Editing Gospel of Thomas (section)

=== Argument for late composition ===
The late camp dates Thomas some time after 100&nbsp;AD, generally in the early second century.<ref name="Bock2" group=quote>{{harvnb|Bock|2006|pp=61, 63}}: "Most date the gospel to the second century and place its origin in Syria{{nbsp}}[...] Most scholars regard the book as an early second-century work."(61); "However, for most scholars, the bulk of it is later reflecting a second-century work."(63)</ref><ref name="Bock1" group=quote>{{harvnb|Bock|2009|pp=148–149}}: "for most scholars the ''Gospel of Thomas'' is seen as an early-second century text."</ref> They generally believe that although the text was composed around the mid-second century, it contains earlier sayings such as those originally found in the New Testament gospels of which Thomas was in some sense dependent in addition to inauthentic and possibly authentic independent sayings not found in any other extant text. J. R. Porter dates Thomas much later, to the mid-third century.{{sfnp|Porter|2010|p=9}}

====Dependence on the New Testament====
Several scholars have argued that the sayings in Thomas reflect conflations and harmonisations dependent on the canonical gospels. For example, saying 10 and 16 appear to contain a redacted harmonisation of Luke 12:49,<ref>{{bibleverse|Luke|12:49}}</ref> 12:51–52<ref>{{bibleverse|Luke|12:51–52}}</ref> and Matthew 10:34–35.<ref>{{bibleverse|Matthew|10:34–35}}</ref> In this case it has been suggested that the dependence is best explained by the author of Thomas making use of an earlier harmonised oral tradition based on Matthew and Luke.{{sfnp|Snodgrass|1989}}{{sfnp|Grant|Freedman|1960|pp=136–137}} Biblical scholar [[Craig A. Evans]] also subscribes to this view and notes that "Over half of the New Testament writings are quoted, paralleled, or alluded to in Thomas... I'm not aware of a Christian writing prior to 150&nbsp;AD that references this much of the New Testament."{{sfnp|Strobel|2007|p=36}} [[Mark Goodacre]] also argues that Thomas is dependent on the Synoptics. <ref>{{cite book |last= Goodacre |first= Mark |author-link= Mark Goodacre |year= 2012 |title= Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas's Familiarity with the Synoptics |publisher= Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. |isbn= 978-0802867483}}</ref>

Another argument made for the late dating of Thomas is based upon the fact that saying 5 in the original Greek (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654) seems to follow the vocabulary used in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 8:17),<ref>{{bibleverse|Luke|8:17}}</ref> and not the vocabulary used in the Gospel of Mark (Mark 4:22).<ref>{{bibleverse|Mark|4:22}}</ref> According to this argument{{snd}}which presupposes firstly the rectitude of the two-source hypothesis (widely held among current New Testament scholars),<ref>{{Cite book |last=Derrenbacker |first=Robert |title=The Enduring Impact of the Gospel of John: Interdisciplinary Studies |publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers |year=2022 |editor-last1=Derrenbacker |editor-first1=Robert |editor-last2=Lee |editor-first2=Dorothy |editor-last3=Porter |editor-first3=Muriel |location=Eugene |page=3 |chapter=Echoes of Luke in John 20-21}}</ref> in which the author of Luke is seen as having used the pre-existing gospel according to Mark plus a lost Q source to compose their gospel{{snd}}if the author of Thomas did, as saying 5 suggests, refer to a pre-existing Gospel of Luke, rather than Mark's vocabulary, then the Gospel of Thomas must have been composed after both Mark and Luke, the latter of which is dated to between 60 and 90&nbsp;AD.

Another saying that employs similar vocabulary to that used in Luke rather than Mark is saying 31 in the original Greek (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1), where Luke 4:24's term {{transliteration|grc|dektos}} ({{gloss|acceptable}})<ref>{{bibleverse|Luke|4:24}}</ref> is employed rather than Mark 6:4's {{transliteration|grc|atimos}} ({{gloss|without honor}}).<ref>{{bibleverse|Mark|6:4}}</ref> The word {{transliteration|grc|dektos}} (in all its cases and genders) is clearly typical of Luke, since it is only employed by the author in the canonical gospels Luke 4:19,<ref>{{bibleverse|Luke|4:19}}</ref> 4:24, and Acts 10:35.<ref>{{bibleverse|Acts|10:35}}</ref> Thus, the argument runs, the Greek Thomas has clearly been at least influenced by Luke's characteristic vocabulary.<ref group=note>For general discussion, see {{harvp|Meier|1991|pp=137, 163–64 n. 133}}. See also {{harvp|Tuckett|1988|pp=132–57, esp. p. 146}}.</ref>

J. R. Porter states that, because around half of the sayings in Thomas have parallels in the synoptic gospels, it is "possible that the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas were selected directly from the canonical gospels and were either reproduced more or less exactly or amended to fit the author's distinctive theological outlook."{{sfnp|Porter|2010|p=166}} According to [[John P. Meier]], scholars predominantly conclude that Thomas depends on or harmonizes the Synoptics.{{sfnp|Meier|1991|pp=135–138}}

====Syriac origin====
Several scholars argue that Thomas is dependent on Syriac writings, including unique versions of the canonical gospels. They contend that many sayings of the Gospel of Thomas are more similar to Syriac translations of the canonical gospels than their record in the original Greek. [[Craig A. Evans]] states that saying 54 in Thomas, which speaks of the poor and the kingdom of heaven, is more similar to the Syriac version of Matthew 5:3 than the Greek version of that passage or the parallel in Luke 6:20.{{sfnp|Evans|2008|p={{Page needed|date=September 2010}} }}

