greek perfect tense have made the
point better? In the end, though, even apart from any Semitic influence, the aorist àpotâdr] is
intelligible simply as a general, gnomic, or perfective aorist. For an interesting parallel in classi
cal Greek, see Plato, Resp. 510a.
viation and hence may be the earliest form of the parable. In the following analy
sis, I will argue that, far from being the earliest and purest form of this parable,
CGTCGT 57 shows clear signs of being a radical abbreviation of a longer, more original
text, be that text Matt 13:24-30 or the presumed M parable that was its source.6 Of
these two possibilities, the more likely one is that CGT 57 reflects knowledge of the
present text of Matthew,7 since there seem to be some echoes of Matthew s aile
gorical interpretation in Thomas's highly abbreviated version. (One is reminded of
Thomas's Thomas's radically shorter version of the Markan parable of the Wicked Tenants of
the Vineyard [Mark 12:1-11 || CGT 65-66].)
A useful way of initiating a comparison between Matt 13:24-30 and CGT 57
is simply to follow the story line of the parable. In the narrative setup of the para
ble, the brevity of CGT 57 strikes one immediately. In Thomas, the actual sowing
of the good seed is never mentioned, but simply assumed. In Matt 13:25, "his
enemy" (likewise "his enemy" in Thomas) comes while the men (i.e., the slaves of
the owner of the farm) are sleeping, sows the weeds, and departs. Instead of refer
ring to men sleeping, Thomas simply uses the time designation "at night" (hence no
men are mentioned); he also lacks any mention of the enemy's departure.8
More strikingly, Thomas lacks the narrative core of the parable, that is, the
whole succession of events that makes the denouement intelligible: the growth of
the plants bearing grain, the simultaneous appearance of the weeds, the servants
approaching the householder with a question about the origin of the weeds in a
field sown with good seed, the householders declaration that this is the work of an
enemy, and the servants' suggestion that they gather up the weeds (Matt 13:26-28).
ThomasThomasThomas s story rejoins Matthew's at 13:29: the man does not allow them to pull up
the weeds, lest they pull up the wheat with them. However, this statement by the
man in Thomas's version really does not make sense without all the Matthean mate
rial that Thomas lacks. Indeed, one might theorize that the attempt to consolidate
the Matthean material into the man's statement has resulted in a series of incoher
ent clauses in Thomas: "The man did not allow them [no referent has been intro
6 Even Davies and Allison, who remain uncertain about whether CGT 57 is dependent on
the present Matthean text of the parable (Saint Matthew, 2:409), judge that Thomas's brevity is
"not a sign of originality but of secondary compression" of "something like Mt 13.24-30" (p. 415).
7 This is the judgment of von Gemiinden (Vegetationsmetaphorik, 237 n. 202, 248 n. 271),
who offers a detailed study of the parable and its Matthean interpretation from the viewpoint of
both structure and content (pp. 234-49).
8 Davies and Allison (Saint Matthew, 2:412) think that "while the men were sleeping" is
simply a general reference to the time that people sleep, namely, at night, which is precisely how
CGT CGT 57 interprets the phrase. However, given the lengthy interaction between the householder
and his slaves at the center of Matthew s version of the parable, I think it more likely that mention
of "the men" points forward to the servants. With the at-best-glancing reference to other actors
in Thomas's version, it makes sense that he would reduce the phrase to a simple "at night"—which
also coheres with Thomas's overall tendency to abbreviate the parable severely.
duced previously in Thomas's narrative] to pull up the weeds. He said to them, 'Lest
you go in order that we pull up the weeds and you pull up the wheat with them.'"
The sudden appearance of "them," with no indication that they are the servants of
the householder, is only made more confusing by the strange movement back and
forth between "you" and "we" within a single sentence in direct speech.9 It may be
no accident that, in the very detailed allegorical interpretation in Matt 13:37-43, the
only person or persons missing from the allegory are the servants, who play a key
role in original story of 13:24-30.10 Here we begin to see hints that the Thomasine
author may have had Matthew's allegorical interpretation (which omits the ser
vants) in mind when he undertook his radical abbreviation of the parable's story.
Intriguingly, given Thomas's general avoidance of the kind of "communal"
fiery apocalyptic eschatology seen in the Synoptics, the conclusion of CGT 57 sur
prises in presupposing some sort of future eschatology, complete with fire: "For on
the day of the harvest, the weeds will appear. They pull them up and burn them."
Not only is the reference to a future harvest that involves burning the weeds alien
to Thomas;n the very mention of a harvest is without preparation in the context of
CGT CGT 57, since Thomas lacks the householder's immediately preceding command
(Matt 13:30): "Let both grow together until the harvest." Still more curious is the
mention of the burning of the weeds without any corresponding reference to the
fate of the wheat. This absence becomes intelligible when one notices that Matthew's
allegorical interpretation shifts the parable's center of gravity from patience in the
9 On this, see Fieger, Das Thomasevangelium, 170-71; cf. Schrage (Das Verhaltnis des
Thomas-Evangeliums,Thomas-Evangeliums, 124), who also points out that CGT 57 states that the enemy sowed the
weeds on top of the good seed. This presupposes that the good seed has already been sown, some
thing that Matt 13:24 ("a man sowing good seed in his field") states but CGT 57 does not.
10 Plisch (Gospel of Thomas, 141) states that the sentence narrating the mans prohibition of
pulling up the weeds "is obviously corrupt," although Plisch is not sure what exactly the corrup
tion is. He offers two possible emendations of the verb "to pull up" but also suggests that one
whole line may have been accidentally omitted. One can sense here a strenuous attempt to avoid
admitting that the redactor, in severely abbreviating the Matthean parable, has made a mess of
things. Indeed, in compressing the dialogue between the slaves and the householder in Matt
13:28-29, the Thomasine redactor may have run together in incoherent fashion απελθόντες συλ
λέξωμεν (v. 28) and συλλέγοντες τά ζιζάνια έκριζώσητε (ν. 29). Actually, we can find similar infe
licities in Matthew's and Luke's redactions of passages in Mark (e.g., Mark 5:35-40, which is
garbled in Luke 8:51-53). The redactor, like Homer, sometimes nods.
11 Jacobus Liebenberg (The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus: Parable, Aphorism, and
Metaphor Metaphor in the Sayings Material Common to the Synoptic Tradition and the Gospel of Thomas
[BZNW 102; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2001 ] 222) observes that "Thomas talks about the 'day
of judgement' only here and nowhere else in the Gospel." Since this embarrassing fact gets in the
way of Liebenberg's approach, he explains away the fiery eschatological scenario as "nothing more
than a rhetorical device." Dependence on Matthew, including Matthew's allegorical interpreta
tion, is a more direct and obvious explanation. Nordsieck (Das Thomas-Evangelium, 226-28)
misses the point that the theme of apocalyptic judgment is present in CGT 57 and that it reflects
the Matthean allegorical interpretation.
present moment to the fiery punishment of the wicked at the consummation of the
age.12 Strikingly, in Matt 13:37-43, the initial catalogue of equivalences, which
equates each key term or event in the parable with its eschatological equivalent
(w. 37b-40), omits any reference whatever to the wheat or to a barn (cf. 13:30).13
The apocalyptic narrative that follows in w. 41-43a dwells almost entirely on the
punishment of the wicked, with only v. 43a referring to the reward of the just. Even
in v. 43a, there is no resumption of the imagery of wheat, harvest, or barn. Rather,
the apocalyptic image of shining like the sun or other heavenly bodies is suddenly
introduced (cf. Matt 17:2; Dan 12:3; Wis 3:7), with no connection to any imagery
that has preceded.14 It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, out of all the positive
elements present in the parable proper (13:24-30), Matt 13:41-43 takes up and
interprets only the middle part of v. 30. Thomas's conclusion thus focuses intensely
on what is emphasized in Matthew's allegorical interpretation of the parable (13:36
43) rather than on what is emphasized in the parable itself.15
12 The fact that Matthew's allegorical interpretation heavily emphasizes the negative aspect
of the final judgment in a way that the parable itself does not is underscored by Luz, "Vom Taum
mellolch," 161; so too von Gemiinden, Vegetationsmetaphorik, 245 (including n. 255). Oddly,
Liebenberg (Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 205-6) mentions the shift in emphasis from
Matthew's parable to his interpretation but fails to see the relevance of this observation for the
emphasis on the final part of Thomas's version of the parable; similarly, Nordsieck (Das Thomas
