Oxford University Press

SYNOPTIC TRADITION IN THE GOSPEL OF TRUTH AND THE TESTIMONY OF TRUTH

Author(s): C. M. Tuckett
Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, NEW SERIES, Vol. 35, No. 1 (APRIL 1984), pp. 131-145

Published by: Oxford University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23962857
Accessed: 27-10-2015 11:32 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23962857?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Theological
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NOTES AND STUDIES 131

πληροφορεΐν in iv. 17 cf. on iv. 5; on απολΐίπαν in iv. 20 cf. on iv. 13;

on iv. 21 cf. on Tit. iii. 12; finally on iv. 22 cf. on Tit. iii. 15.

VI

Our closer investigation of the language of the 'fragments', then,

may reasonably lead us to dissent from Barrett's 'In all the passages
given by Dr. Harrison, the language is sufficiently Pauline',28 and to
assent to Jeremias's comment on 2 Tim. iv. 6-21 (though not

necessarily to his wider conclusions): 'Diese Verse, wie man

versucht hat, als Bruchstiick eines echten Briefes aus dem

Zusammenhang zu lôsen, geht nicht an; Wortschatz und Stil

erweisen sie eindeutig als Bestandteil der Pastoralbriefe'.29 If this
be true, the battle-lines of the future must be different from those of
the past: the argument about the problem of the Pastorals is
reduced to a dispute between two parties, those who maintain the

authenticity of the letters and those who dispute it. The inter
mediate ground occupied by the defenders of the fragment
hypothesis proves to be rather a no man's land not suited for
habitation.
David Cook

SYNOPTIC TRADITION IN THE GOSPEL

OF TRUTH AND THE TESTIMONY
OF TRUTH

A writer's use of tradition is always illuminating: it helps in

understanding his viewpoint; it may throw light on the state of his

traditions at the time they were being used; and it can give some

insight into the Sitz im Leben of the writer. All these concerns are
relevant when studying the use of N.T. material in the Nag
Hammadi writings. Such study may illuminate the thought of the
writer of the documents, as well as possibly throwing light on the

development of the N.T. traditions concerned and on the history

of the N.T. canon. Much work has been done on the Gospel of

Thomas, with a view to determining its relationship (or lack of it) to

the traditions of the sayings of Jesus preserved in the synoptic
gospels. Rather less work appears to have been done in this respect
on the other Nag Hammadi texts. In this study, two of these texts
are re-examined with this question in mind, restricting attention to

28
cit., p. il.
Op.
29 Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (Gôttingen: Vandenhoeck und
J. Jeremias,
Rupprecht, 19638), p. 60.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 132 NOTES AND STUDIES

the presence of synoptic tradition (rather than of the whole N.T.)

in the texts concerned, to find out which traditions within the

synoptic gospels are presupposed and known by the writers of these

texts.

i. The Gospel of Truth (G.Tr,).1

There are few who would question the fact that G.Tr. alludes to

many of the N.T. writings. The classic treatment of the subject is

the essay of van Unnik,2 who concluded that

. . . the writer of the Gospel of Truth was acquainted with the Gospels, the
Pauline Epistles, Hebrews and Revelation, while there are traces of Acts,
I John and I Peter ... It appears that he used practically the same Books as
constitute our present New Testament Canon.3

Round about 140-50 a collection of writings was known at Rome and

accepted as authoritative which was virtually identical with our New
Testament4

This conclusion, at least with regard to G.Tr.'s use of N.T. gospel

traditions, appears to have been widely accepted.5 Indeed, this
'result' has become something of a 'canon' in that the developed
nature of the N.T. canon postulated by van Unnik's theory has led
some to doubt whether G.Tr. can be dated as early as 15ο;6 others

1 For editions
and translations, see M. Malinine, H.-C. Puech, G. Quispel,
Evangelium Veritatis (Zurich, 1956); H. M. Schenke, Die Herkunft des sogenannten
Evangelium Veritatis (Gôttingen, 1959); W. C. Till, 'Das Evangelium der
Wahrheit', Z.N.W. 50 (1959), pp. 165-85; K. Grobel, The Gospel of Truth (New
York, i960); J. E. Ménard, L'Évangile de Vérité. Rétroversion grecque et commentaire
(Paris, 1962), and L'Évangile de Vérité (Leiden, 1972). (References to Ménard's
work are to the later volume unless stated otherwise.)
2 'The of Truth" and the New Testament', in F. L. Cross (ed.), The
"Gospel
Jung Codex (London, 1955), pp. 81-129, esP· PP· 107 ff.
3
Ibid., p. 122.
4
Ibid., p. 124. Van Unnik believed that the author of G.Tr. was Valentinus
(hence the date and place given). However, it is doubtful if one may deduce very
much about the nature of authority ascribed to the N.T. writings simply on the basis
of verbal allusions. See H. von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible
(E.T. London, 1972), pp. 140 f.
5 R. McL. The Gnostic Problem (London,
Wilson, 1958), p. 156: 'It [G.Tr.]
presupposes the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel.' G. Macrae, art. 'Truth, Gospel
of, Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Supplementary Volume, 1976), p. 925b:
'There are clear allusions to all the gospels.' Cf. too A. K. Helmbold, The Nag
Hammadi Gnostic Texts and the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1967), p. 43; C. I. K.
Story, The Nature of Truth in 'The Gospel of Truth' and in the Writings of Justin
Martyr (Leiden, 1970), p. 50 (G.Tr. alludes to all the gospels except Mark).
8 Cf.
Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament (Oxford, 1968), p. 98; also his essay
'Valentinianism and the Gospel of Truth', in B. Layton (ed.), The Rediscovery of
Gnosticism. I. The School of Valentinus (Leiden, 1980), pp. 138, 141.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NOTES AND STUDIES 133