[[Klyne Snodgrass]] notes that saying 65–66 of Thomas containing the [[Parable of the Wicked Tenants]] appears to be dependent on the early harmonisation of Mark and Luke found in the old Syriac gospels. He concludes that, "''Thomas'', rather than representing the earliest form, has been shaped by this harmonizing tendency in Syria. If the ''Gospel of Thomas'' were the earliest, we would have to imagine that each of the evangelists or the traditions behind them expanded the parable in different directions and then that in the process of transmission the text was trimmed back to the form it has in the Syriac Gospels. It is much more likely that Thomas, which has a Syrian provenance, is dependent on the tradition of the canonical Gospels that has been abbreviated and harmonized by oral transmission."{{sfnp|Snodgrass|1989}}

[[Nicholas Perrin]] argues that Thomas is dependent on the ''[[Diatessaron]]'', which was composed shortly after 172 by [[Tatian]] in Syria.{{sfnp|Perrin|2006}} Perrin explains the order of the sayings by attempting to demonstrate that almost all adjacent sayings are connected by Syriac catchwords, whereas in Coptic or Greek, catchwords have been found for only less than half of the pairs of adjacent sayings.{{sfnp|Perrin|2002}} Peter J. Williams analyzed Perrin's alleged Syriac catchwords and found them implausible.{{sfnp|Williams|2009}} [[Robert F. Shedinger]] wrote that since Perrin attempts to reconstruct an [[Syriac language|Old Syriac]] version of Thomas without first establishing Thomas's reliance on the ''Diatessaron'', Perrin's logic seems [[Circular reasoning|circular]].{{sfnp|Shedinger|2003|p=388}}

====Lack of apocalyptic themes====
[[Bart D. Ehrman]] argues that the [[Historical Jesus#Apocalyptic prophet|historical Jesus]] was an [[apocalypse|apocalyptic]] preacher, and that his apocalyptic beliefs are recorded in the earliest Christian documents: Mark and the authentic [[Pauline epistles]]. The earliest Christians believed Jesus would soon return, and their beliefs are echoed in the earliest Christian writings. The Gospel of Thomas proclaims that the Kingdom of God is already present for those who understand the secret message of Jesus (saying 113), and lacks apocalyptic themes. Because of this, Ehrman argues, the Gospel of Thomas was probably composed by a Gnostic some time in the early 2nd century.{{sfnp|Ehrman|1999|pp=75–78}} Ehrman also argued against the authenticity of the sayings the Gospel of Thomas attributes to Jesus.{{sfnp|Ehrman|2012|p=219}}

[[Elaine Pagels]] points out the Gospel of Thomas promulgates the Kingdom of God not as a final destination but a state of self-discovery. Additionally, the Gospel of Thomas conveys that Jesus ridiculed those who thought of the Kingdom of God in literal terms, as if it were a specific place. Pagels goes on to argue that, through saying 22, readers are to believe the "Kingdom" symbolizes a state of transformed consciousness.{{sfnp|Pagels|1979|pp=128-129}}

[[John P. Meier]] has repeatedly argued against the historicity of the Gospel of Thomas, stating that it cannot be a reliable source for [[The Quest of the Historical Jesus|the quest of the historical Jesus]] and also considers it a Gnostic text.{{sfnp|Meier|1991|p=110}} He has also argued against the authenticity of the parables found exclusively in the Gospel of Thomas.{{sfnp|Meier|2016|p={{page needed|date=July 2021}}}} [[Bentley Layton]] included the Gospel of Thomas into his list of Gnostic scriptures.{{sfnp|Layton|1987|p={{page needed|date=July 2021}}}}

[[Craig A. Evans]] has argued that the Gospel of Thomas represents the theological motives of 2nd century Egyptian Christianity and is dependent on the Synoptic Gospels and the Diatesseron.{{sfnp|Evans|2008|p={{page needed|date=July 2021}}}}

[[N.T. Wright]], Anglican bishop and professor of New Testament history, also sees the dating of Thomas in the 2nd or 3rd century. Wright's reasoning for this dating is that the "narrative framework" of 1st-century Judaism and the New Testament is radically different from the worldview expressed in the sayings collected in the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas makes an anachronistic mistake by turning Jesus the Jewish prophet into a Hellenistic/Cynic philosopher. Wright concludes his section on the Gospel of Thomas in his book ''The New Testament and the People of God'' in this way:

{{blockquote|[Thomas's] implicit story has to do with a figure who imparts a secret, hidden wisdom to those close to him, so that they can perceive a new truth and be saved by it. "The Thomas Christians are told the truth about their divine origins, and given the secret passwords that will prove effective in the return journey to their heavenly home." This is, obviously, the non-historical story of Gnosticism{{nbsp}}[...] It is simply the case that, on good historical grounds, it is far more likely that the book represents a radical translation, and indeed subversion, of first-century Christianity into a quite different sort of religion, than that it represents the original of which the longer gospels are distortions{{nbsp}}[...] Thomas reflects a symbolic universe, and a worldview, which are radically different from those of the early Judaism and Christianity.{{sfnp|Wright|1992|p=443}} }}