Robert said
Also the argument, “Why not simply,,,” is the most intellectually lazy thing I have ever heard.
It’s a question, not an argument. Do you have any arguments against why the author of the gospel of Thomas could not have been familiar with the synoptic gospels?
There doesn’t seem to be an argument to be made that the author of our received versions of the Gospel of Thomas could not have been familiar with the synoptic gospels, they have been found, both the Coptic translation that is nearly complete and the sections in Greek from small papyrus fragments from trash heaps, in time horizons and in locations where we know that the synoptic gospels are extant.
The argument for Thomason priority for logia would seem to be first an “early layer” argument, such as April DeConnick’s, where by its nature the earliest layer is a residual (and of course Goodacre argues against engaging in hunts for earlier layers preserved in later versions), and so would have very elastic dating, and the primitive style of the version of the shared content found in Thomas. By its nature, the primitive style cannot be a decisive argument, it can be at most suggestive.
Even granting April DeConnick’s arguments regarding the evolution of memorized oral teachings, an hypothetical original logia-heavy set of memorized speeches that evangelists are armed with would not support an argument of uniqueness. So the kernel of an original memorized set of speeches that have hypothetically evolved into our received Gospels of Thomas might not have been the same memorized set of speeches which were a kernel of the Q source or sources.
I would be happy to be surprised, but it doesn’t seem that Thomas does more regarding Q than advance the argument that there is evidence of non-Christian “wisdom books” of sayings so hypothetically there might be one or more Christian “wisdom books” of sayings in the first century to include having an example of a Christian version of a wisdom book being compiled in a later century, increasing the plausibility.
If the common precepts, parables and other sayings with the synoptics is used as evidence that some of the content in Thomas goes back to the first century, to help launch the process of identifying sayings that are likely to have been added over time, to reconstruct a hypothetical original kernel, it’s hard to see how any decisive arguments could be made regarding the priority of the reconstructed kernel over any of the synoptics.
BruceRMcF said The argument for Thomason priority for logia would seem to be first an “early layer” argument, such as April DeConnick’s, where by its nature the earliest layer is a residual (and of course Goodacre argues against engaging in hunts for earlier layers preserved in later versions), and so would have very elastic dating, and the primitive style of the version of the shared content found in Thomas. By its nature, the primitive style cannot be a decisive argument, it can be at most suggestive.
The layered approaches to both Q and Thomas are highly suspect in my opinion. In the case of Q, this seemed to be designed, at least by some, to yield an early non-apocalyptic layer for the Jesus Seminar. Although I met her years ago as a grad student, I’m not very familiar with April DeConnick’s approach to Thomas, but I would imagine if one were to strip away the synoptic-like material as supposedly later, you would also end up with similarly non-apocalyptic uniquely Thomasine content as the earlier layer. Is that more or less how she situates the layers of Thomas? Or does she focus on stylistically arguments independent of content?
In her 2002 paper on this (Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 56, No. 2 (May, 2002), pp. 167-199), she first steps through approaches to Thomas that picked up Thomas precisely because they were pursuing the above approach to Q, but she is skeptical that the characteristics of Thomas supports a model consisting of an early “sapiental” layer and a later “gnostic” layer. She points out that the compositional model has to account for the variety of traditions that appear in the text along with the conflicting sayings and doublets found in the text. So she proposes that it is reasonable to suggest that Thomas was a rolling corpus that grew over time, and that as new needs arose for the community and as new converts brought in new ideas, extending to new Jesus sayings that they learned from other Christian communities, additional material was added to the original kernel of “oracles of the prophet Jesus”. She sets forth principles for identifying probable later additions, including sayings that show signs of secondary literary development, later ideological development, responsiveness to later developments in Christianity and later community experiences, and shifts in writing reflecting a shift in constituency in interpretative community. I doubt I could do full justice to her arguments on these principles, so I’d refer to the article for more.