have claimed that the evidence of G.Tr. calls into question

traditional theories about the development of the canon.7 I leave
aside here the question of the nature of the authority ascribed to the
N.T. books.' Rather, I simply wish to re-examine the question of
which N.T. traditions are alluded to by G.Tr., restricting attention
to the traditions which appear in the synoptic gospels.8 The thesis
of this section will be that all the allusions to the synoptic tradition
in G.Tr. can be explained as due to dependence on Matthew's

gospel alone.
One of the clearest examples of an allusion to the synoptic
tradition occurs in the saying about the lost sheep in 31. 35 ff.:9 'He
is the shepherd who left behind the ninety-nine sheep which were
not lost. He went searching for the one which was lost. He rejoiced
when he found it . . .', followed by the discussion of the numbers
concerned and the fact that they are connected with the left hand
and the right hand. Clearly the synoptic parable of the lost sheep
(Matt, xviii. 12-14/Luke xv. 4-7) is in mind.10 Further, most agree
that it is Matthew's version, rather than Luke's, which is in the
author's mind.11 It is uncertain which gospel is more original
here,12 so that one cannot conclude from this example alone that
G.Tr. derives its ideas from Matthew's gospel rather than

7
So, for example, van Unnik, op. cit., p. 124; Helmbold, op. cit., p. 89; cf. too
Κ. H. Schelke, 'Das Evangelium Veritatis als kanongeschichtliches Zeugnis', B.Z.
5 (1961), pp. 90 f. G.Tr.'s apparent allusions to Hebrews and Revelation are
considered very significant in this context. But see also n. 4 above.
8 That G.Tr. alludes to the fourth
gospel seems quite certain.
9 All
translations, together with page and line references, are taken from J. M.
Robinson (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library in English (Leiden, 1977).
10 See van
Unnik, op. cit., pp. ii2f.; Schenke, op. cit., p. 47; Grobel, op.
cit., p. 129; Ménard, op. cit., pp. 7, 149. The identification of Jesus with the
shepherd probably derives from John x: cf. Grobel, op. cit., p. 129; Story, op. cit.,
p. 21.
11 Van Unnik and Ménard both refer to Matthew's use of πλανάν twice in Matt,
xviii. 12 as indicating this; but the Coptic word used in G.Tr. here (Clopil) can be
used for both Matthew's πλανάν (e.g. at Matt, xviii. 12 sah boh) and Luke's άπόλλυμι
(e.g. Matt. x. 6 sah boh): cf. Crum's Coptic Dictionary, p. 355. They also point to the
references to 'little ones'
(Matt, xviii. 10) and 'the Father's will' (Matt, xviii. 14)
elsewhere in G.Tr.
(19. 21, 37. 21 ff. respectively) as evidence of knowledge of the
Matthaean context; but these are very remote, and in any case 37. 21 ff. probably
alludes to Matt. x. 29 (see later). Story's argument seems more cogent: 'The five
Coptic verbs (four in the perfect, one in the temporal tense) of which the shepherd is
the subject, parallel exactly the verbal forms used in Matt. 18: 12-14, including their
order (άφησα, πορευθείς, ζητεί, εύρεΐν, χαίρει). The Lucan parallel has καταλείπει for
αφήσει and omits the verb ζητείν' (op. cit., p. 21). The reference to 'searching', found
only in Matthew, does seem to indicate that Matthew, not Luke, is in mind.
19
According to S. Schulz, Q—Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zurich, 1972),
p. 387, Luke is secondary in using άπόλλυμι and omitting ζητείν. Cf. too I. H.
Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Exeter, 1978), p. 601.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134 NOTES AND STUDIES

Matthew's source. However, the example is perfectly consistent

with the theory that G.Tr. is dependent on Matthew's gospel.13
Further progress can be made by considering the passage which
follows in G.Tr. (32. 18 ff.): 'Even on the Sabbath he labored for the

sheep which he found fallen into the pit.' Although there is almost

certainly an echo of John v. 17 here, there is clearly an allusion to

Matt. xii. il.14 It is also clear that, although Matt. xii. 11 has a

synoptic parallel in Luke xiv. 5, the reference here is to the

Matthaean version of the saying, since only Matthew speaks of a

'sheep' falling into a pit.15 Further, it is significant in this context

that Matthew's reference to the 'sheep' in probably due to
Matt.R.16 Thus G.Tr. here shows knowledge of Matt.R., and hence

presupposes Matthew's finished gospel, not just one of Matthew's

sources.17
A similar situation occurs in 33. 30 f. and 33. 38 f. : 'So you, do the
will of the Father', and 'For by the fruits does one take cognizance
of the things that are yours'. The former echoes various Matthaean

texts, e.g. vii. 21, xii. 50, xxi. 31. The latter also echoes N.T.

