Editing Gospel of Thomas (section)

====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}}