Of course, she acknowledges that any reconstruction of layers of Thomas is tentative, and that the best that a speculative reconstruction of the original kernel of this sort can hope for is to be credible and historically plausible. I would note that the nature of her approach is to remove things based on evidence of later developments so that the original kernel is a residual, which means that rather than relying on a reconstruction of Q for it’s reconstruction of an early layer of Thomas, it leans on issues for which we do have more evidence, such as the Hermetic wisdom tradition, which she argues most likely enters the rolling corpus as the community evolves toward being primarily Gentile, “for whom Hermetic lore was familiar.”
However, she definitely does not land with Koester and Arnal. The residual Kernel after removing the plausible later additions to the corpus has a heavy focus on eschatological sayings and an imminent Kingdom and Day of Judgement.
She notes that 50% of the sayings remaining in the Kernel are paralleled in Q, but in her analysis neither were literarily dependent on the other. However, she points out that under the rolling corpus model, one cannot maintain literary independence of the received Thomas from the synoptics, as contributions to the rolling corpus would have included contributions from people familiar with one or more of the synoptics in one or more versions.
She observes that where it appears that the users of the Q source(s) that we know seem to amplify the apocalyptic dimension, in her rolling corpus model, Thomas tends to water it down with its later additions … including later dialog elaborations of earlier sayings which reframe the earlier sayings.
Along the way, she does make the point, which I like, that since any reconstructions of Q are minimal reconstructions, and we have no way of knowing anything in Q that “Matthew” and “Luke” did not both wish to include, whether in M, in L, or in fact omitted by both, so the minimal reconstructions do not allow for a strict identification of the genre of Q.
Robert said
Thanks, sounds like a well reasoned approach. One question, however:She observes that where it appears that the users of the Q source(s) that we know seem to amplify the apocalyptic dimension …
Is she relying on someone else’s reconstruction of layers of Q? Does she give examples of any supposedly later sayings that intensified or amplify an apocalyptic dimension? Or sayings from earlier strata that were less apocalyptic?
Let me just quote her statement in this paper: “The sequence, language, and use of the parallel sayings suggests that Q and Thomas were familiar with sayings that were largely apocalyptic in nature and which each text developed in its own way-the apocalyptic expectations were intensified in Q while they were de-intensified by the addition of the later layers of Thomas.”
As far as more detail on what she means by this, I’m not going to go to my recollection of more recent articles of her’s that I have read, as it’s been a few years. I’ll double check anon.
In Response to Bruce’s February 9th, 2026 4:15PM reply
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
- No doubt the author of the second narrative did not receive a one-for-one copy of Mark’s original first draft that entered circulation. There were most likely copying errors and variations in conjugations, article usage, and phrasing. Bart Ehrman discusses these copying phenomena in his book Misquoting Jesus, so much of what he describes could have occurred between Mark’s first draft, the copy received by the author of the second narrative, and the copies later used by Matthew and Luke.
That said, such variations were most likely incremental, especially considering that the textual form of Mark preserved in our Bibles is itself relatively unstable. As for the second narrative, if it did exist, it is unlikely that Matthew and Luke received one-to-one copies identical in spelling and grammar to the version composed by Thebuthis — or whoever the author was.
In this sense, there is certainly some evolution, but it would be more akin to the relationship between a house cat and an African wildcat than to that between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus.
- As for why Matthew and Luke would use both Mark and this second narrative (“T-Source”), one plausible explanation is that they regarded it as another version of Mark. Just as Clement describes Secret Mark as a text attributed to Mark, Matthew and Luke may likewise have understood this narrative to be Markan.
Alternatively, they may not have known which text had priority. In a context without fixed canons or stable publication history, distinguishing an earlier from a later version would not have been straightforward.
A further possibility is that they recognized differences between the texts yet still valued the second narrative for its expanded detail and additional material absent from Mark. A Mark-dependent account containing fuller episodes or insider traditions could easily have been treated as a valuable supplement rather than a suspect rival.
If Thebuthis was indeed the author, and was known to them, the perceived authority of a figure connected to the Jerusalem leadership — particularly someone associated with Jesus’ familial circle — would only have increased that text’s credibility.