Evangelium,Evangelium, 228), who claims that CGT 57 reflects the historical Jesus' emphasis on patience
instead of premature judgment and removal of evildoers. That is indeed the emphasis of Matthew's
parable, an emphasis that in Thomas notably shifts to the threat of fiery judgment that is also
inculcated in Matthew's allegorical interpretation.
131 prefer to take 13:40 as the conclusion of the catalogue, while Luz (Matthew, 2:267) and
others see it as the beginning of the apocalyptic narrative of the interpretation; so, e.g., Jeremias,
"Die Deutung," 261; von Gemiinden, Vegetationsmetaphorik, 244. To be sure, v. 40 lacks the "X =
Y"Y" structure seen in w. 37a-39. Nevertheless, v. 40, like w. 37a-39, explains the real referent of
an allegorical symbol (the gathering and burning of the weeds equal the punishment by fire at the
end of the age), but now in terms of a comparison ("just as ... so"), with the verb "to be" in the
future tense (êorai). Once the apocalyptic narrative begins in v. 41, the verb "to be" is no longer
used as a type of equal sign, explaining how an element in the parable represents a future reality.
Seeing v. 40 as a bridge or a "transitional statement" (so Kingsbury, Parables of Jesus in Matthew
13, 13,94) between catalogue and narrative is another possibility. On the literary genre of a catalogue
of interpretations, see Jeremias, "Die Deutung," 263.
14 Notice that no attempt is made to equate "the just" with the wheat or "the kingdom of
their Father" with a barn. Pointedly, in 13:43a the just are not said to be gathered into the king
dom by the angels, a statement that could easily have been made and that could have helped to
forge a connection between Matt 13:30d and 13:43a. In the last analysis, v 43a almost seems like
an afterthought or a foreign body in a nimsal that is intensely focused on the punishment of the
wicked.
15 Here I strongly disagree with Helmut Koester (Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History
and and Development [London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990] 103), who claims
that CGT 57 is prior to Matthew's version, since "there is no trace of the allegorical interpretation
which Matthew (13:36-43) has appended" in Thomas's version. As I argue in the main text, the
Then, too, the vocabulary of "appearing" (naoyonh ebol) toward the end of
CGTCGT 57 creates a problem when compared to Matthews parable.16 In Matthew,
there is a clear progression in the steps of the narrative. At first, the weeds, which
closely resemble the wheat in the early stages of growth, do not appear different to
the naked eye of the slaves working the farm. But by the time that the wheat has
grown sufficiently to start producing wheat grain in the ears, then (Matthew s typ
ical τότε) the weeds also (καί) "appeared" (εφάνη in 13:26)—since at this point the
difference between the two types of plants and their respective grain would be vis
ible.17 It follows naturally that at this point in the story the slaves, seeing the dif
ference, ask the householder for an explanation of the weeds' presence and then
suggest that they gather up the weeds. The householder points out the problem in
their solution: though the weeds are now visible, and therefore distinguishable from
the wheat, their roots may have become entangled (cf. v. 25: the weeds were sown
in the midst of the wheat). Uprooting the weeds would possibly involve uprooting
last part of CGT 57 most likely does reflect Matthews allegory. One senses Plisch's discomfort
with this fact when he states that his interpretation of CGT 57 "renders the warning of judgment
almost needless" (Gospel of Thomas, 143). All he can offer in defense of his interpretation, which
plays down the logions climactic emphasis on fiery judgment, is the suggestion that "perhaps it
[the fiery conclusion] was added at a later stage in the transmission history." In contrast to this
solution, DeConick (Original Gospel of Thomas, 193) affirms that in her hypothetical "Kernel
Gospel" (the earliest source of CGT), the parable of the Wheat and the Weeds warned the hearer
that he or she would be held accountable precisely because "there will be a judgement, a harvest."
A wrong decision could lead to the hearer being "pulled up on the last day and burned."
DeConick, unlike Plisch, here does justice to the mention of final judgment under the metaphor
of burning that is common to Matthews parable, to CGT 57, and most notably to Matthews alle
gorical interpretation. To excise what is common to all three articulations of the tradition simply
because this inconvenient fact does not fit one's hypothesis is not sound methodology. In light of
all this, I find Fiegers attempt (Das Thomasevangelium, 172) to explain away the fiery final judg
ment in Thomas's version unconvincing. Even Liebenberg (Language of the Kingdom and Jesus,
220), despite his own contorted explanation of the parables finale (p. 222), admits "the impossi
bilitybility of not understanding this parable in an eschatological framework of some sort."
16 In the transliteration of Coptic words in this essay, Coptic letters that are the same as the
corresponding Greek letters will be transliterated as though they were Greek, with a strict letter
for-letter correspondence. For the special Coptic letters of the alphabet, s is used for sai,f for fai,
hh for hori,j for janjia, c for cima, and ti for the digraph ti. The supralinear stroke is represented
by a raised e. Semivowels, diphthongs, and double vowels do not receive special representation in
this system. Hence, for example, the Coptic word for "father" is transliterated as eiot, and not as
yot. yot.yot.
17 I follow Luz's suggestion (Matthew, 2:253 n. 12) in taking έβλάστησεν and έποίησεν as
ingressive aorists: "... when the plants began to sprout and produce grain." Luz ("Vom Taumel
lolch," 156) stresses that the difference between the weeds and the wheat would become visible
while both were still growing, and not only in the final stage of ripeness.
the immature wheat as well. At the harvest, the weeds and the (now mature) wheat
can be separated, since both will be cut down.
In contrast, in Thomas the extreme contraction of the narrative leads to an
illogical development of events. After the sowing of the weeds is narrated, we are
immediately told that the man forbade "them" (whoever they are) to pull up the
weeds lest they pull up the wheat with them. Nothing has been said about a period
of growth after which the weeds would first become visible. Logically, though, the
reader has to suppose that the weeds have in fact appeared; otherwise, the mans
prohibition of pulling them up would make no sense. Yet in Thomas either Jesus or
the man in the parable goes on to say that the weeds will become visible on the day
of the harvest, when they can be pulled up and burned. Hence the apparent con
tradiction in the story: if the weeds do not become visible before the harvest, how
can the problem have been detected, moving the man to issue his prohibition?18 It
would seem, then, that in his radical abbreviation of Matthews parable, the Ihoma
sine redactor has moved Matthew's mention of the appearance of the weeds from
early on in the story, where it makes sense, to the end of the story, where it destroys
whatever logic might have remained in Thomas's confusingly slimmed-down ver
sion.
But this is not the end of the muddle. All the more puzzling is the conclusion
of Thomas's parable, which is put in the present tense, just after the reader has been
told that the weeds "will appear." The final sentence, with the plural subject in the
(first) present tense followed by the conjunctive ("they pull them up and burn
them"), reflects the plural command that the Matthean householder says that he will
issue to the harvesters (unmentioned in Thomas) at the harvest. The plural form of
the verbs thus makes sense in Matthew s version, while in Thomas the best a trans
lator can do is to understand the plural as the Coptic way of expressing the passive
voice (which does not exist as a separate verb form in Coptic). But is this the most
likely solution when an unspecified "them" has already been introduced into an
earlier stage of the story in Thomas's version? All in all, the most natural explana
tion of the origin of this obscure narrative in CGT 57 is a maladroit attempt to
abbreviate the Matthean parable.19
18 Though claiming that the hostile act of sowing the weeds by "his enemy" is neither
unusual nor improbable, even Plisch (Gospel of Thomas, 143) admits that in CGT 57 the final sen
tence "completely tears down the pretense of a credible narrative. The weed becoming visible only
on the day of the harvest is quite unrealistic (moreover, the discovery of the weed presupposes
exactly the opposite)."
19 Here I differ with DeConick (Original Gospel of Thomas, 194), who holds that CGT 57 is
"intelligible on its own, needing no knowledge of Matthews version." She maintains that CGT 57
seems to the modern Christian reader to lack necessary elements of the story only because the
modern reader knows Matthew's version. I think that the detailed study presented in my main text
shows just the opposite. On this question, DeConick is aligned with Liebenberg, Language of the
III. Individual Words and Phrases
In addition to this step-by-step analysis of the story line of Thomas's pa