13
According to van Unnik, op. cit., p. 113, and Story, op. cit., p. 22, the 'left hand
right hand' imagery may derive from Matt. xxv. 31 ff., thus showing links between
G.Tr. and M material in Matthew. Whilst not impossible, this is certainly not
necessary and the idea of 'left' as 'sinister' and 'right' as 'favourable' was very wide
spread. Cf. the passage (frequently cited in this context) in Irenaeus, A. H. i. 16. 2.
14 Van
Unnik, op. cit., pp. 113 f.; Grobel, op. cit., p. 135; Ménard, op. cit., pp. 7,
152·
15 Luke xiv.
5 speaks of 'a son or an ox', with some MS support for reading 'ox or
ass'. Thus contra Story, op. cit., p. 22, who refers only to Luke xiv. 5 here.
16 For detailed see my The Revival
arguments, of the Griesbach Hypothesis
(Cambridge, 1983), p. 99: πρόβατον is a favourite Matthaean word (cf. J. C. Hawkins,
Horae Synopticae (Oxford, 1899), p. 6); also the reference to an animal in the saying
seems to be secondary, since it was not considered legitimate to lift an animal out of
a pit on the sabbath. (The abbreviations Matt.R. and LukeR. are used here for a
Matthaean redaction and Lucan redaction respectively).
17 R. McL.
Wilson, Ά Note on the Gospel of Truth (33. 8-9)', N.T.S. 9 (1963),
pp. 295-8, has hinted that the saying about the animal in the pit may also be in mind
a little later in G.Tr. 33. 8 f. ('you are the understanding that is drawn forth/up'). He
argues that the Coptic verb in 33. 9 tioiijul may be the equivalent of the Greek verb
αποσπάω, and he finds a parallel in the Marcosian formula cited in Irenaeus A.H. i
13. 6. At the end of his note, Wilson points out that αποσπάω is used in Luke's
version of the saying about the animal/person in the pit (Luke xiv. 5), and supports
Grobel's suggestion (op. cit., p. 141) that the saying about the sheep in the pit may
still be in mind. However, in his reconstruction of the original Greek, Ménard gives
η σύν*σις Ιλκουσα at this point (see his 1962 commentary, p. 64;. he still assumes the
same in his 1972 work: see p. 156), comparing G.Tr. 34. 12 and 36. 28 for similar
ideas. If this were the case, the language could be thought to be more Johannine (cf.
John vi. 44; xii. 32). It is thus uncertain whether there is any synoptic allusion here
at all. Even if Wilson's argument about the use of the verb here is accepted, the
common use of αποσπάω in G.Tr. 33. 9 and Luke xiv. 5 may be no more than
coincidental. (In any case the two contexts in G.Tr. are separated by 24 lines of text.)

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NOTES AND STUDIES 135

language, notably Matt. vii. 16-20.18 The close proximity of these

two allusions in both G.Tr. and Matt, vii suggests that Matt, vii is
the source of the language used in G.Tr.19 Further, the form of the

sayings in Matt. vii. 16, 20, where the original saying about a tree
and its fruits has become a saying about fruits alone, is probably due
to Matt.R.20 Thus G.Tr. again betrays knowledge of Matt.R.
Another allusion to Matthew's gospel seems certain in 33. 15 f.:
'Do not return to what you have vomited to eat it. Do not be moths,
do not be worms.' The second sentence here alludes to Matt. vi.

19 f. or Luke xii. 33, both of which mention 'moths'.21 Ménard

refers to Mark ix. 48 also, presumably because of the reference to
the 'worm'. But it is quite possible that this is part of the same
allusion to Matt. vi. 19, i.e. to βρώσις, since βρώσις may have this

meaning.22 If this is the case, then there is no reference to Mark ix,

and also the allusion must be to Matt, vi rather than Luke xii (since
Luke's version does not mention βρώσις)· It may well be the case
that Matthew's version is more original,23 so that G.Tr. does not

necessarily show knowledge of Matt.R. here. Nevertheless, this

example fits the pattern of dependence on Matthew established so

far. Whether there is a synoptic allusion in the first sentence quoted
above is doubtful.24 There is possibly some reminiscence of the

language of 2 Pet. ii. 22.25 This in turn echoes Prov. xxvi. 11, so that
one cannot deduce too much from this (e.g. about knowledge of
2 Peter by G.Tr.).

18
Grobel, op. cit., p. 149.
19
Schenke, op. cit., p. 49, and Ménard, op. cit., p. 158, refer to Matt. xii. 33/Luke
vi. 44 for G.Tr. 33. 38, but the link with 33. 31 suggests otherwise.
20 E. The Good News according to Matthew (E.T.
Schweizer, London, 1976),
21
p. 187. Grobel, op. cit., pp. 143 f.; Ménard, op. cit., pp. 7, 156.
22 Cf. R.S.V.
n.; W. Pesch, 'Zur Exegese von Mt 6,19-21 und Lk 12,33-34',
Biblica xli (i960), pp. 356-78, on p. 356; also Bauer's Lexicon, p. 147b. Cf. Mal. iii.
11 LXX where βρώαις =t?3X(locust, devourer). See too Grobel, op. cit., p. 145.
Moths and worms are also associated in Gospel of Thomas, saying 76.
23 Cf.
J. Schmid, Matthàus und Lukas (Freiburg, 1930), p. 237; Pesch, op. cit.,
p. 358 f.; Schulz, op. cit., p. 142.
24
Grobel, op. cit., pp. 140-2, has a quite different translation: 'Do not buy them
back to submit to them', deriving Aiitpcon e from cioTf (to buy back, redeem). He
suggests that this alludes to Luke xii. 33a and that the connection between the
sentences is determined by the Lucan context, thus implying knowledge of Luke's
gospel. However, cioTf is used at 38. 2 f., where the meaning
must be 'return', either
as a variation for ctoT op. cit., p. 58) or instead of
(so Malinine-Puech-Quispel,
KloTe (cf. Ménard's 1962 commentary, p. 74.; also W. C. Till, 'Bemerkungen zur
Erstausgabe des "Evangelium Veritatis" ', Orientalia 27 (1958), p. 280.) The idea of
buying back, or redeeming, seems quite extraneous here, whereas the idea of 'return'
makes good sense. It seems best therefore to accept the translation given in the text
above, and see probably no synoptic allusion at all.
25 Cf.
Till, 'Das Evangelium der Wahrheit', p. 179.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 136 NOTES AND STUDIES

The remaining echoes of the synoptic gospels are less conclusive

for the purposes of this study. There are several allusions which
could derive from outside Matthew, but where Matthew could

equally well be the source of the language used, since these are texts
where Matthew and the other gospels are closely parallel. Thus

