John P. Meier - The Marginal Jew

John P. Meier, The Marginal Jew,
v. 5, ch. 38: The Parables and the Problem of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas,
pp 89-188

(Detailed summary)

Does the Coptic Gospel of Thomas offer us information independent of the Synoptics?

Summary

Our analysis of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (CGT) begins with the setting of 2nd-century literature. The works that have come down to us display a dependence on the synoptic narratives and a tendency to combine or merge different narratives. It should be remembered that the synoptic narratives were often transmitted orally, and there was a tendency to create summaries that harmonized them for catechesis. This freedom can be seen in CGT in the surprising order of the logia, which are grouped by hook words or themes. But we also note that CGT deliberately abbreviated certain stories to make them enigmatic, in keeping with his intention to address initiates only. This Gnostic purpose is also apparent in the dismissal of the Scriptures and the Creator God, deemed responsible for this inferior world. It is therefore a mistake to think that a shorter narrative is an indication of antiquity. In fact, Luke and Matthew often shortened Mark's accounts.

So let's analyze 15 logia, nine that are not parables, and six that are. In analyzing the logia outside the parables, let's start with three of which we possess the original Greek. Logion 5 ("for there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest") uses the vocabulary of Lk 8:17 with the adjective "manifest". Logion 31 ("He is not an acceptable prophet in his hometown") uses Luke's formulation with a single statement, and its adjective "acceptable", rather than Mark's and Matthew's "without honor". Logion 39 ("But, you, become clever as snakes and innocent as doves") repeats word for word a verse from Matthew that is a creation of the evangelist, with a vocabulary all his own. Let's move on to the Coptic version. Logion 14 ("or what enters into your mouth will not defile you...") reflects the five changes Matthew made to Mark's text. Logion 54 ("Fortunate are the poor for yours is the kingdom of the heavens") combines Luke's 2nd person version and Matthew's version with the expression "kingdom of heaven". Logion 16 ("Perhaps men think that I have come to cast peace upon the world...") uses terms typical of Matthew, such as "to cast", "upon" and "sword", and terms typical of Luke, such as "division". Logion 55 ("The one who will not hate his father and his mother will not be able to be a disciple to me...") borrows from Matthew the expression "worthy of me" and from Luke "to hate one's father and mother", "to be my disciple" and "brothers and sisters". Logion 47 ("No one drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine...") picks up on a Luke creation added at the very end of a tradition going back to Mark. Logion 99 ("Your brothers and your mother are standing outside...") makes an amalgam: it copies from Matthew's Gospel the presence of the disciples, it borrows from Matthew and Luke the fact that the brothers and mother are standing, and like Luke, it mentions only the brothers and mother in its finale, and it uses the plural ("those who do... will..."), not the singular like Mark and Matthew.

When we move on to analyze the parabolic narratives, we note the same tendency to combine the synoptic narratives. Logion 20 ("The kingdom of heaven... it is comparable to a mustard seed") conflates "kingdom of heaven" with the mention of "the smallest of seeds" in a main sentence in Matthew, with a direct answer to the question posed as in Luke, with the expression "on earth" in Mark. Logia 65-66 ("A wealthy man had a vineyard. He gave it to farmers...") are an amalgam: like Luke, CGT omits the allusion to Isa 5:2, the envoy is not killed, he uses the rare expression "give fruit", the owner enters into an inner monologue with the expression "perhaps"; like Matthew and Luke, there is only one slave dispatch at a time; like Matthew, he omits the attribute "beloved"; Mark's words serve him to describe the son's brutal end ("they seized him and killed him"). Logion 57 ("The kingdom of the Father is like a man who had good seed...") displays borrowings from Matthew, particularly the editorial passages, such as the expression "kingdom of the Father", "sowing upon", "tares", "day of harvest", but above all is an incomprehensible parable without having Matthew's in view. Finally, logia 63 ("There was a rich man...") and 72 ("Tell my brothers to divide my father's goods") appear separately in CGT, but are a reworking of the Lucan parable of the rich fool and its anecdotal introduction; knowing that this introduction is a creation of Luke to give context to the parable, CGT is most likely dependent on Luke for these two logia. Furthermore, the details of logion 72 show the following similarities with Luke's introduction to the parable: a man out of nowhere asks Jesus to intervene to divide the inheritance with his brother, the word "man" in the vocative, the unique title of "divider". The same is true of the parable itself and CGT 63: the expression "there was a man", an echo of Luke's particular way of introducing a parable; the Greek attribute "rich", which CGT takes up unchanged in Coptic; the interior monologue, a technique developed by Luke for many parables.

In short, each of the 15 logia analyzed displays a dependence on synoptic narratives; we can assume that this is the case for all the other logia. What's more, CGT shows a consistent tendency to combine synoptic narratives or to abbreviate them. It therefore becomes impossible to use CGT as an independent source when we want to apply the multiple attestation criterion in analyzing the historicity of the parables.

The Place of This Chapter in the Overall Argument

The central problem in tracing a particular parable back to the historical Jesus stems from its inability to meet the criterion of multiple attestation. In this context, the question of the independence of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (CGT) from the Synoptics becomes a major one. For if CGT is independent, then many of the parables will join the pool of stories going back to the historical Jesus. If not, there will be very few. So this chapter takes up the sixth thesis of ch. 37, which finds it questionable whether CGT can be considered a tradition independent of the Synoptics, or even older. This ch. 38 will make an elaborate demonstration that CGT bears witness to the influence on it of the Synoptic Gospels. All this will lead us to the conclusion that CGT cannot be used in the multiple attestation criterion, and therefore restricts us to the Synoptic writings alone in the application of the historicity criteria.
General Observations on the Gospel of Thomas in Relation to the Synoptics