which suggests that CGT 57 is a severely abbreviated and somewhat garbled
of what we find in Matthew, individual words and phrases in CGT 57 also a
to reflect Matthew s text of the parable, Matthew's interpretation of the para
Matthews redactional style in general. The Thomasine author begins his v
with "the kingdom of the Father is like...Interestingly, Matthews interpre
of the parable ends with the words (to use an excruciatingly literal translation
kingdom of the Father of them [i.e., the just]"—or in ordinary English, "th
dom of their Father." It is telling that the earliest Synoptic sources, Mark and
the phrase "the kingdom of God" but never employ the absolute phrase "th
dom" or "the kingdom" connected with a genitive construction involving th
"Father." The absolute use of "the kingdom" and the connection of "kingdom
the genitive "Father" are later developments seen in Matthew and Luke-A
Indeed, the absolute use of "the kingdom," when referring to the kingdo
God/heaven without possessive pronoun or dependent genitive constructi
almost unique to Matthew in the four Gospels (Matthew, 6x; Mark, Ox; Luk
John, Ox).21 Yet the absolute "the kingdom" and "the kingdom of the Fathe
the two most common forms of "kingdom talk" in Thomas. While there are
occurrences in Thomas of Matthew s redactional phrase "the kingdom of h
(CGT(CGT 20, 54, and 114), the phrase that is most likely original with the his
Jesus and that is the common form in Mark and Q—"the kingdom of Go
Kingdom Kingdom and Jesus, 212-24; similarly, Nordsieck, Das Thomas-Evangelium, 228. While
berg rejects the views of those like Schrage who hold that CGT 57 is intelligible only aga
background of the Matthean version, even he has to admit that the first half of Thomas's
"contains barely enough information to make it intelligible" (p. 210 and n. 148). Interest
though Liebenberg denies that one needs the Matthean version to understand Thomas's v
he does admit that the Thomasine version is so "elliptical" that one might argue that the
version in CGT 57 is dependent on Matthew "indirectly and probably via the oral traditi
other words, by way of secondary orality (p. 224). Liebenberg himself, however, does n
this position.
20 Interestingly, it is at the beginning of this uniquely Matthean parable within the
tic tradition that Thomas uses the precise phrase "the kingdom of the Father" for the first t
his Gospel—though the two words "kingdom" and "Father" have occurred together earlier
logia. On this, see Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 209 and n. 142.
21 See Jeremias, "Die Deutung," 262. Acts 20:25 most probably contains the absolute
"the kingdom," though various manuscripts supply "of Jesus" or "of God." The absolute us
in the mouths of the somewhat confused disciples in Acts 1:6 probably refers—within th
world depicted in ch. 1—to the (misguided) notion of a restoration of political soverei
completely absent from the Coptic form of Thomas.22 This phenomenon hardly
supports some critics' overall strategy of explaining the present text of CGT by
appealing to regular assimilation of the text to the standard Coptic NT by later
Christian scribes. That is certainly not the case at the beginning of CGT 57, where
Thomas sThomas sThomas s "the kingdom of the Father" does not reflect the beginning of Matthews
parable in either the Greek or the Sahidic Coptic (both forms have Matthew's typ
ical "the kingdom of heaven" in v. 24). Rather, "the kingdom of the Father" at the
beginning of CGT 57 may echo the concluding phrase at the end of Matthew's alle
gorical interpretation (v. 43).
To proceed with other individual points in the parable: if we possessed only
Matthew's parable without his allegorical interpretation or his larger story of Jesus,
the initial description of the sower of the weeds in 13:25 as "his [i.e., the house
holder's] enemy" might seem puzzling or at least unexplained. But Matthew's inter
pretation—which he no doubt already has in mind as he puts this parable into its
final form—makes clear that the sower of the good seed is the Son of Man (= Jesus).
Correspondingly, the enemy is the devil, who has appeared in Matthew as Jesus'
enemy from the temptation narrative onwards (4:1-11), where the noun "devil" is
repeated four times in the story and the noun "satan" (= Hebrew satan, "adversary,"
"opponent," "enemy") appears at the climax. Hence, given the wider Matthean con
text, in Matt 13:25 "his enemy" makes perfect sense within the parable, which
Matthew is redacting (if not simply creating) with a view to his allegorical inter
pretation. The same cannot be said for the presence of the exact same phrase ("his
enemy,"enemy," pejjaje) in the Coptic version, which of course lacks the interpretation that
makes the "his" intelligible. While scholars may argue over how realistic the basic
plot of the parable's story is, the designation of the sower of the weeds as his enemy
without any further explanation only makes the incoherent version in Thomas still
Israel soon after the resurrection. Within Luke's larger theological program, what is intended is a
warning against the expectation of an imminent parousia.
22 On the "kingdom" language of Thomas, see Plisch, Gospel of Thomas, 31-32. "The king
dom of God" (ή βασιλεία τοΟ θεοΰ) is a conjectural reading used by some editors to fill in a lacuna
in logion 3 as preserved in the Greek text of P.Oxy. 645; so Harold W. Attridge, "Appendix: The
Greek Fragments," in Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7: Together with XIII, 2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1),
and and P. OXY. 1, 654, 655 (ed. Bentley Layton; 2 vols.; NHS 20,21; Leiden: Brill, 1989), 1:114. Sim
ilarly,ilarly, Joseph A. Fitzmyer ("The Oxyrhynchus Logoi of Jesus and the Coptic Gospel According to
Thomas," in idem, The Semitic Background of the New Testament [Biblical Resource Series; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 355-433 [originally published in TS 20 (1959) 505-60]) prefers the
reading "kingdom of God" in the Greek version of logion 3 (pp. 376-77), but he allows the pos
sibilitysibility of "kingdom of heaven" (a reading supported by Hippolytuss citation of what he calls the
Gospel of Thomas in his Elenchus 5,7). By contrast, at the corresponding point in the Coptic ver
sion of logion 3 we read simply "the kingdom." "The kingdom of God" appears to be the correct
reading in the Greek version of saying 27 in P.Oxy. 1 (again, simply "the kingdom" in CGT).
more incoherent.23 "His enemy" is explicable only from the vantage point of
Matthews allegorical interpretation.24
The action of sowing by "his enemy" creates a further slight, though intrigu
ing, connection between Matthew and Thomas. While all other references to sow
ing in both Matthew s parable and his interpretation employ the simple verb σπείρω
("to sow"), the enemy's sowing is described in Matt 13:25 with the relatively rare
compound verb έπισπείρω. This verb never occurs in the LXX, in other Greek ver
sions of the OT, anywhere else in the NT, or in the Apostolic Fathers. While the
meaning of the verb, at least in this type of agricultural context, can be construed
as "sow afterward," the literal meaning of the compound is "sow upon" or "on top
of" (επί may take a number of cases with various meanings, but the common mean
ing possible in each case is "upon").25 It may not be totally by accident that at the
parallel point in CGT 57 "his enemy" is said to sow the weeds "upon" (Coptic ejen)
the good seed, even though a different type of preposition might have made better
sense.26 The use of efn cannot be attributed to assimilation to the standard NT
Coptic text of Matthew, since that text uses entmete en ("in the midst of"), which
reflects Matthews Greek in 13:25 and makes perfect sense in the context. Thus, in
Thomas's Thomas's use of efn we may have another slight echo of the Matthean text, specifi
cally, the rare έπισπείρω.
The enemy is said to sow ζιζάνιον, a type of weed that can be translated into
English as "tares," "darnel," or "cheat." This Greek noun (probably of Semitic origin)
23 See Davies and Allison, Saint Matthew, 2:413. Luz (Matthew, 2:252 n. 2) argues that αύτοΟ
ό εχθρός in 13:25 makes perfect sense in Matthews Greek without appealing to a Semitism. It
should be translated as "his enemy" rather than as "an enemy of his" (contra Jeremias, Parables of
Jesus,Jesus, 224). Luz likewise rejects seeing a Semitism in εχθρός άνθρωπος in v. 28. On the difficulties
of taking the agricultural details of the story (especially the treatment of the weeds) as realistic,
see Luz, "Vom Taumellolch," 156-57. From the detailed treatment of agricultural practices in the
ancient world offered by von Gemiinden (Vegetationsmetaphorik, 238-43) one could construct