17. 3 f. ('being discovery for those who search for him') echoes the

language of the Q saying Matt. vii. 7/Luke xi. 9.26 Matthew and
Luke are identical here, so the most one can say is that the language
used could have derived from Matthew, though the saying was very
widespread in Gnostic circles.27 18. 19 f. ('out of oblivion he

enlightened them, he showed them a way. And the way is the truth
which he taught them.') may allude to the synoptic saying in Mark
xii. 14 and parallels.28 If so, Matt. xxii. 16 is closely parallel to
Mark xii. 14, so that there is nothing to suggest that the allusion is
to Mark (or Luke) rather than Matthew. However, John xiv. 6
seems a much more likely source for the language used here.29 19.
21-3 ('there came wise men—in their own estimation—putting
him to the test') seems to echo various synoptic passages (e.g. Matt,
xvi. i, xix. 3, xxii. 18, 35, Mark viii. 11, x. 12, xii. 18).30 Again the
source of the language could easily be Matthew's gospel, though
Grobel's comment, that this is 'summarizing, not alluding to any

specific scene of any gospel',31 seems apt. G.Tr. continues to speak

of these 'wise' men saying 'they were foolish. They hated him
because they were not really wise. After all these, there came the
little children also, those to whom the knowlege of the Father

belongs' (19. 27 ff.). It is very probable that the Q saying Matt,

xi. 25/Luke x. 21 is in mind.32 Once again it is impossible to

distinguish here between Matthew and Luke and so determine

which is the source of the language used: it is another case where
Matthew could have been the source. However, it is also possible
that the language of Matt, xviii. 2-6, 10 (and the reference to μικροί)
is also echoed.33 If this is so, then it is significant that the stress on

26 Van
Unnik, op. cit., p. 115; Ménard, op. cit., pp. 3, 78.
27 See B. The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas (London,
Gartner, 1961),
pp. 258 ff.; Ménard, L'Évangile selon Thomas (Leiden, 1975), p. 193; H. Koester,
'Gnostic Writings as Witnesses for the Development of the Sayings Tradition', in
B. Layton (éd.), op. cit., pp. 238-40. Cf. too the extended discussion by Tertullian,
De Praescr. 8-13, 43 on the use of this saying by various 'heretics'.
28 Van
Unnik, op. cit., p. 116; Ménard, Évangile de Vérité, pp. 4, 87.
29 Cf.
Malinine-Puech-Quispel, op. cit., p. 51; Grobel, op. cit., p. 51.
30 Cf.
Malinine-Puech-Quispel, op. cit., p. 52; Ménard, op. cit., pp. 4, 93.
31
Op. cit., p. 59.
32
Malinine-Puech-Quispel, op. cit., p. 52; van Unnik, op. cit., p. 117 and
others.
33 Cf. van
Unnik, op. cit., p. 117; Schenke, op. cit., p. 36; Story, op. cit., p. 5.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NOTES AND STUDIES 137

μικροί in Matt, xviii is due to Matt.R. (though the word is used in

Mark ix. 43).34 Again G.Tr. may show dependence on Matt.R.
20. 11-14 ('Jesus was patient in accepting sufferings . . . since he
knows that his death is life for many') may well echo Mark x. 45
and parallel.35 Here again Matt. xx. 28 is identical with Mark, so
Matthew's gospel is equally likely to be the source of the language
used. The promise to the one who has knowledge, that 'he receives
rest' (xxii. 12), recalls Matt. xi. 29.36 This is part of the M material
in Matthew, i.e. material peculiar to Matthew; hence if G.Tr. is

echoing synoptic language it must be Matthew's gospel (or its

source) which is in mind. However, the 'rest' motif was very

widespread,37 so the existence of a specifically synoptic allusion
must remain uncertain. The reference in 27. 23 f. to 'the world in
which he served' may again echo Mark x. 45,38 though, as before,
Matt. xx. 28 is an equally likely source. 27. 24 f. says that 'the
Father is perfect', which brings to mind Matt. v. 48.39 Matthew's

language here is almost certainly redactional,40 so that G.Tr. may

once again show knowledge of Matt.R.4130. 15 f. ('blessed is he who

opened the eyes of the blind') may allude to various synoptic

passages, but it is equally likely that John ix is in mind.42 30. 32
refers to 'the beloved Son', which could echo Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5,
and parallels;43 again this could be derived from Matthew's gospel
(though not necessarily so).
The injunctions in 33. 1-8 show some similarities with Matt,
xxv. 35-7,44 though the details differ. It is just possible that the list
was inspired by the Matthaean parable of the sheep and the goats,
which is part of Matthew's M material. One of the injunctions is to

34 Cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St. Matthew

(Oxford, 1946), p. 29; G. Barth, in G. Bomkamm, G. Barth, and H. J. Held,
Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (E.T. London, 1963), pp. 121 f.
33 Cf.
Malinine-Puech-Quispel, op. cit., p. 53; van Unnik, op. cit., p. 112;
Ménard, op. cit., p. 97, and others.
36
Grobel, op. cit., p. 79.
3' See "
Gartner, op. cit., pp. 265 ff.; P. Vielhauer, Ανάπαυσις", in W. Eltester
(ed.), Apophoreta (Festschrift for E. Haenchen, Berlin, 1964), pp. 281-99; M. L.
Peel, The Epistle to Rheginos (London, 1969), pp. 54, 142 f.
38 So
Malinine-Puech-Quispel, op. cit., p. 55 ('puet-être'); Ménard, op. cit.,
p. 121 ('un rapprochement lointain est possible').
39 Van
Unnik, op. cit., p. 119; Ménard, op. cit., pp. 6, 132.
40 Cf.
Schmid, op. cit., pp. 229 f.; G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit
(Gôttingen, 1962), p. 141; Schulz, op. cit., p. 130.
41 the idea of the 'perfect Father' is at home in Valentinianism:
However,
cf. Irenaeus, A.H. i. 2. 2 (cited by Ménard, op. cit., p. 132), so there is not necessarily
an allusion to Matthew's gospel.
42 Cf.
Malinine-Puech-Quispel, op. cit., p. 56; Schenke, op. cit., p. 45.
43 Van
Unnik, op. cit., p. 120; Schenke, op. cit., p. 46; Ménard, op. cit., pp. 6, 143.
44 Noted
by Grobel, op. cit., p. 141; Story, op. cit., p. 24.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 138 NOTES AND STUDIES

'give repose to those who are weary', which may allude to Matt. xi.