- My proposal was not formed out of an intention to reject consensus. When I first began studying biblical scholarship, I accepted the existence of Q without hesitation. Like many students, I was influenced by lectures and discussions that treated Q as the most plausible explanation for Matthew–Luke agreement.
My initial interest was not to challenge the hypothesis, but to explore it imaginatively. At one point, I even considered writing a creative, biographical-style narrative centered on a hypothetical author of Q — something akin to a Shakespeare in Love or Finding Neverland approach.
However, in the process of examining the relevant texts more closely, certain features began to trouble me. In particular, the Messengers from John the Baptist pericope stood out as a passage that seemed resistant to explanation within a sayings-source framework.
From there, I began comparing its characteristics with other double tradition material and noticed recurring patterns that appeared to suggest a different kind of shared source.
The theory therefore emerged gradually from attempts to account for specific textual phenomena rather than from a prior commitment to overturn established models. That it does not align with current consensus is simply a consequence of where that inquiry led.
In Response to Robert’s February 12th, 2026 8:45AM post
- 1.Regarding Matthew and Luke behaving contrary to how I characterized them, did you take your dyslexia medication? Cause I said Matthew tends to consolidate. I used the blind healings, the Demon exorcisms, and the resurrections of Jairus daughter and the widow’s son to illustrate this. How you got mixed up is beyond me, but I said what I said.
- 2.Regarding John’s dependence on Luke and any other sources: as I mentioned before, the issue is not simplicity but what best accounts for the data. Even so, my model remains simpler in relative terms. Goodacre and others propose that John used all three Synoptics, which entails three sources. By contrast, I am suggesting that John may have used two — Luke and the T Source.
That said, my model does not depend on John’s use of the T Source. If such dependence could be demonstrated, it would function as a supporting consideration rather than a necessary pillar of the argument. Goodacre may well be correct, and I acknowledge that further research is needed.
One point, however, seems clear: John used Luke chapters 3–24 prior to the addition of chapters 1–2 and Acts.
- 3.Regarding Thomas’ familiarity with the canonical Gospels, there is no familiarity. Once again, we are talking about the most famous man that ever lived. Jesus did not give one sermon and one variation of all his parables and logion. He gave multiple sermons, and multiple people transcribed the variations of the parables and logion they heard. The logia in Thomas is not one-for-one the versions we get in the canonical Gospels, nor any other source.
Look at Thomas 27 and P.Oxy. 5575. Within the “Do Not Be Anxious” part, there seems to be a logion similar to Thomas 27 that shares the words “unless,” “the world,” “you,” “fast from,” “you’ll never find,” “kingdom of God,” “and unless you,” and “the Father.” The fasting logion in 5575 mentions “the world” a second time, and also fails to include the tidbit about the Sabbath contained in Thomas 27. No fasting logion like this exists anywhere in the canonical Gospels.
Also, a bunch of the sayings in Thomas seem more like the root source for some of the passages in the Gospels, like Thomas 12 and Mark 8:27–30 (Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ), or Thomas 93 and Mark 7:24–30 (The Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith). Why would someone read the canonical Gospels and reverse-engineer it to its core layer? To fake authenticity?
Another reason I don’t think it’s late is because it has an unflattering portrayal of Peter. After Peter was martyred, Peter became a legend in the Christian community. Sure, he’s not always portrayed as perfect, but he is always portrayed as important and devoted. Thomas seems to reflect a period where James the Just and Peter had a falling out over the meal incident involving Gentiles, as attested to in the Epistle to the Galatians and Acts.
Speaking of Acts and the epistles, both sources corroborate that the early church didn’t exactly welcome Gentile converts with open arms. Paul tells us Peter was scared to be seen eating with Gentiles by James’ men; Acts corroborates this and takes it a step further and insinuates that not only did Peter eat with Gentiles, but he broke kosher.
Acts also tells us that Paul circumcised Timothy despite his mother being Jewish, because he knew Timothy was going to be met with hostility. Based off James’ epistle, we can tell that he and Jesus talked alike, and probably thought alike. No doubt that the historical Jesus was far more conservative than he is portrayed in the canonical Gospels. Thomas 93 reflects Jesus’ conservatism, as do many other sayings in that Gospel.