an argument that, while some of the individual actions are highly unusual and run contrary to
common practice, the story cannot be dismissed as completely impossible.
24 It is telling that, while Kingsbury (Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13,65-66) insists that the
parable of the Wheat and the Weeds should be interpreted separately from its allegorical inter
pretation, he nevertheless appeals to the interpretation (p. 69) to justify his identification of "his
enemy" (13:25) as the devil (13:39).
25 See Liebenberg, Language of the Kingdom and Jesus, 184.
26 While the Coptic preposition is not entirely clear in the manuscript at this point, the crit
ical text edited by Bentley Layton (Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 1:74) reads ej'n. This reading of
the Coptic is accepted by Marvin Meyer (The Gospel of Thomas: The Hidden Sayings of Jesus [San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992]), DeConick, and Plisch in their texts ad 10c. However,
Schrage (Das Verhaltnis, 124) and Fieger (Das Thomasevangelium, 170) prefer to read men ("with").
Perhaps this reading reflects the preliminary (and admittedly incomplete and uncritical) publi
cation of CGT by A. Guillaumont et al., The Gospel according to Thomas (Leiden: Brill; New York/
Evanston: Harper & Row, 1959); see p. ν and pp. 30-31 (reading men).
does not occur in the LXX, in other Greek versions of the OT, in secular Greek
before the Christian era, or in the Apostolic Fathers.27 In the NT, it occurs only in
this parable of Matthew and its interpretation. Once again, its presence in Thomas's
version cannot be explained by Christian scribes assimilating the text to the later
standard Sahidic text of Matthew, since that text uses not ζιζάνιον but rather the
general Coptic word for "plant," "herb," or "weed" (entec). Nor can it be explained
as some Greek loanword especially at home in the Nag Hammadi material, since
CGTCGT 57 is the only place that it occurs in all of the Nag Hammadi texts.28
Thomas'Thomas'Thomas's "on the day of the harvest" echoes Matthew's "at the time of the
harvest" (13:30). As we have already seen, this phrase—along with the imagery of
burning the weeds—is perfectly at home in Matthew's future scenario of fiery apoc
alyptic eschatology but is totally out of place in Thomas's theology. Indeed, Jack
Dean Kingsbury, who thinks that there is some pre-Matthean material behind
Matthew's parable, emphasizes that in 13:30 the language is "typically Matthean
and rich in eschatological imagery."29 Thomas's strong parallel to Matthew at this
point suggests that it may be a mistake to translate the final words in CGT 57 (lit
erally, "they pull them up and burn them") in the passive voice: "they shall be pulled
up and burned." The third person verbs may instead be a relic of the servants/har
vesters in the Matthean version of the parable (shadowy figures at best in Thomas),
who are interpreted as angels in Matthew's allegorical explanation (13:39). In the
end, I freely grant that no one of these observations about individual words and
phrases in CGT 57 would be all that probative if taken separately; but I think that
cumulatively they do lend secondary support to the major argument I have laid
out in section II concerning the flow and logic of the parable's story line.
27 Jeremias (Parables of Jesus, 224) identifies the ζιζάνια (a Greek noun probably of Semitic
origin) as "the poisonous darnel (lolium temulentum)" a weed similar to bearded wheat; in the
early stages of growth, the former is difficult to distinguish from the latter. While Davies and Alii
son (Saint Matthew, 2:412) think that the identification is uncertain, it is maintained by Michael
Zohary, Plants of the Bible: A Complete Handbook to All the Plants with 200 Full-color Plates Taken
in in the Natural Habitat (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 161 (see index under
lolium lolium temulentum). In any case, if we remain within the narrative world created by the parable,
the logic of the story demands that early on the weed should resemble the wheat but that at a cer
tain point in the growth process the difference should become visible. By that time, though, the
roots of the weeds have become intertwined with those of the wheat, and so uprooting the former
might do damage to the latter. The only safe strategy is to wait until the harvest, when both types
of plants can be removed. Granted this scenario, one can see how Thomas's pushing of the theme
of the visibility of the weeds to the end of the story makes the story incoherent. If the weeds do
not become visible until the harvest, no one can know that there is a problem before the harvest.
28 See Folker Siegert, Nag-Hammadi-Register: Worterbuch zur Erfassung der Begriffe in den
koptisch-gnostischenkoptisch-gnostischen Schriften von Nag Hammadi (WUNT 26; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1982),
249.
29 Kingsbury, Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13, 74 (together with his n. 181).
IV. Coda and Conclusion
In sum, we have seen that (1) the overall narrative in Thomas make
only as a severely compressed version of Matthew's parable or its M sour
tain locutions in Thomas echo phrases that are most likely products of M
redactional hand, and (3) Thomas's radical abbreviation seems influ
Matthews allegorical interpretation of the parable. The most likely conclu
all this is not only (1) that CGT 57 is not early and independent but also
CGTCGT 57 depends on the text found in Matthew's Gospel rather than on s
thetical source.30
This knowledge of Matthew's Gospel by Thomas coheres well with
tion of the disciple Matthew early on in CGT, which otherwise refers
handful of disciples by name. In fact, the names of the other canonical e
(Mark, Luke, and John) never appear in CGT, while Matthew is mentio
Thomas Thomas in an unusually long logion (CGT 13) with an untypical narra
work. The narrative of CGT 13, which begins with Jesus challenging his dis
compare him to someone—with only Simon Peter, Matthew, and Thom
ing—seems to reflect Matthew's version of Peter's confession of faith at
Philippi (Matt 16:13-20), though Thomas pointedly replaces Peter as th
disciple.31 That the author of Thomas did in fact know Matthew's Gospe
30 Indeed, Snodgrass (Stories with Intent, 200) probably does not exaggerate when
that the parable of the Wheat and the Weeds "is one of the easiest passages to arg
dependence of Thomas on the Synoptic tradition. Snodgrass, however, leaves open th
ity that CGT 57 is dependent on the M-tradition form of the parable rather than on
Gospel. But when one considers not only all the peculiarities of Matthew s version of
that are reflected in CGT 57 but also the probable influence of Matthews allegorical
tion on Thomas's version, to claim that saying 57 is dependent on a hypothetically an
reconstructed M tradition rather than on Matthews Gospel seems more like an escape
the most probable solution. Moreover, from all we have seen, I think that Thomas's
on Matthew's Gospel is more likely a direct literary one, though an indirect literary o
catechetical collections and digests of logia) or an indirect oral one (secondary orality, flow
from the experience of having heard Matthew read numerous times) remains a possi
fact, for instance, that Matt 13:29 (as well as the standard Sahidic of Matt 13:29) use
prjitoze for "lest" while CGT 57 uses the Greek prjnuç (admittedly, a slight variant) may
secondary orality. In view of the radical and garbled compression of the original Gre
CGT CGT 57, it is difficult to make a firm judgment.
31 Traits of Matthean redactional material in Thomas (notably CGT 13) are point
Gathercole ("Luke in the Gospel of Thomas" 121), along with other commentators such
Thomas,Thomas, the Other Gospel, 107-19. Risto Uro (Thomas: Seeking the Historical Context of
of Thomas of Thomas [London/New York: T&T Clark, 2003], 88) remarks that only in Matthew a
versions (CGT 13) of Jesus' question about his identity (along with his disciples' replies)
(1) Jesus affirming the divine origin of one disciple's confession (the beatitude spoken
Matt 16:17 and the Thomasine Jesus' affirmation that Thomas has been intoxicated wit
all the more likely by a number of other special Μ sayings that betray Matthews
redactional fingerprints: e.g., the end of CGT 39 vis-a-vis Matt 10:16b; and CGT 90
vis-a-vis Matt 11:28-30 (note again the abbreviation and condensation).
The logion in Matt 10:16b (on being as clever as serpents and as innocent as
doves) is an especially weighty example and may serve as a brief coda and backup
to our examination of the Wheat and the Weeds. The Greek text of Thomas is found
in P.Oxy. 655 (col. ii, lines 19-23), which parallels the second half of Matt 10:16, as
well as the last sentence in CGT 39:
Matthew Matthew 10:16b P. Oxy. 655 CGT 39