The words of CGT cannot be appreciated without placing them a) in the wider context of 2nd-century Christian literature and b) in relation to the Synoptics. To establish this wider context, seven observations are in order.
1. First of all, the writing of CGT must be placed within the general setting of the production of 2nd-century Christian writings, some of which were Gnostic, some of which were not. There was a great deal of excitement among North American biblical scholars about works from the 2nd part of the 2nd century such as the fanciful accounts in the Infancy Gospel of James or the hilarious ones in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, hoping to find historical data about Jesus and his family. But more sober studies have shown the direct or indirect influence of the synoptic gospels and other NT writings on all these texts, as well as on the Christian works from Nag Hammadi.
2. Likewise, in this general context we must include the use of the Synoptics by the "Church Fathers" and "Apologists" (i.e. Didache, Polycarp, Justin Martyr), a use that testifies to a revealing tendency: that of gluing together and combining the various forms of a logion found in more than one Synoptic Gospel, the same tendency as that of the author of CGT. It's vital to remember that not only are the Synoptics the product of multiple oral traditions, but that they in turn led to the production of new, secondary oral traditions, based on words heard at Christian gatherings (catechetical or liturgical) and subsequently becoming homilies that displayed a varying degree of freedom in their theological formulation. Christian authors such as Justin Martyr preferred to rely on their memory, or on harmonizing and catechetical summaries, rather than finding the exact words in an evangelical scroll or codex.
3. Some biblical scholars use the argument of the strange order of the words of CGT to support its independence from the Synoptics. This overlooks the fact that CGT contains sayings or blocks of sayings ordered according to hook words and associations of themes. It sometimes explicitly creates groupings of literary forms to emphasize a favorite theological message. And it's very risky to try to discern an author's intention in the organization of his material; one need only think of the order of the narratives in Luke's ch. 9 to 19, that long ascent to Jerusalem: various theories have been proposed without convincing anyone. As for CGT, we can't even determine whether the selection of texts is based on the Synoptics themselves or on a harmonizing and catechetical summary; he may have reordered a set of already organized and perhaps mixed sayings.
4. To understand the strange order of CGT, we must remember that from the very beginning of his gospel, the author proposes an esoteric program. He claims to record the "hidden words of the living Jesus" (Prologue). The first word of his gospel promises that the seeker who finds the (true) interpretation of these words will never taste death. Logion 2 then exhorts the seeker to keep searching, for the discovery of the true meaning of Jesus' words will make him troubled, astonished and ultimately king over the All. As logion 3 warns, in this search, one must reject the teaching of "your leaders" (presumably the bishops and presbyters of 2nd-century "mainstream" Christianity). To find the meaning of Jesus' hidden words, we must seek not the outward advice of ecclesiastical authorities, but rather the true knowledge of his inner self, detached from the material world and seen as a son of the living Father. So this gospel is deliberately esoteric, reserved for a spiritual elite.
5. Given all this, it should come as no surprise that CGT regularly presents a shortened form of the parables found in the Synoptics. Some biblical scholars see this brief form of the parables as an indication of an older, independent tradition. This overlooks the fact that Matthew and Luke do the same with Mark's stories. For example, Matthew (Mt 19:9 || Mk 10:11-12) halves Mark's story about the prohibition of divorce, adapting it to his Jewish milieu, where only the man could ask for a divorce, unlike Mark's Roman milieu, where the woman could also ask for a divorce. Another example is Luke's pruning of the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Lk 20:9-19 || Mk 12:1-12). So, a shorter story is not indicative of an older tradition. Conversely, Matthew and Luke, like the author of CGT, can add material to their source to meet their theological objective. Matthew (Mt 14:22-33 || Mk 6:45-52), for example, adds to Mark's account of Jesus walking on the water this scene in which Peter asks Jesus to join him on the water. In short, a shorter or longer story is no indication of its antiquity or independence.
6. Regardless of which category CGT's theology falls into, i.e. Gnostic, Gnosticizing, Encratic, or Middle Platonic, the fact remains that this gospel bears witness to none of the interests that run through the four canonical gospels. For example, it offers no place to the Jewish Scriptures, or to a history of salvation that passes through the prophets and reaches its climax in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and continues through the mission of the Church. On the contrary, CGT takes a negative view of this world and the physical body, of human history and of the organized church as an instrument of salvation, and writes its gospel accordingly.
7. A final factor to consider in analyzing CGT's independence is the wide range of Jesus' sayings in the Synoptics that are found in CGT. Some biblical scholars have compared CGT to the Q document (common to Matthew and Luke), which dates from the 50s and is an independent source. But CGT is very different, since it contains not only words from the Q document, but also material from Matthew and Luke, and even material common to Mark and the Q document. In this case, it is difficult to consider CGT as an earlier, independent source. We have spoken of Jesus' words, but the same observations apply to the parables: CGT contains two parables that otherwise appear only in the Q document, two parables from Mark, three parables from the M document, and one parable from the L document. What's more, even the traces of Matthew's and Luke's editorial work appear in the CGT texts. We can therefore imagine that the author of CGT used a collection of sayings taken from the Synoptics, or from a secondary tradition, or a mixture of both to compose his gospel.

Thomas' Relation to the Synoptics: Test Cases

Parallels in Sayings That Are Not Parables

From a methodological point of view, it is preferable to start with the Greek fragments of CGT, preserved in the Oxyrrhynchus papyrus, which would be the original version of this gospel and CGT would be the Coptic translation. When we examine logion 5, we notice that instead of taking up the somewhat chaotic formulation of Mk 4:22 ("for there is nothing hidden unless so that it may be manifested"), he opts instead for the more elegant formulation of Lk 8:17 ("for there is nothing hidden that will not become manifest"); Luke never uses the verb "to manifest", only the adjective manifest. To safeguard CGT's independence, some biblical scholars have proposed the desperate hypothesis that CGT and Luke used a common source; unfortunately, there is no basis for such a hypothesis. And Logion 5 is not the only example of Luke's influence, and the Coptic version of this Gospel will show that it is widespread.

Still in the Greek version, Luke's influence also appears in logion 31, which echoes a saying of Jesus present in all four Gospels. Here's a literal translation:

Mt 13 : 57	Mk 6: 4	Lk 4: 24	Jn 4: 44	Logion 31 (P. Oxy. 1.30-35)
There is not	There is not	No
a prophet	a prophet	prophet	A prophet	A prophet
without honor	without honor	Is acceptable	in his homeland	is not acceptable
except	except		does not have honor
in [his] hometown	in his hometown	in his hometown		in his hometown

We note that Matthew's sentence is identical to Mark's, the only exception being the absence of the adjective possession for the word "hometown", which is assumed. What's more, the adjective "without honor" does not appear elsewhere in Matthew, nor in four of the Gospels, except here, where it copies Mark. It can be said that Matthew depends on Mark.

Luke modifies Mark's sentence. Firstly, to avoid the double negation, he substitutes a simple statement introduced by the indefinite adjective "no (one)" which qualifies the word "prophet". And the adjective "without honor" is replaced by "acceptable", a rare word found only in Luke (2 times in his Gospel, 1 time in Acts) and Paul (2 times). Since the entire context (Lk 4:16-20) is redactional, i.e. a rewriting and expansion of Mark's account of Jesus' rejection by his own people, we can assume that Lk 4:24 is also redactional. The ending of Lk 4:24 ("in his hometown") is a copy of Mark.

John's version, while literarily independent, probably comes from a common pool of oral tradition. Like Luke, John presents a simple statement. Like Mark and Matthew, the negation modifies the verb, not the noun as in Luke. But unlike the Synoptics, who use the copula "to be", John uses the transitive verb "to have". Finally, although John uses the same Greek word (patris), its meaning is not the same: in the Synoptics, the context is Nazareth and its synagogue, and so the word should be translated: hometown, whereas in John Jesus arrives in Galilee, returning from Samaria, and so the word should be translated: homeland.

The Greek version of the Gospel of Thomas follows Mark's vocabulary and order, but diverges on two points: it shares with Luke 1) the formula of a simple statement with a single negation (and not two with "except"), and 2) the use of the adjective "acceptable", a word that comes from Luke's redactional work. We have here a typical example of Thomas's Gospel combining the synoptic versions while copying certain elements from Luke.

While the Greek version of the Gospel of Thomas tends to follow Luke's wording, it also sometimes follows the wording of other evangelists, such as Matthew, particularly his own M material. Let's examine Mt 10:16b in parallel with the Gospel of Thomas in both its Greek and Coptic versions.

Mt 10: 16b	Logion 39 (Greek version: P. Oxy. 655)	Logion 39 (CGT)
So become clever	But you, become clever	But you, become clever
as the snakes	as snakes	as the snakes
and innocent	and innocent	and innocent
as the doves	as doves	as the doves

Clearly, these are three versions of the same saying. The only difference is in the first part, and is explained by a different context. In Matthew, 16b follows on from 16a, a text from the Q document in which Jesus warns his missionaries that he is sending them out like sheep among wolves, and 16b then becomes an exhortation that draws the consequences: "So become clever...". In the Gospel of Thomas, on the other hand, the context is one of reproaches to the Pharisees for hiding the keys of knowledge, and so the "But you..." contrasts the attitude of the disciples.