Is it any coincidence that we have no first-generation Christian literature? Jesus was crucified in like 31 CE, and we have nothing before 52 CE. That’s a 21-year gap. Either no one wrote anything prior to 52 CE, or the literature was seen as problematic as the early church became more liberal.
Suetonius and Tacitus and Pliny the Younger tell us the early church was problematic. Tacitus even tells us Christians confessed to burning Rome down during Nero’s reign. Also, let’s not forget Jesus was crucified for insurrection, and he had two insurrectionists crucified alongside him. The Gospels tell us he told the Sanhedrin he was the Messiah, a role any first-century Jew would have seen as a military leader.
A Gospel like Thomas couldn’t have been written or commissioned after 64 CE. Rome was a police state, after all, and Christians were under close surveillance; Pliny’s letter corroborates this. Thomas looks like it was created early, and created to stay put in one location. Hence all the militaristic double speak sayings, Pro James, anti James, anti gentile, pro John the Baptist material.
- The Argument for an Early Gospel of Thomas
Regarding Thomas’ familiarity with the canonical Gospels, there is no familiarity. Once again, we are talking about the most famous man that ever lived. Jesus did not give one sermon and one variation of all his parables and logia. He gave multiple sermons, and multiple people transcribed the variations of the parables and logia they heard. The logia in Thomas are not one-for-one the versions we get in the canonical Gospels, nor any other source.
I. The Physical Proof: P.Oxy. 5575 and 840
Look at Thomas 27 and P.Oxy. 5575. Within the “Do Not Be Anxious” part, there is a logion similar to Thomas 27 that shares keywords like “unless,” “the world,” “you,” “fast from,” and “the Father.” The fasting logion in 5575 mentions “the world” a second time, and also fails to include the tidbit about the Sabbath contained in Thomas 27. No fasting logion like this exists anywhere in the canonical Gospels. This is physical proof that Thomas has logia outside the canonical gospels attested in other sources (Thomas 89 and Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 being another example).
Furthermore, the fact that Thomas 27 includes a literal, rigid Sabbath requirement (“Unless you observe the Sabbath as a Sabbath…”) while 5575 and the later Church dropped it proves Thomas is a fossil from the earliest, most conservative layer. Christians eventually moved to a Sunday Sabbath; what incentive does a 2nd-century writer have to invent a saying forcing people back into Saturday observance? They wouldn’t.
II. Priority of the Root
A bunch of the sayings in Thomas seem more like the root source for some of the passages in the Gospels, like Thomas 12 and Mark 8:27–30 (Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ), or Thomas 93 and Mark 7:24–30 (The Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith). Why would someone read the canonical Gospels and reverse-engineer it to its core layer? To fake authenticity? It’s far more likely that Mark took these cryptic, hard-edged sayings and wrapped them in narrative “shields” to make them palatable for a later audience.
III. The John the Baptist Marker (Thomas 46)
Look at Thomas 46. What incentive does a 2nd-century author have to praise John the Baptist? By that time, John’s movement was dwindling or becoming a rival. The Church was busy writing John into a subservient role—a mere “voice in the wilderness” who wasn’t worthy to untie Jesus’ sandals. But Thomas preserves Jesus calling John the greatest man born of women. This only makes sense in the early days, when John was still the ultimate revolutionary hero to the Judean people, and Jesus was his successor in the fight against the establishment.
IV. The Jamesian “Kill Shot” and the Fall of Peter
Another reason I don’t think it’s late is because it has an unflattering portrayal of Peter. After Peter was martyred, Peter became a legend in the Christian community. Sure, he’s not always portrayed as perfect, but he is always portrayed as important and devoted. Thomas seems to reflect a period where James the Just and Peter had a falling out over the meal incident involving Gentiles, as attested to in the Epistle to the Galatians and Acts.
Thomas 12 is the historical “kill shot” here: it explicitly names James as the leader the disciples must go to. After 70 CE, James’s authority vanished. No 2nd-century fake would manufacture Jamesian Priority because that wing of the church was already dead. It only makes sense if it was written while James was the undisputed “Pillar” in Jerusalem.
V. The Conservative Jesus vs. The “Liberal” Church
Speaking of Acts and the epistles, both sources corroborate that the early church didn’t exactly welcome Gentile converts with open arms. Paul tells us Peter was scared to be seen eating with Gentiles by James’ men; Acts corroborates this and takes it a step further and insinuates that not only did Peter eat with Gentiles, but he broke kosher. Acts also tells us that Paul circumcised Timothy despite his mother being Jewish, because he knew Timothy was going to be met with hostility.
Based off James’ epistle, we can tell that he and Jesus talked alike, and probably thought alike. No doubt that the historical Jesus was far more conservative than he is portrayed in the canonical Gospels. Thomas 93 reflects Jesus’ conservatism—his “dogs and swine” exclusionary logic—as do many other sayings in that Gospel.
VI. Insurrection and the Police State
Is it any coincidence that we have no first-generation Christian literature? Jesus was crucified in like 31 CE, and we have nothing before 52 CE. That’s a 21-year gap. Either no one wrote anything prior to 52 CE, or the literature was seen as problematic as the early church became more liberal. Suetonius and Tacitus and Pliny the Younger tell us the early church was problematic. Tacitus even tells us Christians confessed to burning Rome down during Nero’s reign.
Also, let’s not forget Jesus was crucified for insurrection, and he had two insurrectionists crucified alongside him. The Gospels tell us he told the Sanhedrin he was the Messiah, a role any first-century Jew would have seen as a military leader. A Gospel like Thomas couldn’t have been written or commissioned after 64 CE. Rome was a police state, after all, and Christians were under close surveillance; Pliny’s letter corroborates this.
Thomas looks like it was created early, and created to stay put in one location. It’s no coincidence that we just barely discovered it 100 years ago. The early church couldn’t risk some Centurion stoping and frisking one of their couriers.
- 5.As far as agreements against Mark during the passion, well I guess Bart Ehrman is unaware of that too and so are a ton of other scholars. Cause lots ofscholars say the passion seems to be devoid of agreements. I’m sure they literally have minor agreements that are literally minor like conjugations and articles and stuff like that, but nothing on the level of The Parable of the Tenants or John the Baptist Prepares the way.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The Response: Why Q is a Ghost and the “Second Narrative” is the Reality
What a loaded question. There is no Q source. What, you think some guy went to one of Jesus’ sermons, went home, and transcribed what he remembered? And then what—after Jesus was crucified for insurrection, he was like, “Hey everyone, you remember that failed messiah who got executed by Rome? Well, I’ve got all the cool s#$% he said, so if anyone wants to make copies, holler at your boy?”
Why would this transcriber be the only one? If he was the only one, how would anyone corroborate the sayings are authentic? If he was a “somebody,” why is there no tradition regarding him? If he was a “nobody,” why would anyone covet his notes if there weren’t other sayings-gospels floating around to verify them? And if there were multiple sayings-gospels, why did Matthew and Luke just so happen to pick the same one? Not only that, but they picked the same logion and the same Markan pericopes to interweave them in? Get real.
I. The Papias Telephone Game
As for your comment about Papias—no! That is a quote from Eusebius who was quoting Papias. You are hanging your entire “Q” house on a single word—“each”— a word that has passed endured 200 years before it hit the page. “Matthew” is being used as shorthand for the author of the Gospel, and the “each” is not referring to authors struggling to translate a single Q-book. The “each” refers to the individual logia being understood and set forth by Matthew’s author. Papias is telling you Matthew didn’t use some fairy-tale, make-believe Q book.
Also, you’re one to argue for Q—just five seconds ago you dismissed the notion that Thomas is early. How quick you are to dismiss the notion of early sayings-gospels when it suits your needs, and how quick you were a few weeks ago to dismiss the tradition regarding Peter dictating to Mark, but now this third-hand quote is suddenly “Honest Abe.” That is pure Special Pleading.