Become clever Become clever Become clever
as the snakes as snakes as the snakes
and innocent and innocent and innocent
as the doves as doves as the doves
In all three documents, we are obviously dealing with

each text attributes to Jesus. P.Oxy. 655 matches the G
almost word for word. The same is true of CGT 39, wh
preserves the Greek words for the adjectives "clever"
(ακέραιος), the very words that occur in both Matt 10:1
Jesus conveys) and (2) Jesus indicating that a particular disciple w

pies has been favored with special knowledge not expressed by th
time, Uro does not think that the Thomas version is directly depe
hesitation, one might add to these observations that in CGT 13 J
Thomas. It may not be purely by accident that in Matt 16:17-1
Mark and Luke) Jesus speaks precisely three "words" or distinct
about the divine origin of Peters knowledge (v. 17); (2) the confer
on Simon, with an explanation of its meaning (v. 18); and (3) the conf
dom, with an explanation of their meaning (v. 19). Then, too, ther
tion not to be shared; but this element is found in different ways
Thomas.Thomas. In any event, it is intriguing that Uro, who opts for
showing dependence in one way or another on the Synoptics and
ent, finds in Thomas "some echoes of Matthews redaction, which
later textual harmonizations" (p. 135).
32 The slight difference in wording at the beginning of the sayin
by the different contexts of Matthew and Thomas. In Matt 10:16a
missionary discourse, Jesus speaks to his disciples about the dang
sending them: "Behold, I am sending you like sheep into the mid
Matt 10:16b is introduced as an exhortation that logically follows
clever ..." Since Thomas is a loose collection of sayings, logion
charge as its overarching context. Rather, in both the Greek and
the first part of logion 39 is a critical statement about Jesus' adv
scribes took [away] the key[s] of knowledge. They hid them. Neith
allow those trying [or: those who want] to enter to enter." In contra
The question of the source of this saying is intriguing. Matthew 10:16b is sit
uated in the second of fesus' five great discourses during his public ministry, namely,
the missionary discourse (10:5-42). Matthew creates these five large discourses by
meshing traditions from Mark, Q, and M, along with his own redactional creations.
Such is the case in the missionary discourse, where Matthew even transfers some
sayings from the Markan eschatological discourse into his mix in ch. 10 (Mark
13:9-13 = Matt 10:17-21). The first part of the missionary discourse is for the most
part a conflation of the Markan and Q traditions of Jesus' missionary discourse (an
example of a Mark-Q overlap).33 Indeed, Matt 10:16a ( "Behold, I am sending you
like sheep into the midst of wolves") is a Q saying found also, with slightly differ
ent wording, in Luke 10:3 (from Luke's second missionary discourse): "Go. Behold,
I am sending you like lambs into the midst of wolves." The following verses in
Matthew (10:17-18) begin Matthew's reworking of Mark 13:9-13. Thus, sand
wiched between a Q missionary saying in Matt 10:16a and Markan sayings in Matt
10:17-18 is a uniquely Matthean saying in 10:16b, which leads smoothly into
w. 17-18.
Matthew 10:16b therefore qualifies as M material. Within the discourse, it