The question is: how to explain this close parallel between Matthew and the Gospel according to Thomas? Is it a common ancient tradition, or did the author of the Gospel according to Thomas simply copy Matthew? Let's remember that the context of Mt 10:16b is the mission discourse, one of the five major discourses of his gospel, in which Matthew combines traditions from Mark, the Q document, the M document and his own creations. We can anticipate that the same applies to the mission discourse. In fact, Mt 10:16a, which precedes our text, takes a passage from the Q document, and what follows, Mt 10:17-18, is a copy of Mark's text. What about Mt 10, 16b? It is unique, i.e. found nowhere else in the Gospels. Does it then come from Matthew's special material, known as source M? Note that v. 16b plays a pivotal role in Jesus' discourse, between instructions addressed specifically to missionaries and instructions on the future situation of the disciple facing persecution. This observation points to Matthew's own touch. In fact, the adjective "clever" is part of Matthew's vocabulary (7 occurrences out of a total of 9 in the Gospels-Acts), as is the noun "snake" (with three occurrences, he uses it the most in the Gospels-Acts), while he is the only one to use the adjective "innocent". But what's even more important is that, while the metaphor around snakes and doves is known in the Greco-Roman world and in Jewish writings, there's no evidence of an identical proverb-like formulation that we could date before Matthew's Gospel. It is therefore likely that v. 16b is a creation of Matthew, and that Thomas's Gospel is dependent on Matthew.

We have just seen the dependence of the Gospel of Thomas on Luke and Matthew. We'll see later that we can add the Q document and even Mark. What does this mean? It's implausible that a text that depends on so many sources should predate them.

Let's turn now to the Coptic translation of the Gospel of Thomas (CGT), which is, of course, later than the Greek original.

Mk 7, 15	Mt 15, 11	CGT 14
There is nothing outside a man that, by entering into him, can defile him; but those things that come out of a man are the things that defile him.	Not what enters into the mouth defiles a man, but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.	For what enters into your mouth will not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth, this will defile you.

Comparing Matthew's take on Mark's text, we note some of its typical features:

Matthew softens Mark's radical tone ("nothing is outside... that can...) by dropping "nothing" and "that can"; he cannot accept that the whole Mosaic law is revoked;
He organizes the sentence to have two very well-balanced parts ("Not what enters into..., but what which comes out...);
To consolidate the balance, he uses only the singular ("what..."), whereas Mark has the singular at the beginning, and the plural at the end;
He adds precision with the word "mouth", which he divides between the two parts of the sentence;
Finally, he introduces the demonstrative pronoun "this" to express the idea of a summary in his finale.

However, it is highly revealing that CGT uses all five of Matthew's modifications. This makes it unlikely that CGT would have used any oral or other written tradition.

Let's look at a more complicated case, that of the Beatitudes.

Mt 5: 3	Lk 6: 20b	CGT 54
Fortunate are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heavens	Fortunate are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God	Fortunate are the poor for yours is the kingdom of the heavens

What do we observe? First of all, Matthew's beatitude is in the 3rd person, while Luke's is in the 2nd person. What's more, most biblical scholars believe that Matthew has added "in spirit" to the original beatitude, replacing the kingdom of God with the expression "kingdom of heavens". But what does the author of CGT 54 do? The use of the 2nd person and the absence of "in spirit" show that he is following Luke. On the other hand, the presence of the expression "kingdom of heavens" shows that he is following Matthew. He has thus combined the two versions of the Beatitudes. The same tendency to combine the Gospels can be seen in 2nd-century writers such as Didache, Polycarp and Justin.

Here's another example where CGT combines Matthew and Luke. In bold type, we find what is common to Matthew and Luke, and therefore from the Q document. In the CGT column, what's italicized is Matthew's text, what's underlined is Luke's text.

Mt 10: 34-36	Lk 12: 51-53	CGT 16
Do not think that I have come to cast peace upon the earth. I have not come to cast peace but a sword.	Do you imagine that I have appeared to give peace on the earth? No, I say, but rather division. For from now on thee shall be five in one house divided:	Jesus said: "Perhaps men think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. And they do not understand that I have come to cast divisions upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
For I have come to divide man against his father,	three against two and two against three shall they be divided: father against son and son against father,	For there shall be five in a house: three shall be against two and two against three:
and daughter against her mother and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, And [the] enemies of the man [are] the members of his household.	mother against the daughter and daughter against the mother mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law.	the father against the son and the son against the father: and they shall stand as solitary people."

It's difficult to reconstruct the Q document used by Matthew and Luke, since both evangelists have done their share of editorial work. In Mt 10:36, Matthew repeats almost literally Mic 7:6 ("Because a son dishonors a father, a daughter exalts herself over her mother, a daughter-in-law over her mother-in-law, all men enemies (are) men those in the house of him"). As for Luke, in v. 53 he gives details of oppositions where the partners in the conflict are both the attacker and the victim. Moreover, terms like "division" belong to his vocabulary. However, CGT uses terms typical of Matthew, such as "cast", "upon", "sword", and terms typical of Luke, such as "division". As can be seen from what is underlined and what is italicized, CGT has combined Matthew and Luke. This approach to the Gospels is not accidental, but reflects a strong trend.

Another example concerns a text from Q Document.

Mt 10: 37-38	Lk 14: 26-27	CGT 55
	If anyone comes to me and
The one who loves father or mother	does not hate his father and mother	The one who will not hate his father and his mother
more than me is not worthy of me		will not be able to be a disciple to me,
and the one who loves son or daughter more than me	and wife and children and brothers and sisters and even his own life,	and [the one who will not] hate his brothers and his sisters
is not worthy of me.	he cannot be my disciple.
And whoever does not take his cross	Whoever does not carry his cross	and will not bear his cross like me
and follow after me,	and come after me
is not worthy of me.	cannot be my disciple.	shall not become worthy of me.

Matthew's leitmotif phrase is "not worthy of me", and Luke's is "not to be my disciple". Many biblical scholars believe that the expression "worthy of me" is a creation of Matthew's, which is included with the same expression earlier in the missionary discourse, while Luke's expression "be my disciple" is common in the Gospels and could be the original expression of the Q document. Furthermore, Matthew would have softened the radical and very Semitic expression "hate" from the Q document, and present in Luke, opting for "love more than". What do we observe in CGT 55? It borrows the expression "worthy of me" from Matthew, and "hate father and mother", "be my disciple" and "brothers and sisters" from Luke. Once again, CGT combines evangelical texts, while leaning towards Luke.

Another example is CGT's use of a text from Mark that is repeated in Matthew and Luke. CGT's square brackets indicate that the original order, reflected by the number that accompanies the bracket, has been altered for purposes of comparison.

Mk 2: 21-22	Mt 9: 16-17	Lk 5: 36b-39	CGT 47
No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment;	No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment;	No one, tearing a piece from a new cloak, puts it on an old garment;	[3 They do not sew an old patch on a new garment,
otherwise, the added piece [literally, "the fullness"] pulls away from it, [i.e.,] the new from the old, and a worse tear results	for its added piece pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results.	otherwise, he will tear the new [garment], and the patch from the new [garment] will not match the old.	since there will be a tear.]
And no one pours [literally, "throws"] new wine into old wineskins;	Nor do they pour new wine into old wineskins;	And no one pours new wine into old wineskins;	[2 And they do not pour old wine into a new wineskin
otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost [as well as] the skins.	otherwise, the wineskins burst and the wine is poured out and the wine skins are lost.	otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be poured out and the wineskins will be lost.	lest it destroy it. and they do not pour [literally, "throw"] new wine into old wineskins, lest they burst.]
But new wine [must be poured] into new wineskins.	But they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both will be preserved.	But new wine must be poured into new wineskins.
		And no one, drinking old [wine], desires new [wine]; for he says, "The old [wine] is better."	[1 No one drinks old wine and immediately desires to drink new wine]

Two observations are in order.