II. Formal Distinction: Batches vs. Bizarro Mark
It is quite simple. On top of Mark and the Second Narrative (which itself used Mark and Thomas-like logia), Matthew and Luke each had access to different batches of logia from different sermons from different transcribers.
- Independent Batches: This is why the Beatitudes are worded so differently, yet convey the same thing. The same applies to many of the other logia in Matthew and Luke that are worded so vastly differently but essentially convey the same concept—like Interpreting Time (Luke 12:54-56) and the Demand for Signs (Matt 16:1-4).
- The Second Narrative (“T Source”): The logia that are in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, yet are almost word-for-word, originate here. This includes sections like: “The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment…” or “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”, etc… I EXPLAINED ALL THIS BEFORE, biblical scholar.
- 6. You think the author of Luke wrote the genealogy, and chapters 1 and 2? LOL, working on outdated models seems to be your go to, huh?
Eratosthenes24601 said
…
A Gospel like Thomas couldn’t have been written or commissioned after 64 CE. Rome was a police state, after all, and Christians were under close surveillance; Pliny’s letter corroborates this. Thomas looks like it was created early, and created to stay put in one location. Hence all the militaristic double speak sayings, Pro James, anti James, anti gentile, pro John the Baptist material.
April DeConnick’s argument that the multiple traditions, doublets and contradictory sayings are evidence that Thomas was a rolling corpus represents one published view in the Thomas scholarship that this argument does not counter. Thomas may “look like” it was created early to you, but you’ll need supporting evidence which does not support an alternative explanation equally well or better.
Is it any coincidence that we have no first-generation Christian literature? Jesus was crucified in like 31 CE, and we have nothing before 52 CE. That’s a 21-year gap. Either no one wrote anything prior to 52 CE, or the literature was seen as problematic as the early church became more liberal. Suetonius and Tacitus and Pliny the Younger tell us the early church was problematic. Tacitus even tells us Christians confessed to burning Rome down during Nero’s reign.
Certainly not. A faith community growing at an exponential rate to the number of members there appeared to be in the middle of the 3rd century CE would have had perhaps 1,000 members in the middle of the 1st century. Given the minority of the population who could read and the minority of those who could read who could write, and the possibility that early converts were from a stratum of society where even those who could write were not trained to compose literary works, the early church must have been organized around oral transmission of its evangelizing messages. An early apocalyptic focus then reduces the incentive to put the messages down in writing for a posterity that is going to be short-circuited by the coming of the Kingdom in power.
The Response: Why Q is a Ghost and the “Second Narrative” is the Reality
What a loaded question. There is no Q source. What, you think some guy went to one of Jesus’ sermons, went home, and transcribed what he remembered? And then what—after Jesus was crucified for insurrection, he was like, “Hey everyone, you remember that failed messiah who got executed by Rome? Well, I’ve got all the cool s#$% he said, so if anyone wants to make copies, holler at your boy?”
Why would this transcriber be the only one? If he was the only one, how would anyone corroborate the sayings are authentic? If he was a “somebody,” why is there no tradition regarding him? If he was a “nobody,” why would anyone covet his notes if there weren’t other sayings-gospels floating around to verify them? And if there were multiple sayings-gospels, why did Matthew and Luke just so happen to pick the same one? Not only that, but they picked the same logion and the same Markan pericopes to interweave them in? Get real.
Here you set up a chain of rhetorical questions, rather than addressing hypotheses which have been set out in the literature.
You are presuming here that in order for the Q source or Q sources to exist, someone must have transcribed Jesus’s teaching when it took place, when it is quite reasonable to conclude from the survival and growth of the church in the first few decades after Jesus’s death that there was active evangelizing efforts to spread Jesus’s teachings. Four decades until the destruction of the Temple is ample time for one or a few people who happened to be both literate and able to write to write down on paper teachings they have heard. And if the evangelizing is successful, there would be more candidate scribes in 60-70 CE than in 30-40 CE.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)