functions as a pivot between the material specific to the mission of the Twelve an
more general, future-oriented instruction on discipleship in the face of persecu
tion.34 But is this "M material" M tradition (a tradition circulating in Matthew's
church that Matthew has taken into his Gospel) or a redactional creation of Matthew
himself? Granted Matthew's tendency to rewrite Mark and Q traditions in his ow
style, it is often difficult to distinguish M tradition from Matthean redaction.35 Th
brevity of 10:16b makes any judgment in the matter even more problematic. How
the second half of the logion emphatically shifts to the opposite type of conduct demanded of the
disciples: "But you, become clever ..." Otherwise, the only notable difference in wording is in
P.Oxy.P.Oxy. 655, where the nouns "snakes" and "doves" seem to lack the definite articles present in both
Matt 10:16b and CGT 39. However, one must take into account that the text of logion 39 in P.Ox
655 has many lacunae, and so any restoration must labor under some degree of uncertainty. Som
scholars do in fact read the definite article with both nouns. For the critical text of P.Oxy. 655 (col
ii, lines 11-23) with notes, see Attridge, "Appendix," 123-24. Fortunately, the Coptic text of logion
39 does not suffer from the same problem. In the end, though, the presence or absence of the defi
nite articles makes no difference in meaning, since the definite articles in Matt 10:16b carry
generic sense (note their absence in standard English translations).
33 On the missionary discourses, see John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Histor
icalical Jesus (ABRL; 4 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1991, 1994, 2001; New Haven: Yale Universit
Press, 2009), 3:154-63 and the literature cited there. On Mark-Q overlaps, see in particular Rudo
Laufen, Die Doppeluberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (BBB 54; Bonn:
Hanstein, 1980).
34 Plisch (Gospel of Thomas, 111) overlooks the function of 10:16b within the structure of
the missionary discourse when he claims that "it is ... only loosely attached to its context."
35 A parade example of this problem is Matt 28:16-20, the "Great Commission" pericope
that ends Matthews Gospel. For the problem of tradition and redaction in this text, see John P
Meier, "Two Disputed Questions in Matt 28:16-20," JBL 96 (1977): 407-24.
ever, one may at least note that the adjective φρόνιμος ("clever," "shrewd," "prudent")
occurs more times in Matthew than in any other single book of the NT. Matthew
has seven of the fourteen occurrences in the NT, and all but one of Matthew's seven
instances are either Μ tradition or Matthean redaction.36 As for the noun ό'φις
("snake"), Matthew has just a slight edge within the four Gospels (Matthew, 3x;
Mark, lx; Luke, 2x; John, lx). The adjective ακέραιος ("innocent," "simple") occurs
only in Matt 10:16b in the four Gospels, with only two other occurrences in the
whole of the NT (Rom 16:19; Phil 2:15). While none of this proves that the saying
is a Matthean redactional creation rather than Μ tradition, the vocabulary of
10:16b, taken as a whole, is certainly compatible with that possibility. What makes
it more probable than not that 10:16b is a Matthean creation is that, while the
metaphors of snakes and doves (with a wide range of meanings) as well as the basic
idea expressed in the saying are well attested in the Greco-Roman world as well as
in Jewish writings, the exact wording of the proverb-like saying in Matt 10:16b
occurs in no document that can be safely dated before Matthew s Gospel.37 Hence,
36 The adjective φρόνιμος occurs in the NT in Matt 7:24; 10:16; 24:45; 25:2, 4, 8, 9; Luke
12:42; 16:8; Rom 11:25; 12:16; 1 Cor 4:10; 10:15; 2 Cor 11:19. Since Mark and John do not use the
word, and since of the two occurrences in Luke only one is a Q tradition (Matt 24:45 || Luke
12:42), six of the seven occurrences in Matthew must be judged either Μ tradition or Matthean
redaction.
37 Commentaries on Matthew regularly cite as the grand parallel a statement attributed to