Luke's final statement about the preference for old wine is a creation of the evangelist himself, as it doesn't fit with the metaphor of new wine and old wineskins. And it's customary to put what you add at the end. And as a similar text is also found in CGT, the author of the latter was therefore familiar with the Lucan version of this pericope, and by repeating it, shows his preference for this version.
Once we accept that the author of CGT likes to work with the Lucan version, we can see that he has taken it up in the completely opposite order, starting first with the preference for old wine, then tackling the problem that you can't put new wine in old wineskins, and finally ending with the word about the piece you sew to a garment.

Let's consider a final example linked to the triple tradition (Mark, Matthew, Luke).

Mk 3: 31-35	Mt 12: 46-50	Lk 8: 19-21	CGT 99
	And while he was speaking to the crowds,
And his mother and his brothers come,	behold his mother and his brothers	Then his mother and his brothers came to him,
and standing outside,	stood outside,
they sent to him, calling him.	seeking to speak to him.	but they could not reach him because of the crowd.
And a crowd was sitting around him, and they say to him,	But someone said to him,	And he was told,	The disciples said to him:
"Behold, your mother and your brothers	"Behold your mother and your brothers	"Your mother and your brothers	'Your brothers and your mother
are seeking you outside."	are standing outside seeking to speak to you.	sare standing outside, wanting to see you."	are standing outside.'
And answering them he says,	But answering he said to the one speaking to him,	But he said to them,	He said to them:
'Who is my mother and [my] brothers?'	"Who is my mother and who are my brothers?"
And looking around at those sitting in a circle around him, he says,	And extending his hand to his disciples he said,
"Behold my mother and my brothers.	"Behold my mother and my brothers.	"My mother and my brothers are those
Whoever does the will of God,	For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven,	who hear the word of God and do it."	'Those here who do the will of my Father,
he is my brother and sister and mother,"	he is my brother and sister and mother.		these are my brothers and my mother.
			They are the ones who shall go into the kingdom of my Father.'

First, let's compare Mark and Matthew.

Both agree that Jesus' mother and brothers are standing outside, and this is reported to Jesus.
The two agree in the finale to mention in order: brother, sister and mother, to include the beginning, which speaks first of mother, making her the most important character.
The two differ in the way they present Jesus' action: in Mark, Jesus gazes at those seated in a circle around him; in Matthew, Jesus extends his hand to his disciples.
The two differ in the vocabulary used to describe the disciple: Mark speaks of "the will of God", Matthew of "the will of my heavenly Father".
Matthew adds a reference to the disciples as a model of those who do the Father's will, underlining the importance of their role as he does throughout his gospel

Comments on Luke's version :

Luke abbreviates much of what he receives from Mark
However, he adds an explanation as to why it was impossible to see Jesus: because of the crowd.
He omits the rhetorical question ("Who is my mother...") and the symbolic gesture of looking at the people around him, and immediately moves on to Jesus' answer about listening to the word, which allows him to identify Jesus' mother and brothers with those who listen to the word of God and do it, and thereby retain the positive image of Jesus' mother presented in the infancy story.
In his finale, Luke speaks only of "mother and brothers", with no mention of sisters, thus aligning his conclusion with his introduction, which speaks only of mother and brothers.

Comments on CGT 99

CGT takes storytelling even further than Luke
As in Mark, it is a group (plural) that announces the presence of the mother and brothers, but it copies the presence of the disciples from Matthew's Gospel.
It borrows from Matthew and Luke the fact that the brothers and the mother stand, a fact absent from Mark, while mentioning the brothers first, before the mother, an order it maintains throughout its gospel
Like Luke, CGT mentions only the brothers and the mother in its finale.
Like Luke, its ending uses the plural ("those who do... the will..."), not the singular of Mark and Matthew ("he who..."; "whoever").

The analysis of these different literary genres, apart from the parables, confirms a strong trend in CGT: that of combining the different gospel narratives, with a tendency to prefer Luke's version. We shall see that this trend continues with the parables.

Parallels Taken from the Parable Tradition

The parable of the mustard seed

This parable is found in both the Q document (Matthew and Luke) and Mark.

Mk 4: 30-32	Mt 13: 31-32	Lk 13: 18-19	CGT 20
He also said, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it?	He put before them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like	He said therefore, "What is the kingdom of God like? And to what should I compare it?	The disciples asked Jesus, "Tell us, what can the kingdom of heaven be compared to?" He said to them, "It can be compared
It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth,	a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all the seeds,	It is like a mustard seed that someone took and cast in the garden;	to a mustard seed. Though it's the smallest of all the seeds,
yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs and makes large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade."	but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches."	it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches."	when it falls upon tilled ground it makes a branch so large that it becomes a shelter for the birds of heaven."

Luke seems to best reflect the original version of the Q document, while Matthew seems to have combined the Q document ("a seed that someone took... becomes a tree... birds come and make nests in its branches") with Mark ("the smallest of all seeds... the greatest of shrubs").

First, let's compare Mark's version with Luke's (=Q). We can see the following structure:

Introduction. Mark introduces the parable with a double rhetorical question ("With what can we compare... or what parable..."), while in Luke there is also a double question, but with the words of the Q document ("What is the kingdom of God like? And to what should I compare it?")
The sowing of the seed. In Mark, Jesus' answer is first a simple expression ("like a mustard seed") before specifying that it's the smallest of the seeds with twice the mention "on earth". In Luke, Jesus' answer is a complete sentence, with a man as the subject and a "garden" as the place, with no mention of it being the smallest of the seeds.
Growth. In Mark, growth is in the present tense ("it grows up"), and the mustard seed becomes the largest vegetable plant and makes large branches. In Luke, this growth is in the past tense and is very laconic: the seed has become a tree.
Result. In Mark, the result is introduced by: "so that"; birds can take shelter under its shade. In Luke, there is no expression to designate the result, but only the mention that birds take shelter in its branches.

Let's take a look at Matthew

Introduction. No question introduces the parable, but a simple statement: "The kingdom of heaven is like..."
The sowing of the seed. As in the Q Document (=Lk), the subject is a man, but instead of the verb "to cast", he uses the verb "to sow" as in Mark. But unlike Luke, who speaks of "garden", and Mark, who speaks of "ground", Matthew speaks of "field". He copies Mark's reference to the smallest seed.
Growth. Matthew uses the same verb as Q Document (increase), but using the same verb tense and grammatical structure as Mark ("and when it is"), as well as his mention in the present indicative that it is greater than all shrubs, before returning to Q to mention that the seed has become a tree.
Result. It is introduced with the same grammatical construction as Mark (so that), but to insert Q's expression (=Lk) about the birds of the air sheltering in its branches.

Let's take a look at CGT's harmonization work.

Introduction. The parable is introduced by a simple phrase as in Matthew and with the same expression "kingdom of heaven". But this sentence has the form of a question (to what is comparable) which resembles Luke's first question. It's a technique peculiar to the author of CGT to introduce a pericope by putting a question addressed to Jesus on the disciples' lips.
The sowing the seed. Jesus answers the question precisely, as in Luke, and with a complete sentence, as in Matthew. The answer is immediately followed by the mention that this is the smallest of the seeds in a main sentence, as in Matthew, but a mention that comes before the sowing. CGT uses the conjunction "when" found in Mark and Matthew, but with Matthew's expression "but when". Similarly, it uses Mark's exact expression "upon the ground", but adds the qualifier "tilled", a qualifier usually associated with a field, as spoken of by Matthew.
Growth. Like Mark, CGT uses the expression "to make a branch", but with "branch" in the singular, the singular predominant in the Gnostic world where he the container of all knowledge is always unique. Moreover, it uses the verb "to become" like Matthew to speak of the result of growth.
Result. For CGT, the denouement is found in the shelter for the birds, also mentioned by the three Synoptics, but whose Coptic word also carries the nuance of shadow, as in Mark.

Another, slightly more complicated parable, in which CGT combines the synoptic versions, is that of the Wicked Tenants.

Mk 12: 1-12	Mt 21: 33-46	Lk 20: 9-19	CGT 65-66
Then he began to speak to them in parables. "A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the winepress, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went away.	"Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a winepress in it, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenants and went away.	He began to tell the people this parable: "A man planted a vineyard and leased it to tenants and went away for a long time.	He said, "A usurious man owned a vineyard. He leased it out to some farmer to work it so he could collect its fruit.
When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the fruits of the vineyard.	When the harvest time had come, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his fruits.	When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants in order that they might give him his share of the fruit of the vineyard,	He sent his slave so that the farmers could give him the fruit of the vineyard.
But they seized him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed.	But the tenants seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another.	but the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed.	They seized his slave, beat him, and nearly killed him. The slave went back and told his master. His master said, 'Perhaps he just didn't know them.'
And again he sent another slave to them; this one they beat over the head and insulted.	Again he sent other slaves, more than the first, and they treated them in the same way.	Next he sent another slave; that one also they beat and insulted and sent away empty-handed.	He sent another slave, but the tenants beat that one too.
Then he sent another, and that one they killed. And so it was with many others; some they beat, and others they killed.		And he sent still a third; this one also they wounded and threw out.
He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.'	Then he sent his son to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.'	Then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect him.'	Then the master sent his son, thinking, 'Perhaps they will respect him, my son.'
But those tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.'	But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.'	But when the tenants saw him, they discussed it among themselves and said, 'This is the heir; let us kill him so that the inheritance may be ours.'	Those farmers, since they knew that he was the heir of the vineyeard, seized him (and) killed him.
So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.	So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him.	So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.	they seized and killed him.
What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others.	Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?" 41 They said to him, "He will put those wretches to a miserable death and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time."	What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others." When they heard this, they said, "Heaven forbid!"	Let him who has ears hear"
Have you not read this scripture: 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is amazing in our eyes'?"	Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the scriptures:'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is amazing in our eyes'?	But he looked at them and said, "What then does this text mean: 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'?	Jesus said, "Show me the stone the builders rejected; that's the cornerstone."
	"Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces its fruits. The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and it will crush anyone on whom it falls."	Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, and it will crush anyone on whom it falls."
When they realized that he had told this parable against them, they wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowd. So they left him and went away.	When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking about them. 46 They wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet.	When the scribes and chief priests realized that he had told this parable against them, they wanted to lay hands on him at that very hour, but they feared the people.

A number of biblical scholars consider the independence of the CGT narrative based on the following presuppositions:

CGT's version would be more plausible than that of the Synoptics. But this overlooks the fact that Luke himself is trying to make Mark's account more plausible, and the CGT version also contains implausibilities.
The CGT version would be more primitive, as it lacks the introductory formula to Isa 5:1-2 ("And have you not read this Scripture..."). But this is to forget that Luke himself reduced the reference to Isaiah.
The CGT version would be more primitive because of the absence of allusions to the OT and allegorical features present in the Synoptics. But this overlooks the fact that CGT is probably a Gnostic writing with a negative view of Judaism and the Scriptures, and intends to present esoteric sayings of Jesus accessible only to the initiated.
CGT's version pre-dates the Synoptics, since we don't see Jesus' veiled claim to be the son who will be killed, a claim only possible after Easter. But the problem is that we don't know what the historical Jesus explicitly or implicitly said about himself.
CGT's version would be more primitive, as it is shorter. But Matthew and Luke prove otherwise: their gospels were written after Mark's, but they often greatly reduced Mark's account, especially Matthew's.

First, let's comment on Mark's version.

Setup. The planting of the vineyard corresponds to the Septuagint version of Isa 5:2. What's new is the fact of giving this vineyard in tenancy and leaving.
Sending slaves to collect the fruit. There are several sendings of slaves: the first is beaten and sent away empty-handed, the second is hit on the head and disgraced, the third is killed, and several others, some of whom are beaten, others killed.
Sending the son. The owner has one more person, his beloved son. He sends him last, figuring they'll have respect for his son.
The killing of the son. The winegrowers, knowing that he is the heir, decide to kill him to obtain the inheritance. After killing him, they throw him out of the vineyard, denying him a decent burial.
The double conclusion.
1. First question: Jesus asks the rhetorical question ("What will the Lord of the vineyard do?"), and Jesus answers: "He will destroy the vinedressers and give the vineyard to others".
2. Second question: Jesus asks the rhetorical question ("And have you not read this Scripture?"), and Jesus quotes Ps 117:22-23 according to the Septuagint: "The stone which the builders rejected..."

Matthew, as he often does, has abbreviated the narrative, particularly the sequence of events, even if he does lengthen certain sayings.

Setup. Matthieu points out that the man is a "landowner", a title he often uses.
Sending slaves to collect the fruit. The sending involves several slaves in increasing numbers who will be beaten, killed, stoned.
The sending of the son. In his effort to shorten the narrative, Matthew reduces the sending of slaves before the sending of the son to two, and the sending of the son is reduced to a single sentence, without the mention that he is the beloved.
The killing of the son. To accentuate the allegory, Matthew reverses the order of events: the son is first thrown out of the vineyard (Jerusalem) before being killed, a reflection of Jesus' passion and death.
The double conclusion. Matthew expands the formulation.
1. First question: Jesus asks the rhetorical question ("When the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to these tenants?"), and the Jewish authorities answer (condemning themselves): "He will put those wretches to a miserable death and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time".
2. Second question: Jesus asks the rhetorical question ("Have you never read in the scriptures?"), and Jesus not only quotes Ps 117:22-23 according to the Septuagint: "The stone that the builders rejected...", but applies the parable to the Jewish authorities ("Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people [church, made up of Jews and Gentiles]...").

Luke shortens Mark's account even further, from 114 Greek words to 100.

Setup. Luke eliminates the allusion to Isa 5:2, retaining only the mention of a man planting a vineyard. On the other hand, no doubt to make the story plausible, he indicates that the man is going on a journey for a while.
Sending slaves to collect the fruit. There are three dispatches of a single slave who is in turn beaten, outraged, wounded and thrown out of the vineyard.
The sending of the son. In a typical Lukan interior dialogue, the man wonders what to do before thinking that "maybe" they'll be considerate of him.
The killing of the son. Like Matthew, Luke reverses the order of events to reflect Jesus' passion.
The double conclusion. Like Matthew, Luke gives expansion to Jesus' remarks.
1. Luke repeats Jesus' rhetorical question and answer almost word for word.
2. Second rhetorical question: ("What then does this text mean?"), and Jesus' answer includes only v. 22 of Ps 117 to which Luke adds Dan 2:24-35,44-45 according to the Septuagint and perhaps Isa 8:14-15 ("Whoever falls on this stone will be crushed...").