28,45 again showing a link between G.Tr. and M material. 33. 19f.
('do not become a dwelling place for the devil') may have been
evoked by the Q saying Matt. xii. 43-5/Luke xi. 24-6.46 There is

nothing to distinguish Matthew and Luke as the source of the

allusion here. 37. 21-4 says that 'nothing happens without him, nor
does anything happen without the will of the Father'. This is clearly
close to the language of Matt. x. 29 (|| Luke xii. 6).47 Matthew's άνευ

phrase here is generally taken as more original than Luke's version,

though the reference to God as 'Father' could be due to Matt.R.48

However, 'Father' is also G.Tr.'s favourite description of God, so

one cannot place too much weight on this coincidence in usage. It

may be that G.Tr. echoes Matt.R., but this is not certain. In any
case, nothing tells against the theory that G.Tr. is using Matthew.49

42. 17 f. ('they do not go down to Hades') .is similar to the language

of the Q saying Matt. xi. 23/Luke x. is;50 and 42. 36f. ('will not
suffer loss to his soul') recalls Matt. xvi. 26 and parallels.51 In both
cases Matthew's gospel could be the source of the language used

(though the other gospels are closely parallel).

All the allusions discussed so far have been consistent with the

theory that Matthew's gospel is the sole source for G.Tr.'s synoptic
material. Further allusions to synoptic material have been noted by
others, but very often the language does not seem distinctive

enough to warrant the theory that any allusion to the synoptic

material exists.
18. 14 f. ('through the mercies of the Father') is not dissimilar to
Luke i. 78;52 but the language is not specifically Lucan,53 so that
one cannot deduce that G.Tr. knew Luke. 19. 19 f. says that Jesus
'went into the midst of the schools and he spoke the* word as a

45
Grobel, op. cit., p. 14t.
46
Ménard, op. cit., p. 157.
47
Malinine-Puech-Quispel, op. cit., p. 58; vanUnnik, op. cit., pp. 120f.; Grobel,
op. cit., p. 175; Ménard, op. cit., p. 175.
48 See
Schulz, op. cit., p. 159; Marshall, op. cit., p. 514.
49
Helmbold, op. cit., p. 91, sees evidence here of use of a Western reading of
Matthew ('without the will of your Father' is found in some Old Latin MSS, though
not in D itself). However, both 'without him' and 'without the will of the Father'
occur in the saying here, so one cannot place too much weight on this.
50 Cf.
Malinine-Puech-Quispel, op. cit., p. 60; van Unnik, op. cit., p. 121;
Ménard, op. cit., p. 189.
51
Malinine-Puech-Quispel, op. cit., p. 60; van Unnik, op. cit., p. 121; Ménard,
op. cit., p. 190.
52 Noted
by Malinine-Puech-Quispel, op. cit., p. 51; van Unnik, op. cit., p. 116;
Ménard, op. cit., p. 4.
53 The in T.Levi iv. 4 is often noted in commentaries on Luke
parallel
here.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NOTES AND STUDIES 139

teacher'. Some have seen an allusion to Luke ii. 46-9 here;84 but

again the language is very general and need only imply a knowledge
of Jesus' teaching activity amongst the Jews, and not necessarily of
the specific story in Luke ii.58 20. 15 f. ('just as there lies hidden in a

will, before it is opened . . .') has reminded some of the covenant

language of Mark xiv. 24 and parallels.56 Here again Matthew's

gospel could just as well be the source, since Matt. xxvi. 28 and
Mark xiv. 24 are closely parallel; but it is much more likely that the
writer is simply using the analogy of an ordinary human will.57

30. 27-31 says of Jesus: 'For when they had seen him and heard

him, he granted them to taste him and to smell him and to touch
the beloved Son.' It is possible that Luke xxiv. 36ff. is in mind,58
but this is by no means certain. The language used, and ideas

expressed, are also paralleled in John xx. 19-27 and other texts such
as Heb. vi. 4f., 1 Pet. ii. 3, 1 John i. i.59 In view of G.Tr.'s extensive
use of the fourth gospel, it is probably slightly dangerous to try to
see a use of Luke's gospel in this example. A similar situation arises
in the case of 38. 10 f. which says of the Father and Jesus 'he begot
him as a son'. Although it is possible that Luke iii. 22 (quoting Ps. ii.

7) is the source of the language used here,60 other passages may have
been in mind. For example, Heb. i. 5, v. 5 also quotes Ps. ii. 7, and
in the light of G.Tr.'s apparent knowledge and use of Hebrews,61
it is just as likely that the latter is the source of G.Tr.'s talk
of 'begetting the son' (if it is not Ps. ii itself). Other synoptic
parallels which have been noted seem even more general or
remote.62

54
Malinine-Puech-Quispel, op. cit., p. 52; Schenke, op. cit., p. 36; Ménard,
op. cit., pp. 4, 92; though reference is also frequently made to a possible infancy
gospel known by the Valentinians: cf. Irenaeus, A.H. i. 20. 1.
55
If the allusion in 19. 21-3 (see above) were to the 'testing' references in Matt,
xxii, the reference here to Jesus' teaching activity could be to the whole complex
Matt. xxi. 23 ff.
56 Van
Unnik, op. cit., p. 112; Ménard, op. cit., pp. 5, 97.
57 Cf.
Grobel, op. cit., p. 63.
58 So van
Unnik, op. cit., p. 120; Ménard, op. cit., pp. 6, 143.
59 Cf.
Malinine-Puech-Quispel, op. cit., p. 57; Schenke, op. cit., p. 46.
60 Cf.
Ménard, op. cit., p. 179. Helmbold, op. cit., p. 91, sees this as further
evidence (cf. η. 49 above) for the use of the Western text by G.Tr. (since, of course,
the full version of Ps. ii. 7 only occurs in the Western text of Luke. iii. 22).
81 Cf. van
Unnik, op. cit., p. 110, referring to the description of Jesus as 'merciful
and faithful' (20. 10, cf. Heb. ii. 17); Helmbold, op. cit., p. 90.
82 At 18. 28 f.
('to those who ate it it gave cause to become glad in the discovery')
Malinine-Puech-Quispel, op. cit., give Luke xix. 8f. as a parallel, but this seems
extremely remote. 22. 18 ('he returns to himself) is seen by van Unnik op. cit.,
p. 118, as an echo of Luke xv. 17, but the language does not seem distinctive enough
to be certain. 33. 24 ff. ('for the unjust one is someone to treat ill rather than the just
one . . .') may echo Matt. xii. 34f./Luke vi. 45 (so Schenke, op. cit., p. 49; Ménard,