Rabbi Judah bar Simeon (a rabbinic teacher from the fourth century c.e.). The statement is found
in Cant. Rab. 2.14: "With me [God is the speaker] they [the Israelites] are innocent like doves, but
with the nations they are cunning like serpents." (The English translation is that of Maurice Simon,
MidrashMidrash Rabbah. Song of Songs [3rd ed.; London/New York: Soncino, 1983], 128). A common
dating for this rabbinic midrash is ca. the sixth century c.e., which would put the collection
roughly half a millennium after Matthew s Gospel. This hardly qualifies as proof of a widespread
proverb before or around the time of Matthew, especially since the thought content of the
midrashic passage is not that of Matt 10:16b. More to the point, the rabbinic text does not repro
duce the precise wording of 10:16b, something that both P.Oxy. 655 and CGT 39 do. Another par
allelallel sometimes cited is from a Coptic tractate found at Nag Hammadi entitled The Teaching of
Silvanus,Silvanus, a type of Christian wisdom literature; for an introduction, Coptic text, and French trans
lation, see Yvonne Janssens, Les Lefons de Silvanos (NH VII, 4) (Bibliotheque Copte de Nag Ham
madi: Section Textes 13; Quebec: Presses de l'Universite Laval, 1983). In 95:7-11 (pp. 48-49), in
a warning to beware of the tricks of Satan, the wisdom teacher exhorts the student to combine the
wisdom of the snake and the innocence of the dove. The Teaching of Silvanus was probably writ
ten in the late second or early third century c.e.; once again, it does not reproduce the exact word
ing of Matt 10:16b. Probably the earliest use (and recycling) of Matt 10:16b is to be found in the
letters of Ignatius of Antioch. In Pol. 2.2, Ignatius alludes to Matt 10:16b; but he both changes the
verb, adjectives, and nouns to the singular (since he is reformulating the text as a personal exhor
tation to Polycarp) and adds adverbial emphasis: "Be as clever as the snake in all things and inno
cent always as the dove." This is but one of a number of uses (but never direct, word-for-word
citations) of Matthew's Gospel by Ignatius; see, e.g., Smyrn. 1.1; Phld. 3.1; Eph. 19.1-3; see Wolf
Dietrich Kohler, Die Rezeption des Matthausevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus (WUNT 2/24;
Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), 72-96; John P. Meier, "Matthew and Ignatius: A Response to
to claim that 10:16b simply represents a widespread proverb or common Jewish