In short, as we move forward in time, we note the tendency to shorten the narrative, while giving expansion to Jesus' second rhetorical question. There is also a tendency - barely visible in Matthew, clearer in Luke - to make the story more plausible. In Luke, for example, no slaves are killed.

With CGT, the story is further shortened, made more plausible with editorial perspectives at each stage of the narrative.

Setup. Like Luke, CGT omits the allusion to Isa 5:2. In an effort to remain brief, he inserts here the owner's expectation: to collect his fruit from them.
Sending slaves to collect the fruit. CGT combines both Matthew and Luke for brevity and to make the story more plausible: there's only one slave sent at a time, and he's not killed, only beaten, making the son's sending more plausible. Like Matthew, only two sendings precede the sending of the son. Like Luke, the sending of the first slave is accompanied by the reason for the sending (so that) with almost the same words, in particular the word "fruit" in the singular. Note that the use of the verb "to give" with "fruit" is very rare and reflects Luke's editorial work here. CGT's use of the same expression reflects his dependence on Luke.

CGT uses the verb "to seize" from Mark and Matthew, and the possessive adjective "his" slave from Matthew (plural in Matthew). Like Mark and Luke, there is no murder in the first sending. But in CGT, it's important that the only one sent is not killed, so that he can report the farmers' refusal. But CGT is aware that slaves are killed in Matthew's, for he adds: "and nearly killed him". Finally, to add further plausibility to the story, CGT borrows from Luke the owner's inner monologue before sending off his son, in which he said to himself: "perhaps they will respect him". In CGT, however, this monologue occurs both before the second slave is sent and before the son is sent, with Luke's expression "perhaps" present on both occasions. Note that the phrase "Maybe he just didn't know them" (the slave would not have recognized the farmers) poses a problem: we would have expected "Perhaps they did not know him" (the farmers would not have recognized the slave). No satisfactory solution has been found.
The sending of the son. Like Matthew, CGT makes the sending of the son an independent statement ("he sent his son") and omits "beloved". But like Luke, this sending takes the form of a monologue with the rare expression "perhaps", the only occurrence in Luke and the whole N.T., and the only occurrence also in CGT. Finally, CGT combines Mark's and Matthew's "my son" with Luke's personal pronoun "him" in the sentence: "Perhaps they will respect him, my son."
The killing of the son. The denouement is kept to a minimum. Note that CGT's use of the demonstrative adjective "those farmers" echoes Marc's adjective "those tenants". But what is special about CGT is the use of the verb "to know", a central theme in the Gnostics: earlier he mentioned the ignorance of the owner's slave (=the blind, tyrannical demiurge that is the Creator), which is now contrasted with the knowledge of the rebellious, free farmers. CGT then takes up Mark's expression: they seized him and killed him. This is where the parable ends abruptly. This sudden ending, without commentary or scriptural reference, is typical of CGT, for whom the meaning of Jesus' words is hidden; only the initiated will have access to this meaning, hence the refrain: "Let him who has ears hear".
The double conclusion. It is to be expected that CGT will not repeat the double conclusion as it stands. For on the one hand, the announcement of Jerusalem's destruction is part of a vision of salvation history that begins with the prophets and comes to a close with Jesus' death, which doesn't fit CGT's theology at all, and on the other hand his sidelining of the OT doesn't allow him to introduce an explicit quotation. Nevertheless, in his own way, he offers us a double conclusion. The first is a reminder that the parable contains an enigma ("Let him who has ears hear"); the second takes up Luke's abbreviated reference to Ps 117 (LXX), but without mentioning that it is a reference to Scripture; CGT makes it a separate logion, introduced by: "Jesus said", a logion that takes the form of an enigma.

In short, CGT follows the trend observed in Matthew and Luke to shorten the narrative while inserting editorial touches. Although features of Mark and Matthew are present in CGT, it is mainly Luke's redactional changes that are reflected in these gospels: 1) an abrupt beginning without reference to Isa 5:2; 2) the expression of the purpose of sending the slave ("to give him the fruit of the vineyard"); 3) the omission of the killing of the slave; 4) the monologue of the owner with the expression "perhaps". CGT thus depends on the Synoptics. At the same time, CGT imbues the story with its editorial intent: 1) by abbreviating the narrative, it accentuates its hidden meaning; 2) by inserting the theme of knowing/not knowing, it invites the reader to enter into this hidden meaning.

Having examined parables that have parallels in the Synoptics, let's now consider the case where CGT's parallel is only with Matthew's special material (M), for example the parable of the Wheat and the Weeds.

Mt 13: 24-30	CGT 57
The kingdom of heaven is like a man sowing good seed in his field.	The kingdom of the lather is like a man who had good seed.
While the men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds in the midst of the wheat and left.	His enemy came at night and sowed weeds upon the good seed.
When the plants began to sprout and produce grain, then the weeds also appeared.
Approaching, the slaves of the householder said to him, "Sir, did you nor 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 us then to go out and gather them?"
He says, "No, lest in gathering the weeds you uproot the wheat with them.	The man did not allow them 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.
Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of the harvest I will say to the harvesters, 'Gather first the weeds and tie them into bundles in order to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"	For on the day of the harvest, the weeds will appear. They pull them up and burn them."

With this parallel in mind, there are three possibilities:

CGT 57 is an abridged version of the text from Matthew's Gospel
CGT 57 is an abbreviated version of the M tradition used by Matthew
CGT 57 is an independent version that may even be the oldest form of the parable.

The following analysis is intended to demonstrate that CGT 57 is not an independent version, but is probably an abridged version of Matthew's Gospel.

First, let's look at the narrative sequence.

The first difference is apparent in the staging. CGT does not mention the action of sowing; it assumes it. Whereas Matthew describes the enemy's action when people are asleep, CGT laconically mentions that the weeds are sown by night.
CGT ignores the heart of Matthew's parable, i.e. the sequence of events where the seed rises and the slaves, noticing the catastrophe, question the master; it has retained only the master's prohibition in an almost unintelligible sentence ("The man did not allow them to pull up the weeds"): what does the personal pronoun "them" designate (we must assume it's the servants never mentioned before)? What's more, we suddenly switch to direct style with "we" and "you".
In the denouement of the parable, CGT surprisingly introduces an eschatological element: "on the day of harvest". Usually, eschatology is totally absent from his gospel, and unlike Matthew, where the master had asked that the seeds be left to grow until harvest time, in CGT the master had never spoken of harvest time. What's more, in its denouement, CGT, unlike Matthew's parable, is only interested in the fate of the weeds, not the wheat. How can this be explained? It is likely that CGT is influenced here by Matthew's allegorical explanation inserted a few verses later (Mt 13:37-43), where the emphasis is above all on the fate of the weeds.
There's another problem with the denouement. In Matthew, the progression of the seed is clearly explained: at first, the wheat is indistinguishable from the weeds, but after a period of growth, the ear appears and distinguishes it from the weeds. This does not yet allow the weeds to be uprooted, as their roots are probably intertwined, and uprooting the weeds would mean uprooting the unripe wheat as well. But CGT, because of its conciseness, offers an illogical sequence: immediately after the mention of the seed, the man intervenes to forbid the removal of the weeds, without us knowing how wheat and weeds could have been distinguished, and then, in a contradictory manner, affirms that it is only at harvest time that the weeds appear.
CGT's conclusion is also problematic. After mentioning that the weeds will appear, we have the phrase: "They pull them up and burn them". What does "they" mean? In Matthew, it's clear: it's the reapers. But CGT never mentions reapers. What does this mean? This is an example of a clumsy attempt to shorten a text from Matthew.