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 I40 NOTES AND STUDIES

The conclusion of this survey is that the source of the synoptic

material in G.Tr. seems to be Matthew's gospel alone. There is no
clear indication that G.Tr. used Mark or Luke. All the clear

synoptic allusions could have derived from Matthew; some could

only have derived from Matthew or his source; further, some reflect
Matt.R. and hence presuppose Matthew's finished gospel rather
than Matthew's sources. It seems reasonable to conclude that
G.Tr. knew and used the finished gospel of Matthew as its sole
source for synoptic material.

Any further conclusions drawn from this must be extremely

tentative. The absence of allusions to Mark and Luke does not

necessarily imply that those two gospels were unknown, nor that

they were known but considered less authoritative than Matthew.

However, one could argue that this pattern of use of gospel material
is consistent with an early date for G.Tr., i.e. prior to a time when
the fourfold gospel canon was the accepted norm. It is possible that
both Mark and Luke were regarded with a certain amount of
reserve in the second century.63 The non-use of these two gospels
by G.Tr. would at least fit this early situation. Such an argument
from silence cannot really prove anything. Nevertheless these
considerations may serve as something of a counterbalance to

arguments that an early date for G.Tr. is precluded by the highly

developed nature of the N.T. canon which it presupposes.64

op. cit., pp. 7, 157 f.) but the parallel is not certain. 36. 35 says of the Father 'He is
good', possibly alluding to Mark x. 18 (so Grobel, op. cit., p. 171), but again the
language is very general and commonplace. 42. 19L ('nor have they envy nor
groaning nor death within them') may allude to the language of Matt. xiii. 50 (so
Ménard, op. cit., pp. 7, 189), but the parallel is again in very general terms (e.g. there
is no reference to 'gnashing teeth' in G.Tr.).
63
Papias' defence of Mark's gospel (Eusebius, E.H. iii. 39) may well be apologetic
in part. With regard to Luke, the claim has been made that Luke's gospel had some
difficulty in being accepted into the canon: see W. Schneemelcher, in E. Hennecke,
New Testament Apocrypha, i (E.Tr. London, 1963), p. 33, among others, following
W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (E.Tr. London, 1972),
pp. 184 f· But Bauer's only argument was based on the lack of any mention of Luke
by Papias in Eusebius' account; from this Bauer deduced that Papias must have
spoken so disparagingly of Luke that Eusebius deliberately omitted what he said.
But this reads a great deal into Eusebius' silence. In any case see now F. Siegert,
'Unbeachtete Papiaszitate bei armenischen Schriftstellern', N.T.S. 27 (1981),
pp. 605-14, who gives a fragment of Papias' commentary on Revelation where
Papias quotes the words of Luke x. 18: Papias' attitude to Luke's gospel cannot,
therefore, have been wholly negative. Nevertheless, a certain amount of reserve
about Luke's gospel may be implicit in Irenaeus' defence of Luke in A.H. iii. 14. 3,
'if any man set Luke aside as one who did not know the truth ...' (I am grateful to Dr
R. J. Bauckham for this reference). The Muratorian Canon's long defence of Luke's
reliability may also reflect some doubts about Luke.
64 See n. 6 above.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NOTES AND STUDIES 141

2. The Testimony of Truth (Test.Tr,).65

A significantly different pattern of synoptic allusions arises when

one examines another of the Nag Hammadi texts, the so-called

Testimony of Truth from Codex IX. It seems simplest to consider

the possible synoptic allusions in the order in which they occur in
the document.

29. 12-15 ('there has taken hold of them the old leaven of the
Pharisees and of the scribes of the Law') uses the languages of Matt,
xvi. 16/Mark viii. 14/Luke xii. 1, though there is no clear indication
as to which of these three may be in mind.66 (In any case the fact
that the leaven is 'old' suggests that 1 Cor. v. 7 is also in mind.) 29.
24 f. ('they will not be able to serve two masters') recalls Matt. vi.

24/Luke xvi. 13. Luke here has an additional ο ικέτης, which may
well be secondary.67 Test.Tr. is thus marginally closer to
Matthew's version than to Luke's, though this could be due to use
of Matthew's source. However, the saying was widely used,68 so
that one cannot build too much on this. 30. 17 ('. . . until they pay
the last penny (κοδράντης)') recalls Matt. v. 26.69 Luke's parallel
here (Luke xii. 59) has λΐπτόν. It is not certain which is more
original.70 Test.Tr. thus shows links with Matthew's gospel, and it
is possible that the writer here shows knowledge of Matt.R.

