On the other hand, Koester’s reasons notwithstanding, it is generally concluded that Thomaswas originally written in the mid second century. One reason for this conclusion is the majority view that Thomasrelies on the gospel tradition in its citations. So, whether it preserves earlier traditions or not, it adds little to our knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus.^33
30 Even a briefly-discussed list of relevant passages would be quite lengthy. So it will simply be said here that the death and resurrection of Jesus are, without much doubt, the chief interest of these early historical passages on the life of Jesus, although other events are also mentioned frequently. For details, see Clement, Corinthians42; Ignatius, Trallians 9; Smyrnaeans1; 3; Magnesians11; and Barnabas5. For an early text on Jesus’ miracles written by Quadratus about AD 125, see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical HistoryIV:III. For examples of historical interests in Justin Martyr (about AD 150), see First ApologyXXX, XXXII, XLVIII, L and Dialogue With TryphoLXXVII, XCVII, CVIII.
31 For a handy summary of arguments for and against theses such as the priority of Mark and the existence of Q, see David Barrett Peabody, “In Retrospect and Prospect,” The Perkins School of Theology Journal, Vol. XL, No. 2 (April, 1987), pp. 9–16. For a list of critical scholars who either advocate or lean toward other alternatives, see William R. Farmer, “Preface: Order Out of Chaos,” The Perkins School of Theology Journal, Vol. XL, No. 2 (April, 1987), pp. 1–6.
32 William R. Farmer, “The Church’s Stake in the Question of ‘Q’,” The Perkins School of Theology Journal, Vol. XXXIX, No. 3 (July, 1986), pp. 9–19.
33 See F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1974), s.v. “Thomas, Gospel of,” p. 1370. For a detailed summary, see Craig Blomberg, “Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas,” Gospel Perspectives, vol. 5 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), pp. 177–205; Craig Evans,“Jesus and the Gnostic Literature,” Biblica, vol. 62 (1981), pp. 406–412; France, Evidence for Jesus, pp. 75–78; Farmer, “Church’s Stake,” p. 14.
On this last point, Brown judges that “we learn not a single verifiable new fact about Jesus’ ministry and only a few new sayings that might plausibly have been his.”^34 Fitzmyer agrees, but in even stronger terms: “The Coptic texts of Nag Hammadi tell us little that is new . . . . It has been mystifying, indeed, why serious scholars continue to talk about the pertinence of this material to the study of the New Testament.”^35
Accordingly, any thesis that would pose Q and Thomasover against the New Testament tradition in favor of the death and resurrection of Jesus would have to argue from a tradition which is somewhat problematic from the outset. This is especially the case with regard to Thomas. The many obstacles caused Farmer to comment concerning the Robinson-Koester proposal: “We can only conclude that a hypothesis is being set forth for which there is very little evidence.” So when Q theology is combined with Thomasand other Gnostic theses, Farmer responds that such is only “a grand vision. . . a romance”!^36
(3) The issue of whether Q includes or presupposes the knowledge of Jesus’ death and resurrection is debated by scholars. Because of the nonexistence of this document, it is rather difficult to argue conclusively as to its content. Regardless, Fuller argues that, even without mentioning the resurrection, Q “presupposes it all the way through.”^37 But the purported sayings of Jesus contained in Thomasdo acknowledge Jesus’ death (34:25–27; 45:1–16), as well as encouraging believers to follow him in bearing their own crosses (42:27–28). Jesus’ exaltation is depicted in the post-death illustration that asserts that the builders’ rejected stone is the cornerstone (45:17– 19). While the resurrection is not directly described, “the living Jesus” identified in the opening line of Thomas as the speaker who is imparting this information, is most likely the risen Jesus, causing Robert Grant to explain that this is why so little attention is given to Jesus’ life and death.^38