Analysis of the narrative sequence has shown that CGT offers us an abbreviated and confused version of Matthew's parable. Analysis of CGT's words and expressions will also confirm the borrowings from Matthew.

From the outset, CGT uses the expression "Kingdom of the Father", a highly unusual expression found only in Matthew. And here in the parable, CGT would have borrowed it from the allegorical explanation of Mt 13:43.
The expression "his enemy" may seem incomprehensible at first in Matthew's parable, but receives its full meaning in the allegorical explanation as the man who sows is identified with the son of man, and the enemy with the devil, confirming what Matthew had presented to us in the account of Jesus' temptations. But the same expression in CGT remains totally obscure, without Matthew's enlightenment.
When Matthew describes the enemy's action, he uses the Greek verb epispeiro, composed of preposition epi (upon) and the verbe speiro (to sow), and should therefore be translated literally: (his enemy) sowed weeds upon the wheat. Note that this is the only occurrence of this verb in the NT and Septuagint, and even in the Church Fathers. However, CGT has translated this verb with the verb "to sow" and the preposition "upon", echoing the same turn of phrase in Coptic.
The Greek word that has been translated as "weeds" is zizanion, which could also be translated as tares or darnel or cheat. Yet this term appears only in Matthew's parable and its allegorical explanation throughout the NT and Septuagint, and is even absent from secular Greek before the Christian era. Its presence in CGT can only be explained by Matthew's influence.
The phrase "on the day of the harvest" echoes Matthew's "at the time of harvest". Likewise, CGT's phrase "They pull them up and burn them" would be incomprehensible if we didn't have Matthew's finale: "I will say to the reapers, 'First gather the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them'", because CGT never specifies what "they" means?

In short, we can conclude:

CGT's story can only be understood as a seriously abridged version of Matthew's parable.
Some of the locutions in CGT most likely originate from Matthieu's editorial work.
CGT's abridgement of Matthew's account is undoubtedly influenced by Matthew's allegorical explanation that follows his parable.

All this allows us to say:

CGT's story is not a stand-alone earlier version
CGT's story depends on Matthew's text

We've intentionally saved a parallel between CGT and a parable from Luke (L) for last, because of the special problems involved.

A. Introduction

Lk 12: 13-15	CGT 72
Someone from the crowd said to him [Jesus]:	A man said to him [Jesus]:
"Teacher, tell my brother	"Tell my brothers
to divide the inheritance	to divide the possessions of my father
with me."	with me."
He (Jesus] said to him:	He [Jesus] said to him:
"Man, who appointed me a judge or divider over you [plural]?"	"O man, who made me a divider?"
He said to them:	He turned to his disciples
"Watch out and guard yourselves	and said to them
against all greed, for a person's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."	"I am not a divider, am I?"

B. The parable

Lk 12: 16-21	CGT 63
He (Jesus] told them a parable, saying:	Jesus said:
"A rich man had a field	"There was a rich man
that produced abundantly.	who had many possessions.
He thought to himself, saying,	He said,
'What shall I do,	'I shall use my possessions
for I do not have [a place] where I may gather my fruits?'	so that I may sow and reap, plant and fill
And he said:
'This [is what] I shall do:
I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I shall gather all my grain and my goods.	my barns with fruit.'
And I shall say to my soul,	These were his thoughts
"Soul, you have many good things laid up for many years.	on these matters in his heart.
Relax, eat, drink, make merry."'
But God said to him:
Fool, this very night	And that very night
your soul is being demanded of you.	he died.
The things you have prepared,
to whom will they belong?'
So [it is with] the person who heaps up treasure for himself, and is not rich [in the things that] concern God.	He who has ears, let him hear."

We're faced with a paradox: in the parallels between the Synoptics and CGT that we've examined, we've observed the influence of Luke's version on CGT. Yet when we consider Luke's own parables, we are surprised to note that only the parable of the rich fool with its introduction (Lk 12:13-21) is echoed in CGT.
It has been observed that the various sayings of Jesus in the Synoptics have been dispersed by CGT in an order of his own in his Gospel. Now, he has done the same with Luke's parable and its introduction, which have been separated and placed in a different sequence, the introduction coming nine logia after the parable itself, CGT thus giving the introduction an independent meaning.
In parallel, there is the question of the origin of Luke's story: is it a primitive tradition going back to the historical Jesus, or is it an ancient tradition heavily reworked by Luke, or is it purely Luke's creation, either for the introduction or for the parable itself?
What adds a degree of complexity to the problem is the fact that the parable weaves together warnings about 1) blind faith in riches and 2) uncertainty about the moment of one's own death. These themes run through the entire sapiential tradition, intertestamental literature, the NT, rabbinic literature, not to mention Greco-Roman philosophy. And more specifically, we have the impression that Sir 11:18-19 could have been the source of the parable. Here is a translation of the Hebrew original discovered in the Cairo Geniza:
There is a man who grows rich by leading a pinched existence ... [and] this is his allotted reward: when he says, "I have found rest, and now I shall eat from my bounty," he does not know what the limited span [of his life] will be. And he will leave it to others and die.

Luke's account and that of CGT could be independent of each other, each having reformulated in its own way Sir 11:18-18, where all the elements of the parable appear: a rich man in an interior monologue, making plans to enjoy his prosperity while death lurks, rendering all his plans futile.
However, other considerations make this option unlikely. First, there are elements in Luke that are absent from Sirach.
1. Destroying existing barns to build larger ones
2. The rich man's immediate death ("this night")
3. God's unusual intervention in a direct style
Secondly, Sirach presents elements that are absent from Luke's account.
1. The man got rich on penny-pinching
Finally, CGT differs from Luke's account.
1. The wealthy man conducts his farming activity according to a long-term plan, not as a fait accompli that creates a space problem.
2. The rich man's death occurs without God's intervention.

Let's now make a detailed comparison between Luke's account and that of CGT.

General considerations on Luke's technique for linking introductory anecdotes to parables

Luke is the only one of the Synoptics to offer an anecdote featuring an interlocuteur outside the circle of his disciples as an introduction to a parable. At most, Matthew offers a scene (Mt 18:21-22) in which a question from Peter leads to the parable of the unforgiving debtor (Mt 18:23-35). A very revealing example is the way in which Matthew and Luke take up the Q document. Matthew never introduces any of the parables from this source. Luke, on the other hand, usually presents a short scene with an interlocutor who addresses Jesus and prompts him to tell a parable. Luke uses the same technique in his own parables. The following examples illustrate this:
1. The parable of the two debtors (Lk 7:41-43), part of a wider discussion between Jesus and Simon the Pharisee
2. To introduce the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-37), Luke has reworked the passage from Mk 12:28-34, where a lawyer discusses the commandment of love with Jesus.
3. The parable of the rich fool (Lk 12:16-21) is introduced by an interlocutor with an inheritance problem.
4. The parable of the barren fig tree (Lk 13:6-9) is the climax of Jesus' response to "some people" who informed him of Pilate's massacre of Galileans.
5. The parable of the lost drachma (Lk 15:8-10) is Jesus' response to the criticism of the Pharisees and scribes who see him eating with sinners.
6. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31) is a response to the mockery of the Pharisees (Lk 16:14-15) who loved money.
7. The parable of the widow and the begging judge (Lk 18:1-8) follows an exhortation to always pray without becoming discouraged.
8. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector is a response to those who thought they were doing God's will and despised others.
Thus, all these introductions are typical of Luke and are intended to describe the audience, purpose and theme of a given parable. Sometimes, as in Luke's own parables, these introductions are developed as short dialogues between Jesus and a stranger creating a memorable sentence. The two finest examples are the parable of the rich fool and the Good Samaritan. A study of the parabolic traditions in the Synoptics reveals that we are dealing here with one of Luke's own inventions.