31. 18-22 quotes words of Jesus: Ί have said to you "Do not
build nor gather for yourselves in the place where brigands (ληστής)
break open, but bring forth fruit to the Father" '. The first half of
this recalls Matt. vi. 19 f. Luke has a parallel version (Luke xii. 33 f.)
but there the ληστής only 'draws near' and does not 'break through'
as in Matthew. This thus shows another link with Matthew's gospel
(or his source). The final phrase may be alluding to John xv. 5-8.71
However, the reference to 'building' in the first phrase may indicate
that the parable of the two houses (Matt. vii. 24-7/Luke vi. 47-9) is
in mind.72 If so, then it is significant that just before this in the
65 Editions and translations
by Β. Α. Pearson, Nag Hammadi Codices IX and X
(Leiden, 1981); K. Koschorke, 'Der gnostische Traktat "Testimonium Veritatis"
aus dem Nag-Hammadi-Codex IX', Z.N.W. 69 (1978), pp. 91-117; also K.
Koschorke, Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum (Leiden,
1978), pp. 91-174·
66 Test.Tr. defines the 'leaven' as 'the errant desire of the angels and the demons
and stars' (19. 15-17), which agrees with neither Matthew (the leaven is the
teaching) nor Luke (the leaven is hypocrisy).
67 So
Schmid, op. cit., p. 239; Schulz, op. cit., p. 459.
68 See
Koschorke, Polemik, p. 112 n. 1.
69
Pearson, op. cit., p. 125; Koschorke, 'Traktat', p. 98.
70 Matthew is more
original according to Schulz, op. cit., p. 422; Luke is more
original according to Marshall, op. cit., p. 552.
71 So
Pearson, op. cit., p. 127; Koschorke, op. cit., p. 99.
72 So
Koschorke, op. cit., p. 99.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
142 NOTES AND STUDIES

Great Sermon is the section about the tree and its fruits (Matt. vii.

16-20/Luke vi. 43 f.). It may well be that the whole sentence cited
here is an allusion to synoptic tradition (i.e. not John xv) with
material taken from the Great Sermon. However, one cannot be
more precise about which source is being used.

33· 5~8 ('the lame, the blind, the paralytic, the dumb and the

demon-possessed were granted (χαρίζΐσθai) healing') looks very

similar to the summary in Luke vii. 21 f.73 Further, this summary,
including the use of χαρίζεσθαι., is probably due to LukeR.74 The

parallel here is not exact, but is fairly close and, if it is accepted,

betrays knowledge of LukeR. and hence of Luke's gospel. There

now follows a reference to Jesus' walking on the water (33. 8f.).
Although an allusion to the synoptic account of the miracle is

possible,75 the sequel makes it more probable that the Johannine

version of the story is in mind: a few lines later there is the note

'they boarded the ship and at about 30 stades they saw Jesus
walking on the sea' (33. 22-4), where the reference to the 30 stadia
indicates that the Johannine account is being used (John vi. 19).
37· 5~8 ('they do not know the power of God nor do they
understand the interpretation of the scriptures') clearly echoes the

language of Matt. xxii. 29/Mark xii. 24, though one cannot say
whether it is Matthew or Mark (or a prior source) which is in mind
since their versions are identical here. 37. 22 f. says of the blessed
that 'they dwell before God under the light yoke'. This is perhaps a
reminiscence of Matt. xi. 29 f., which is part of the M material in

Matthew, though not clearly Matt.R. 39. 24-8 says of Jesus that
'when he came to John at the time he was baptized, the Holy Spirit
came down upon him as a dove'. This recalls the synoptic accounts
of Jesus' baptism, but only Luke's account qualifies the Spirit as

'holy', and this is presumably due to LukeR. Thus Test.Tr. once

again shows knowledge of LukeR.

39. 25 f. says that Jesus 'was born of a virgin', indicating some

knowledge of the birth stories, though at this stage one cannot be

more precise. 41. 7-9 speaks of the man 'who will forsake all of the

things of the world having renounced (άποτάσσειν) the whole place',

and this may well echo Luke xiv. 33.76 This verse has no exact

parallel in the other gospels (though similar ideas occur in, e.g.,

73 So
Pearson, op.cit., p. 131; Koschorke, op. cit., p. 100.
74 See H. Das Lukasevangelium i (Freiburg,
Schurmann, 1969), p. 410; J.
Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums (Gôttingen, 1980), p. 162.
75
Pearson, op. cit., p. 131; Koschorke, op. cit., p. 100.
76 So
Pearson, op.cit., p. 147, also referring to Luke v. 28. (Koschorke notes no
biblical parallel). The use of απότασσαν both here and in Luke xiv. 33 suggests that
there is a link here.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NOTES AND STUDIES 143

Mark χ. 29 and parallels), and it may be LukeR.77 Thus once again

Test.Tr. seems to presuppose knowledge of Luke's gospel. 41. 10
then speaks of the man who has forsaken all 'having grasped the

fringe of his garment'. This recalls Matt. ix. 20/Luke viii. 44.78
Mark's parallel here (Mark v. 27) has no κρασπέδου, so, assuming
that this 'minor agreement' is due to independent redaction,79
Test.Tr. shows a link with either Matt.R. or LukeR. 46. 16-18 says
'that which anyone wants he brings to him in order that he might
become perfect (reAeως)'. There is probably an allusion to Matt. v.

48 here;80 in this context it is significant that the use of réXeios in

Matt. v. 48 is probably due to Matt.R.,81 so that Test.Tr. here
shows dependence on Matt.R.

45· 7~8 ('John was begotten by the Word through a woman,

Elizabeth') and 45. 13 f. ('John was begotten by means of a womb

worn with age') show knowledge of the birth stories in Luke i; the
continuation in 45. 14-17 ('but Christ passed through a virgin's
womb. When she conceived she gave birth to the Saviour')
probably alludes to Luke ii, especially verse n.82 The only
remaining clear synoptic allusion appears to be 68. 4 ('they are

gratified by unrighteous mammon'). This recalls Luke xvi. 9,

which is material peculiar to Luke (though not clearly LukeR.).
Other allusions are noted by Pearson and Koschorke but they seem
too remote to be certain.83