mâsâlmâsâl that just happens to appear in both Matthew and Thomas is not supported
by the evidence.38 In view of the viable alternatives, it seems more probable that
either Matt 10:16b as a whole or at least its precise Greek wording stems from
Matthews redactional hand.39 If that is the case, then logion 39 as represented in
P.Oxy.POxy. 655 (and, naturally, in CGT) shows dependence on Matthew's Gospel. In
sum, then, the palpable influence of Matthew s Gospel on Thomas's version of the
parable of the Wheat and the Weeds is hardly an isolated phenomenon. Alongside
Lukan influence, Matthean influence in Thomas needs to be more widely acknowl
edged.
William R. Schoedel," in Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-disciplinary Approaches

(ed. David L. Balch; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 178-86.
38 Donald A. Hagner (Matthew [2 vols.; WBC 33A, 33B; Dallas: Word, 1993,1995], 1:279)
suggests guardedly that 10:16b "may well reflect a popular proverb"; Plisch (Gospel of Thomas,
39) states that the saying was "a probably independently circulating word of wisdom"; similarly,
Heinrich Greeven, "peristera" TDNT6:70 n. 70; Nordsieck, Das Thomas-Evangelium, 166. Dieter
Zeller (Die weisheitlichen Mahnspriiche bei den Synoptikern [FB 17; Wiirzburg: Echter, 1977], 136)
considers 10:16b to be a paradoxical expression of profane wisdom that, through the process of
early Christian tradition, became a saying of Jesus. Stephen J. Patterson (The Gospel of Thomas and
Jesus Jesus [FF Reference Series; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1993], 36) sees the saying as "a common Jew
ish mashal',' giving as the basis for that judgment a citation from Rudolf Bultmanns Die Geschichte
derder synoptischen Tradition (7th éd.; FRLANT 29; Gôttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967),
112; but Bultmann simply repeats the reference to the Midrash on the Song of Songs (see n. 37
above). It is telling that none of these authors can offer an example of this precise proverb or word
of wisdom prior to or around the time of Matthew. In particular, neither Philo nor Josephus offers
a strict parallel in thought and wording. A search of the Hellenistic Commentary to the New Tes
tamenttament (ed. M. Eugene Boring, Klaus Berger, and Carsten Colpe; Nashville: Abingdon, 1995) like
wise comes up empty-handed. The absence of an exact parallel prior to Matthew is especially
striking in the work of DeConick (Original Gospel of Thomas, 160), who usually supplies abun
dant parallels to individual sayings. Some commentators, perhaps in desperation, cast the net far
ther into the deep (e.g., T. Naph. 8:9-10, in its present form a Christian work), but the verbal
similarities (not to mention the thought content) of such texts are so distant that they cannot be
called parallels in any meaningful sense of the word.
39 For this view, see, e.g., Gundry, Matthew, 191. Indeed, the exact reproduction of the word
ing of Matt 10:16b extends even to the imperative verb "become" (yiveafie), which appears in
P.Oxy.POxy. 655 (restored) and is accurately rendered in CGT 39 by the Coptic verb for "become" (sôpe).
As a matter of fact, Davies and Allison (Saint Matthew, 2:180-81) judge the imperative verb in
Matt 10:16b to be redactional. That a person citing or translating Matt 10:16b would more natu
rally say or write "be" rather than "become" is supported not only by the Vulgate (estote) but also
by almost every English Bible translation of this verse from the KJV onwards. Luz (Matthew, 2:85)
tries to argue that 10:16b most likely comes from the M tradition (perhaps already meshed with
Q) because it runs counter to Matthews redactional theology. Despite Luz's attempts to deflect
appeals to other passages in Matthew, his reasoning seems odd, granted Matthews regular exal
tation of those who act in a prudent manner (e.g., 7:24; 10:23 [in the missionary discourse!]; 24:45;
25:2) as well as those who act with pure intention and integrity (e.g., 5:8,13,27-30,48; 6:1; 15:10
20; 23:25-28).

The Society of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Society of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24—30): Is Thomas's Version (Logion

The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds

II. The Basic Story Line of the Parable

Matthew 13:24-30Matthew 13:24-30Matthew 13:24-30 CGT 57

The kingdom of heaven is like The kingdom of the Father is like

While the men were sleeping,

A number of possibilities present themselves: CGT 57 may be an abbreviation

III. Individual Words and Phrases

In addition to this step-by-step analysis of the story line of Thomas's pa

29 Kingsbury, Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13, 74 (together with his n. 181).

IV. Coda and Conclusion

Matthew Matthew 10:16b P. Oxy. 655 CGT 39

In all three documents, we are obviously dealing with

Jesus conveys) and (2) Jesus indicating that a particular disciple w

Matthew 10:16b therefore qualifies as M material. Within the discourse, it

37 Commentaries on Matthew regularly cite as the grand parallel a statement attributed to

to claim that 10:16b simply represents a widespread proverb or common Jewish

William R. Schoedel," in Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross-disciplinary Approaches

You might also like