A corollary is obvious: if the anecdotal introduction to the parable is a creation of Luke's, and not an independent tradition that has circulated, it follows that the author of CGT 72 knew this introduction as well as the parable that followed; his source is therefore not some sapiential tradition, but Luke himself.
Comparison of Lk 12:13-15 and CGT 72

Luke's text and CGT have the same basic structure and content.
1. In both texts, a man comes out of nowhere and asks Jesus to intervene to divide the inheritance with his brother. One imagines that this is an inheritance from the father, which only CGT specifies with the expression "from my father", whom the Gnostic initiate can identify with the God revealed in Jesus.
2. In both texts, Jesus answers with a rhetorical question that begins with a vocative ("Man") and continues with the rejection of the role of "divider".
3. In both texts, rather than explaining the reason for his refusal to his interlocutor, Jesus now addresses a wider group that CGT identifies with the disciples, whom Luke refers to as "he said to them", but which can only refer to the disciples according to the preceding context.
4. A discrepancy appears in the conclusion, as is often the case in the Synoptics when one author copies the text of another. Here, Luke presents a moralizing conclusion, while CGT opts for an enigmatic one, repeating Jesus' rhetorical question.
Apart from the same literary structure, the similarity of words also suggests that the source of CGT 72 is Luke's anecdotal introduction.
1. First of all, CGT introduces the logion in an unusual way with the expression: "A man said", i.e. an indefinite article that accompanies the word "man", the subject of a verb in the past tense; this is the only case in the entire Gospel of Thomas. Now, this is the equivalent of Luke's formula: "Someone said", a typical Third Gospel formula for introducing a stranger. How else can we explain CGT's extraordinary formula if not by Luke's influence?
2. Then there's the vocative expression: "O man". Never elsewhere in CGT does the word "man" appear in the vocative. But this is in keeping with Luke's style, particularly in passages where his penmanship is evident. For example, in the account of the paralytic being passed through the roof, Luke transforms the word from Mk 2:5 || Lk 5:20 ("My child") into : "Man", in the vocative. He does the same when he takes Mark's account of Peter's denial (Mk 14:69-71 || Lk 22:58-60), so that Peter's last two responses begin with : "Man", in the vocative. CGT thus reflects Luke's editorial style.
3. In addition, there is the very rare word "divider", which appears nowhere else in the NT. The few uses attested in the pre-Christian period refer to some kind of official connected with finance or the distribution of public funds. In the 1st century CE, the word also seems to be used in the more general sense of "divider", in a physical or metaphorical sense (e.g., in reference to horoscopes). In CGT, the word appears only in this logion. And Jesus' rejection of this role is entirely appropriate in CGT, for in the Gnostic world the Father's kingdom is indivisible, but he who rejects the light of knowledge finds himself divided and filled with darkness. And in his gospel, Thomas praises the "one" and the "solitary" as the Christian ideal.
4. One final point. In Luke, the man gives Jesus the title "Teacher", a title that is very often attributed to Jesus in Luke's Gospel. However, CGT omits this title. Why not? Earlier, in logion 13, Thomas had given Jesus the title of "Teacher", to which Jesus replied: "I am not your Teacher", because Thomas had access to another source of knowledge. So it's logical that CGT should now reject the title of Teacher for Jesus.
What can we conclude? We have spotted enough typically Lucanian features in CGT 72 to affirm that it is dependent on this Lucanian introduction to the parable. We can therefore expect the same of the parable itself. This is what we must now examine.
Comparison of Lk 12:16-21 and CGT 63
1. The parable begins at CGT 63 with the neutral expression "There was a man". However, this is a typical expression used by Luke to introduce many of his own parables, or those he edited extensively: the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:30), the barren fig tree (Lk 13:6), the great feast (Lk 14:16), the prodigal son (Lk 15:11), the skilful manager (Lk 16:1), the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19), the parable of the mines (Lk 19:12).
2. The parable is about a rich man. The "rich" attribute (Greek : plousios) belongs to the Lucan vocabulary: Mt = 3; Mk = 2; Lk = 11; Jn = 0; Acts = 0. And Luke is the only evangelist to use the expression: a rich man (literally in Greek: a certain rich man), and he does so in particular to introduce a parable: the Dishonest Steward, the Rich man and Lazarus, and the Rich Fool. But what does CGT 63 do? Not only does he repeat the same expression in Coptic, but instead of using the normal Coptic adjective for "rich", he uses the Greek term plousios. Of course, this is the only time the term appears in his gospel. CGT therefore clearly depends on Luke.
3. Another feature shared by CGT 63 and Luke is the man's inner monologue. Mk 12:6c features a brief interior monologue ("They will respect my son"), as does the Q document (Mt 24:45-51 || Lk 12:41-46 ("My master is staying away a long time"), but it was Luke who developed the genre into longer interior monologues: the Rich Fool, the Wicked Tenents, the Lost Son, the Unjust Judge, the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. In CGT, there are only two examples of interior monologue, first CGT 65, the parable of the Wicked Tenents, in which he takes up only Mark's short dialogue, and our parable, in which the monologue is much longer, echoing the long interior monologue of Luke's narrative.
4. The beginning of the conclusion is identical: the rich man dies that very night. But the rest is different. First of all, in Luke it is God who speaks. Such a fact is unthinkable in Thomas, where God never intervenes in this world, especially with an unworthy person. Secondly, while Luke proposes a moral about riches, Thomas prefers his favorite theme, in which the listener is invited to set out on a quest for knowledge.
In short, each element of comparison cannot in itself establish with certainty the dependence of CGT 63 on Luke's narrative, but the weight of the whole points with a good degree of probability towards this dependence. But it is the dependence of CGT 72 on Luke's anecdotal introduction that presents the strongest arguments. For this introduction is 1) unique to Luke, 2) clearly intended to introduce the parable and 3) probably a creation of Luke. This observation also extends to our analysis of the parable.

Conclusions

Our analysis has covered both synoptic parallels outside the parables, whether from the Marcan source, or the Mark-Matthew parallels, or the special M or Q source, and parallels from the parabolic narratives. In every case, and regardless of literary genre or content, CGT shows a dependence on synoptic material, whether this dependence is direct or indirect, through a literary source or secondary orality, through copies of the gospel text or catechetical commentaries. Moreover, CGT offers a typical example of the 2nd-century tendency to combine gospel texts, as seen in the Didache, in Polycarp and Justin Martyr.

Following our analysis of 15 logia from the Gospel according to Thomas, we concluded that each of these logia displays a dependence on the synoptic narratives; we can assume that this is the case for all the other logia. Moreover, CGT shows a consistent tendency to combine synoptic narratives or to abbreviate them. It therefore becomes impossible to use CGT as an independent source when we want to apply the multiple attestation criterion in analyzing the historicity of the parables.

Next Chapter: Which parables can be traced back to the historical Jesus?

List of all chapters

John P. Meier, The Marginal Jew,v. 5, ch. 38: The Parables and the Problem of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas,pp 89-188

Does the Coptic Gospel of Thomas offer us information independent of the Synoptics?

John P. Meier, The Marginal Jew,
v. 5, ch. 38: The Parables and the Problem of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas,
pp 89-188