77 Cf.
Marshall, op. cit., p. 594: 'The verse essentially repeats the thoughts of
vs. 26 f. in Lucan language.'
78
Koschorke, op. cit., p. 104, who also refers to the use of this text by Gnostics
elsewhere: cf. Irenaeus, A.H. i. 3. 3; ii. 20. 1; 23. 1.
79 There is some textual
uncertainty here: κρασπέδου is omitted in some MSS. in
Luke (D it Marcion—hence it is a 'Western non-interpolation') and is present in
some MSS. in Mark (e.g. f1). Although the shorter Lucan text is accepted by some
(e.g. J. M. Creed, The Gospel according to St. Luke (London, 1930), p. 123), an
independent change of Mark seems equally likely (perhaps under the influence of
Mark vi. 56: see Schurmann, op. cit., pp. 490 f.).
80 So
Pearson, op. cit., p. 155; Koschorke, op. cit., p. 106.
81 See n.
40 above.
82
Pearson, op. cit., p. 157, also refers to Matt. i. 21, but the whole context is
explicable on the basis of the use of Luke alone.
83
29. 7-9 ('ears of the mind') may allude to Matt. xi. 15 and pars, (so Pearson,
op. cit., p. 122) but this is only a very general parallel. 30. 21 f. ('he came by the
Jordan river') may echo Matt. iii. 13 (Pearson, op. cit., p. 125) but John i. 32 is
equally close. 32. 25 ('empty martyrs') is seen by Koschorke, op. cit., p. 100, as an
allusion to Luke vii. 21 f., but this seems very remote. 36. 23 f. ('to know the Son of
man') may allude to Matt. xi. 27 (so Pearson, op. cit., p. 126), but the reference is very
general. 37. 27 f. ('they have become manifest to the Son of Man') is compared by
Pearson, op. cit., p. 139, to Mark iv. 22 and pars., but again this is very general
language. 39. 4f. ('nor will they reach to heaven') is compared by Koschorke, op.
cit., p. 103, to Luke xx. 34f.; at 39. 18 ('unquenchable') Pearson, op. cit., p. 143 sees
an allusion to Mark ix. 44; but there are large lacunae here and in the absence of the

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
144 NOTES AND STUDIES

A definite pattern emerges from the examples examined. There is

no clear allusion to Mark's gospel.84 The majority of the allusions
are to Q sayings, sometimes in the more original form of the
tradition. However, Test.Tr. clearly depends upon both Matt.R.

(cf. 44. 18) and LukeR. (cf. 33. 5-8) as well as M and L traditions.
Thus, unlike G.Tr., Test.Tr. shows knowledge and use of Luke's

gospel as well as of Matthew's. Test.Tr. may thus presuppose a

slightly more developed gospel canon than G.Tr., although the

caveats about using any argument from silence in this context must
not be forgotten. The pattern of synoptic allusions is certainly
consistent with the later date of the third century (or end of second

century) postulated by Pearson and Koschorke as the date of

writing. (A date later than c.180 is in any case demanded by the

polemic against second century Gnostic teachers in the second half

of the document.)85
The distribution of synoptic allusions in the document may also
be significant. Most occur in the opening section 29. 6-45. 6; the

remaining allusions on p. 45 occur in a section (45. 7 ff.) which may

be separable from what precedes using different criteria,86 and the
allusion in 68. 4 is quite isolated. Pearson suggests that 29. 6-45. 6
had a separate existence as a tract or homily before being
incorporated into the present document.87 The uneven distribution
of synoptic allusions in Test.Tr. would be consistent with this

theory. For although Test.Tr. uses biblical language freely

throughout (cf. the long Genesis midrash starting at 45. 22, the use
of Jewish haggadic traditions about David and Solomon in 70.
ι-23,88 and the explicit citation of Gal. i. 8 in 73. 18-22), synoptic
allusions do seem to disappear and this may suggest that the early
part of the document had a different origin. (However, it must also
be said that the extremely fragmentary state of the text in its second
half makes any such arguments from silence of uncertain value.)

full text a conclusion must remain conjectural (the textually more secure verse
43 of Mark ix would be as close). 44. 7-9 ('he rejects for himself loquacity and
disputations') may refer to Matt. vi. 7 (so Pearson, op. cit., p. 154) but not clearly so.
84 Unless it be
39. 18 (see previous note).
85
Koschorke, 'Traktat', p. 96, and Polemik, p. 109, dates the document to mid
3rd c. Pearson, op. cit., pp. 118-20, suggests that Julius Cassianus was the author,
which would imply a slightly earlier date.
86 between
Koschorke, Polemik, p. 93, points to the apparent contradiction
45. 7 fF., where Jesus is born of a virgin, and 30. 18-30, where Jesus comes directly
from heaven to earth, as indicating perhaps different strata in the text.
87
Pearson, op. cit., p. 102 f.
88 On these see B. A. Pearson, Traditions in The
passages, 'Jewish Haggadic
Testimony of Truth from Nag Hammadi (CG ix, 2)' in Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia
Geo. Widengren Oblata, i (Leiden, 1972), pp. 457-70.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NOTES AND STUDIES 145

3. Conclusions

With regard to the nature of the tradition presupposed by the two

texts examined here, both texts appear to be 'post-synoptic', in that
there is no evidence for the use of sources other than the canonical

gospels for synoptic material: all of this material can be derived

from the canonical gospels and some of it (i.e. the redactional work
of the synoptic evangelists) must derive from there (or from a later

harmony). Negatively, these texts throw little light on the history of

the synoptic tradition prior to its incorporation in the canonical

gospels.
G.Tr. and Test.Tr. clearly stem from different milieux. In its use
of synoptic tradition, G.Tr. is similar to the Gospel of Philip in
depending solely on Matthew's gospel; and in turn both G.Tr. and
Test.Tr. differ from a text such as the Book of Thomas the
Contender (CG II, 7), where synoptic material is almost non
existent.89 These results may help in determining the Sitz im Leben
of each author, and this will require further study.
C. M. Tuckett

89 For
analysis of the Gospel of Philip and the Book of Thomas the Contender, see
my 'Synoptic Tradition in some Nag Hammadi and Related Texts', V.C. 36 (1982),
pp. 173-190.

This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:32:01 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions